Chapter Four
FOUNDATION GROUNDED
IN CHRISTIANITY
"In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and forty‑eight, Montesquieu, wisest in his age of the reflecting statesmen of France, apprized the cultivated world, that a free, prosperous and great people was forming in the forests of America, which England had sent forth her sons to inhabit...The age could have learned, from the school of Voltaire, to scoff at its past; but the studious and observing Montesquieu discovered 'the title deeds of humanity,' as they lay buried under the rubbish of privileges, conventional charters, and statutes. His was a generous nature that disdained the impotence of epicureanism, and found no resting‑place in doubt. He saw that society, notwithstanding all its revolu-tions, must repose on principles that do not change; that Christianity, which seems to aim only at the happiness of another life, also constitutes man's blessedness in this. He questioned the laws of every nation to unfold to him the truth that questioned the laws of every nation to unfold to him the truth that had inspired them; and behind the confused masses of positive rules, he recognized the anterior existence and reality of justice." [1]; "Law as the order of the universe... when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest...he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for its direction...If we further advance, from mere inactive matter to vegetable and animal life, we shall find them still governed by laws; more numerous indeed, but equally fixed and invariable. The whole progress of plants, from the seed to the root, and from thence to the seed again; the method of animal nutrition, digestion, secretion and all other branches of vital economy; are not left to chance, or the will of the creature itself, but are performed in a wondrous involuntary manner, and guided by unerring rules laid down by the Great Creator." [2]; "The concessions of Magna Carta were wrung from the King as guaranties against the oppressions and usurpations of his prerogative. It did not enter into the minds of the barons to provide security against their own body...by limiting the power of Parliament ...In this country [America] written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their govern-ment...Hence, our people have never been plagued with 'bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, laws declaring forfeitures of estates, and other arbitrary acts of legislation which occur so frequently in English history." [3]
But under the American Constitution, man‑made laws may not cross the Commandments against theft and murder; NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR STATE LEGISLATURE MAY DEPRIVE UNJUSTLY ANY MAN OR GROUP OF MEN OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!
"Law as a rule of human action. This, then, is the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated by some superior being; and, in those creatures that have neither the power to think, nor to will, such laws must be invariably obeyed, so long as the creature itself subsists, for its existence depends on the obedience. But laws, in their more confined sense, and in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior.
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator for he is entirely a dependent being. A being independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct; not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle, therefore, has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will.
This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when He created matter, and endowed it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when He created man, and endowed him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws." [4]
When the government for the government for the United States of America was formed and given power by the Constitution, it [U.S. Gov.] was limited strictly by the grant of power in the Constitution. And, because the People and the States seriously distrusted the new government, fearing it might try to centralize all power and sovereignty in its own hands, provision was made in Article V of the Constitution to make the Bill of Rights a part of the Constitution, as an additional statement of restrictions on the United States Government.
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficial ends of its institution." [5]; "Our popular government lay in embryo on board the Mayflower, all‑environed with its only possible preservatives, popular intelligence and popular virtue. The idea born there, and embodied in a civil constitution...grew with the growth of the colonies, gradually expelling from the thoughts and affections of the people all other theories of civil government, until finally it enthroned itself in the national mind, and then embodied itself in our national government. [6]; From the very first the Founding Fathers asserted this distinctly Christian American principle, and immortalized in the Constitution, that governing legislative bodies MUST respect and ABIDE by the DIVINE MORAL LAW. During a discussion of this James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and who was the foremost lawyer at the Constitutional Convention, later appointed Justice of the Supreme Court by President Washington in 1789 maintained: 'Parliament may, unquestionably, be controlled by natural or revealed law, proceeding from divine authority.'"
In this respect, the Colonial courts consistently denied the absolute supremacy of Parliament or any legislative body:
"That the fundamental law which God and nature have given to the people cannot be infringed."
William Harper, one of South Carolina's most distinguished Senators, said:
"The Constitution has laid down the fundamental and immutable laws of justice for our Government."
Because if any Act of Government violates these "fundamental and immutable laws of justice" then the Constitution provides that it shall be set aside. It is also a wholly and exclusively Christian application of Christ's teachings, that men should not yield unto Caesar [Government] the things which are God's. There is a Divine Basis for the Constitutional provision denying to the government itself supremacy over the souls of men. And it was on this ground that the Colonists premised their struggle for a government of "Limited Powers." In a famous decision, Justices Roane, Henry and Tyler said:
"The supposed omnipotence of parliament...is an abominable insult upon the honor and good sense of our country, as nothing is omnipotent as it relates to us, either religious or political, BUT THE GOD OF HEAVEN..."
James Otis believed that God Himself ordained limits beyond which Caesar, the powers of government, should not go; Parliament had no right to go beyond these limits set by Divine Authority:
"These are bounds, which by God and nature are fixed, hitherto have they a right to come, and no further...These are the first principles of law and justice..."
PRIMARILY, the Constitution was indended to prevent governmental powers from violating the principles of eternal justice; from stealing away the God-Given Rights of the people; from seizing upon the things which belong to God and to God's People! As Harper said:
"The Constitution is made to control the government; it has no other purpose."
The most important Articles of the Bill of Rights, considering the words of the Preamble, are IX and X, which ensure that the rights and sovereignty remain in the States and the People in their respective spheres. Furthermore these Articles [IX and X] by their very wording could only be used, for protection, by the citizens designated and defined in the Preamble.
BILL OF RIGHTS
When Saul was chosen to be the King of Israel, a writing limiting the kings power, was prepared by Samuel and deposited in the sanctuary where a reference could be made in the event of royal usurpation. [7] A similar writing, A Bill of Rights, was drafted for his successors. [8] Yet, even with these protections, Solomon during the latter years of his life, reigned as a despot. Which shows that he ignored the writings; and by the fact of doing so he must have had the consent of the Israel Congress. Much the same as our last few presidents have ignored the Constitution and Bill of Rights, with the approval of our Congress. And just as our people are becoming unhappy with these actions, our ancestors became rebellious against his son Rohoboam [9] when he mounted the throne, Benjamin, Judah and half of the tribe of Levi were the only tribes to eventually acknowledge him.
The others offered to submit to his authority if he would accept and abide by certain terms and condition, which were not accepted by him. Then when the king rejected their terms and conditions, they rejected him and chose Jeroboam [10] as their king, which established a separate kingdom. These actions show, that even though they submitted to an earthly kingdom, the people held their rulers to a stern responsibility for the manner in which they discharged their public trust. All this was the action of the republican spirit of the nation. A spirit, inspired, cherished and sanctioned by their constitution; the written documents which had been deposited in the sanctuary. A Bill of Rights.
From the very beginning, the central government began to struggle with the States and the People to centralize power in its own hands [11]. So, the fears which brought the Bill of Rights into being were almost immediately realized and proven to be well founded. By these limitations, the United States Government was prohibited from making legislation in areas which interfered with the sovereignty of the States or the persons and sovereignty of the citizens of the States. Again, these citizens were White Persons. [12] The Congress of the United States had no power then to interfere with, or change the face of the sovereignty vested in the States and their citizens. [13] As a result the United States Government had no success in centralizing absolute power in its own hands for the first 90 years of its existence. Any attempt to do so was thwarted, because the States merely upheld the Bill of Rights against the United States, in the State courts, whenever the United States without recourse, since the courts of the United States could not overturn rulings made in accord with the bill of Rights in the State Courts.
And, if the courts of the United States misconstrued the United States Constitution, the States could use Article V to clarify the Constitution by Amendment, and destroy the misconstruction. When the Constitution was framed, it was premised on the principle; that not only does the Constitution recognize and established the Higher Law which no Congress or legislature can transgress, but it clearly provided that the citizen owes his next highest allegiance to the Constitution [His first allegiance is to Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ], and when government officials violate the Constitution the citizen is bound to uphold the Constitution against the officials.
For the Constitution places even the President and Congress under the Moral Principles which it sets forth; and if they violate these principles, then the Constitutional right and duty of the citizen is to obey the Divine Law in preference to the man‑made enactment which transgresses it.
As Dr. Frederic Jesup Stimson states:
"...if the President of the United States interferes with your liberty unlawfully, you may resist by force, in proper cases, and always by suit in the courts; if a soldier or magistrate arrests you without cause, or a commission seizes your property, or a board forbids your right to trade, you can disobey him or them without danger, and bring suit as if he were a private trespasser."
This fundamental principle of the American Constitution that the citizen has all the rights of the policeman, the soldier, the President, or the Congress itself; this great principle that rulers, even as citizens must do justly and respect the laws of God and the rights of their fellowmen; this great principle is one of the most important applications of the Ten Commandments. The American Constitution says, in effect, to the rulers of the people, to the President, the Congress, the army, the police:
"You, too, are responsible to your Creator; to obey His laws, and to respect the rights of His other creatures. If you oppress the people and provoke them to resistance of your authority, you cannot use the strong arm of the law to seal them up in dungeons; no, for they can go into the courts, which recognize the Higher Law embedded in the Constitution, and they can have your oppressive and unjust laws set aside and rendered void."
Justice Holmes said:
"At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principle which denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."
This central principle of the American Constitution; that no one is above the law, nor beneath the law; that all citizens are "equal before equal law;" is derived DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE.
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty..." [14]
Our Founding Fathers were the first group of men in the history of the world to write into its foundation, the Constitution, of their nation a confirmation and enforcement of this Divine Commandment. No other nation, other than Ancient Israel, has ever dared to refuse to grant that the mightiest government officials, the President [King] and Congress [Princes] themselves, were above the law.
Even today, no other nation in the world has a written guarantee in its Charter Documents [Constitution] which insures to every citizen the "equal protection of the laws," which, as Chief Justice Taft said in the case of Truax vs. Corrigan, means safeguards "an equality of treatment of all persons." The Divent principle, "Ye shall not respect persons in judgment," was given its highest human expression in our American Constitution's provision for a "government of laws and not of men." This right of every citizen to law and justice on the same terms and in the same courts as any other man is the greatest affirma-tion of the Christian principles since Christ lived and preached it. Christ foretold that on the Day of Final Judgment each man would receive equal and exact justice, many of the last would be first and the first last, and would be dealt justice on the same terms.
"...without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work." [15]
Thus the Constitution of the United States provided for a system of earthly justice in which there was to be no respect of persons, in which justice was to be dealt evenly to all men "irrespective of rank, office, or station." The very first Article of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States is a striking affirmation and application of the first Commandment. The Founding Fathers were Christians and their first concern was that the power of government should NEVER be used to force them to pay tribute, or to "bow down" themselves to serve, any politico‑ecclesiastic organization. They believed in Christianity, the only religion sustained and sanctioned by the voluntary observance and devotion of the regenerated hearts of free men.
So they provided in our Constitution that no coercive ecclesias-tical system, no religion based upon compulsion, upon the sword, and riveted upon the souls of men by the brutal power of irresponsible government; no such religious system shall ever supplant the One vitalized by the voluntary obedience and observance of the free consciences of free men, the One breathing the Spirit of Christ. The Founding Fathers were determined to have no other gods, no religions based on coercion, suppression, and governmental violence and tyranny, forced upon them; and they guaranteed to the best of their ability that no such religious system should ever be imposed upon their posterity.
"...the whole purpose and policy of the [Constitutional] law assume that we are a nation of Christians, and while toleration is the principle in religious matters, the laws are to recognize the existence of that system of faith, and our institutions are to be based on that assumption." [16]
As Christians the framers of the Constitution believed in that great principle of religious tolerance which is the finest fruit of the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ: the principle that every man shall be permitted to worship God, to seek righteousness, to pursue salvation according to the dictates of his conscience. They so profoundly believed in religion founded on freedom that they forever forbade the establishment on American soil of any of the anti‑ Christian systems which are based on government‑directed regimentation of men's consciences.
They added to the Constitutional commandment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," then they added the clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They were well aware that for seventeen centuries, men had bled and died to vindicate Christ's teachings that men should be free to seek the kingdom of God according to their own inner lights; for seventeen centuries men had given their lives in vain to erect enduring safeguards about Christ's inspired religion founded on freedom.
All too many of the Colonists had themselves suffered cruel persecutions for their religious beliefs. And out of their sufferings, some had become so embittered that they were tempted to resort to the anti‑Christian practice of trying to force their beliefs on others. That had been the history of religion for hundreds of years.
One group would be cruelly persecuted by another for "heresy," for exercising freedom of conscience; but when this group, these "heretics," would gain power, out of the bitterness of their sufferings, they would resort to un‑Christian persecution of their persecutors and punishment of "heresy" as relentless as that of their predecessors.
The Colonists had bought liberty at a dear price, and when they wrote into our Constitution the provision that they would at all times and under all conditions share with their every single fellow American their dearly purchased freedom, their freedom of life and worship, they gave a new application to the Golden Rule! Therefore, Christ's statement:
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Is recognized and enforced by the first provision of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The things of the spirit, the "things that are God's," are placed by the Constitution beyond the power of the government to seize, suppress, control, or tamper with. They are sacred and secure from Caesar; the government has no power "to act upon" them in any manner whatsoever, as the great Justice Story stated in the second volume of his noted work on the Constitution:
"It was under the solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject (of religion and the 'things that are God's)."
The Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the Constitution follows Christ's teaching in denying to the government all power to infringe upon the things belonging to God. Speaking through Chief Justice Waite, the Court quoted and endorsed the reply of Thomas Jefferson to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions ‑‑ I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.'" [17]
Therefore, it is obvious that the Supreme Court's decision stated that this declaration of Jefferson's "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect" of the first article of the Bill of Rights.
Christ taught that if men were to be free, in this world and in the next, they must "know the truth." And without freedom of speech and of the press; without access to the knowledge and experience of other men both living and dead, few of us could ever "know the truth." Denial of freedom of speech and press; of the right of every man to have access to the ethical and religious experience of other men and of earlier ages, is a denial to the soul of man of its sacred right to pursue happiness [salvation].
Freedom to speak and communicate with other men to know their opinions, discoveries and experiences; is the very basis of any search for knowledge which has even the potentiality of arriving at the Truth. Hence, it is clear that freedom of communication is a sacred principle implied and inherent in Christ's teachings. This is doubly indelible when we reflect all systematic attempts, ancient and modern; in Soviet Russia today as well as in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Church for the past two thousand years ‑‑ all pagan and atheistic attempts to crush Christianity have always been based upon a STRINGENT SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS.
When anti‑Christian governments set out to dethrone Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ from the hearts of men they first deny to those men the right to speak His Name; the right to tell the un‑regenerate of His Power; the right to spread His Word. Likewise, when the Christian founders of the American Government established and formed a Constitution which insured to men the right to follow Christ; to be secure in their observance of religion based on freedom, to be forever safe from the soul‑oppression of religion based on government‑prosecuted coercion such as they had experienced in Europe under the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore when the Founding Fathers embodied religious liberty in the Constitution they embodied freedom of speech and press in the very same article. The First Amendment, the first article of the Bill of Rights, reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
In the very same sentence the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press on the same basis as it does freedom of religious observance and belief. It recognizes that free speech and press are implied and inherent in Christ's teachings of religious freedom.
Christ said that those who experienced salvation, who came to know Him, were under obligation to Him to go forth into all the world, spreading the glad tidings and preaching the gospel. And the Constitution guarantees the right of all believers to discharge this Christian duty within the territorial boundaries of its jurisdiction. Freedom to communicate one's beliefs is as sacred as freedom to form one's beliefs in accordance with one's own conscience. They derive their sanctity from the same Source, and are fittingly protected on an equal footing in the Constitution!
Now let us turn to the "due process of law" clause of the Constitution.
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The "due process of law" clause has truly been called one of the most important in the whole Constitution: for it looks beyond the ideas of justice of modern lawmakers and recognizes, in the words of the Supreme Court, "those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." Among these foundation pillars of "all our institutions" none are so securely safeguarded by the "due process of law" clause of the Constitution as the Divine Principles that theft and murder are wrong, even when committed by the government.
The Supreme Court declared that one of the prime purposes of the "due process" clause was;
"...to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government." [18]
Chief Justice Hughes, in his book, "The Supreme Court of the United States," states that the "due process of law" provision,
"...makes a required minimum of protection of every one's right to life, liberty and property, which the CONGRESS OR THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT WITHHOLD."
Plainly, then, this Constitutional provision looks to a Higher Law than that made by Congress or the State Legislatures. In the case of Hurtado vs. California, the Supreme Court reaffirmed an earlier decision [19] delivered by Justice Curtis, stating:
"...due process of law must mean something more than the actual existing law of the land, for otherwise it would be no restraint upon legislative power."
The Court held further:
"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power... Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its objects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude."
Under the Constitution, an enactment of Congress or an edict of the Executive which violates the Divine Law against theft and murder is NOT LAW, it is NOT LEGAL, and it is NOT VALID. The Court, in the previously cited case, quoted and endorsed the statement [In his famous argument in the Dartmouth College case] of Daniel Webster "acts of confiscation," even though passed by Congress "under the form of an enactment," are not and cannot be "the law of the land." The Court emphatically declared that "acts of confiscation" and all "special, partial, and arbitrary exertions of power under the forms of legislation" are "not due process of law." The Constitution also recognizes that it is possible to kill a man in other ways than by causing his heart to stop beating. His life may be effectively taken from him by depriving him of liberty. Without liberty, a human being is half dead. Life is more than being alive; it is also living.
Thomas Jefferson said;
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."
The framers of the Constitution believed, neither men nor governments had the right unjustly to take away what God had given. In the case of Smith against the State of Texas, the Supreme Court held that deprivation of liberty tended to "extinguish" the value of life. The Court said:
"Life, liberty, property, and the equal protection of the laws, grouped together in the Constitution, are so closely related that the deprivation of anyone of these separate and independent rights may lessen or extinguish the value of the other three. In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor, his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords to those who are permitted to work. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude; and the Constitutional guaranty is an assurance that the citizen shall be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling."
Liberty is essential to the preservation of the full right to, and value, of life and property. To deprive a man of liberty is, in effect, to deprive him of valuable elements of life and property. To strike at liberty is, therefore, to strike at the Ten Commandments; to diminish one's liberty is to "extinguish" his very life. It is under Divine sanctions that life and property may not wrongfully be taken from the individual that the Constitution guards and protects. The sanctity of human life involves the sanctity and inviolability of all the faculties of the human being. A man is deprived of his right to live if he is deprived of his right legitimately to use his faculties and to direct his own destiny. The Court has ruled that liberty as guaranteed in the Constitution means the right of a person;
"...to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or vocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned." [20]
The Constitution of the United States safeguards the right of human beings to life not only in this world, but it also safeguards their right so to live that they may have life in the next. The individual liberty guaranteed in the Constitution includes the right to seek all legitimate material, mental, and spiritual advancement.
In the case of Meyer vs. Nebraska, speaking through Justice McReynolds the Supreme Court declared that the guaranty of liberty embraced the right of the individual;
"...to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
To direct his destiny, either here or in the world to come, man must be free to follow his own calling. This freedom is insured to every American by the Constitution.
"The theory upon which our political institutions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that in the pursuit of happiness all avocations, all honors, all positions, are alike open to every one, and that in the protection of these rights all are equal before the law." [21]
The soul of man is safe, sacred, and inviolate under the Original Constitution. It is free to "captain its own fate" so to speak and to pursue its own salvation in whatever direction it wishes. And neither the State, nor any group within the State, has any more right to crush, imprison, or strangle the souls of men than it has to mar and mutilate their bodies. The Constitutional protection of human life is as broad and as pervasive in its scope and sphere as the Commandment to which it gives expression. Under the Constitution, no soul‑stifling government can experiment with plans to force men to live by bread alone. The soul of the citizen is as safe as his body, his liberty as secure as his life. He is free to live spiritually and mentally as well as physically.
One of the central teachings of Christ was the principle that the Moral Laws, as given to Moses and the Prophets and affirmed by Himself, was a statement of Eternal Truth, as everlasting and unchanging as Almighty God. The Founding Fathers believed that liberty is of the essence of the Eternal; They believed that God Himself was the "Author of Liberty." James Otis expressed their sentiments when he said,
"Liberty is the gift of God and cannot be annihilated."
John Adams reflected their attitude when he said that liberty is a moral right;
"...derived from the Legislator of the Universe."
Then at a later period, Abraham Lincoln echoed this conviction with the declaration:
"Liberty is right because Christ said so, and Christ is God."
Liberty, as the gift of God, is for all men, at all time, under all circumstances. And one of the prime purposes of the Constitution was to "secure" its blessings to every living American and to its "posterity." The Constitution follows faithfully the Divine Command,
"...proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
The men who framed the Constitution believed the Moral Law affirmed by Christ was good for all time. They believed a Constitution based on it and breathed its spirit was, and should be, "indestructible" and "perpetual." They provided for amendment to the Constitution to give wider scope and application to these Eternal Moral Principles. But they did not contemplate, in their wildest imaginations, any amendment at any time which would violate or invalidate these principals would be brought forward, well alone passed. They did not contemplate any amendment aimed at LEGALIZING a government‑sponsored violation of the Ten Commandments.
Indeed, the foremost Constitutional authorities agree that an amendment which would violate the Basic Moral Truths expressed in the Constitution would be itself unconstitutional; invalid under the spirit of the Constitution, even though technically permissible under the letter. Yet, this is the very type of amendment most widely advocated today. Many of our leading "critics" of the Constitution are condemning not only the Constitution itself, but also the UNDERLYING MORAL PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN IT. They are condemning the fundamental proposition that liberty is for all men at all times, that "Liberty is right because Christ said so," and that because it is contained in His Word it shall not pass away, even though the earth and civilization do.
They are condemning the fundamental principle that the majority, the government itself, must obey and follow the Ten Commandments. They are denying that Divine Law is binding on "the majority." They are assailing the basic belief expressed in the Constitution that Moral Truth does not change, that it is the same in one age as in another. And in so doing they are reaching beyond the Constitution and striking at the central principles of Christ, which are endorsed and upheld by the Constitution.
While it was under the "Original" United States Constitution, America was blessed by Almighty God; and prospered as no other nation has in all the history of the world. In 1789, about 2.5 million White Christian people established themselves as the COVENANT PEOPLE OF THE BIBLE; God's New Israel [The Great nation promised to Abraham]; and elected Jesus Christ as their King.
In 1789, and for the next 124 years, we were a Covenant People, living in faithful obedience to the COVENANT LAW OF THE BIBLE and in a right relationship with Jesus Christ. For decades, now, so‑called smart young professors have been teaching their students that morals are just "the fashions of the people," that what is right in one age is wrong in the next. For decades, they have been teaching;
"all morals are man‑made and as men change, their morals must change with them."
For decades, they have been teaching that the moral principles of Jesus Christ may have been good enough for our fathers but they are not good enough for us. A cancer spot of such vicious teachings has for years festered and putrefied in Columbia University; another in Harvard.
Is it any wonder, then, that out of these same cesspools of Communism should emerge the doctrine that, like the morals and religion, the Constitutional system of government of our fathers is not good enough for us!
Now, almost two hundred years later, the Christian Republic established in 1789, is gone! Barely a trace of that White Christian Republic remains standing. A new defacto democratic [Which is nothing less than an Atheistic‑Zionist‑ Communist] government, which is, ANTI‑CHRISTIAN IN EVERY RESPECT; has become the established government of America. We are no longer the citizens of a Sovereign State! We are now citizens of the United States; a new form of government, alien to God Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Bible and the political beliefs of our founding fathers. Most public officials, as well as most American citizens, do not realize Supreme Court Justice Brewer [Before the Supreme Court became the seat of anti‑Christ baby murderers], who served from 1890 to 1910, wrote a lengthy opinion, which presented and established the legal logic: AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION ‑‑ which I will presently present ‑‑ as God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ has ALWAYS led and protected America; reports to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Thus saith the Lord God; In that day when my people of Israel [America] dwelleth safely, SHALT THOU NOT KNOW IT?" [22]
THE MOST AMAZING NEW
LAW IN 70 YEARS
Public Law 97‑280 was passed by the U.S. Congress in October of 1982. It acknowledged, among other things, that the Bible is "the Word of God" and "our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures." This statement is in Congress's resolution that asks the President to declare 1983 as "the year of the Bible."
YEAR of the BIBLE, 1983
By the President of the United States of America
A PROCLAMATION
Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible. Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land.
These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies ‑‑ a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades. The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
For centuries the Bible's emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery. Many of our greatest national leaders among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson ‑‑ have recognized the influence of the Bible on our country's development. The plain‑spoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than "the rock on which our Republic rests."
Today our beloved America and, indeed, the world, is facing a decade of enormous challenge. As a people we may well be tested as we have seldom, if ever, been tested before. We will need resources of spirit even more than resources of technology, education, and armaments. There could be no more fitting moment than now to reflect with gratitude, humility, and urgency upon the wisdom revealed to us in the writing that Abraham Lincoln called
"the best gift God has ever given to man...But for it we could not know right from wrong."
The Congress of the United States in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized, and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the "Year of the Bible."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 as the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to re‑examine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty‑three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh. Ronald Reagan
PUBLIC LAW 97‑280
OCT. 4, 1982 96 STAT. 1211
Public Law 97‑280 97th Congress
JOINT RESOLUTION
Authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible." ‑‑ Oct, 4, 1982 [S.J. Res 165]
WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;
WHEREAS many of our great national leaders ‑‑ among them Presidents Washing, Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson ‑‑ paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";
WHEREAS the history of our nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Many Liberals, Anti-Christs and Humanists objected to this law, PL 97‑280. The news media gave it almost no coverage whatsoever. Did you read about this law and the "Year of the Bible" in your local newspaper; magazines; or hear about it on the radio; television; or even your church? Probably not. Following are a few other almost unknown or unmentioned historical events. On May 17, 1776, Congress appointed a day of fasting and prayer for the Colonies so they might,
"by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease God's righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."
On September 11, 1777, because the domestic supply of Bibles was short, the Continental Congress wrote,
"directing the Committee of Commerce to import (from Europe) 20,000 copies of the Bible, the great political text book of the patriots..."
The Congress also authorized chaplains in the Continental Army and General Washington moved to have chaplains appointed in each regiment.
On September 10, 1782, in consequence of the difficulty of importing Bibles, Congress approved and recommended to the people the edition of the Bible printed by Robert Aiken of Philadelphia. Congress described it as a "neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for use in schools."
"WHEREUPON, RESOLVED THAT the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he (Robert Aiken) shall think proper."
Like it or not; Love it or hate it; curse it or praise it; THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS AS A CHRISTIAN NATION, and the vast majority of its citizens were Christian. Our national motto is, "IN GOD WE TRUST"; our national hymn is, "GOD OF OUR FATHERS." The fathers being Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the Bible. We pledge allegiance to the United States of America as "ONE NATION UNDER GOD."
Our Constitution begins with, "We the people of the United States..." Article Seven mentions, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty seven..." Ask yourself, who is "our Lord" which is mentioned by "we the people?" Few people know, and it is no longer taught in our public schools, that eleven of the thirteen original colonies gave religious tests for public office. They required faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as a basic qualification for holding public office.
MASSACHUSETTS: Required a declaration that:
"I believe in the Christian religion and have a firm persuasion of its truth."
NEW JERSEY: Declared:
"...that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean them-selves peacefully under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the legislature."
VERMONT'S: Constitution required every member of the House of Representatives to take this oath:
"I do believe in One God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration..."
VIRGINIA: Denied public office to anyone who denied the,
"Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of Divine authority."
The Colonial documents written up in the home country of the colonists who came to North America and was usually issued by the king of that country. The Charter granted to the Colonists:
1). Certain lands in the New World;
2). Established the general rules and laws by which the colony would be guided; and
3). Stated the purpose or purposes for which the colony was being founded.
The first of these Charters was granted by James I of England on April 10, 1606, for the settlement and possession of Virginia. Now, keep in mind that this is a government document. This document speaks of the colonists who first erected government institutions in America as having;
"...desires for the furtherance of so noble a work which may by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His divine Majesty, in the propagating of the Christian religion to such people as yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages, living in those parts, to human civility, and to a settled and quiet government."
The Charter of Plymouth council granted by James I on November 2, 1620, begins,
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are under-written...having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith...combine ourselves into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid."
The March 4, 1644, Charter, issued by Charles I for the Colony of Massachusetts Bay mentioned the orderly conduct of the colonists;
"...to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God, and the Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith."
The Rhode Island Charter directs the civil administration so that the people might:
"...be in the better capacity to defend themselves in their rights and liberties against all enemies of the Christian faith."
In the Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, it was written on April 3, 1644,
"It was ordered that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered to Moses...be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders..."
There are literally thousands of other documents that could be quoted, but they are almost never mentioned in our modern anti‑Christ classrooms or pulpits. However, the question is: Was America founded upon Jesus Christ and Christianity, or are the atheists and agnostics correct in saying America is a pluralist society, not a Christian one? The evidence is overwhelming that the thoughts about America by both king and commoner were bound up with a vision of the gospel of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. We do not refer to church or missionary documents but to civil documents signed by the king or another authorized people in the government. These are political or governmental documents whose main purpose, like our Constitution, was to put in writing the order of government and the purposes of that government. These documents are foundation stones, not of American churches, not of religious movements, but the foundation stones of the American government, foundation stones of the United States of America.
|
BUT THEY ARE DESPERATELY AFRAID THAT YOU MIGHT FIND OUT THAT CHRISTIANS ORGANIZED OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND THAT CHRISTIANS ORGANIZED THAT GOVERNMENT UPON JESUS CHRIST, THE BIBLE AND BIBLE LAWS!!! |
The left‑wingers and the anti‑Christs are not afraid to let you find out that Christians founded churches or missions;
That is why the left‑wingers, anti‑Christs and humanists defame and ridicule the early Christian inhabitants of this American/Israel [Not Jewish] Nation. That is why they call those Christians "bigots," "straight‑laced," "blue‑noses," "puritanicals" and etc.
They are trying desperately to prevent our American‑Israel people from finding out that it was those real Christians, not like the false Judeo‑Christians ones of today, who founded America and its original government. Even America's first schools were founded to give the young a Christian education so that all who might come to a position of leadership would be firmly grounded in Christianity. Remember, Congress authorized the Robert Aiken edition of the Bible "for use in schools."
Kings College, which is now Columbia University, advertised,
"The chief thing that is aimed at in this college is to teach and engage the children to know God in Jesus Christ, and to live and serve Him, in all sobriety, Godliness, and Righteousness of life with a perfect heart, and a willing mind."
Amherst, Dartmouth and Yale were established for training in the Christian faith. For the first century 40 percent of Yales's graduates became ministers of the Gospel. Mr. Harvard, in founding Harvard University said,
"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning."
How times have changed. Today, many of our states prohibit reading the Bible in our Public Schools; which were originally established to teach the reading and the study of the Bible. Today, the anti‑Christ government schools, teach our children, a most horrendous LIE,
"Oh, yes, there were some Christians who came over here, and they may have made some Christian statements, and they formed churches, but most came to America for gold or for land and therefore the government had nothing to do with Christianity."
Don't let them fool you, my fellow White American Countrymen, for their intentions in deceiving you are as base as their methods for doing so. They have forced upon us all kinds of non‑Christian and anti‑ Christian laws and practices. Because they wanted a non‑Christian and anti‑Christ government here in America. And they knew it never would have been possible to install such government if America's Christians had really understood that our original form of government, both local and national; that all of our original laws came from God's Word, the Bible. In addition to the foregoing, perhaps we should point out at least one of the many in the body of the Constitution itself. Such as Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5:
"[Money, weights and measure. ‑‑ 5.] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and FIX THE STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES."
This is based upon the Biblical standards as set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
"Just balances, just weights...shall ye have..." [23]; "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have." [24]; "A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight." [25]; "A just weight and balance are the Lord's." [26]; "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord." [27]
About the coinage of money:
"Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath...And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh." [28]
To demonstrate how difficult it would have been for them to sweep aside our Christian laws, if our people had known they were really Christian laws, we will consider a few of the things they are doing to us today. For example, our nations leaders are making treaties with non‑Christian, or anti‑Christian nations; thus they are, in fact, committing a trespass against God's Laws concerning covenants or treaties with His People's enemies:
"...thou shalt make no covenant with them..." [29]
Not only that but they are committing treason by giving them aid and comfort and helping them in their anti‑ Christ activities. Would we, as Christians, accept that and sit by so silently if we realized such things are in opposition to both God's Law and the principles of the Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers.
What about abortion? Have you noticed how the pro‑ abortionists use the phrase, "We don't believe you should force your religion upon others?" Notice "they" identify the opposition to abortions by the term "religion," and of course the opposition to abortion is the Christian religion. Yet these immoral hypocrites freely try to impose their murderous standards upon us.
INFANTICIDE:
INCORRECTLY CALLED ABORTION
According to Webster's Dictionary the definition of infanticide is the murder of an infant. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditated malice [the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause of excuses]. The definition of abortion is,
"The expulsion of the human fetus prematurely, particularly at any time before it is viable [capable of living on its own]; miscarriage."
Today, infanticidists [ONE WHO MURDERS AN INFANT, per Webster's Dictionary], using a method called Dilation and Curettage, cutting the squirming and resisting baby's body and placenta into pieces with a loop‑shaped steel knife and suck them into a jar. Because it is struggling and trying to escape it is apparent that even the baby knows that it is a human being and is trying to protect its' life. From the jar the baby's body pieces are reassembled on a table to verify that all the parts have been removed. This is a far cry from a miscarriage whereby the human body naturally expels the unborn infant.
We are presenting an argument that infanticide [incorrectly called abortion] is actually the murder of an unborn infant and is NOT a right of privacy due to the mother. It will also set forth the argument that the changing of the meanings of the words describing the positions taken by so‑called Pro‑Lifers and Pro‑ Deathers are actually distorting what the issues really are.
We will only address situations where there has not been a pregnancy caused by rape or incest, or situations where the mother's life would be in danger if the baby's life is not terminated. Approximately 95% to 98% of all unborn infanticide is for conveniences' sake. Why is a fetus a person in the sense in which a baby is? Since no sane person would say that it is lawful to kill a baby, if it is shown that a fetus is in fact a baby, then killing a fetus would be tantamount to murder! Biblically it can be shown that fetuses in the womb struggled against each other as evidenced by Genesis 25:22. Here we read (NASB)
"But the children struggled together within her; and she [Rebecca] said, If it is so, why then am I this way? so she went to inquire of the Lord." Verse 23, "And the Lord said to her, Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."
Obviously in order for one of the fetuses to struggle with the other he had to be conscious of the fact that the other fetus was also a human being. Why have strife with a nonentity? It would accomplish nothing. In Psalm 139:13 David states (KJV),
"For Thou has possessed my reins: thou hast COVERED me in my mother's womb."
The word covered in Strong's is #5526. The word is "sakak" and means "prop. to entwine as a screen; by impl. to fence in, cover over, (fig.) protect." It is the same word used in Exodus 33:22 which states "and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you [Moses] in the cleft of the rock and COVER you with My hand until I have passed by." Therefore, it can be seen from this verse that protection IN THE WOMB is essential.
In Ecclesiastes 11:5 Solomon writes (NASB),
"Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones formed in the WOMB of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things."
The New English Bible adds the words,
"and living spirit in the WOMB" in this verse also.
Luke 1:15 states:
"For he [John] will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's WOMB."
Ecclesiastes 12:7 states (KJV),
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
When is the spirit given to man ‑ at birth or at conception? Without the "breath of life" man cannot exist. Inside or outside the womb.
Justice Harry Blackmun, speaking for the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, stated in the Roe vs. Wade (1973) decision that the pregnancy may be terminated within the first three months at the mother's discretion [convenience]. If the mother's health has to be protected, then in the second three months the states may restrict, but NOT prohibit termination of the pregnancy. In the last three months a state MAY restrict or even prohibit infanticide to protect the life of the fetus, except when the mother's life is in danger.
In effect the seven U.S. Supreme Court justices decided to play God by making it lawful to commit murder. By doing this and in the name of "trying to protect a woman's right to privacy" they violated the very U.S. Constitution they had sworn to uphold. In fact, the Jewish Justice Blackmun could not point to a specific constitutional guarantee to justify the court's ruling.
Instead, he rationalized the decision on the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment's [an Amendment which came straight from Satan's throne] Due Process clause; and on the medical ethics and standards of another Jew, Dr. Edelstein. It will be shown further on in this report the fallacy of this kind of thinking because one's right to privacy can extend only to the point of infringement on someone else's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion has become an overt means of child sacrifice which the Jews have instituted under their de facto laws. Which is simply a covert means of child sacrifice which has been part of their infamous "ritual murders, which Jews have been accused through the ages." In this practice, the Jewish abortion doctors and nurses take;
"the blood of the sacrificed Christian (child) is mixed with flour to make the unleavened bread (known as Haman Ears, Haman Cakes and etc., in remembrance of the slaughter of thousands of White Israelites as recorded in the book of Esther in the Bible. The only book in the Bible the name of Yahweh never appears. The only Jewish book in all of the Bible, the claims of the Jews and their lackeys notwithstanding) eaten at (the Jewish) Passover." [30]
Thus, we can clearly see that the practice of abortion, which conforms very well with the Jewish ritual of child sacrifice to idols such as Molech, which is condemned by Almighty God in the Scriptures as an abomination. However, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud recognizes such sacrifice as normal: "giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry." [31] Molech was a god of the Canaanites and Babylonians, and Babylon is the bedrock of the Jewish Talmud and Jewish tradition. This deity was the center of child sacrifice. Plus the fact that THE JEWISH TALMUD TEACHES THAT THE EXTERMINATION OF CHRISTIANS IS A NECESSARY SACRIFICE TO GOD. [32]
Proof of the above came most unexpectedly in March 1990, when an unprecedented display of Jewish contrition and humility was witnessed in York, England. There were four days of religious occasions, including some in York Minster, IN MEMORY OF CHRISTIAN CHILDREN WHO WERE CRUCIFIED, TORTURED AND BLED TO DEATH ALL OVER EUROPE IN MEDIEVAL TIMES TO SATISFY JEWISH RELIGIOUS RITUALS!
Justices White and Rehnquist, the two dissenting voters, probably stated it best when they said
"the majority's judgement was directed by its' own dislikes, not by any constitutional compass. In the absence of guiding principles, they asserted, the majority justices simply substituted their views for the view of the state legislatures whose abortion regulations they invalidated."
These state legislators were elected by a majority in each state to present their constituents' view of anti‑death.
The Declaration of Independence states;
"That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."
When are the men that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence created? The day the human being leaves the womb or the day of conception? Obviously the human life begins at conception, because if you do not have conception you will never have the human being. If the human life begins at conception, then the human life has certain unalienable rights. These are rights that are incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred whether or not the individual can speak for himself. Speaking in general terms the right of one individual's privacy ends where the actual life of another individual starts. For example, if one's next door neighbor is strangling his three year old son in his house do we reason to ourselves "that is none of my business; it is his son; and he has the 'right of privacy' to do whatever he pleases to his son" or do we take action to prevent the potential murder from occurring, because the "right to life" is a higher right than the dad's "right to privacy."
DISTORTING WORD MEANINGS
In the abortion [infanticide ‑ the right to Murder a baby] conflict we have two groups each "for" their particular issue. One is called "Pro‑Life" and the other is called "Pro‑Choice." Neither group, as named, is directly opposed to the other. Defining these two groups in general terms "Pro‑Life" is not the opposite of "Pro‑Choice." However, in fact the "Pro‑Choice" groups are actually Pro‑Death [Pro‑Murder], since they maintain that murder is a "choice." By calling the Pro‑Death group "Pro‑Choice" one could get a distorted view of what the "Pro‑Choice" group really represents. WHEN IT COMES TO MURDER THERE ARE NO‑CHOICES. A choice to do wring to another human being is no choice at all! If you are for something, you are against its opposite. If you are pro‑life, then you are against someone having the "choice" to murder an infant. Since the death is the opposite of life, the reverse would also be true. If you are pro‑death, you would be anti‑life [not "Pro‑Choice"].
Speaking in general terms we are all "pro‑choice," which is the opposite of compulsion. Everyone believes that each individual has the right or freedom to do what they want. However, the freedom of each individual to do what they want extends only to the point of infringing on someone else's "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness [property]." Thus, we see that individuals that are pro‑life [opposed to murder] are also actually pro‑choice [opposed to compulsion] to the extent those actions do not infringe on someone else's "life liberty, or pursuit of happiness [property]."
However, pro‑life proponents believe that a choice to do wrong [murder an unborn infant] is not a choice at all. Infant murder outside the womb or inside the womb is wrong. Pro‑Death proponents are "Pro‑Life" when it comes to their life, but cannot respect the life of others. And they will take your life if you oppose them, and they get the chance. Make no mistake about it. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the development and life of an infant in the womb when they allowed the states the freedom to regulate or prohibit infanticide in the last six months of pregnancy. Why regulate or prohibit infanticide in the womb if the infant is not a human being?
Since they have allowed the states to regulate or prohibit infanticide in certain cases we find that the real question the seven U.S. Supreme Court Justices raised is "WHEN does the infant become a human being in the womb?" and NOT "IS the infant a human being in the womb?" If they wanted to ask the question "IS the infant a human being in the womb?" then they would NOT have regulated the state on the last two trimesters. So we must conclude that the learned justices recognized the fact that the fetus IS A HUMAN BEING: therefore, they knew abortion [infanticide] was/is murder but they gave women the right to do so for a limited period of time if they so desired! Thus the Justices have been guilty of being an accomplish to the murder of literally millions of babies since 1973!
Another proposed dilemma in this issue is the question of freedom vs. order. Does the freedom of a woman to "do what she wants with her body" take priority over "the killing of unborn babies" [order]? Missing from the dilemma is the issue of "the freedom of the baby." Most Pro‑Death advocates seem to forget that the woman had the choice of abstaining from sex or using birth control methods to prevent conception.
These women lost their freedom of having the abortion at the time of conception. As a result of the seven Supreme Court justices determination that "freedom of the woman" takes priority over "freedom and life of the baby," we have had, since 1973, over 26‑million innocent unborn babies murdered. This is equivalent to the sum population of more than 12 U.S. states or approximately 1/10th of the current U.S. population.
IRRATIONALITY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
John Ankerberg and John Weldon in their book "When Does Life Begin?" pointed out the irrationality of the Supreme Court's decision. They stated
"Animals are now guaranteed more legal rights and protections than unborn children...The very same Supreme Court which made possible the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn human babies stopped the construction of the $116‑million Tellico Dam in Tennessee merely because it might cause a three‑inch fish known as the "snail darter" to become extinct! We can do horrible things to the pre‑born that we are legally prohibited from doing to dogs or even hamsters! Of course the Queers do not want any harm to come to the hamster, they like to cram them up each others ass for an exotic thrill! How sick can one get?
Doctors were charged to both save life and to destroy it. All laws attempting to prohibit abortion after viability have been declared unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court does all 'that two doctors be present when viable [babies able to live outside the womb] infants are aborted; one TO KILL THE BABY THROUGH ABORTION [infanticide] and one to care for the infant should the first doctor FAIL TO MURDER THE BABY!' Further, if during an abortion procedure the child is killed while in the womb, no law is broken, but if that same child is removed from the womb and Murdered outside the woman, the physician is liable to a charge of murder!"
RIGHT TO LIVE DENIED
The other legal rights of the unborn were maintained; only their right to live was denied. In property and inheritance law Anglo‑American jurisprudence has scrupulously maintained the rights of the unborn, accepting that human lie begins at conception. All of us are familiar with "wrongful death" lawsuits against persons who accidentally injure unborn children to the point of their death.
"To this day, the law recognizes unborn children as persons entitled to all these rights."
In fact, criminals who have assaulted pregnant women have been successfully prosecuted for murder when the unborn child has been killed. Nevertheless, the law regards the unborn as a non‑person when a mother is willing to destroy it.
In conclusion, we see that regardless of the terminology used by either side the living being has its life abruptly ended in infanticide. No matter how much it may fight to stay alive in the womb it is certainly fighting a hopeless battle. Probably not one of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted "Pro‑Death" realized that if their mother had made a Pro‑Death choice when she was pregnant with them, then they would have never enjoyed the life they had/have. The same holds true for the doctors, nurses and mothers who go through the process of infanticide. Someone was gracious enough to give them the opportunity to live, SO WHY CAN'T THEY ALLOW THE SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UNBORN? Who has opposed abortion, the murder of the unborn, in America since our beginning as a few colonies? Who arrested the abortionist [Murderers] and either executed them or put them in prison? If you would only bother to study history a little you would find that the vast majority of the abortionists are Jews, of whom Jesus said:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets...and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets...Ye serpents, ye generation (Race) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" [33]
We have presented colonial governmental documents of 200 to 350 years ago, yet we need not go back that far, we need go back only two generations to find our government enforcing Christian Laws. What a change! Why do you think the anti‑Christs continually cry out the phrase, "separation of church and state" until its meaning is completely distorted. It has become a catch‑all phrase, by the enemies of Jesus Christ and America, in an attempt to eliminate all Christian influence upon anything involving state or civil affairs. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!" BECAUSE ALL LAWS ARE BASED UPON SOMEONE'S MORALITY! THEY ARE EITHER CHRISTIAN OR THEY ARE ANTI‑CHRISTIAN ‑ THERE ARE NO OTHERS!
CONSTITUTIONS
Very few Christians know that several State Constitutions specifically mention;
(1) Religion;
(2) Christianity, and/or
(3) The Bible
For example:
OHIO: Bill of Rights, Section 7:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceful enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction."
The Ohio Constitution was adopted in 1802. Twenty‑three years later, in 1825, a tax levy was passed to set up and support a public school system. Therefore, the schools mentioned in the Ohio Constitution are private and church schools. Of the first 108 schools, 106 were founded by Christian Churches. As written, the Ohio Constitution required the State to protect and encourage private church schools.
MASSACHUSETTSES: Declaration of Rights, Article 2:
"And every denomination of Christians...shall be equal under the protection of the law." (The law was designed to protect Christians).
VERMONT: Declaration of Rights, Article 3:
"(our) opinion shall be regulated by the Word of God (The Bible)...Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed Word of God."
VIRGINIA: Section 18:
"...the rights hereby secured shall not be construed to...exclude or remove the Holy Bible from use in any public school of this state."
Our government consists of three separate branches: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. Each branch is "separate" meaning that each is independent from the other. Even if the words "separation of church and state" were in the Constitution, would it therefore follow it meant that one is "cut off and cast away" or would it mean that the Church is independent from the State? Of course it would mean the church was to be independent from the state!!!
In the Scriptures we never find an instant where a God‑ anointed priest or prophet took to himself the function of a civil administrator, nor do we find a case where a man anointed to serve in civil administration took unto himself the ministry of priest or prophet without coming under the judgment of God. [34] The Supreme Court has declared that the United States of America is a Christian Nation. [35]
In addition, a State Court is on record saying,
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations are placed on the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." [36]
On the other hand, the Constitution of Soviet Russia reads,
"...the state shall be separate from the church, and the church separate from the school,"
The ninth doctrine listed in the Humanist Manifesto II reads,
"The separation of church and state...are imperatives."
The following is a presentation of selected portions of the Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457 (1892):
"But beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...
Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to touch very little upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the Constitutions of all the states, as follows, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'...And also provides in Article 7, a provision common to many Constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill...There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are the organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. While because of the general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11S. & R. 394, 400, it was declared that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania;...not Christianity with an established church and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with a liberty of conscience to all men.' And in the People vs. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said, 'The people of this state, in common with the people in this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as a rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only in a religious point of view extremely impious but even in respect to the obligations to society, a gross violation of decency and good order...The free, equal and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by the whole community, is an abuse of that right...Nor are we bound, by any expressions in the Constitution as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately, the like attacks on the religion of Mohammed or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and that the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of these imposters."
In Runkel vs. Winemiller, 4 Harris & McHenry (MD) 429, we find: "...The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty...
Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty. The principles of the Christian religion cannot be diffused, and its doctrines generally propagated, without places of public worship, and teachers and ministers, to explain the Scriptures to the people, and to enforce an observance of the precepts of religion by their preaching and living. And the pastors teachers and ministers, of every denomination of Christians, are equally entitled to the protection of the law and to the enjoyment of their religious and temporal rights."
In a speech delivered at Harvard College in 1905, Associate Justice of the United States David J. Brewer said, in part:
"We classify nations in various ways, as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo‑Saxon Nation, France a Gaelic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian Nations...
This Republic is classified among the Christian Nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, 'there are many other matters, which might be noticed, and a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation.'
But in what sense can it be called a Christian Nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the Contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation ‑‑ in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has a substantial basis ‑‑ one which justifies its use. Let us analyze a little and see what is the basis.
Its use has had from the early settlements on our shores and still has an official foundation. It is only about three centuries since the beginnings of civilized life within the limits of these United States. And those beginnings were in a marked and marvelous degree identified with Christianity. The commission from Ferdinand and Isabella to Columbus recites that 'it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered.'
The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1584, authorized him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony, provided that 'they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England.' The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I, in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: 'We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.' And language of similar import is found in subsequent charters of the same colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611.
The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, in 1620, recites: 'Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and the honor of our king and country a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia.'
The charter of New England, granted by James I, in 1620, after referring to a petition, declares: '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.'
The charter of Massachusetts Bay, granted in 1629 by Charles I, after several provisions, recites: 'Whereby our said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed as their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of the country to their knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our royal intention and the adventurers free profession, is the principal end of this plantation,' which declaration was substantially repeated in the charter of Massachusetts Bay granted by William and Mary in 1691.
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638‑1639, provided: 'Forasmuch as it has pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of His divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, are now cohabitating and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands thereto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter enter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel, is now practices amongst us.'
In the preamble of the Constitution of 1776 it was declared, 'the free fruition of such liberties and privileges of humanity, civility and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of churches and commonwealths; and the denial thereof, the disturbance, if not the ruin of both.'
In 1638 the first settlers in Rhode Island organized a local government by signing the following agreement: 'We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.
"And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel." [37];
"Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren: return every man to his house: for this thing is done of me. And they obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned from going against Jeroboam." [38]; "And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord's people; between the king also and the people." [39]
The charter granted to Rhode Island, in 1663, naming the petitioners, speaks of them as 'pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minds, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves and one another in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor, ignorant Indian natives, in these parts of America, to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship.'
The charter of Carolina, granted in 1663 by Charles II, recites that the petitioners, 'being excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith.'
In the preface of the frame of government prepared in 1682 by William Penn, for Pennsylvania, it is said: 'They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government than correction, which is the coarsest part of it; daily experience tells us that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, make up much of the greatest part of government; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men, on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed second Adam, the Lord from heaven.' And with the laws prepared to go with the frame of government, it was further provided 'that according to the good example of the primitive Christians, and the ease of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's Day, people shall abstain from their common daily labor that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understandings.' In the charter of privileges granted, in 1701, by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania and territories thereunto belonging (such territories afterwards constituting the State of Delaware), it is recited: 'Because no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their consciences as to their religious profession and worship; and Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith and worship, who only doth enlighten the minds and persuade and convince the understandings of the people, I do hereby grant and declare.'
The Constitution of Vermont, of 1777, granting the free exercise of religious worship, added, 'Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, and keep up and support some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.' And this was repeated in the Constitution of 1786.
In the Constitution of South Carolina, of 1778, it was declared that 'the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed and is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this State.' And further, that no agreement or union of en upon pretense of religion should be entitled to become incorporated and regarded as a church of the established religion of the State, without agreeing and subscribing to a book of five articles, the third and fourth of which were 'that the Christian religion is the true religion; that the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.' Passing beyond these declarations which are found in the organic instruments of the colonies, the following are well known historical facts: Lord Baltimore secured the charter for a Maryland colony in order that he and his associates might continue their Catholic worship free from Protestant persecution. Roger Williams, exiled from Massachusetts because of his religious views, established an independent colony in Rhode Island. The Huguenots, driven from France by the Edict of Nantes, sought in the more southern colonies a place where they could live in the enjoyment of their Huguenot faith. It is not exaggeration to say that Christianity in some of its creeds was the principal cause of the settlement of many of the colonies, and cooperated with business hopes and purposes in the settlement of the others. Beginning in this way and under these influences it is not strange that the colonial life had an emphatic Christian tone. From the very first efforts were made, largely it must be conceded by Catholics, to bring the Indians under the influence of Christianity. Who can read without emotion the story of Marquette, and others like him, enduring all perils and dangers and toiling through the forests of the west in their efforts to tell the story of Jesus to the savages of North America? Within less than one hundred years from the landing at Jamestown three colleges were established in the colonies; Harvard in Massachusetts, William and Mary in Virginia and Yale in Connecticut. The first seal used by Harvard College had as a motto, 'In Christi Gloriam,' and the charter granted by Massachusetts Bay contained this recital: 'Whereas, through the good hand of God many well devoted persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up to give and bestow sundry gifts ...that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and Godliness.'
The charter of William and Mary, reciting that the proposal was 'to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the western Indians, to the glory of Almighty god' made the grant 'for propagating the pure gospel of Christ, our only Mediator, to the praise and honor of Almighty God.' The charter of Yale declared as its purpose to fit 'young men for public employment both in church and civil state,' and it provided that the trustees should be Congregational ministers living in the colony. In some of the colonies, particularly in New England, the support of the church was a matter of public charge, even as the common schools are today. Thus the Constitution of Massachusetts, of 1780, Part I, Article 3, provided that 'the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.' Article 6 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of New Hampshire, of 1784, repeated in the Constitution of 1792, empowered 'the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provision at their own expense for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.'
In the fundamental Constitutions of 1769, prepared for the Carolinas, by the celebrated John Locke, Article 96 reads: 'As the country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England, which being the only true and orthodox and the national religion of all the king's dominations, is so also of Carolina, and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of parliament.'
In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, it was provided that 'the legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion.' In several colonies and states a profession of the Christian faith was made an indispensable condition to holding office. In the frame of government for Pennsylvania, prepared by William Penn, in 1683, it was provided that 'all treasurers, judges...and other officers...and all members elected to serve in provincial council and general assembly, and all that have right to elect such members, shall be such as profess faith in Jesus Christ.' And in the charter of privileges for that colony, given in 1701 by William Penn and approved by the colonial assembly it was provided 'that all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall capable...to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively.'
In Delaware, by the Constitution of 1776, every officeholder was required to make and subscribe the following declaration: 'I, A.B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.'
New Hampshire, in the Constitutions of 1784 and 1792, required that senators and representatives should be of the 'Protestant religion,' and this provision remained in force until 1877. The fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas declared: 'No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation within it that doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshiped.'
The Constitution of North Carolina, of 1776, provided: 'That no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.' And this remained in force until 1835, when it was amended by changing the word 'Protestant' to 'Christian,' and as so amended remained in force until the Constitution of 1868. And in that Constitution among the persons disqualified for office were 'all persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God.'
New Jersey, by the Constitution of 1776, declared 'that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of ether branch of the legislature.' The Constitution of South Carolina, of 1776, provided that no person should be eligible to the Senate or House of Representatives 'unless he be of the Protestant religion.'
Massachusetts, in its Constitution of 1780, required from governor, lieutenant‑governor, counselor, senator and representative before proceeding to execute the duties of his place or office a declaration that 'I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.'
By the fundamental orders of Connecticut the governor was directed to take an oath to 'further the execution of justice according to the rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.'
The Vermont Constitution of 1777 required of every member of the house of Representatives that he takes this oath: 'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.' A similar requirement was provided by the Constitution of 1786.
In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, every person appointed to any office of profit or trust was not only to take an official oath of allegiance to the State, but also to 'subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.' In the same State, in the Constitution of 1851, it was declared that no other test or qualification for admission to any office of trust or profit shall be required than the official oath 'and a declaration of belief in the Christian religion; and if the party shall profess to be a Jew the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.' As late as 1864 the same State in its Constitution had a similar provision, the change being one merely of phraseology, the provision reading, 'a declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.'
Mississippi, by the Constitution of 1817, provided that 'no person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.'
Another significant matter is the recognition of Sunday. That day is the Christian Sabbath, a day peculiar to that faith, and known to no other. It would be impossible within the limits of a lecture to point out all the ways in which that day is recognized. The following illustrations must suffice: By the United States Constitution the President is required to approved all bills passed by Congress. If he disapproves he returns it with his veto. And then specifically it is provided that if not returned by him within ten days, 'Sundays excepted,' Louisiana is one of the nine States in whose present [1905] Constitution the expression, 'Sundays excepted,' is not found. Four earlier Constitutions of that State (those of 1812, 1845, 1852 and 1864) contained [it], while the three latter ones, 1868, 1879 and 1881 omit those words.
In State ex rel. vs. Secretary of State, a case arising under the last Constitution, decided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana (52 La. An. 936), the question was presented as to the effect of a governor's veto which was returned within time if a Sunday intervening between the day of presentation of the bill and the return of the veto was excluded, and too late if it was included; the burden of the contention on the one side being that the change in the phraseology of the later Constitutions in omitting the words 'Sundays excepted' indicated a change in the meaning of the constitutional provision in respect to the time of a veto. The court unanimously held that the Sunday was to be excluded. In the course of its opinion it said (p. 944): 'In law Sundays are generally excluded as days upon which the performance of any act demanded by the law is not required. They are held to be dies non juridici. And in the Christian world Sunday is regarded as the 'Lord's Day,' and a holiday ‑‑ a day of cessation from labor. By statute, enacted as far back as 1838, this day is made in Louisiana one of 'public rest.' Rev. Stat., Sec. 522; Code of Practice, 207, 763. This is the policy of the State of long standing and the framers of the Constitution are to be considered as intending to conform to the same.' By express command of Congress studies are not pursued at the military or naval academies, and distilleries are prohibited from operation on Sundays, while chaplains are required to hold religious services once at least on that day.
By the English statute of 29 Charles II no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person was permitted to do or exercise any worldly labor, business or work of ordinary calling upon the Lord's Day, or any part thereof, works of necessity or charity only excepted. That statute, with some variations, has been adopted by most if not all the States of the Union. In Massachusetts it was held that one injured while traveling in the cars on Sunday, except in case of necessity or charity, was guilty of contributory negligence and could recover nothing from the railroad company for the injury he sustained. And this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. A statute of the State of Georgia, making the running of freight trains on Sunday a misdemeanor, was also upheld by that court.
By decisions in many States a contract made on Sunday is invalid and cannot be enforced. By the general course of decision no judicial proceedings can be held on Sunday. All legislative bodies, whether municipal, state or national, abstain from work on that day. Indeed, the vast volume of official action, legislative and judicial, recognizes Sunday as a day separate and apart from the others, a day devoted not to the ordinary pursuits of life. It is true in many of the decisions of this separation of the day is said to be authorized by the police power of the State and exercised for purposes of health. At the same time, through a large majority of them, there runs the thought of its being a religious day, consecrated by the Commandment, 'Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.'
While the word 'God' is not infrequently used both in the singular and plural to denote any supreme being or beings, yet when used alone and in the singular number it generally refers to that Supreme Being spoken of in the Old and New Testaments and worshiped by the Christian. In that sense the word is used in constitution, statute and instrument.
In many State Constitutions we find in the preamble a declaration like this: 'Grateful to Almighty God.' In whom he who denied the being of God was disqualified from holding office. It is again and again declared in constitution and statute that official oaths shall close with an appeal, 'So help me, God.' When, upon inauguration, the President‑elect each four years consecrates himself to the great responsibilities of Chief Executive of the republic, his vow of consecration in the presence of the vast throng filling the Capitol grounds will end with the solemn words, 'So help me, God.' In all our courts witnesses in like manner vouch for the truthfulness of their testimony. The common commencement of wills is 'In the name of God, Amen.' Every foreigner attests his renunciation of allegiance to his former sovereign and his acceptance of citizenship in this republic by an appeal to God. These various declarations in charters, constitutions and statutes indicate the general thought and purpose. If it be said that similar declarations are not found in all the charters or in all the constitutions, it will be borne in mind that the omission oftentimes was because they were deemed unnecessary, as shown by the quotation just made from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, as well as those hereafter taken from the opinions of other courts. And further, it is of still more significance that there are no contrary declarations. In no charter or constitution is there anything to even suggest that any other than the Christian is the religion of his country. In none of them is Mohammed or Confucius or Buddha in any manner noticed. In none of them is Judaism recognized other than by way of toleration of its special creed. While the separation of church and state is often affirmed, there is nowhere a repudiation of Christianity as one of the institutions as well as benedictions of society. In short, there is no charter or constitution that is either infidel, agnostic or anti‑Christian. Wherever there is a declaration in favor of any religion it is of the Christian. In view of the multitude of expressions in its favor, the avowed separation between church and states is a most satisfactory testimonial that it is the religion of this country, for a peculiar thought of Christianity is of a personal relation between man and his Maker, uncontrolled by and independent of human government. Notice also the matter of chaplains. These are appointed for the army and navy, named as officials of legislative assemblies, and universally they belong to one or other of the Christian denominations. [You see no so‑called Jewish chaplains were allowed in he military of the United States until after 1905 ‑ thus the cries of the ministers of Baal from the pulpits of America about America being a Judeo‑Christian nation is nothing more than a lie fostered upon the American people by the antichrist Jews]. Their whole range of service, whether in prayer or preaching, is an official recognition of Christianity. If it be not so, why do we have chaplains?
If we consult the decisions of the courts, although the formal question has seldom been presented because of a general recognition of its truth, yet in The People vs. Ruggles, 8 John, 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: 'The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice.' And in the famous case of Vidal vs. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, the Supreme Court of the United States, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: 'It is also said, and truly that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'
The New York Supreme Court, in Lindenmuller vs. The People, 33 Barbour, 561 held that: 'Christianity is not the legal religion of the State, as established by law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it is not; but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. This fact is everywhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, as well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.'
The South Carolina Supreme Court, in State vs. Chandler, 2 Harrington, 555, citing many cases, said: 'It appears to have been long perfectly settled by the common law that blasphemy against the Deity in general, or a malicious and wanton attack against the Christian religion individually, for the purpose of exposing its doctrines to contempt and ridicule, is indictable and punishable as a temporal offense.' And again, in City Council vs. Benjamin, 2 Strobhart, 521: 'On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord ‑‑ its decent observance in a Christian community is that which ought to be expected. it is not perhaps necessary for the purposes of this case to rule and hold that the Christian religion is part of the common law of South Carolina. Still it may be useful to show that it lies at the foundation of even the article of the Constitution under consideration, and that upon it rest many of the principles and usages, constantly acknowledged and enforced, in the courts of justice.'
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant and Rawle, 400, made this declaration.: 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a great part of the common law of Pennsylvania; Christianity, without the spiritual artillery of European countries; of this Christianity was one of the considerations of the royal charter, and the very basis of its great founder, William Penn; not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.'
And subsequently, in Johnson vs. The Commonwealth, 10 Harris, III. 'It is not our business to discuss the obligations of Sunday any further than they enter into and are recognized by the law of the land. The common law adopted it, along with Christianity, of which it is one of the bulwarks.'
In Arkansas, Shover vs. The State, 10 English, 263, the Supreme Court said: 'Sunday or the Sabbath is properly and emphatically called the Lord's Day, and is one amongst the first and most sacred institutions of the Christian religion. This system of religion is recognized as constituting a part and parcel of the common law, and as such all of the institutions growing out of it, or, in any way, connected with it, in case they shall not be found to interfere with the rights of conscience, are entitled to the most profound respect, and can rightfully claim the protection of the law‑making power of the State.'
The Supreme Court of Maryland, in Judefind vs. The State, 78 Maryland, 514, declared: 'The Sabbath is emphatically the day of rest, and the day of rest here is the Lord's Day or Christian's Sunday. Ours is a Christian community, and a day set apart as the day of rest is the day consecrated by the resurrection of our Saviour, and embraces the twenty‑four hours next ensuing the midnight of Sunday...But it would scarcely be asked of a court, in what professes to be a Christian land, to declare a law unconstitutional because it requires rest from bodily labor on Sunday (except works of necessity and charity) and thereby promotes the cause of Christianity.'
If now we pass from the domain of official action and recognition to that of individual acceptance we enter a field of boundless extent, and I can only point out a few of the prominent facts: Notice our educational institutions. I have already called your attention to the provisions of the charters of the first three colleges. Think of the vast number of academies, colleges and universities scattered through the land. Some of them, it is true, are under secular control, but there is yet to be established in this country one of those institutions founded on the religions of Confucius, Buddha or Mohammed, while an over-whelming majority are under the special direction and control of Christian teachers. Notice also the avowed and pronounced Christian forces of the country, and here I must refer to the census of 1890, for the statistics of the census of 1900 in these matters have not been compiled: The population was 62,622,000. There were 165,000 Christian church organizations, owning 142,000 buildings, in which were sittings for 40,625,000 people. The communicants in these churches numbered 20,476,000, and the value of the church property amounted to $669,876,000. In other words, about one‑third of the entire population were directly connected with Christian organizations. Nearly two‑thirds would find seats in our churches. If to the members we add the children and others in their families more or less connected with them, it is obvious that a large majority were attached to the various church organizations. I am aware that the relationship between many members and their churches is formal, and that church relations do not constitute active and paramount forces in their lives, and yet it is clear that there is an identification of the great mass of American citizens with the Christian church.
It is undoubtedly true that there is no little complain of the falling off in church attendance, and of a lukewarmness on the part of many, and on the other hand there is a diversion of religious force along the lines of the Young Men's Christian Association, the Christian Endeavor Society and the Epworth League.
All these, of course, are matters to be noticed, but they do not avoid the fact of a formal adhesion of the great majority of our people to the Christian faith; and while creeds and dogmas and denominations are in a certain sense losing their power, and certainly their antagonisms, yet as a vital force in the land, Christianity is still the mighty factor. Connection with the denominations are large missionary bodies constantly busy in extending [the] Christian faith through this nation and through the world. No other religious organization has anything of a foothold or is engaged in active work unless it be upon so small a scale as scarcely to be noticed in the great volume of American life. Again, the Bible is the Christian's book. No other book has so wide a circulation, or is so universally found in the households of the land. During their century of existence the English and American Bible Societies have published and circulated two hundred and fifty million copies, and this represents but a fraction of its circulation. And then think of the multitude of volumes published in exposition, explanation and illustration of that book, or some portion of it. You will have noticed that I have presented no doubtful facts. Nothing has been stated which is debatable. The quotations from charters are in the archives of the several States; the laws are on the statute books; judicial opinions are taken from the census publications. In short, no evidence has been presented which is open to question.
I could easily enter upon another line of examination. I could point out the general trend of public opinion, the disclosures of purposes and beliefs to be found in letters, papers, books and unofficial declarations.
I could show how largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ: how constantly the Bible is appealed to as the guide of life and the authority in questions of morals; how the Christian doctrines are accepted as the great comfort in times of sorrow and affliction, and fill with the light of hope the services of the dead. On every hilltop towers the steeple of some Christian church, while from the marble witnesses in God's acre comes the universal but silent testimony to the common faith in the Christian doctrine of the resurrection and the life hereafter.
But I must not weary you. I could go on indefinitely, point out further illustrations both official and non‑official, public and private; such as the annual Thanksgiving proclamations, with their following days of worship and feasting; announcements of days of fasting and prayer; the universal celebration of Christmas; the gathering of millions of our children in Sunday Schools, and the countless volumes of Christian literature, both prose and poetry.
But I have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a might factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian Nation, and we can all rejoice as truthfully we repeat the words of Leonard Bacon:
"'O God, beneath thy guiding hand
Our exiled fathers crossed the sea,
And when they trod the wintry strand,
With prayer and psalm they worshiped Thee.
Thou heardst, well pleased, the song, the prayer
Thy blessing came; and still its power
Shall onward through all ages bear
The memory of that holy hour.
Laws, freedom, truth, and faith in God
Came with those exiles o'er the waves,
And where their pilgrim feet have trod,
The God they trusted guards their graves.
And here Thy name, O God of love,
Their children's children shall adore,
Till these eternal hills remove,
And spring adorns the earth no more.'"
Justice Brewer, the next day speaking of his speech the night before stated:
"I considered last night the proposition that the Unites States of America is a Christian nation. I pointed out that Christianity was a primary cause of the first settlement on our shores; that the organic instruments, charters and constitutions of the colonies were filled with abundant recognitions of it as a controlling factor in the life of the people; that in one at least of them it was in terms declared the established religion, while in several the furthering of Christianity was stated to be one of the purposes of the government; in many faith in it was a condition of holding office; in some, authority was given to the legislature to make its support a public charge; in nearly all the constitutions there has been an express recognition of the sanctity of the Christian Sunday; the God of the Bible is appealed to again and again. Sunday laws have been enacted and enforced in most of the colonies and States. About one‑third of the population are avowedly Christian and communicants in some Christian organization; there are sitting accommodations in the churches for nearly two‑thirds; educational institutions are largely under the control of Christian denominations, and even in those which, in obedience to the rule of separation between church and state, are secular in their organization, the principles of Christianity are uniformly recognized. By these and other evidences I claim to have shown that the calling of this Republic a Christian Nation is not a mere pretence but a recognition of an historical, legal and social truth. I came this evening to consider the consequences of this fact and the duties it imposes upon all our citizens.
And first let it be noticed that there is no incompatibility between Christianity and Patriotism. The declaration of the Master, 'Render therefore unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's,' is not a declaration of antagonism between the two, but an affirmation of duty to each. Indeed, devotion to one generally goes hand in hand with loyalty to the other...
But we need not go elsewhere. In our own land, from the very first, Christianity and patriotism have worked together. When the Pilgrim Fathers touched New England's shores their first service was one of thanksgiving and praise to that Infinite One who had, as they believed, guided them to their new home. In the long struggles of the early colonists with their Indian foes, the building on the hill was both church and fort. They fell on their knees and then on the aborigines, was the old satire, to which now is added, they fall on the Chinese. In the convention that framed the Constitution, when doubt and uncertainty hovered over the result, at Franklin's instance prayer was offered for the success of their efforts. In the dark days at Valley Forge the great leader sought strength and inspiration in prayer. When the nation stood aghast at the assassination of Abraham Lincoln [40], the clarion voice of Garfield rang out above the darkness and the tumult, 'God reigns, and the government at Washington still lives.' And so I might go on with illustration after illustration showing how the faith of the Christian has stood in times of trial and trouble as the rock [Jesus Christ] upon which the nation has rested. Again, Christianity is entitled to the tribute of respect. I do not of course mean that all individuals, nominally Christian, deserve trust, confidence, or even respect, for the contrary is too often the case. Too often men hold religion as they do property, in their wives' names. Nor is Christianity beyond the reach of criticism and opposition. It is not lifted up as something too sacred to be spoken of save in terms and tones of reverence. This an iconoclastic and scientific age. We are destroying many beliefs and traditions. William Tell is a myth.
The long hairs of Pocahontas never dropped in protecting folds over the body of John Smith. The Arabs never destroyed the great library at Alexandria, though if some wandering Arabs would destroy all the law books in the land they would bless the courts and help the cause of justice. We challenge the truthfulness of every assertion of fact, every demand upon our faith and confidence; and Christianity must stand like all other institutions, to be challenged, criticized, weighed and its merits and demerits determined. The time has passed in the history of the world when anything is too sacred to be touched, when anything is beyond the reach of the inquiring and scientific spear. But while conceding all this I insist that Christianity has been so wrought into the history of this republic, so identified with its growth and prosperity, has been and is so dear to the hearts of the great body of our citizens, that it ought not to be spoken of contemptuously or treated with ridicule. Religion of any form is a sacred matter.
It involves the relation of the individual to some Being believed to be infinitely supreme. It involves not merely character and life here, but destiny hereafter, and as such is not to be spoken of lightly or flippantly. And we who are citizens of this republic ‑‑ recognizing the identification of Christianity with its life, the general belief that Christianity is the best of all religions, that it passed into the lives of our father and is taken into the lives of our brethren as something of sacred power ‑‑ ought, even if not agreeing with all that is claimed for it, to at least accord to respect.
I once listened to a conversation which illustrates my thought. It was between two young men returning after the close of a summer's vacation to the college at which both were students. The principal talker was, as I discovered in the course of the afternoon, an only son. On his upper lip was the first dark shadow of a coming mustache. He possessed that peculiar wisdom which belongs in this world to only the college sophomore. He was expressing to his companion his views on the Bible and religion. [And] said he knew too much to believe in either; admitted that his mother believed in both and read her Bible every day; said that that might do for women and children, but not for any scientific knowledge.
You would have thought that Darwin and Huxle and Lord Kelvin had studied at his feet and that he was the Gamaliel of the present day. It is impossible to reproduce in language the self‑sufficient sneering tone in which he spoke of the Bible, classing it with nursery rhymes, the story of Jack and the Beanstalk and the like, and the complacement pity with which he referred to those who were foolish enough to regard it as a sacred book [41]. It is to be hoped that the budding sophomore lived long enough to learn that no gentleman speaks sneeringly of that which has been the life‑long faith and comfort of his mother.
AMERICAN FLAG
From the standpoint of citizenship the treatment of Christianity may be regarded as in some respects similar to that which is accorded and is due to the national flag. Who looks upon that as a mere piece of cloth costing but a trifle, something to be derided or trampled upon at will? A particular banner may not have cost much. It may be cheap to him who sees only the material and work which have passed into it, but to every patriot it is the symbol of patriotism. Its history is a record of glory. A century ago the Barbary pirates, who had defied the flags of Europe, saw it waving over Decatur's vessels and bowed in submission.
Commodore Perry sailed beneath it into the unknown harbors of Japan, opened that nation to the nineteenth century, and today her civilization and power command universal respect and admiration [How we have fallen as a nation and a people in just 85 years]. The oppressed Cuban appealed to it for deliverance, and in response thereto Manila and Santiago de Cuba introduced a new sister into the family of nations:
'Wherever man has dared to go,
His brightness on unbroken snow,
'Mid tropic heat or polar snow,
Where icy pillars tower to heaven
On sandy plain or lofty crag,
Pale sentinels to nature given,
Has waved our country's starry flag.
To watch the only spot she can
In that far North where ceaseless cold
Withhold from grasping hand of man,
Has built its alabaster hold,
There Kane unfurled this banner bright,
And where the sun disdains to show
Resplendent with auroral light.'
Today it waves at the masthead of American vessels in every water of the globe, and commands the world's respect [That was in 1905, when America still held to God's Laws, today the American flag is spat upon and despised in every nation in the world. Thanks to the antichrists in our midst]! An insult to it every citizen feels is an insult to himself, and all insist that it shall be accorded due respect. We remember how, in the early days of our great civil struggle, the loyal heart was stirred with the thrilling words of Secretary Dix, 'IF ANY MAN ATTEMPTS TO HAUL DOWN THE AMERICAN FLAG, SHOOT HIM ON THE SPOT.' We honor Stonewall Jackson, who, seeing Barbara Frietchie waving this banner from the window of her home in Frederick, and the threatening guns of his soldiers, called out:
'Who touches a hair of yon gray head
Dies like a dog. March on;' he said.'
We rejoice that now it floats in peace and triumph over all our fair land. We love to watch its fold swing out to the breeze on every patriotic day, to see it decorate the walls where gather our great conventions. We glory in every tribute that is paid to it in any part of the globe. It tells the story of conflicts, of defeats and victories. It has waved over many a field of battle, the blood of our noblest and best has been shed in its defense. It is eloquent of all the sufferings and trials of days gone by, of all the great achievements of the American people, and as we swing it to the breeze we do so with undoubting faith that it will wave over grander things in the future of this Republic.
|
|
Christianity has entered into and become part of the life of this Republic; it came with its beginnings and prompted them; has been identified with its toils and trials, shared in its victories, cheered in the hour of darkness and gloom, and stand today prophetic of untold blessings in the future. And shall it be said that it alone of all our benedictions has forfeited a claim to receive from every American citizen the tribute of respect? Respect for Christianity implies respectful treatment of its institutions and ordinances. This does not require that every one must conform his life to those institutions and ordinances. That is something which each one has a right to settle for himself. Take, for instance, the matter of church services. No one is in duty bound as a citizen to attend a particular church service, or indeed any church service. The freedom of conscience, the liberty of the individual, gives to every individual the right to attend or stay away. At the same time there is an obligation not to unnecessarily interfere with or disturb those services. This is something more than the duty which rests upon one attending those services to avoid the ungentlemanly and unseemly act of disturbing the exercises.
That is only a part of the common courtesy of all going into a gathering assembled for any lawful purpose. They who call the meeting and who are engaged in service of any legitimate character have a right to be free from annoyance and interference.
But beyond that the citizen who does not attend, does not even share in the belief of those who do, ought ever to bear in mind the noble part Christianity has taken in the history of the republic, the great share it has had in her wonderful development and its contribution to her present glory, and by reason thereof take pains to secure to those who do believe in it and do attend its services freedom from all disturbance of their peaceful gathering. The American Christian is entitled to his quiet hour.
THE LORD'S DAY
Take another illustration, ‑‑ Sunday. Its separation from the other days as a day of rest is enforced by the legislation of nearly all if not all the States of the Union. Beyond that it is to the Christian a sacred day. It does not follow that it is the duty of every individual to observe the Sabbath as Christians do. Indeed, there is no unanimity of view among the latter as to the manner in which it should be observed. We have gone far away from the Puritan Sabbath and the austere, severe observance of it which prevailed in the early days of [the] New England colonies, and which made the day a terror to children as well as burdensome to adults. I believe it is conceded that notwithstanding the fabled blue laws of New England, a man may without impropriety kiss his wife on Sunday and possibly if he have a chance some other sweet‑ faced woman. That old‑time terror has been superseded by gentler and kindlier modes of observance, which tend to make the day welcome to all, both young and old, one in which is not merely rest from the ordinary toils of the week, but one in which the companionship of friends the sweet influences of nature, and lessons from the higher forms of music and other arts are recognized as among its benedictions. While the latter modes, though very likely more helpful, more really Christian, are a great departure from the former, yet it still remains true that it is a day consecrated of old, a day separated by law and religion as well as by the custom of the church for ages, and ought not to be turned into a day of public frivolity and gayety. While it may be true that all are not under obligations to conform to the higher and better uses of the day, yet at least they owe that respect to Christianity to pursue their frivolities and gaieties in such a way as not to offend those who believe in its sacredness. I recognize the fact that it is not always easy t draw the line and that freedom implies not merely the freedom of those who would keep the day sacred, but also the freedom of those who do not so regard it.
Again it deserve the attention and study of every citizen. You are all patriots, you love your country, are proud of its past and mean to so live and act that you can help it to the best possible future. Now, as I have pointed out, Christianity was a principal cause of the settlements on these western shores. It has been identified with the growth and development of those settlements into the United States of America, has so largely shaped and molded it that today of all the nations in the world it is most justly called a Christian nation. In order to determine what we ought to do for the future of the republic we must review its history, inquire into the causes which have made its growth and influenced its life, ascertained which have been the most controlling and which have helped on the better side of its development, and why they have been so influential. I have shown that Christianity has been a great factor, and the student of our history will find that it has been a helpful and uplifting factor. Making full allowance for all the imperfections and mistakes which have attended it, as they attend all human institution, I am sure that the student will be convinced that its general influence upon our national life has been for the better.
It has always stood for purity of the home, and who doubts that our homes have been the centers of the holiest living. It is Judaism, Mormonism, Mohammedanism and heathenism and not Christianity which have proclaimed polygamy and debased woman from the sacred place of wife to the lower level of concubine. It is not Christianity which has sustained the social evil. All through our history, colonial and national, the hope and ambition of every young man and woman have been for a home of their own, into which one husband and one wife shall enter, 'that they twain shall be one flesh.' One of the sad features of city life today is the crowding into apartments, where the janitor is master of the house and the independence of the home life is only partially secured. The barracks around our great manufacturing establishments are freighted with equally sad significance. While admitting the temporary departure we rejoice that this has been pre‑eminently a land of homes, whether in the city, or village, or country. And the power which has ever stood in the land for the purity of home life has been a crown of glory to the republic.
It has stood for business honesty and integrity. Its proclamation has been the golden rule. Do unto others as you would they should do unto you, is a summons to honesty and fair dealing in all business as well as other relations in life. The Master never suggested that ability to keep outside the penitentiary was a sufficient test of honesty.
It has stood for liberty and the rights of man. In the great revolutionary struggle the trusted counselors of the people were the preachers. While they may not be known in history as the leaders, were not the lawyers to draft the statutes and the constitution, nor the military heroes to command the armies, yet the local centers of influence were the Christian churches, and the Christian preachers were the men who kept the mass of the people loyal to the leadership of Washington and his associates. And in the later struggle for human liberty Christianity was always on the advance line. Those of us who remember the ante‑Bellum days recalled the bitter flings that were made against preachers in politics. That was significant of the recognized truth that they were leading the great mass of the loyal people on in that most wonderful civil war of all the ages. That struggle, as every one knows commenced on the plains of Kansas, and the New England emigrant crossed those plains, singing the song of Whittier:
'We go to plant our common schools
Upbearing like the ark of old,
On distant prairie swells,
The Bible in our van,
And give the Sabbaths of the wild
We go to test the truth of God
The music of her bells.
Against the fraud of man.'
And all during the terrible days of the great war, from every Union camp and company rolled up the majestic music of the battle hymn of the republic:
'In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.'
EDUCATION
It has stood for education. I have already called your attention to this matter in proof of the Christian character of the nation. It may be added that outside of the institutions with direct State support nearly every academy, college and university was founded by and is under the control of some one of the several Christian denominations. Indeed, a frequent criticism of many is that they are too much under such control. Certain is it that they would never have come into being but for the denominations back of them. Up to a recent date the rule was that the presidents and an exceedingly large majority of the faculty of all these institutions be ministers.
It was a national surprise when first a layman was elected a college president. In the common schools the Bible has been as much a text‑book as the New England primer. It is only within very late years that any objection has been raised to its daily use, and that objection has sprung as much from differences between the Catholic and Protestant denominations concerning the version to be used as from opposition to the book itself. It has stood for the great charities and benevolences of the land. What single organization has done more for the orphan than the Christian Church? What one through hospital and asylum, more for the sick and afflicted? If you were to select a single face and form as the typical expression of the great thought of charity and kindness, whose would you select other than the face and form of a sister of Charity? In times when epidemics rage, when death seems to haunt every city home, who are the devoted ones to risk their lives in caring for the sick and paying the last offices to the dead?
Surely as the vision of this rises in your mind you see the presence and form of those whose faith is in the Man of Galilee.
It has stood for peace. I need not content myself by referring to that Christian denomination, one of whose distinguishing tenets is unqualified opposition to all wars. I can with safety point to the great body of those who in days gone by have been the champions of the cause of peace; to the memorials which have been presented to the two Houses of Congress in favor of arbitration; to those who are at the head of the various peace societies, and who are always found upon the platforms at their gatherings, and whose voices are most constant and potent in its behalf. Indeed, strike from the history of this country all that the Christian Church has done in the interest and to further the cause of peace and there is not as much life left as was found in the barren fig tree.
It has stood for temperance. Not that it has stood alone, but it has been a leader. The foremost advocates of the cause have been pronounced Christians. Frances Willard was president of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, not of the Woman's Mohammedan Temperance Union, and the White Ribboners are not disciples of Confucius or Buddha. The churches have been the palaces of the great gatherings of the friends of temperance. Indeed, when you survey the efforts made to further that cause you will find that running through them all Christianity has been distinctively present.
In short, it has sought to write into the history of this nation the glowing words of the apostle: 'Love, joy, peace, long‑suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law.'
It has stood for all these things because they represent its thought and purpose. So he who studies the history of the country, finding this to be the lesson of its influence upon our history, can but be led to the conclusion not merely that it has been a potent factor in the life of the nation, but also that it has been a healthful and helpful factor. When one who loves his country realizes this fact, does there not open before him a clear vision of his duty to further its influence. If in the past it has done so much and so well for the country is there any reason to doubt that strengthened and extended it will continue the same healthful and helpful influence? It has been often said that Christian Nations are either civilized nations, and as often that the most thoroughly Christian are the most highly civilized. Is this a mere coincidence? Study well the history of Christianity in its relation to the nation and it will be found that it is something more than a mere coincidence, that there is between the two relation of cause and effect, and that the more thoroughly the principles of Christianity reach into and influence the life of the nation the more certainly will that nation advance in civilization.
It is the duty of every patriot, finding that it has been such a factor in our life, to inquire whether it does stand to its civilization in the relation of cause and effect, and it would be in the highest degree unphilosophical to assume that there has been only a coincidence, and therefore that its presence in the nation is a matter of indifference. If found that it has been both a potent and helpful factor in the development of our civilization, then it is a patriot's duty to uphold it and extend its influence. This is in line with the general obligation which rests upon all to help everything which tends to the bettering of the life of the republic..."
The Christian concept derived directly from the Hebrew Holy Writ was the next ingredient added to the monotheistic governing process and this is where the Theocratic Constitutional Republic form of limited government of the people, by the people, and for the people originated from., Creating the United States of America.
The original charters, compacts, contracts, and constitutions, all had their origin in the Bible. All the laws, rules, and regulations concerning civil, religious, and hygiene were taken from the Bible and patterned after the Christian Faith. All of the Common Law of the United States of America came directly out of the Old Testament books of the Holy Bible, namely, the original source of our Common Law was the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Christian system of government as established in the United States of America had its origin predominantly as follows:
MAGNA CHARTA OF 1215 A.D.
John, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters...and his faithful subjects, greeting. Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our Realm...have, in the first place, granted to God, and by this our present Charter confirmed, for us and our heirs for ever:
"That the Church of England shall be free, and have her whole rights, and her liberties...We also have granted to all the freemen of our kingdom for us and our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties to be hand and holden by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever...No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by the general council of our kingdom; except for ransoming our person, making our eldest son a knight, and once for marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall be paid no more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be concerning the aids of the City of London.
And the City of London shall have its ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water: furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities and boroughs, and towns and ports, shall have all their liberties and free customs.
And for holding the general council of the kingdom concerning the assessment of aids, except in the three cases aforesaid, and for the assessing of scutages we shall cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons of the realm, singly by our letters. And furthermore, we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold us in chief, for a certain day. That is to say, forty days before their meeting at least, and to a certain place; and in all letters of such summons we will declare the cause of such summons. And summons being thus made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the advice of such as shall be present, although all that were summoned came not...
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but only according to the degree of the offence; and for a great crime according to the heinousness of it, saving to him his contentment; and after the same manner a merchant, saving to him his merchandise. And a villain shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him his wainage, if he falls under our mercy; and none of the aforesaid americaments shall be assessed but by the oath of honest men in the neighborhood.
Earls and barons shall not be amerced but by their peers, after the degree of the offence...
No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other chattels of any man unless he presently give him money for it, or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller.
No constable shall distrain any knight to give money for castle-guard, if he himself will do it in his person, or by another able man, in case he cannot do it through any reasonable cause...No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, without the assent of the said freeman.
Neither shall we nor our bailiffs take any man's timber for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of the owner of the timber...
If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt falls into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
And if any one die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
Nothing from henceforth shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limb, but it shall be grated freely, and not denied...No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, nor will we send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man, either justice or right...
If any one has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without the lawful judgment of his peers, of his lands, castles, liberties, or right, we will forthwith restore them to him; and if any dispute arise upon his head, let the matter be decided by the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned, for the preservation of the peace...All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all americaments imposed unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, shall be entirely given up, or else be left to the decision of the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned for the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of the, together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and others whom we shall think fit to invite...All the aforesaid customes and liberties, which we have grated to be holden in our kingdom, as much as it belongs to us, all people in our kingdom, as well clergy as laity, shall observe, as far as they are concerned, towards their dependents.
And whereas, for the honor of God and the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better quieting the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these things aforesaid; willing to render them firm and lasting, we do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security, namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom whom they think convenient, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted them, and by this our present Charter confirmed in this manner...Given under our hand, in the presence of the witnesses above named, and many others, in the meadow called Riningmede, between Windsor and Staines, the 15th day of June, in the 17th year of our reign.
In the New England area, artifacts such as grave headstones have been found, all with Ogam script in Gaelic script. To this date no one has found the remains of the bodies because of the acid soil which destroys all remains within 100 years or less. Additionally, our early American settlers removed the headstones from the burial sites and placed them in hedgerows along the sides of the fields and so the headstones are not now located near the actual graves.
The Celts with the Gaelic dialect came from the highlands of Scotland. According to the Scottish Declaration of Independence written by Robert Bruce and his noblemen, the Scotland people came from ancient Israel through the Rhineland area of France and Germany and then through Iberia or Spain."
THE SCOTTISH DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
"To the Most Holy Father in Christ and Lord, the Lord John, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman and Universal Church, his humble and devout sons Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Macolm, Earl of Lennos, William Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Stewart of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, Guardian of the Earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St. Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernathy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet.
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. THEY JOURNEYED FROM GREATER SCYTHIA BY WAY OF THE TYRRHENIAN SEA AND THE PILLARS OF HERCULES, AND DWELT FOR A LONG COURSE OF TIME IN SPAIN AMONG THE MOST SAVAGE TRIBES, BUT NOWHERE COULD THEY BE SUBDUED BY ANY RACE, HOWEVER BARBAROUS. THENCE THEY CAME, TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL CROSSED THE RED SEA, TO THEIR HOME IN THE WEST WHERE THEY STILL LIVE TODAY. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.
THE HIGH QUALITIES AND DESERTS OF THESE PEOPLE, WERE THEY NOT OTHERWISE MANIFEST, GAIN GLORY ENOUGH FROM THIS: THAT THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AFTER HIS PASSION AND RESURRECTION, CALLED THEM, EVEN THOUGH SETTLED IN THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE EARTH, ALMOST THE FIRST TO HIS MOST HOLY FAITH.
Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles by calling ‑ through second or third in rank ‑ the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter's brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron for ever.
The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favors and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harbored no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.
But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Maccabaeus or Joshua, and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to our laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom ‑ for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. Therefore it is, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beseech your Holiness with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Him Whose vice‑regent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman, you will look with the eyes of a father on the troubles and privations brought by the English upon us and upon the Church of God.
May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling‑place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves.
This truly concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the savagery of the heathen raging the Christians, as the sins of Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day; and how much it will tarnish your holiness's memory if (which god forbid) the Church suffers eclipse or scandal in any branch of it during your time, you must perceive. Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to the help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbors. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbors they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace. He from Whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as the Vicar of Christ and to all Christendom. But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favoring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the most High to your charge. To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge, we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought. May the Most High preserve you to His Holy Church in holiness and health and grant you length of days. Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid."
THE PETITION OF RIGHT OF 1628
"On June 5, 1628, the House of Commons presented the most extraordinary spectacle, perhaps in all of history. The famous Petition of Right had been passed by both Houses, and the royal answer had just been received. Its tone was that of gracious assent, but it omitted the necessary legal formalities, and the Commons well knew what that meant. They were to be tricked with sweet words, and the petition was not to acquire the force of a statute. How was it possible to deal with such a slippery creature? There was but one way of saving the dignity of the throne without sacrificing the liberty of the people, and that was to hold the king's ministers responsible to Parliament, in anticipation of modern methods. It was accordingly proposed to impeach the Duke of Buckingham before the House of Lords. The Speaker now 'brought an imperious message from the king...warning them that he would not tolerate any aspersion upon his ministers.' Nothing daunted by this, Sir John Eliot arose to lead the debate, when the Speaker called him to order in view of the king's message. 'Amid a deadly stillness' Eliot sat down and burst into tears. For a moment the House was overcome with despair.
Deprived of all constitutional methods of redress, they suddenly saw yawning before them the direful alternative - slavery or civil war. Since the day of Bosworth a hundred and fifty years had passed without fighting worthy of mention on English soil, such an era of peace as had hardly ever before been seen on the earth; now half the Nation was to be pitied against the other half, families were to be divided against themselves, as in the dreadful days of the Roses, and with what consequences no one could foresee. 'Let us sit in silence,' quoth Sir Dudley Digges, 'we are miserable, we know not what to do!' Nay, cried Sir Nathaniel Rich, 'we must now speak, or forever hold our peace.' Then did grim Mr. Prynne and Sir Edward Coke mingle their words with sobs, while there were few dry eyes in the House. Presently they found their voices, and used them in a way that rung from the startled king his formal assent to the Petition of Right. [42]
Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King Edward the First, commonly called Statutum de tallagio non concedendo, that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the King of his heirs in this realm, without the good will and assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knight, Burgesses, and other freemen of the commonalty of this realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the King against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a Benevolence, nor by such like charge: by which, the statutes before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in Parliament ...'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
And in the eight and twentieth year of the reign or King Edward the Third, it was declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man or what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by due process of law...And whereas of large great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers countries of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people.
And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that no man shall be forejudged or life or limb against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the land; and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death, but by the laws established in this your realm, either by the customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament...They do therefore humbly pray your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without common consent by Act of Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come; and that the aforesaid commissions for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom."
BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1689
"Whereas the lords spiritual and temporal and commons assembled at Westminster lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight, present unto Their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said lords and commons in the words following: 'Whereas the late king James the Second by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power.
By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court, called the court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes. By levying money for and to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by parliament.
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of parliament, and quartering of soldiers contrary to law. By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in parliament.
By prosecutions in the court of King's bench for matters and causes cognizable only in parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses. And whereas of late years partial, corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders.
And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
And excessive fines have been imposed.
And illegal and cruel punishments have been inflicted.
And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm...
And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal.
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegal.
That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegal and pernicious.
That the levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative without grant of parliament for a longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal.
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace unless it be with consent of parliament is against law.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
That excessive bail ought not to be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. And that for redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws parliaments ought to be held frequently. And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example."
Sir William Blackstone (1723‑1780), the famous English authority on jurisprudence, gives the following definition of Divine Law as it applies to human or man‑ made laws:
"Disobedience to any one of the Divine Commandments throws the whole structure of national life out of harmony with universal law."
He also said:
"On account of the blindness and imperfection of human reasoning, God has given a Divine and direct revelation of His natural laws...to be found in the Scriptures THESE LAWS ARE SUPERIOR IN OBLIGATION and NO HUMAN LAWS HAVE ANY VALIDITY IF CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAWS."
One thing students of history seem to overlook is that American Law is the product of American origin, which in turn was based upon the Laws of God as handed down in the Holy Scriptures. Some American common law was, without a doubt, adapted from the common law of England, but most of the common law was developed in the United States where the custom of the Anglo‑ Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples through their customs handed down through the centuries, established by their citizen juries which adhering to the Christian Bible for their guide, for both Federal and State Governments.
"The distinguished commentator on the laws of England informs us, that upon the foundations of the law of nature and the law of revelation, all human law depends, 1 Blackstone Commentaries 42. The municipal law looks to something more than merely the protection of lives, the liberty, and the property of our people. Regarding Christianity as part of the law of the land, it respects and protects its institutions; and assumes likewise to regulate the public morals and decency of the community." [43]
America, in the very beginning, as we have previously shown, established its national character under the various formation documents, as listed before, upon Christian principles and became known as a CHRISTIAN NATION!
"It is conceded that this inhibition apples exclusively to the state. But that term presents a complex idea. A state is a sort of trinity; it exists, acts, and speaks in three capacities: legislative, executive, and judicial. What is forbidden to it in each and all. It may not infringe this article by legislation, but it may equally do so by its courts or its executive authorities." [44]
And the court system of the United States were obliged to follow the Christian doctrine in all of its courts' decisions.
"No position can be more clear than that all the federal judges are bound by the solemn obligation of religion to regulate their decisions agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and that it is the standard of their determination in all cases that come before them." [45]
The Constitution of the United States of America followed, almost exactly, the republican form of government handed down from the mount to Moses at Mt. Siani when God took Israel for his wife. Hence the name "Israel" which means ruling with God.
"The Constitution emanated from the people, and was not the act of sovereign and independent states. The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.'
This mode of the proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people [46]. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established' in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessing of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people [Just as Moses did in Exodus 19]. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmation of, and could not be negatived by, the state governments [a shadow of which the elders of Israel represented]. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties." [47]
One other point we would like to make is that the states, when they joined the union, they were no longer considered separate nations in their own right. Some of their power was, by the mandate of the people, transferred to the Federal Government in order that a single government could come into being.
"The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'
There can be no doubt that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and supreme authority.
As little doubt can there be that the people had a right to prohibit to the states the exercise of any powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact; to make the powers of the state governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might not choose to delegate to either. The Constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions, for the powers of the states depend on their own constitutions; and the people of every state had the right to modify and restrain them, according to their own views of policy or principle. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the state governments, by their respective constitutions, remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to the government of the United States." [48]
"Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution by which it was their will that the state governments should be bound, and to which the state constitutions should be made to conform. Every state constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner." [49]
CHRISTIAN HOLIDAYS
Christianity can be seen in the holidays the American people celebrate.
PALM SUNDAY: It is observed the Sunday before Easter to commemorate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD: Commonly known as the First Day of Passover which commemorates the deliverance of our Israel People [The Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred people] from Egyptian bondage.
PASSOVER: One of the most sacred events to be observed by the ancient Israelites and today's Christians.
GOOD FRIDAY: It is observed as the day of Crucifixion [Which actually was on Wednesday] of the Lord Jesus Christ.
EASTER SUNDAY: It is observed in all Christian Churches and is celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon which occurs on or next after March 2 and is therefore celebrated between March 22 and April 25 inclusive.
ASCENSION DAY: Observed on May 15, as the day Jesus Ascended into heaven in the presence of His Apostles 40 days after the Resurrection of Christ.
PENTECOST: This day is celebrated as the day the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles 50 days after the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
THANKSGIVING: Observed nationally on the fourth Thursday in November by Act of Congress. Most Americans believe that the holiday dates back to the day of thanks ordered by Governor Bradford of Plymouth Colony in New England in 1621, but scholars point out that the day of thanks stem from ancient Israel and is the day of First Fruits.
CHRISTMAS: Observed as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
"Separation of church and state" is a non‑constitutional battle‑cry in the war against Christianity. It is used to frighten Godly Americans out of the polls, out of government, and back to the pews. The cry of "Separation of church and state" is a blatant distortion of the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.
Are the wicked afraid Christianity and government are somehow going to unite in the future? NO! They are fearful that the American People will become aware, Christianity and government are ALREADY united here in America. And it is THAT CONNECTION between Christianity and government that must be destroyed if the enemies of Christ, Christianity and America are to take absolute control over America and its Israel People [And I don't mean the Jews: WHOM CHRIST CALLED HIS ENEMIES]!
To sever the connection between Christianity and government, they have to separate us from the knowledge of our Christian history and heritage. They must keep us ignorant of the truth that the American Government was Christian from its very beginning. Most patriots realize the Communist left‑wing and the Jewish anti‑Christs wish to destroy Christianity. Marx, Lenin, Stalin and all the other Communist leaders have made that very plain in a thousand different ways.
Well, if it is Christianity they are against, then why don't they just try to change our religion? The answer is obvious; they do, but they also realize the Christian religion could not be destroy until the American Government can be stopped from upholding and protecting it. It is not an accident that an Alexander the Great or a Napoleon has never gone forth from our shores in wars of aggression to fasten the chains of military despotism upon the people of other lands. Because the Constitution protects the liberties of our own people against all ambitious rulers; and no dictator can terrorize other peoples until he had first tyrannized over his own people.
All wars against the liberty of others are fought by men who have lost their own liberty. That is a law of nature, a law of compensation. And in providing that our own people should forever be free, the Constitution went a long way toward insuring the freedom of other peoples from the encroachment at the hands of American Presidents. Liberty comes from God and was incorporated into the Constitution in affirmation of Leviticus 25:10:
"...and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof..."
The Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution a philosophy of peace and international relations which few American people have come to understand because of the rewriting of the history books. They were, in truth, at least 500 years ahead of their time. They enunciated the great American principle, which we are just beginning to appreciate, that we should defend our nation against invasion by not engaging in wars of aggression abroad.
MILITARY
The constitution of ancient Israel did not provide for a standing army, but it was to have a militia as well as a national guard. [50] No aggressive wars were to be allowed. [51] They could not be involved in an aggressive war in a foreign country, because, all the men were to go the capital three times each year. They provided in the Constitution that the liberties of Americans should never be sacrificed on the altar of any cause except that of preserving American liberty. They further provided that no single American citizen should be sacrificed to promote the militaristic ambitions of an administration bent on conquest abroad:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
In the Milligan case, the Supreme Court held that all the Constitutional "securities for personal liberty" are equally safeguarded against seizure or sacrifice in the furtherance of militaristic ends. The Constitution wisely does not forbid Congress from declaring war against foreign nations or sending our soldiers abroad in defense of the United States. No government can enjoy the respect of nations without this right. But it does forbid the scrapping of our liberties in the advancement of any war aiming at aggression. And the Constitution defines wars of aggression in a way which all can understand.
The framers of the Constitution were well acquainted with the device of dictators whereby they embroil their people in an offensive war, and then call it a "defensive" war and use it as an excuse to sweep away the people's liberties. Hence, they provided in the Constitution that only actual invasion can warrant the abridgment of our liberties; the placing of our people under martial law.
In the Milligan case the Court said:
"Martial rule cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration."
The Court went further and said that martial rule could only apply to the "theater of active military operations, where war really prevails." Hence, during the Civil War, the Court held that martial law could not be established in Indiana, merely because there was insurrection in neighboring states:
"It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course."
It is a political reality, that no government ever did injustice abroad before it first did injustice at home. Christ taught that peace and justice among nations could only come through the salvation of individual souls, the regeneration of individual heart. The Constitution of the United States recognizes His Divine Principle that peace cannot prevail throughout the world unless it first prevails in the individual heart and will of man: it recognizes that a government cannot be free unless its citizens are free; that the liberty of peoples is based upon the liberty of individuals; that the destruction of the liberty of peoples issues from the destruction of the liberty of individuals. To safeguard those rights and liberties "which grow out of the essential nature of all free government," to prohibit assaults upon liberty sanctioned by even a majority, the Constitution made the cause of peace and liberty paramount to the ambitions of any class, however numerous, as well as of any individual, within the nation.
Most of the republics of the world have fallen, most of the dictators of the world have risen to power, because clever demagogues have been able to delude and mislead a nominal majority into standing still while the shackles of slavery were riveted upon them and they were marched off to war to fasten shackles upon other peoples.
The Constitution guarded against this: it made human life and liberty sacred, inviolate; it placed life and liberty upon twin pedestals, beyond the power of any governing group to touch or tamper with. In so doing it showed the way to peace; it built a wall against militarism, exemplifying the way to end that mass destruction of life and liberty known as war. The original plan to destroy the Christian religion has been going on for almost 2000 years but it really went into high gear in the twenties when anti‑Christ "sophisticated," subversive professors in our schools of higher learning began teaching, in earnest: "The Bible deserves no reverence; the Ten Commandments no obedience except in so far as they conform to 'modern science.'" In conjunction with this they also taught:
"The Constitution deserves no respect, and no obedience, except in so far as it conforms to modern theories of, and experiments in, government."
The present day assault on the Constitution is the natural and inevitable upshot of the concerted attack on the Bible and the Ten commandments launched so many years ago. Those who think we have outgrown the teachings of the Bible would not be consistent without holding that we have also outgrown a Constitution founded upon them.
Our Founding Fathers believed that in the teachings of Jesus they found the Absolute and Eternal Moral Principles upon which all good government must be based. The Constitution recognizes the validity of the Declaration of Independence. And the Declaration of Independence recognized the supreme validity of Christ's teachings when it declared that "all men are created equal." Which was recognition of the supreme validity of Christ's teachings of the Fatherhood of God when it declared that all men are equally "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Christ taught that the Will of His Father in heaven was a Higher Law than that made by man; than that ordained by the majority; and that if the law of man transgressed this Higher Law of God, the law of man MUST be set aside and disregarded. Christ denied the so‑called "modern" theory that "the majority has a right to do anything it wishes to." He upheld the doctrine, which was enshrined in the Constitution, that the individual has "inalienable rights" which no majority has a right to take from him.
The United States is the only nation on earth which has a Constitution which protects every individual against offense committed by men wielding the strong arm of government. The mere fact that the government itself has embarked upon a great experiment to insure "the greatest good to the greatest number," but that does not excuse an offense done to one single individual; does not justify invasion of the rights of that individual. Under the "Original" American Constitution, Christ's teachings were upheld and every home and person and every child were safe and sacred. Even Congress itself was powerless to commit an offense against them, because the Constitution protected each individual form taking his "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution recognized that the "laws of nature and of nature's God" entitled men to those certain inalienable rights and the Constitution provided that when man‑made laws crossed the "laws of nature and of nature's God" in such way as to deprive an individual of his God‑given rights, then those man‑made laws MUST be set aside; declared invalid. The Supreme Court was established as an instrument to enforce that principle under which the Court was to function as protection against the will of the majority should Congress attempt to abolish entirely, the individual rights guaranteed by the "laws of nature."
Chrysostom said, "The laws of nature are the will of God." Christ said that we should be obedient first to the Will of God; that His Laws were superior to all others. Which principle was upheld by the "Original" Constitution of the United States. Much is being said on television today, about our Constitution, much of which is false. Just one of the many false ideas being presented to Americans and to our children I will endeavor to explain so that you may understand the true greatness of our Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson observed we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I contend that there is not one in ten‑thousands of Americans who has the faintest idea what Jefferson was saying!
THE SABBATH
For many years most States had laws called Blue Laws. Which forbade most from doing business on Sundays, but few Americans ever really knew why.
The answer is found in part:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." [52]; "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." [53]
THE WEEKLY SABBATH
When the Israelites of old were in Egyptian bondage, God Almighty told the prophet Moses to have the Israelites kill their passover lambs at a specific time on a particular day. Besides the witness of Moses, what other Biblical character could provide an absolutely factual testimony as to that exact day and hour?
Now consider this: A very special guest is coming to your home for dinner. You have decided to serve a whole roasted lamb. To be assured that the lamb will be fresh, you have decided not to have it killed until the last minute. At what time should you have the lamb killed so that you can serve your special dinner guest the roast lamb at 6 p.m.? The answers to these questions are found in the Holy Writ and are critical elements in determining which day of the week is the Sabbath and at what time of day the Sabbath begins.
Part One: From When to When?
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [54]
The purpose of Part I of this study is to establish solely from the Holy Bible - which we believe to be the inspired Word of God - the time of day for the beginning and ending of each weekly Sabbath.
Part II will deal with which day of the week is the Sabbath.
Part III will answer some potential objections to these conclusions. The Holy Bible gives us many examples and warnings that we are to follow and apply in our lives today.
In Matthew 15:9 - Christ told us: "...in vain do they worship me, teachings for doctrines the commandments of men."
In Matthew 15:1-9 - Christ calls the Pharisees hypocrites. In verse 6 he tells them that they have, "...made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition." {which are the traditions of men}.
In Titus 1:10-16 - The Apostle Paul tells that there are: "...deceivers, specially of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped..."
Paul went on to tell us in verse 14 not to listen to or follow: "...Jewish fables, and COMMANDMENTS OF MEN, that turn from the truth..."
Those same teachings of "Phariseeism" which Christ and Paul warned us about are being taught today by the "deceivers of the circumcision" who worship in "synagogues" and teach the "traditions of men" and call those traditions "the commandments of God." Make no mistake about it those deceivers are spreading their "Jewish fables" and are "turning from the truth" millions of people in regards to the true Sabbath of Scripture and are causing people to follow their "Jewish traditions," thereby profaning God's true and holy Sabbath. In this study we will learn from the Scripture when God's true weekly Sabbath begins and ends.
DEFINITIONS
To start this portion of the study, we must first define the meanings of words and of the idioms and expressions used by the people in Bible times, not in todays language. We must also learn of the warnings of the Scripture which applied to the people in those days as well as to now, so that we will be able to properly understand what we are being told in the Bible.
DAY: First let us establish what is meant by the word "day." There are two primary periods of time that are called "day." There is the 24 hour period of time that it takes for the earth to make one complete rotation of the sun. "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." [55] Notice that the evening comes first, and morning came second. This is consistent throughout all the Genesis One accounts.
Secondly, there is that period of time when the sun lights any given face of the earth, which we call daytime. "Jesus answered, are there not twelve hours in a day?" [56]
"...as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." [57]
In these passages, Christ is clarifying the fact that there are two separate and distinct periods of a 24 hour day; light, which is called "day" and "darkness," which is called "night."
EVENING AND MORNING: There are two other periods of time in a 24 hour day whose duration never changes; they always remain a 12 hour period. These 12 hour periods are called "evening" and "morning." The Bible tells us: "The evening and the morning were the fifth day." [58] "Evening" is the 12 hour period that starts when the sun is at its highest point, which is called the "apex" or "meridian." Colloquially, people often say "high noon" or "12 o'clock noon." Immediately after that point, the sun starts its decline or descent (which in the Scripture is called "the going down of the sun") and ends 12 hours later at the time that we call "midnight."
"Morning" is the corresponding 12 hour period that starts at 12 o'clock midnight and ends at 12 o'clock noon; i.e., when the sun again reaches its meridian.
Therefore the 12 hour period that is called "evening" is referred to as "p.m." which means "post meridiem" (afternoon) and the 12 hour period that is called "morning" is referred to as "a.m." which means "ante meridiem" (before noon).
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the following:
"even" (as a noun): "1). The decline of the sun..."; "decline" (verb intransitive): "To lean downward; to bring down; 2). To bend to one side; to move from a fixed point or right line."
Here we see Webster defining "even" as "the decline of the sun:" the time when it moves from a fixed point directly perpendicular to the earth, which is called a "right line" or "right angle" and "bends down" toward the earth.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines: "even" (the adverb): 2). "noting equality or sameness of time..."
Here we see an "equal" period of time before and after "even." When the sun is at its apex, which is at 12:00 o'clock noon, the daylight portion of a day is divided into two "even" parts. The time from sunrise to noon is equal to the time from noon to sunset. We hear the following expressions almost daily:
"At 2 o'clock this morning, I heard a strange noise outside, so I got out of bed to see what it was."
"Wake me at 3:30 in the morning so we can get an early start on our trip."
"The next time my son stays out until 1:00 in the morning, he will be punished severely."
"Will you meet me at 11 o'clock this morning for an early lunch?"
"Please wake me at 6:30 this morning so I won't be late for work."
"Will you pick me up at 5 o'clock this evening (or this afternoon)?"
"Dinner will be served at 7:30 this evening; don't be late."
Today, in the Deep South of the United States many people still say: "Have a good evening" any time they greet someone after 12 noon. To properly understand the Bible, it is vitally important that we recognize that the periods of time that are called "day," "night," "evening," and "morning" are four separate and distinct periods of time, and that they refer to four separate portion of the 24 hour day.
To properly understand the Bible, it is even more important that we understand and realize that the 24 hour period that we call a "day" starts at 12 o'clock noon, and that the daylight portion that is called "day," (as opposed to "night") starts at sunrise. You will find there is a DAY portion of EVENING and a NIGHT portion of EVENING; also that there is a NIGHT portion of MORNING and a DAY portion of MORNING which are separate and distinct portions of the 24 hour day. Notice in that "Day" (which is referring to the daylight portion) is divided into two equal or even parts (high noon) and this division is often referred to in the Bible as "even." We see this in the following verses:
"...David said unto Jonathan...let me go that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day AT EVEN...It came to pass IN THE MORNING, that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David..." [59]; "...the children of Israel...kept the passover...AT EVEN..." [even: #6153] [60]; "...Israel shall kill [the passover] IN THE EVENING." [evening: #6153]. [61]; "...there thou salt sacrifice the passover AT EVEN, at the going down of the sun..." [62]
Equinox: Day and night are of equal length. March 21st & September 23rd - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. John 11:9 - Christ said:
"Are there not twelve hours in the day?"
Matthew 12:40 - Christ said:
"For as Jonahs was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the son of man be three days and nights in the heart of the earth."
We see by the Scriptural verses that Jesus Christ recognized that there is night and that there is day, and also that there are twelve hours in the day. If there are 24 hours from sun to sun and if there are, as Christ said,
"...twelve hours in the day" then we know that there are also twelve hours in the night. Technically, this only applies to two days out of the year: spring and fall 'equinox,' when day and night are of equal duration. We all know that in the summer the daylight portion is much longer than the dark portion of the day and that the reverse is the case in the winter."
We see also in John 11:9 and Matthew 12:40 that Christ was saying that He was going to spend three days of 12 hours each for a subtotal of 36 daylight hours in the grave and three nights of 12 hours each for an additional 36 hours, not Friday night to Sunday morning as most preachers teach from their pulpits.
"...in the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him." [63]; "...David said unto Jonathan...Let me go that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even." [64]; "Wherefore now rise up early in the morning with thy master's servants that are come with thee; and as soon as ye be up early in the morning, and have light, depart." [65]; "...the priests...killed the passover...and they roasted the passover with fire according to the ordinance...and divided them speedily among all the people...the priests... were busied in offering of burnt offerings and the fat until night...so all the service of the Lord was prepared the same day..." [66]; "...in the morning, rising up a great while before day, [Jesus] went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed." [67]; "...as soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away..." [68]; "...when the morning is light, they practice [iniquity]..." [69]; "...they abused her all night until the morning: and when the day began to spring [#5927; to ascend], they let her go." [70]
Even and Evening: The reason that there is so much confusion about the words "even" and "evening" as they are translated in the Bible is because there are over 40 different Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek words which are all translated as "even" or "evening," {six of which refer to a time of day} and some of these words are translated as both "even" and "evening" which further adds to the confusion. Therefore, we must look at the words "even" and "evening" EACH AND EVERY TIME IT IS USED and then check the original word to see what is meant and HOW IT APPLIES IN THE CONTEXT of that particular Scriptural passage.
Days: God gave us the lights of the heavens; the sun, moon and stars to help us to determine seasons, DAYS and years. We are told in Genesis 1:14-19 that:
"...God said let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for SEASONS, and for days, and years...and it was so..."
In Psalms 104:19 we learn that God "...appointed the moon for seasons..." Astronomers determine YEARS by the position of the stars; SEASONS by the moon; and DAYS by the sun.
God gave us the sun to tell us when our 24 hour day is to begin. Astronomers around the world use the sun, when it is at its "meridian," which is what we call "high noon," to set the clocks of the world. Why do they always use high noon? Because high noon never changes. No matter where you are on the face of the earth, on any and every day of the year, the sun always reaches its "apex" or "meridian" at 12 o'clock noon. Everyone can tell when it is noon by observing the sun, and thereby knowing that a new 24 hour day has begun.
Even: The going down of the sun: In figure #4 you will see that at sunrise the sun is in its ascent or is climbing. It continues to climb until it reaches high noon, at which time it starts its descent or starts going down. This descent is often referred to in Scripture as "even, the going down of the sun." Examples are:
"...there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at EVEN, AT THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN." [71]; "...[King Ahab] died at EVEN...and there went out a proclamation...about THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN..." [72]; "...the king of Israel stayed...up in his chariot...until EVEN; and about the time of the SUN GOING DOWN he died." [73]
The sun starts going down at about 12:01, just after noon. More examples are as follows:
"And when the sun WAS GOING DOWN, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him." [74]; "...there thou shalt sacrifice the passover AT EVEN [Strong's 6153], at the GOING DOWN OF THE SUN...and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents." [75]; "...it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark [i.e., shaded] before [i.e., at the front of] the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath..." [76]; "And it came to pass at the time of THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN...they took off of the trees... And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king...he...destroyed..."
We have often been misled into thinking that the "going down of the sun" ALWAYS means "sunset," because some Hebrew and Chaldee words that DO mean "sunset" have been translated "going down of the sun." But in all the above cited cases it is a different Hebrew word, and it means "noon." In the Hebrew lexicon of Strong's Concordance under word #6153, "evening," we find:
"The Pharisees...and the Rabinists considered the time WHEN THE SUN BEGAN TO DESCEND to be called first EVENING...and the second evening to be the real sunset..."
From this we can clearly see that the word "evening" can and is used to indicate both high noon and also sunset.
Definition Conclusions: We now come to the point where we can capsulize our definitions.
DAY: A 24 hour period of time; also, sunrise to sunset.
1). A 24 hour period of time starting at 12 o'clock noon and ending at 12 o'clock noon the following day.
2). The daylight portion of a 24 hour period of time starting at sunrise and ending at sunset.
NIGHT: Sunset to sunrise. The dark portion of a 24 hour period of time starting at sunset and ending at sunrise.
EVENING: 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight. The ever constant 12 hour period of time that starts at 12 o'clock noon (the beginning of the Biblical day) and ends at 12 o'clock midnight.
MORNING: 12:00 midnight to 12:00 noon. The ever constant 12 hour period of time that starts at 12 o'clock midnight and ends at 12 o'clock noon (the end of the Biblical day).
EVEN: 12:00 noon. The point in time of a 24 hour day when the daylight portion of that day is divided into two equal or even parts: thus the term "even." This equal division always occurs at 12:00 noon at any place throughout the world.
THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN: At even; 12 o'clock noon. The point in time when the sun reaches its apex, its highest point; immediately after which it then starts its decline or when it starts going down.
Warnings for Christians against the Doctrine of men and Jewish Fables: It is a good thing that Christ, Paul and the other apostles warned us about wolves in sheep's clothing and FALSE TEACHERS that would come into our midst and even spring up from our own church bodies to lead people away from the truth. There is a group of people today who follow the doctrine of teachings of men; people who practice the teachings of ancient Phariseeism, the Phariseeism that Christ accused the Scribes and Pharisees of his day of practicing:
"...[Jesus] answered and said unto [the Scribes and Pharisees], why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?...Ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition...in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." [77]
This modern day PHARISEEISM is called "talmudism" because these people use the TALMUD: the writings of those whom they call "the learned elders of Zion," as their bible. The Talmud is the foundation of their Babylonian religion. These writings called the Talmud are bound in approximately 63 volumes. In the book, The Pharisees, written by Louis Finkelstein, the Provost and Solomon Schecter Professor of Theology at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, wrote in the Forward to his first edition on page xxi:
"Phariseeism became Talmudism, then became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name...the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew... studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies."
These modern day Pharisees, who follow the teachings of Talmudism, say that they are "God's Chosen People." They call their religion "Judaism" and call themselves "Jews" (Judahites), but they do lie and are of the "synagogue of Satan" as Christ told John in the Book of Revelation:
"...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judahites], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." [78]; "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [Judahites], and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." [79]
These people who call themselves "God's Chosen People," but do lie, begin their day at sundown and have deceived millions and millions of people in Christendom to follow their traditions and "commandments of men." Christ warned us about these people when He told us:
"...beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." [80]
Christ also said of these people:
"...ye are of your father the devil...he...abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." [81]
The Apostle Paul warned us in Titus 1:14 not to give,
"...heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."
Again Christ warned us:
"...they shall deceive the very elect." [82]
Starting the weekly Sabbath at sundown is following a "Jewish fable," a tradition of Judaism, which is taught in the Talmud, the bible of Judaism. This Jewish fable has deceived millions of people and has led them away from the truth of God's true Sabbath.
Confusion:
"...God is not the author of confusion..." [83]
To say that the day begins at sundown is confusion. Consider the fact that no other day of the week starts at sundown. Consider also that sundown changes daily at any given location on earth. On some days of the year the sun rises very early and sets very late, making the daylight hour as long as 16 to 23 hours. At other times of the year, the sun rises very late and sets very early, making the daylight hours as short as one to eight hours. The time of sunset is always changing. Not only is sunset changing daily but sunset can be at a different time of the same day between communities as close as five to ten miles apart, particularly in mountainous regions; thereby causing neighbors to start their days at different times; this is certainly confusion. Attempts have been made to hide this confusion by picking a time, such as 6 p.m. as the time to start the Sabbath, knowing full well that time is not really sundown. This is just another one of those commandments of men; the commandment of God is still being ignored.
In Revelation 18:4 we are told to come out of Babylon (which means "confusion"). When we use sunset (which is constantly changing) to determine when our day is to begin, we find ourselves in confusion (Babylon). Isn't it wonderful that God gave us a time of day that never changes which can be determined by everyone, even the uneducated? Yes, high noon is always the same, because God gave us the sun to determine when our day is to begin [84]. A Look at Scripture: Now let us take a look at some Scriptural commands in regards to observing certain days, commands given to us from God Himself.
In Deuteronomy 16:1-8 we are told when to kill the passover, how to cook it and when to return home:
"...thou shalt sacrifice the passover at EVEN, AT THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN...thou shalt roast it...and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents."
In Exodus 12:1-51 we have the detailed account of the first passover and its detailed instructions:
"...take...a lamb...without blemish, a male of the first year...from the sheep, or from the goats...Israel shall kill it IN THE EVENING [Strong's #6153, this is the same word translated 'even in Deuteronomy 16:6 above]... they shall eat the flesh in the night, roast with fire...eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire...in one house shall it be eaten: thou shalt no carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof."
Exodus 34:25 tells us:
"...neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of passover be left until the morning."
We are also told in Exodus 12:29 that,
"...it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land."
In the above passages we can see that a fair amount of time will have elapsed from the time of killing the passover at "even," at the going down of the sun, (12 Noon) and the burning of the leftovers, which must be completed before midnight. Why must the left-overs be burned before midnight? Because God had commanded them to return to their tents "in the morning" (which commences at midnight. [85].
Midnight is the time when the Lord smote all the firstborn of Egypt. Israelites were to be in their houses with the blood of the lamb smeared on the doorposts and lintel.
Let's take a look at what must be done and the approximate length of time it would take to do it.
1). They must kill, skin and clean the lamb. (Estimate: one hour).
2). They must roast it until it is completely done, not raw. Today if you roast a turkey that weighs 20 to 25 pounds in a modern oven, it will take between six to eight hours to roast. We have no idea how much longer it took in their ovens or fire pits. (Estimate: 6-8 hours).
3). They are not to eat it. (Estimate: 1/2-1 hour).
4). They are now to burn with fire everything that is left over. (Estimate: 1/2-1 hour). Total elapsed time: 8-11 hours. After looking at the things that are required to observe the passover, it becomes quite clear that it could not have been accomplished if it had been begun at sundown.
The day before the Day of Atonement: In Leviticus 23:32 we are commanded:
"It shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month AT EVEN, FROM EVEN UNTO EVEN, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath."
In this passage, all three of the words that were translated as "even" are Strong's #6153, the same as in Deut. 16:6, and means "noon."
At the time of Nehemiah: A few Israelites of old were carried off to Babylonian captivity, and after 70 years God allowed about 50,000 of those who wanted to, to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls and the city. After the walls were rebuilt, the Israelites started to profane the Sabbath as their fathers had done before them. This was the main reason for their captivity in the first place. The prophet Nehemiah became very angry when he learned what the Israelites had been doing in his absence and he upbraided them severely, as recorded in Nehemiah 13:15-22. In verse 19, we learn that:
"...it came to pass that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark [shaded] before [at the front of] the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath."
In this passage the word that is translated "dark" is Strong's #6751. it is used only twice in scripture, and it means "to shade." The main gate in Jerusalem faces east, and just after the sun reached the apex (noon), a shadow was cast on the main gate. It was at that time that Nehemiah ordered that the gates were to be shut to commence the Sabbath.
Saul is King of Israel: During King Saul's reign over Israel, he became jealous of David and sought ways to kill him. Saul's son, Jonathan, was David's faithful friend who warned him of Saul's plans to kill David. In 1 Samuel 20:5 we learn;
"...David said unto Jonathan...let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at EVEN." [86]
Later on in 1 Samuel 20:35, we find that Jonathan went out IN THE MORNING and met David at the TIME APPOINTED, which was at noon, or "even."
"...it came to pass in THE MORNING, that Jonathan went out into the field at THE TIME APPOINTED with David..."
In the first passages we see that David appointed a time to meet, which the Bible calls "EVEN," on the third day. In the second passage we see that they met at the "APPOINTED TIME" which was "even." When we look closely, we see that Jonathan went out into the field in the "MORNING." That means he went out sometime between "midnight" and "noon," and met him at the APPOINTED TIME, which it now becomes obvious was noon or shortly thereafter.
Morning: In the gospel of Mark, chapter one, verse 35, we read that Christ got up "a great while" BEFORE DAYLIGHT to pray, but it was already "morning" when he got up:
"...IN THE MORNING, rising up a great while BEFORE DAY, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed."
Translators Inconsistent: The above example clearly illustrate that there are times, as recorded in Scripture, when the words "even," "evening" and "the going down of the sun" mean 12 noon. There are many other times when this is the case. There are also numerous times that the same words (even, evening, going down of the sun) do NOT mean 12 noon. Therefore, we must always, as we have stated before, check the context of each passage where those words occur. We must not blindly assume that if it means "noon" in one verse that it always means "noon," or if it means "sunset," in a particular verse, that it always means "sunset." I repeat: ALWAYS CHECK THE CONTEXT.
Secular History Findings: We found it quite interesting to learn that the secular world also started and ended the day at 12 o'clock noon. In the third edition of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia we find (pp. 1691-1692) under the heading "Time," the following:
"From the earliest recorded history the...sun has been adopted as the clock for regulating human affairs, and the apparent [visible to the eye; obvious] solar day is the interval of time between successive passages of the true sun across a local meridian. For many centuries upper culmination, or apparent noon, marked the beginning of an apparent day and local apparent time was the HOUR ANGEL of the true sun. In 1925, to bring the apparent day into synchronism with that used in civil life, the beginning of the apparent day was transferred to lower culmination, or midnight, and the local apparent time defined as the hour angle of the true sun plus 12 hours...Prior to 1925 the mean solar day began at upper culmination (mean noon) and the civil day began at midnight."
In the New English Dictionary under the word "day," we are told:
"The solar day is the fundamental unity of time...being determined by observations of the sun [day], is taken to begin with the passage of the mean sun over the meridian...at high noon...while the civil day begins at midnight."
In the United States Department of Agriculture book "A Walk Through Time," we find:
"During Saxon times, simple sundial forms place above the doorways were used to identify MIDDAY..."
This way the early Saxons - our Israelite ancestors, knew when to stat their day. According to the archaeologists, the Umbri of Italy are the direct descendants of the Israelites of Scripture. We found in the "Encyclopedia of English Law," under the title "day," the following:
"...the Umbri in Italy began [the day] at midday...the Egyptians and Romans at midnight..."
In the United States Constitution one will find under Article XX:
"Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at NOON on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at NOON on the 3rd of January..."
"Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meetings shall begin at NOON..."
Conclusion - Part I: After a thorough search of the Holy Scriptures and then checking secular history to see what actually took place, we have come to the conclusion that the "weekly Sabbath" of Scripture starts at 12 o'clock noon at the end of the sixth day and continues until 12 o'clock noon at the end of the seventh day.
This changing of times is nothing but fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 7:25:
"...he [the fourth beast] shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws..."
Part II: The Weekly Sabbath - Which Day of the Week?
"...it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: and all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy god...the Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways. And all the people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee." [87]
It is the purpose of Part II of this study to determine on which day of the week the Sabbath begins. Since Scripture does not tell us directly which day is the Sabbath we must look to prophecy and its fulfillment to determine the specific day that is the Sabbath day.
Shortly before his death, Moses, the prophet of God, told the Israelites the blessings and the curses that Almighty God had assigned to His people, the sons and daughters of Jacob/Israel. You can read about them in Deuteronomy, chapters 28 through 34. There you will learn to whom they apply, and in 28:46 you will learn how long those blessing and curses will be in effect:
"...they shall be upon thee for a sign and a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever."
You might be wondering at this point; what has all this to do with which day of the week is the Sabbath. Our answer is "Everything!" As you read on, you will be seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy right up to the present day. Moses made this prophecy before the Israelites entered into Canaan land. As we read the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah and all the other prophets, we find that whenever the Israelites obeyed God's commandments, which includes keeping His Sabbath, that none of their enemies could stand before them, and their prosperity was beyond comprehension to the nations around them. The most famous account, of course, was that of King Solomon, of whom it is written:
"...King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and wisdom. And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." [88]
As you read the history of Israel in the Bible, you will see that as long as Israel obeyed God's laws, and kept His Sabbaths, they prospered; but when they disobeyed and violated His Sabbaths and went a-whoring after other gods, then the curses of Deuteronomy 28 were again showered upon them and they prospered. This was no accident, but only God fulfilling His promises. This up and down, roller-coaster prosperity that followed the Israelites has been going on now for over 3,000 years. This might seem like a long time, but when you re-read the prophecy you will notice that the blessings and the curses will follow the Israelites and be "...upon thy seed for ever."
Prophecy Fulfilled In America: Sometime around 1611 A.D., a group of Israelites left the shores of Europe and headed west. Their written and expressed intentions and beliefs were that they were the blood/genetic descendants of Jacob. Israel and that they were going to the NEW CANAANLAND that God had told King David that He would ordain for them, a place from which they would never have to move again.
"Moreover I [God] will appoint A PLACE FOR MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, and will plant them, THAT THEY MAY DWELL IN A PLACE OF THEIR OWN, AND MOVE NO MORE; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime." [89]; "Also I [God] will ordain A PLACE FOR MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, and will plant them, and THEY SHALL DWELL IN THEIR PLACE, AND SHALL BE MOVED NO MORE: neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning." [90]
Can you not see, God told David, while he was in his home in Jerusalem, in the Promised land that He [God] would move the Israelites to another place, which would be their home forever. They arrived at a place they called "Plymouth," and there set up their community; they covenanted together to abide by the laws of God. They kept His Sabbaths; they punished or executed those persons who disobeyed God's laws. Other Israelites came from all parts of Europe and from around the world: Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Scandinavians, Celts and other kindred people WHO ARE THE BLOOD DESCENDANTS OF JACOB/ISRAEL TODAY.
They built the greatest nation on earth; in the history of the world; they prospered beyond any nation in history. They were the most loved, respected and feared nation in the world. Their might and power were unmatched throughout the world. Why? That question is probably best answered by the statement of a French philosopher who came to America to find out why America was so great. After searching out the country's industry, commerce, agriculture, etc., yet he could not find the answer. The he visited America's churches and across the land he heard ministers on every Sabbath preaching obedience to God's laws. He returned to France and wrote:
"...America is great because America is good, but when America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great..."
This is just another indication of the blessings of Deuteronomy 28 that God put upon the "seed of Israel" according to His promise. The Sabbath Observed in America: For centuries, until 1925, the United States and most of the rest of the world started and ended their day at 12 noon. On Saturday at noon businesses closed, the post office shut down, all government offices closed until Monday morning. This included the military.
The people stopped their work and began their Sabbath rest. They took their Saturday night bath; they attended church services the following morning. After church services were over and the Sabbath was at an end, they would go home or visit friends for their Sunday dinner. After dinner they relaxed or played games or sports for their recreation (re-creation and rejuvenation). They could also water and feed their animals without breaking Gods Sabbath, thus bringing down the death penalty upon themselves.
This is how the weekly Sabbath was observed, in general, throughout the United States. It was during this era - while the Israelites of this country were obeying God's laws and keeping His Sabbaths - that our country was blessed and prospered to become the mighty nation that it was - still another example of God keeping His promises of Deuteronomy 28.
The Curses: Just like their fathers of old, these modern Israelites just couldn't stand all that prosperity; so, like their fathers of old, they started whoring after other gods; the god of money, the god of materialism, the god of sex and fornication, the god of baby sacrifice in the abrotitoriums, the god of sodomy and lesbianism - need I go on? Now, mind you, it didn't all happen at once. No, it was very gradual and very subtle. Most preachers today will tell you it was the work of the devil, but Scripture tells us it is the evil lusts of our own hearts [91]
It started out by ignoring some little laws. That didn't seem too bad, so a few more laws were ignored. We changed the time of starting the day and gradually drifted away from observing God's true Sabbath, and started profaning it by letting stores stay open on Saturday afternoon. We stopped executing the death penalty for crimes worthy of death. We then allowed businesses to stay open seven days a week, and we Christians patronized them. We allowed freedom of choice for those who wished to kill their unborn babies. We accepted the sodomite life style as an alternative in our government employees as well as in private life. The alleged Christian churches condoned sodomy and they ordained sodomites into the ministry.
Today, the highest office in the land, the presidency of the United States, is held by a male who, along with his wife, promote this detestable, degenerate, abominable life style. And what has happened to our nation's wealth, its might, respect, morals, etc.? They have reached their lowest point in history, in direct proportion to our disobedience to God's laws.
The worst part of it all is that we have professing Christians who have been deceived into believing that God doesn't mind if we start His Sabbath on just any day of the week, or on a Wednesday, or Friday night, or Sunday morning. they expect God to pour out His promised blessings upon us. They just can't understand why God doesn't bless them as He did before.
Not Till We Obey: No, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters in Christ, fellow Israelites, don't expect our heavenly Father to honor His part of the covenant in regards to His blessings, until we do our part by keeping His weekly Sabbath as we did in days gone by: from 12 o'clock noon, the beginning of the seventh day; which we call Saturday noon, 12 o'clock noon the following day, which we call Sunday noon. Then we need to study God's laws diligently and see how there were very few laws that were done away with by Christ's death (the blood ordinances and Levitical rituals, etc.). Then we must put those laws into practice. Then, and only then, will God look upon our affliction, see that we have repented, and start again to pour out His blessings upon us, and start to heal our land as He promised in 2 Chronicles 7:14:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
The Bottom Line: Most of you who have read this study:
1). Love and worship the only true God.
2). Don't have any idols you bow down to and worship.
3). You don't take God's name in vain.
4).
5). You honor your fathers and mothers.
6). You don't commit murder.
7). You don't commit adultery.
8). You don't steal.
9). You don't bear false witness against your neighbor.
10). You don't covet your neighbors wife or goods.
How about #4, the one that says "keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee?" God set aside a specific 24 hour period each week, that He wants us to set aside out of our work week to keep holy unto him. You now know that 12 o'clock noon is when God says we are to begin our 24 hour day. You now know that God's weekly Sabbath begins at 12 o'clock noon on the day that we call Saturday, and it ends at 12 o'clock noon on the day that we call Sunday. The final question is, WILL YOU "keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee?"
Part III: Yes, But What About...?
Right now, many of you may be saying:
"This all sounds pretty convincing, but I know of a passage or several passages that appear to contradict the belief that the Bible Sabbath starts at 12 o'clock noon on Saturday and ends at 12:00 o'clock noon on Sunday."
Matthew 28:1: One of the most common passages that seems to be contradictory is found in the gospel of Matthew chapter 28, verse 1, which states:
"IN the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn TOWARD the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."
Let us start with the very first word: "In." "In" is word #1722 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, it is: "A primary preposition, denoting a fixed position in time ..." This word (#1722 has been translated as 35 different words, which means it can have many different meanings, depending on the context in which it is being used. It has been translated as: "toward" and "before" on at least four occasions. We believe that either "toward" or "before" would have been a more correct translation because the context of the passage so indicates. It says further on in this passage: "...As it began to dawn TOWARD the first day of the week..." The word "toward" here very clearly tells us that it was not yet the first day of the week, but that that time was soon coming. Consider this: It is just beginning "to dawn;" it is "before" "the end of the Sabbath."
The time of the year is shortly after the "spring Equinox" when daylight and dark hours are nearly equal, therefore "dawn" is around 6:00 a.m. There are still six more hours to go before 12:00 o'clock noon, (when the first day of the week will begin). This is the hour that the two Marys went to Christ's sepulchre. The Sabbath has nearly ended and the first day of the week is near. We believe this will clear up the confusion brought about by the old English style of writing found in the King James Bible.
Exodus 16:19: In Exodus, chapter 16, we learn that God gives the Israelites "manna" to take the place of grain for their main staple of food. Moses told the people not to leave any of the "manna" till the morning. We find this in Exodus 16:19: "And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till morning." We learned in Part I that morning begins at midnight, so we see here that Moses is telling the people not to keep the manna overnight. Each morning they were to gather as much manna as they would need to eat for their meals that day, but they were not to try to save any overnight, except on the sixth day, when they were to gather twice as much, which was to last them through the Sabbath, since there would be none to be gathered on the Sabbath. The day starts as 12:00 noon. Midnight comes 12 hours later. Sunrise comes at about the 18th hour of the 24 hour day. Noon comes at the 24th hour and another day begins.
When Moses told the Israelites to gather a double portion of manna on the sixth day, he was referring to the 18th hour of the sixth day. This double portion would then provide them with the anna that they would normally have gathered on the seventh day, around the 18th hour. By the 18th hour of the FIRST DAY of the week, they would again find manna in the fields.
The Last Supper: Many people say that the last supper of Christ which was the Israelite Passover does not support the "noon to noon" belief. Let's go to the Scripture and see if that statement is true or not. We don't believe that anyone will deny the fact that Christ knew when the Passover was to be killed and eaten; nor is it likely that anyone will deny that Christ and His apostles kept the Passover according to the law given to Moses for the Israelites.
We will start by reading the pertinent facts of the "last supper," starting in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 14, verse 12:
"...The first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, [Christ's] disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover? [13] And he sendeth forth two of his disciples...[16] And they made ready the Passover. [17] And in THE EVENING he cometh with the twelve. [18] And...they sat and did eat..."
Here we see in verses 12 through 16, that the two apostles prepared the Passover. To prepare the Passover they had to get a lamb; they had to kill the lamb and drain the blood; they then had to skin it. Next they had to roast it with fire until it was completely cooked because the law forbade them to eat it raw. All this takes AT LEAST five to six hours. In verse 17 we learn that Christ and His apostles came and sat down to eat the Passover "in the EVENING." This word "evening" is the Greek word #3798 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it means: "Late afternoon or nightfall." The Israelite Passover comes two weeks after the "Spring Equinox." That is the time of the year when nightfall comes around 6:00 o'clock p.m. Now remember, the "two apostles" didn't "prepare" the Passover at 6:00 p.m.; they ate the Passover with Christ at 6:00 p.m. Simple arithmetic will tell anyone that if they ate the Passover at 6:00 p.m., and if it takes about six hours to make all the preparations for the Passover to be eaten, then we must realize that the "two apostles" started the preparations around 12:00 o'clock noon: which was the start of the Israelite Passover day.
Christ: Our Passover Lamb: Numerous Scriptures tell us that Christ is our Passover Lamb. [92] Some people say that Christ's death does not coincide with the "noon to noon" belief. We will now go to the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, and Mark, Chapter 15, to see if the above statement is true or not. Matthew 27:1-2 tells us:
"When the MORNING was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: [2] And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor."
The above-stated "morning" is the morning after Christ had eaten the Passover; prayed in the garden; was arrested and taken before Caiaphas and falsely judged by him. Now we will go to the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 15. Here we learn in verses 15 through 37; the sentence by Pilate; the hour when Christ was nailed to the stake; the hours of darkness and the hour of His death. [93]
"...Pilate...delivered Jesus, and when he had scourged him, to be crucified...[25] It was the third hour, and they crucified him...[33] And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the land until the ninth hour. [34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...[37) Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost."
To understand what we are being told in the above passages we must first understand that at the time of Christ's crucifixion, the Israelites were under Roman rule, and the Pharisees were in charge over Israel on a local level. At that point of time in history the Pharisees had already changed the time when a day was to begin. Instead of having the day start at noon, the Pharisees changed it to start at sunset. Because sunset is always changing, they settled on 6:00 p.m. as the start of their day. [94]
The Jews divided their day into two 12 hour periods. The first 12 hour period started at sunset and went to sunrise and was called the "first" through the "twelfth" hour. At sunrise they start their second 12 hour period. This second half of the Pharisees' official day started at 6:00 o'clock in the morning. Therefore, 7:00 o'clock was their "first hour," 8:00 o'clock was their "second hour." 9:00 o'clock was their "third hour," and so on. Therefore the terms; third hour, sixth hour and ninth hour were terms used in the gospel accounts.
In verse 25 above, we are told that Christ was actually nailed to the stake at 9:00 a.m., which was their third hour. Christ then hung on the cross from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon. Verse 33 tells us that from 12:00 noon until 3:00 p.m. "...There was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour." [3:00 p.m.] It was during this period of time that the prophecy of Isaiah 53:8 was fulfilled:
"He was taken from prison and from judgment...for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."
At 3:00 p.m. Christ cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost and died. We find in verse 34 and 37:
[34] "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...[37] Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost."
We can plainly see by the above passages that Christ was killed shortly after 12:00 noon, (which in the Old Testament is often referred to as: "even, the going down of the sun") which is in keeping with the law as spelled out in Deuteronomy 16:6:
"...Thou shalt sacrifice the passover at EVEN, at the going down of the sun..."
There were other ways that Christ could have been executed, but to fulfill prophecy, Christ had to die by crucifixion, which is a slow and very painful death. It was finally completed by 3:00 p.m., not at sunset as the modern day Jews (Pharisees) would have us believe.
The High Sabbath of John 10:31: Many people read John 19:31 and say: "See, it is very clear that the Sabbath was to begin at sundown." Those people are absolutely correct. As we pointed out earlier in Part III: the Pharisees - under Roman rule - were in charge of the Israelites. Also, we pointed out that the day began at sunset for the Pharisees (the Jews): "Among the Jews the day began at sunset..." Therefore the high Sabbath day which followed Christ's crucifixion was to begin at sunset, because it was the Jews' (Pharisees') time to start their day. I repeat: SUNDOWN IS THE BEGINNING OF THE PHARISEES' DAY AND THE BEGINNING OF THE PHARISEES' SABBATH AND IT WAS THE "PHARISEES' SABBATH" that John was recording in this verse. This is what John 19:31 says:
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath day, (for THAT SABBATH DAY WAS AN HIGH DAY), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away."
This Sabbath day, which was the Pharisees' "high day" was another of the Pharisees' perversion of God's law: specifically the law which is recorded in Exodus, Chapter 12, which was given to the Israelites before the first passover. In Exodus 12:15-16 we read:
"[15] Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses...[16] IN THE FIRST DAY THERE SHALL BE AN HOLY CONVOCATION, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you."
In verse 16 we see that the first day of "unleavened bread," when the passover is to be killed, is to be an "holy convocation," which is a "sacred meeting." The first day of unleavened bread is also to be a Sabbath of rest wherein no work, except food preparation, is to be done. We pointed out in the section entitled "The Last Supper" that Christ and His apostles did, on the first day of unleavened bread, prepare and eat the passover, according to the law.
You will see by the following verses that the Pharisees started the preparation for their Passover at a different time than Christ; and that the Pharisees also had their "holy convocation" which they called a "high Sabbath day" on the second, not the first day of unleavened bread as was required by law. Let us now turn to the Gospel of John, Chapters 18 & 19 for confirmation of this truth. John 18:28 tells us:
"Then led they [the Pharisees] Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment [where Pontius Pilate judged]: and it was early; and they themselves [the Pharisees] went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover."
Here we learn that Christ, who had already eaten the passover the night before, was brought before Pilate, but the Pharisees refused to enter the judgment hall because if they had, according to Pharisee law, they would have been defiled and would not have been able to eat their passover. John 19:13-14 tells us:
"[13]...Pilate...brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat...[14] and it was the preparation of the passover..."
Here we have a second witness that the day that Pilate judged Christ was on the PHARISEES' passover preparation day. Later on, after Christ's death, we are told in John 19:31:
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day), besought Pilate that ...they might be taken away."
We see here that it was still the Pharisees' passover preparation day and that the Jews (the Pharisees) wanted the bodies to be taken off of the crosses before sundown when the Pharisees' high Sabbath day was to begin. Remember, this was NOT the weekly or seventh day Sabbath, but it was a special "high Sabbath."
There are several other "high Sabbaths" or holy convoca-tions in Scripture and they can be found in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 and 29. It now becomes very clear that the "high Sabbath day" of John 19:31 was NOT the Sabbath of Israel, but it was the "high Sabbath of the Pharisees" and therefore, because the Pharisees started their day at sunset, they also started THEIR "high Sabbath" of John 19:31 at sunset.
If you check with any Jewish synagogue today you will find that they still follow this same Pharisaical practice of starting their weekly Sabbath and their Passover Sabbath at sundown, simply because they are following the same teachings as the Pharisees of Christ's time.
Scriptural Warnings: The Pharisees of Christ's time and the Pharisees of today, whom we call "Jews," did not then, nor do they today, start their "day" according to Scripture; they do not start their "Sabbath" according to Scripture; and they do not observe "the Passover" according to Scripture. Therefore Christians of today should look to the Jews of today for NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING! Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, please remember Christ's warning to His disciples:
"...Take heed and beware of the leaven [doctrines or teaching] of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." [95]
And finally, remember Paul's warning to us as recorded in the Book of Titus, Chapter 3, verse 14:
"...not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."
When you go to the Jews or Jewish writings, you will get nothing but "Jewish fables," and where you spend eternity may lie in the balance.
Epilogue: The Christian Bible Sabbath begins at noon on Saturday and ends at noon on Sunday. The Jewish Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday night and ends at sundown on Saturday night. WHICH ONE WILL YOU CHOOSE? May the God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob bless you and encourage you to diligently search the Scriptures to see if what we tell you is true. [96]
In his original draft, Jefferson was going to use "Life, Liberty and Property," but the sagacious Franklin corrected him by observing that life depended on property as our necessities of life: food, clothing and materials for shelter came from the land. In addition, he observed that a man can only be free if he depends on no one to provide these things, and therefore property is the base and foundation of ALL RIGHTS. Jefferson conceded and changed the draft wording to its current form. Jefferson and Franklin understood the nature of property and its relationship to Rights. Let us investigate his concept and see if we can come to the same understanding.
Our Founding Fathers were devout men and took the majority of their education from the Bible [In spite of that which is being presented today notwithstanding]. If we go to the Bible and research it to find out what is the concept of property as understood by our Founding Fathers, we come up with ideas which your children will not learn in our public GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS. As we start our search we find the first such grant by the Creator God in Genesis 1:28, where God grants Adam dominion. Sounds good, Huh? What the heck is dominion, you may ask? Well, first you must understand that the Bible is a Law Book and it starts to make more sense. Since we are dealing with law, laws are words and words have specific meanings. Let's go to a Law Dictionary: "Ownership or right to property."
God gave Adam property! The second part of the definition should spark all of us, for dominion is also "Sovereignty or lordship." Could this be the coveted sovereignty proclaimed by the patriot community? The answer to this is a resounding "YES"!!! There is, however, a catch. In order to exercise dominion you must comply with the terms of the agreement. In Adam's time, the agreement was simple and only consisted of one commandment, it would appear at first glance, that Adam was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As you know, the commandment was broken and Adam lost the dominion and the ground was cursed to him. As the story goes on, we come to the story of Noah, whose was the only family holding to God's Law.
The flood cleansed the [Earth of the] unrighteous and left Noah to enjoy the dominion. Next is Abraham, a goodly servant of God, and his seed forever obtained the dominion. On the story goes to Moses when he received the Law and obtained the ratification of the children of Israel [97]. Now, the astute student will discover that whenever the Israelites obeyed the Law, they prospered, and when they disobeyed they went into slavery. Disobedience in today's terms is called "breach of contract." Look closely, dominion goes to he who fulfills the Law. In the course of all history, only one has fulfilled the Law, and that is Jesus the Christ. With His life, Jesus obtained perfect dominion and as such has the right to the property of the earth, the fulness thereof the world and they that dwell therein [98]. What has all this to do with the Founding Fathers? The Founding Fathers understood the concept and requirements of dominion and recognized that Jesus had the Sovereignty. That is why, when Washington was asked to be king in this land, he replied:
"...We have no King but Jesus."
Our Founding Fathers recognized Jesus as the absolute potentate and Sovereign [We have no King but Jesus]. Within the past year, you have heard that the Founding Fathers established a nation where only property holders could participate in the governing process. That is quite correct, but you have been misled as to what this property is.
PROPERTY
It is a principle of political philosophy, that property, the soil, is the natural foundation of power, and consequently of authority. Hence, the natural foundation of every govern-ment, may be said to be laid in the distribution of its territories, its land, its property. Let's look at that word "property." Property:
"In a strict legal sense, land is not property but the subject of property. The term property, although in common parlance applied to a tract of land or a chattel, in its legal significance means only the right of the owner in relation to it...Property is the right of any person to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing." [99]
This can be seen in the following supposition.
FIRST: If the government or lending institutions [or those who control the government or lending institutions from behind the scenes] own the property, the land, or is in control of it; or to allow the use of it at their pleasure, the citizens of that government must also be subject to the will ofthe government: thus the citizen will be in the condition of slaves, rather than of freemen.
SECOND: If the property or land of a country be shared among a few men, the rest of the citizens of the country are merely vassals under their control; and the real power of government will be in the hands of those few; authority will thus be lodge in those few men [who control the govern-ment or lending institutions]. In other words the government [nation] will then be under the total control of those few men. Thus the citizens of that country or nation will also be under the total control of those in their every action or unaction of life.
If you do not believe that statement, then name one thing a citizen of the United States of America can do without some sort of federal, state, county or city government regulation controlling that action!
THIRD: If the property or land of a country be divided among all those who compose the population or citizenry of its society, the true power of that country or government would reside in all the members of citizens as a whole.
Therefore, society itself would thus constitute a Real Republic, whatever form of union may be adopted for the better direction of the whole as a political body. Under such a condition; the private ownership of the land, home and lots, buildings, etc., the citizens themselves will have ultimate control of that nation. They will not need to have this power conferred upon them by express grant or law, it will fall into their hands by the natural force of circumstances.
There is no truth in political science more easy to comprehend, more open to the view of all, or more certainly known by universal experience, than that the men who own the territories, property or land of a state will exercise a predominating influence over the public affairs of that state. There is no more sure way to destroy a nation and its people than by depriving them of the ownership of the land or property of the nation. Greece and Rome are two prime examples where a nation allowed greedy treacherous men to remove the ownership of the property from the citizens and deposit it in the hands of the government. This is precisely what treacherous men in the federal, state, county and cities lay taxes upon a persons property, for by the instigation of taxes ‑ the federal, state, county or city effectively owns the lands or property and not the citizen.
You don't believe it, then do not pay your property taxes and just see who owns the land. You will know as you sit in the street saying they can't do this to me! So, you see, property is not the dirt, but a right to the dirt, and who has that right to the dirt? Why, as our Founding Fathers knew, that right vested only in the body of Christ. Who are the body of Christ?
"So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." [100]
Now is it becoming clear that when the Founders restricted the government to property owner, THEY UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN that NO ONE COULD PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT WHO DID NOT PROFESS JESUS CHRIST AS THE SAVIOUR; AS THE SOVEREIGN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! This is why our Constitution forbids Titles of Nobility, for there is only one title of Nobility recognized in this country, this Israel which was to come, that being, Jesus Christ is King. We the body of Christ, have been charged with a responsibility to "Occupy 'till I come.'" [101] Occupy is a legal term meaning, "To hold in possession." [102] The Homestead acts and land patents which were once laws of every state, but have been removed by antichrists and the enemies of America have removed from most through deception; because our people did not study to keep themselves informed. American laws were originally based upon the Biblical precepts laid out in Leviticus 25:10‑13; 27:24; Numbers 36:2; Joshua 16:4; 17:4; 19:1; Judges 2:6; and Ruth 4:6.
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession." "In the year of the jubile the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong." "So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance." "And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the Lord he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father." "And they said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters." Etc. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." [103] "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [104]
The words of our LORD then says:
"...If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." [105]
The Scriptures then relate:
"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." [106]
Not understanding what our Founding Fathers understood and meant has brought us to the point where we are today. Where we have Prostitute Supreme Court Justices such as the Zionist‑ Communist‑antichrist‑Jewish controlled spawn of Satan; Thurgood Marshall who said recently in Newsweek:
"Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall objected to some of the pietism attending the 200th anniversary of the Constitution. Speaking to a lawyers' group in Hawaii, he said, 'The document had been defective from the start. I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever fixed at the Philadelphia convention.'"
Marshal, and others of his ilk, want to "fix it." I say it doesn't need fixing; it needs to be obeyed! It needs to duly be understood and adhered to if we are going to maintain freedom of movement in this land, and if you are not going to become a slave it is going to be up to you to speak out against these treasonous efforts to bring about a new Constitution of Interdependence. The article went on to say concerning the Present Constitution:
"The United States as a nation is famously lucky [107]. Its primal luck was geography and timing: a wild natural abundance that was encountered by gifted men and women in a clear rational blue of Enlightenment [108]'...The Constitution was drafted in a moment of ascendant science, political science preached by Locke and Montesquieu, for example, and belief in the power of reason to subdue the savage and ignorant regions of the mind."
It is my firm belief we have savage and ignorant people, such as Mr. Thurgood Marshall, and they are those who belong to organizations that want to do away with a document that, through the Grace of God, has kept us free for over 200 years. We, as a people, had better realize it's going to take a made up mind and a desire to FOLLOW AFTER GOD AND JESUS CHRIST in sincerity and in truth. So our Television Commentators are saying in effect;
"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...YOUR WRETCHED REFUSE...your alien gods...your idols of wood and stone...your HEATHEN TEMPLES and SYNAGOGUES...your alien PHILOSOPHIES...your TROJAN HORSES of subversion...give us anything and everything..."
And this is what America has opened its gates to over the last several decades ‑‑ anything and everything. The purpose for which France presented the United States with the Statue of Liberty in 1886 was inscribed thereon:
"A gift from the people of the Republic of France to the people of the United States. This statue of Liberty Enlightening the World commemorates the alliance of the two nations in achieving independence of the U.S., attest to their abiding friendship."
The Statue of Liberty had NOTHING to do with immigration as poet Emma Lazarus apparently assumed according to her poem, which was inscribed on the statue in 1906. It had NOTHING to do WITH PHASING OUT CHRISTIANITY and TURNING OUR NATION INTO A HUMANISTIC, HOMOGENIZED MELTING POT OF WHITE, BLACK, YELLOW AND RED HEATHENS as many would like to believe.
POSTERITY
OUR FOREFATHERS ESTABLISHED THIS NATION FOR "THEIR" POSTERITY. As stated in the Preamble to the Constitution,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and TO THEIR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
Since our forefathers were White Christians, so, their posterity would be the same. They did not suffer the hardships in the years following the landing at Plymouth Rock by the Puritans or endure the horrors of the war of independence to establish this nation as a melting pot of alien races, religions and cultures! In spite of what you have been told and taught!!! We have repeated the same mistakes our forefathers made in ancient Israel. By allowing the "mixed multitude" to enter with their customs and practices, so much so that nearly every segment of society has been corrupted or adulterated. God said:
"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." [109]
This is a perfect description of America and Americans. These, they are the sources of our strength and tradition. With such a heritage it is almost inconceivable and all but impossible for Americans to believe that another would work within a conspiracy to destroy everything Americans believe in.
In his "Commentaries," Blackstone gave what is accepted as the most complete and accurate definition of the "law of nature." By reading his definition, the conclusion become evident that there is a Divine Basis in the Moral Order of the Universe for regarding as invalid all man‑made laws which transgress Natural Law:
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator...The will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature, being coequal with mankind, and dictated by God Himself, is...superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original...Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these...if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we offend both the natural and the divine."
Lord Bryce said that the belief in Natural Law, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and upheld by the Constitution, is the fruit of the teachings of Christ. In his essay on "The Law of Nature," he concludes:
"But it is clear that the influence of Christian teaching... stimulated the vindication in the name of Natural Law of principles which are the foundation both of civil and religious liberty."
In these words, Lord Bryce expounded the great principle of Natural Law, as it is embodied and enshrined in our National Charter of American Liberty:
"It is an assertion of the supremacy of the eternal principles of morality...It proclaims the responsibility to God of all power, whether spiritual or temporal, and the indestructible rights of the individual human being. Finding in Divine Justice the ultimate source of all law, it imposes a restraint upon the force which positive (man‑made) law has at its command, and sets limits to the validity of positive (man‑ made) laws themselves."
There are only two theories as to the "ultimate source of all law." One finds the source of all law in the Will, the Moral Law, of God, in Divine Justice. The other finds the source of all law in the will of self‑willed men in a dictator or a dictatorial mob. The first theory looks to the unchanging Word of God and the Divinely implanted conscience of man for the Eternal Moral Law, upon which human law should be based.
The second theory denies the existence of an enduring Moral Law. It asserts that morals are but "the fashions of the people," and that as fashions, morals must change as fashions in law, justice, religion and constitutions. It claims that there are no Eternal Ethical Principles; that men who live in castles must have a different morality ‑‑ a different constitution than those who live in plain houses. This is the theory of Karl Marx [As taught to him in the teachings of the Jewish Talmud]; the theory upon which all forms of unconstitutional collectivism are predicated.
While the opposite theory, the first theory stated, is that of Jesus Christ; the theory upon which the Constitution of the United States is predicated upon. Christ said that the Moral Principles which He stated were for all times, in all ages. Marx said that every age evolves its own moral principles, as it evolves its own styles and manners. Christ taught that ethical standards are derived from ABOVE ‑‑ from His Father in heaven. Marx taught that ethical fashions are derived from BELOW ‑‑ are an outgrowth of the material conditions of life;
"The material processes of life determine the religious, moral and spiritual process of life."
They follow the philosophy of Karl Marx, and as laid out in the Talmud, who say that a change in the material conditions of life entails or necessitates a change in the guiding ethical principles enthroned in the Constitution. Americans today generally envision a scenario where Americans are truly "at peace" and "dwelling safely (confidently)" without need of physical walls, bars and gates to protect them. And, to a certain extent they are correct because many Americans are dwelling confidently when it come to thinking about the USSR. They are so optimistic about the one‑world government and then end of the so‑called "cold war."
But, are Americans truly "safe," or are they just brainwashed into THINKING they are safe? Americans may be dwelling safely from foreign enemies ‑ but what about domestic enemies? What about the enemy who strikes every one of us every day? This enemy destroys more lives and hurts more people than any other thing you can name. He steals and lies with impunity.
Even though foreign troops are not marching against us within our borders, the American citizen is being plundered daily. He lives under constant threat of punishment by arbitrary powers; by his own government. He is forced to give up all personal privacy. Rights of ownership of private property have been taken from him by his conquerors. He is living under Communism just as much as the citizens of Russia! And yet he does not realize it, so he thinks he dwells safely. But why? How does this invading force remain unrecognized?
[1] History of the United States, by George Bancroft (1850).
[2] Commentaries, by William Blackstone (1765).
[3] Hurtado vs. California.
[4] Commentaries, by William Blackstone.
[5] Preamble to the bill of Rights, United States Constitution.
[6] Policy of the Pilgrim Church, by Wellman (1856).
[7] 1 Samuel 10:25.
[8] 2 Samuel 5:3 and 1 Kings 12:4, 17.
[9] 1 Kings 11:43.
[10] 1 Kings 12:20.
[11] See the Life of John Marshal by Albert J. Beveridge, (1919).
[12] See The Naturalization Acts dated prior to 1860.
[13] Dred Scott vs. Sandford, supra.
[14] Leviticus 19:15.
[15] 1 Peter 1:17.
[16] H.C. Black ‑ American Constitutional Law.
[17] Reynolds vs. United States.
[18] Hurtado vs. California.
[19] Murray's Lesse vs. Hoboken Land & Improvement Company.
[20] Allgeyer vs. Louisiana.
[21] Cummings vs. State of Missouri.
[22] Ezekiel 38:14.
[23] Leviticus 19:36.
[24] Deuteronomy 25:13‑15.
[25] Proverbs 11:1.
[26] Proverbs 16:11.
[27] Proverbs 20:10.
[28] Ezekiel 45:10‑12.
[29] Deuteronomy 7:2.
[30] The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization, Ed. Martin Gilbert, MacMillan Pub. Co., 1990, p. 125.
[31] Sanhedrin 64a.
[32] Zohar II, 43a.
[33] Matthew 23:29‑33.
[34] See 1 Samuel 13:5‑14 and 2 Chronicles 26:16‑20.
[35] Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457 (1892); McGowen vs. Maryland 366 U.S. 420 at 561 (1961).
[36] Runkel vs. Winemiller, 4 Harris & McHenry (MD) 429, 1 AD 411, 417.
[37] Exodus 24:3‑4.
[38] 2 Chronicels 11:3‑4.
[39] 2 Kings 11:17.
[40] By John Wilks Booth, a Jew who, as most of those of his religious belief, spurned the nation and people who had given him and his people sanctuary.
[41] It is very obvious that this young man was either a Jew or he had been talking to one. Because the Jewish Talmud teaches that The Bible is considered to be a collection of simple tales fit only for fools, women and children ‑‑ Book of Nedarim.
[42] The Beginnings of New England, John Fiske, 1889.
[43] Bell vs. The State, 1 Swan (Tenn) 42, p. 44 (1851).
[44] Ex parte Reynolds et. al, Federal Case No. 11,720.
[45] U.S. vs. Callender, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,709.
[46] See Exodus 19:7‑8.
[47] McCulloch vs. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. 403.
[48] Martin vs. Hunger, (1816) 1 Wheat. 324.
[49] Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793) 2 Dall. 471.
[50] Judges 5:23.
[51] Judges 34:23.
[52] Exodus 20:8-10.
[53] Exodus 31:16.
[54] Exodus 31:15, 17.
[55] Genesis 1:19.
[56] John 11:9.
[57] Matthew 12:40.
[58] Genesis 1:23.
[59] 1 Samuel 20:5, 35.
[60] Joshua 5:10.
[61] Exodus 12:6.
[62] Deuteronomy 16:6.
[63] Judges 16:2.
[64] 1 Sam. 20:35.
[65] 1 Sam. 29:10.
[66] 2 Chron. 35:10-16.
[67] Mark 1:35.
[68] Genesis 44:3.
[69] Micah 2:1.
[70] Judges 19:25.
[71] Deuteronomy 16:6-7.
[72] 1 Kings 22:35-36.
[73] 2 Chronicles 18:34.
[74] Genesis 15:12.
[75] Deuteronomy 16:6-7.
[76] Nehemiah 13:19.
[77] Matthew 15:1-9 & Mark 7:1-9.
[78] Revelation 2:9; 3:9.
[79] Revelation 3:9 .
[80] Matthew 16:6-12; Mark 8:15.
[81] John 8:44.
[82] Matthew 24:24.
[83] 1 Corinthians 14:33.
[84] Genesis 1:14.
[85] Deuteronomy 16:7.
[86] Strong's #6153.
[87] Deuteronomy 28:1-10.
[88] 1 Kings 10:23-24.
[89] 2 Samuel 7:10.
[90] 1 Chronicles 17:9.
[91] James 1:12-15; 1 John 2:16-17; Romans 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 Peter 4:2 to name just a few.
[92] See 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:19; John 1:29, 36; Revelation 5:5-14; 7:9-14; 21:14.
[93] Mark 15:15, 25, 33-34, 37.
[94] In The Encyclopaedic Dictionary by Robert Hunter and Charles Morris, printed in 1896, we read on page 1450 under the word "day:" "Among the Jews the day began at sunset..."
[95] Matthew 16:6, 12.
[96] Acts 17:11.
[97] Exodus 24:3.
[98] Psalms 24.
[99] Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
[100] Romans 12:5.
[101] Luke 19:13.
[102] Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
[103] Hosea 4:6.
[104] 2 Timithy 2:15.
[105] Luke 19:42‑44.
[106] Romans 13:11.
[107] See this un‑Godly creep as a Supreme Court Justice is denying God and His intervention which helped America to gain its independence for without Him we would still be an English Possession! Thus we can clearly see among other things Mr. Marshall is a liar and a Disciple of Satan.
[108] History shows that it wasn't an age of enlightenment. It was men and women who knelt down in the snow and in the sand, and planted the staff and said 'We are God's Covenant People, and we want to purify ourselves in the Word of God for this nation, that we can truly be a CITY SET ON A HILL AND A NATION THAT HONORS GOD ALMIGHTY AND JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOUR.
[109] Ezekiel 36:24‑27.
