The American Covenanter

Stop the Obamanation of America

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:15:00 +0000

Critical Vote Tuesday September 21st, 2:15 p.m

ACTION!: CALL Senators Chambliss & Isakson before then!

The problem: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is violating Senate protocol to attach three radical non-germane amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. They would:

Repeal the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military. Despite this fact: even moderate senators oppose making such a policy change, after seeing results of a pending survey indicating how this would affect the military.
Overturn the prohibition on providing abortions on all U.S. military bases, as well as allow abortions to be performed in both domestic and overseas military facilities. Currently, Department of Defense medical personnel and medical facilities may perform abortions to save the life of the mother or when rape or incest caused the pregnancy.
Provide amnesty for illegal aliens in the so-called “Dream Act” that

(a) offers legal status and a “path to citizenship” to illegal aliens living in the U.S., if they entered the U.S. before age 16 and have earned a high school diploma or a General Educational Development certificate (GED). It
(b) repeals the federal prohibition that prohibits states from offering illegal aliens reduced in-state tuition at state-supported colleges and universities.
(c) Overturn the prohibition on illegal aliens receiving federal student loans and participating in work-study programs. In addition, it would (d) allow amnestied aliens to apply for citizenship and petition to bring their extended relatives, including their parents who brought them here illegally, to the U.S. after six years.

Please act as soon as possible.
CONTACT: Senator Saxby Chambliss, Toll-free in D.C., 1 800 234-4208

Savannah 912 232-3657 FAX 912 233-0115
Augusta 706 738-0302 FAX 706 738-0901
Macon 478 741-1417 FAX 478 741-1437
Atlanta 770 763-9090 FAX 770 226-8633
Moultrie 229 985-2112 FAX 229 985-2123
Washington, D.C. 202 224-3521 FAX 202 224-0103

CONTACT: Senator Johnny Isakson, D.C. toll-free, 1 877 851-6437 (Ask for his office.)

Atlanta 770 661-0999 FAX 770 661-0768
Washington, D.C. 202 224-3643 FAX 202 228-0724

News Stories:
Abortion at Government Facilities? National Review Online

Senate to vote on taking up 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal CNN International

A Sermon on Civil Government

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:47:00 +0000

A SERMON

CIVIL GOVERNMENT

PREACHED AT COLDENHAM, FEB.11, 1821.

JAMES R. WILLSON A.M.

Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Newburgh, New-York.

The powers that be are ordained of God. Rom. 13:1.

—All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Mat. 28:18.

—Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Rom. 13:5.

—Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. Exod. 23:2.

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.

Paisley:

PRINTED AND SOLD BY STEPHEN YOUNG, 210, HIGH-STREET.

SOLD ALSO BY-R. ARMOUR, KILMARNOCK;

R. HUTCHISON, GLASGOW; AND T. NELSON, EDINBURGH.

1821.

A SERMON.

Exod. 20:12. "Honour thy father and thy mother:that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord God giveth thee."

THIS precept, as it lies at the foundation of all social duty among men, occupies with great beauty the first place on the second table of the law. In the course of our exposition of the ten commandments, we have explained those precepts which contain our duty to God, and have advanced two discourses in expounding our duty to one another. Beginning with the most prominent duty, we have attempted the illustration of filial duty—the correlate, parental duty—and we now proceed according to, a plan before announced, to discuss the duties of political parents and political children—or those social obligations, which arise out of the divine ordinance of civil government.

All expositors of the decalogue embrace those relations, under the provisions of this statute of Jehovah, and with great accuracy; as the civil rulers of nations are employed to exercise one branch of that authority, which in the early ages of the world resided entirely in fathers, or patriarchs, in the literal acceptation of the word. Subjects are political children of their legitimate civil rulers, who are their political fathers.

This consideration alone is of sufficient weight to justify the introduction of such a topic, in our public ministrations on the Lord’s day; and to set aside an opinion too prevalent among a certain class of our citizens—that the doctrine of civil government does not lie within the province of the minister’ of the sanctuary. It is painful to observe that some who are professors of religion put themselves into that class. That an infidel should maintain this position does not excite astonishment—is not wonderful, but that professors of the religion of Jesus, who have solemnly declared their belief of a Catechism which teaches that the Scriptures are the only rule to direct us how we may glorify God—is justly matter of wonder. If professors mean to glorify God in whatsoever they do—in the performance of political, as well as all other duties they will surely admit that the Bible is the only rule to direct them; and the ambassador of Jesus is not only authorized, but under moral obligation, to declare to the utmost of his knowledge, the whole counsel of God contained in that book.

But why should this remote train of reasoning be pursued? We have evidence the most direct, instructions that cannot be misunderstood, binding us at the peril of our own souls, to declare to Judah his transgressions, and to Israel his sins. "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked of his way to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand." Do men then commit sins in their political relations? Will God never pronounce the sentence of death upon any man for the sins which he commits as a citizen? Shall tyrants and profane demagogues, who poison the public fountains of law, and base peculators on the public wealth, be acquitted at the bar of God? No; unless they repent, they shall be cast into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. If we do not warn them of their sins, our Master will require their blood at our hands. How shall we warn them of their sins unless we explain the laws of God, in their application to the duties of civil functionaries, and thus ascertain the rule of sin and duty?

A large portion of the books of Moses refers to the civil institutions ordained by the God of heaven. Has the minister of Jesus no warrant to expound the books of Moses? Jesus and his apostle Paul thought otherwise. How very large a space does the civil policy of God’s covenant people occupy in the volume of the Old Testament? The prophets which God raised up, endowed and inspired among the people of his covenant, denounced the judgments of Jehovah against kings, and all rulers in the land, when they departed from the laws of the Lord of hosts. They stood on the hills of Judea, and lifted up their voice to warn the kings of Egypt, Ammon, Moab, Tyrus, and Babylon, of the storm of God’s wrath ready to break over their head, and to destroy themselves and their empires for their transgressions. Daniel denounced Belshazzar in the midst of his court. Has that Jesus who commissioned the Daniels, Elijahs, and Isaiahs of the former dispensations, "to speak the word of God to kings and not be ashamed," no warning voice against political transgressors in modern times?

The New Testament abounds with instructions to the same effect. Peter denounced Herod and Pontius Pilate as the murderers of the Prince of life. Paul uttered by inspiration many maxims of civil government. Who could expound the thirteenth chapter of Romans, without preaching on the subject of civil government? Would the professor of religion say to his pastor, while expounding that epistle, You must tell your congregation, when you arrive at that chapter, there is no gospel in it; and therefore it must be passed by without one remark? He must, or admit that his commission extends to the civil duties of men. The book of Revelation is designed to exhibit chiefly the state of empires, and the influence which they have on the church of God, and on the eternal destinies of men.

However gratifying, brethren, it might be to our love of carnal ease; however much we hazard in speaking the truth of God, when the sins of "vile men high in place" are laid bare; however fashionable it is in our age for the ministers of the gospel to seek their own comfort, and to court the great by neglecting to warn them; we do not, we dare not be silent: for the glory of God, the souls of men, and our own duty demand the discussion.

We fearlessly proceed:—

I. To explain the origin and nature of civil government.

II. Its administration.

III. The duty of subjects.

I. On the first of these topics it may be said, with a distinguished civilian;¹ "As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will." "This will," he proceeds to say, "is expressed in the immutable laws of nature," and in the communications made "at sundry times and in diverse manners"—"by an immediate and direct revelation;"—which, "when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature."² Here indeed he treats of law in general, but as "every ordinance of man," all the different forms of government, are to be established on certain principles, which have in them the essence of law, as well as particular statutes made in conformity with those principles, we safely interpret his doctrines as extending to the whole institution of civil government. The doctrine of this civilian ought to be considered an axiom in morals. It really neither requires, nor admits of any proof. It prepares us for the following truths:

1. Civil government is an ordinance instituted by the God of heaven, as the Creator and moral governor of the world. "There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God."³ "He (the civil ruler) is God’s minister."⁴ Civil power, whether viewed as the object of knowledge and research, and as embodying in itself the great and immutable principles of moral order in society, or, as invested in civil officers authorized to act in its administration, is "from God." It emanates from him as the Supreme ruler of those moral subjects whom he creates, upholds, and governs. It must be viewed as springing from the moral attributes of God, on the hypothesis of his creating beings possessing such moral constitutions as those of men. It respects man not as an individual merely, but as endowed with social faculties, and propensities, whose powers cannot be evolved, and whose happiness cannot be complete, but in a state of society. The Creator having imparted to man his whole moral and social constitution, must from the very nature of his attributes, place him under the obligation of such an institution, as is favourable to the development of the whole, moral excellency of which his nature is susceptable. Such an institution is civil government. It grows out of the very relation that naturally, and necessarily exists between God and intellectual, moral, creatures, and the relations existing among these creatures towards one another.

This view of the subject, given us by the inspired apostle, discovers the absurdity of the claims of tyrants and usurpers, who wage war with the human family, with the inherent rights of men, with the moral laws of God, and even with God himself; and yet claim to be "of God," "ordained of God;" as though God could be the Author of tyranny and usurpation; and had authorized thom to trample under foot every moral precept written on the constitution of man, and recorded more distinctly and emphatically in the Holy Scriptures. Such claims, the Holy Ghost, in the Apocalypse, instructs us to consider as blasphemy. "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and I saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy."⁵ This beast is the Roman empire, under seven different forms of government, extending from the founding of the empire by Romulus to the commencement of the blessed millennium. Its last head has ten horns—these are the modern despotisms of Europe.⁶On every one of these heads is written the name of blasphemy. The head characterizes the beast. Why inscribed with this motto? Why does blasphemy constitute the essence of all these governments? That it does so, no Bible believer can doubt; for they are all so labelled by the Holy Ghost. They claim to be of God and his ordinance, and pretend that all their deeds of iniquity are authorized by him. Hence you hear them in their public acts proclaiming;—"Otho by the grace of God Emperor of Germany." "Ferdinand by the grace of God King of the two Sicilies." "Ferdinand by the grace of God King of Spain." "George by the grace of God," &c. Thus they open their mouths in blasphemy against Heaven, by pretending, that, by the grace of God, they have received their authority from him, to oppress the nations, and practice all their evil deeds. Thus they assert that their power is from God, while in fact the "Devil gives them their power, and their seat, and eat authority."⁷How could they blaspheme with greater emphasis?

That power that is from God "bears not the sword in vain;" "he is an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." "He is a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well."—"God’s minister, attending continually to this very thing."⁸When government, in its origin and administration, is the very reverse of all this, and yet pretends to be the ordinance of God, how greatly does it attempt to dishonour him!

Again, "all power is of God,"—"the powers that be are ordained of God"—instructs us that they err, who consider all civil power as originating from the people and not from God. Those who set up governments without any reference to the authority of the Lord God Omnipotent, and without admitting the truth that he reigneth, rebel against Jehovah. What! "all power of God," and God not acknowledged by the power! What! "the powers that be ordained of God," and yet no mention of his authority, in those constitutions, that form the basis on which the superstructure of the Commonwealths is erected! How wise the maxim contained in the line of the Latin poet! "Stulti semper in contraria currant." Tyrants, to suit their nefarious designs upon the human race, ascribe all their public crimes, and the whole structure of their iniquitous, blooderected thrones, to Heaven; while infidel nations, rebel against God, by ascribing, in the pride of their hearts, all authority to themselves. We are the fountain, say they. This is great Babylon, that we have built for the honour of our might, and for the glory of our majesty. It will remain a truth the heaven and earth pass away, "that all power is or God, that the powers that be, are ordained of God"—a holy God who will never set his seal to transgression, will never give the sanction of his investiture to "thrones of iniquity," never permit any Nebuchadnezzar to lift up his heart, and harden his mind in pride, without deposing him from his kingly throne, and taking his glory from him: for "all power is of God."

Again, "all power is of God," i.e., all civil power is of God, as Creator. Before Satan fell, and he fell before man, there were thrones, principalities powers, and dominions in heaven. He that is now the prince of the power of the air, was once seated on one of these thrones. He was Lucifer a morning star. In the celestial hierarchy the power was, and is, of God for perfecting the glorious system of moral order, which regulates the vast concerns of the commonwealth of angels. We call it indeed a hierarchy, but it did not grow out of he plan of redemption; for it existed before that plan commenced its administration, and though now among other "all things," it is subjected to the Messiah the head of the new covenant, yet it was originally administered by God essentially, as Creator.

Before man fell the essence of all civil power in this world resided in the first Adam. He was made head of his wife and endowed with authority, which would have embraced his sons and daughters, had they been born to him before his fall. He had subjected to him, "all sheep and oxen, fowls of the air, fish of the sea."⁹ The authority necessary for the exercise of government over subordinate moral agents, and over all earthly property, was conferred on him by his Creator, "all power is of God."

2. The ordinance of civil government is instituted for the preservation of moral order among the intelligent creatures of God. "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil."¹⁰ In its original constitution by Him who ordained it, the law which gave it birth was the substance of this proposition of the apostle of the Gentiles. Rulers are ordained to promote good works, by the exhibition of the rewards which follow them, and the pains which ensue upon a breach of them. That the moral laws which were enacted for the government of angels, held out both rewards and punishments to promote obedience among that class of moral creatures, scarcely admits of a doubt; for punishment has been inflicted upon transgressors, and blessedness is bestowed upon those that obey. In the covenant of works, both promises and threatenings were employed for securing obedience to God. In the latter instance indeed the obedience to be rendered was to the Creator immediately; but the principle is the same, whether the immediate superior is God, or his vicegerent; to God it is all ultimately yielded. What certainly was employed in the covenant of works, and what probably was among the angels in their primeval state, the apostle, in the passage quoted, assures us is employed for the preservation of good order among men, in the authority with which the civil magistrate is vested, by Him who ordains "the powers that be." The regularity of operation in the various ranks of creation below man, imparts to them nearly all their beauty, and displays illustriously the glory of the Creator. It is this which charms in the starry heavens, in the mineral, in the vegetable, and in the animal kingdoms. "O Lord, our Lord, how, excellent is thy name, in all the earth!" The principle of attraction is the grand agent in all those sublime and regular operations of the solar system. In the moral creation, civil authority was originally made to operate as a common centre, attracting social beings to itself, as a common centre of motion, and all towards God the Creator. Hence the figure used in relation to small states moving in their orbits around large ones. On the regularity of the system of order, in the great society of created moral beings, depends the beauty of the whole.—By promised rewards God draws moral agents to himself as the common centre, and by threatened punishment he repels evils. "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." The mere settlement of claims relative to property, is a secondary consideration in civil government; because one part of morals refers to the rights of individuals in temporal goods. In these men are to be viewed not as mere animals, but as moral, accountable beings, in whose volitions and actions the glory of God, and the great interests of the commonwealth of created mind, are partly involved. Of this depraved men are too apt to lose sight.

This truth will appear in a more forcible light by a reference to the state of the Roman empire when this epistle was written to the Christians at Rome; or, rather to the whole nature and origin of that blasphemy and tyranny which constituted the very essence of the Roman government. In the year sixty-one of the Christian era, the church at Rome received this letter from Paul. It was also the seventh of the reign of Nero, than whom a greater tyrant never filled an earthly throne. Nothing more Certainly brought destruction on any Roman citizen than his having the reputation of an upright man. Nero murdered his own mother and his wife in a state of pregnancy. He filled Rome with wanton carnage. He caused the city to be set on fire in different places, which consumed a considerable part of it; and when he found that he was charged with so execrable a deed, "he persecuted the Christians, who were very numerous in the capital as being its author. He refined on the torments which he made them suffer. Some he wrapped up in the skins of beasts of prey, and threw them to dogs that devoured them; others he nailed to crosses, that in the severest agonies they might wait the slow approaches of death; others he Covered with inflammable substances, and fixed them to stakes or threw them into fires, that they might give light to the amusement of the monster, who drove through the avenues, in his car, in the dress of a charioteer."¹¹ He spared no age, nor sex. The historian, quoted above, speaking of his reign, says, "at this time is mentioned a prodigy, or phenomenon. Saturninus, very rich and very much respected, died, governor of Rome, a natural death, aged ninety years!" So insupportable was his tyranny, that by common consent, the whole empire rose in rebellion, and pursued him to extermination, as a common enemy. Here is the entire reverse of the picture of God’s ordinance drawn by Paul in the seventh year of his reign. At the very moment when Paul, by the inspiration of the Almighty, was writing this proposition, "for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil," Nero may have been driving his car through avenues, where the flames were consuming Christians as a terror to the good works of Christians, and as an encouragement to the evil works of heathen idolaters. How hold a reproof does the apostle tender to the bloody tyrant!

Nero’s cruelties were perpetrated in the true spirit of a system of gross idolatry, of which as emperor, he was the head, under the title of Pontifex Maximus, supreme pontiff—a system of idolatry, the corruptions of which Paul describes in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans—a system of idolatry woven into the texture of the whole Roman government, from the days of Romulus, to those of Nero—a system directly opposed to the whole moral law of the first table—a system in which stocks and stones were adored, and thus insulted Jehovah—and hence a system which promoted disorder and confusion by rewards, and attacked moral order by punishments. The Roman government was founded, and cemented, by the blood of victims immolated on the altar of lawless ambition, and never derived its authority from the majority of the people, and yet pretended to be of God. No wonder, then, that the apostle John, standing on the sand of the sea, saw it, in vision, as a beast of prey rise up out of the sea, having seven heads—and on his heads the name of blasphemy.¹² Every head had blasphemy for its name—the kingly, decemviral, dictatorial, tribunitial, consular, and imperial forms of the Roman government, had WRITTEN ON THEM, BY THE HAND OF JEHOVAH, BLASPHEMY. Why? Because in their very nature they were opposed to the moral government of God—to moral order among men—and yet, what gross blasphemy! pretended that they were ordained of God, as his ordinance. No wonder, John says in the same chapter,¹³ "the Dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." The Dragon he explains in another chapter,¹⁴ to be "that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan," the author of all the disorder and disobedience in the government of God. The Roman government, as Dr. Scott says, was "the Devil’s vicegerent." I cannot exhibit the force of this remarkable text, better than in the words of Dr. M’Leod, in his profound, accurate, and elegant Lectures on the Revelation, "Dunamin, the force; Qronon, the actual investiture; ecousian, the authority, or national right to reign; are all in this verse said to be from the Devil, and not from God. The beast is from God only in the same sense that the Dragon is from him." No wonder, I say, the government of Rome is thus characterized by the Spirit of God, because it was in its constitution, and vital principle, destitute of that which is essential to the ordinance of God, the preservation of moral order, because in its nature and administration it was not "a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well."

3. The great object of this ordinance is to promote the glory of God. "The heavens declare the glory of God." For this purpose "they are and were created." When a great earthquake swallows up a tenth part of the city, "the remnant are affrighted, and give glory to God."¹⁵ How? The beast under his seven heads has blasphemed God—the whole Roman government had blasphemed God, by disregarding his law; and instead of honouring had dishonoured him. When God destroys by an earthquake "thrones of iniquity," and affrights the nations, they give glory to him, by modelling their governments according to his revealed will, and for the express purpose of honouring him. When "the kingdoms become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ—the four and twenty elders which sit before God on their seats, fall upon their faces and worship God because he has taken to him his great power and has reigned."¹⁶ God’s glorious image is impressed upon his moral laws, and when these are imbodied into the constitutions of the nations and carried out into their practical details in the administration of civil government, then the glorious image of our God is impressed upon civil society, and thus honour is given to the "Lord of all." The ruler then becomes the vicegerent of God, and honours the Supreme Sovereign, whom he represents. "He is the minister of God to thee for good."¹⁷Kings appoint viceroys and ambassadors to maintain the honour of their crowns, among those to whom they are sent, and when Jehovah appoints magistrates to govern in his name, he gives them in charge to keep his honour near to their hearts, and suffer no encroachments on the glory of his throne. The heads of the Roman beast "changed the glory of the incorruptable God, into the likeness of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is God over all blessed for ever."¹⁸

The supreme power of the empire, whether residing in a king, a triumvir, a dictator, a military tribune, a consul, or an emperor, concentred in itself all the dishonour done to God, by all the abominations of heathen idolatry, recorded in the first chapter of the epistle to the Roman; for, as the head of the empire, he was head of the Roman idolatries—the pontifex maximus, or high priest of the Dragon, whom he served and honoured more than "God over all blessed for ever."

4. The ordinance of magistracy is instituted to promote the happiness of the creature. "He is the minister of God to thee for good."—God has ordained him to be instrumental in diffusing enjoyment among his subjects by securing obedience to the moral law, decreed by eternal Wisdom, "whose ways are pleasantness, and all her paths peace." The Roman government was the rod of his wrath to chastise guilty nations. God let it loose upon the nations like "the lion roaring and ravening for his prey,"—the lion is a name given to the Roman emperor by Paul, when he says, "I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion."¹⁹ This government is the fourth beast of Daniel, by the consent of all Commentators, Protestant and Popish. "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it."—"The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth,—and shall devour the whole earth."²⁰Such a voracious monster is not, cannot be the minister of God to thee for good, any otherwise, than the whirlwind, the earthquake, the volcano—than famine, war, and pestilence, which are indeed his ministers of vengeance, but not the ordinance of God for good. But the ordinance of God administered by his vicegerent is "the minister of God to thee for good."

5. To render this power efficacious in securing glory to God, and happiness to man, the magistrate is armed with rewards and punishments, to be dispensed with justice, according to the law of God, of whom he is the minister.

(1.) Rewards—"Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."²¹ Whatever be the power to which Paul here refers, he assures his reader, that if he does good—obeys the law of God, by worshipping God alone, and abstaining from the worship of graven images, or any likeness of any thing in heaven or in earth, "by keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances, as God hath appointed in his word," "he shall have praise of the same;" not merely that such a good man will be permitted without molestation to practice good works, but that he will be encouraged in his good deeds, by the facilities which government, and the common morality of society, will afford him to prosecute his righteous, and benevolent enterprises. The government will praise him in the most effectual manner, by promoting him to civil honour, because he does good—"walking in all the commandments of the Lord blameless." By bestowing the praises which the apostle intends, "kings become nursing fathers of the church."²² It is by the praise bestowed on them who do goods in maintaining truth and holiness, that the church is made "to suck the breast of kings."²³ Thus while kings, glorify the God who is the fountain of "just and legal authority," by enforcing obedience to his laws, they promote that felicity which is enumerated by all judicious civilians as one end of civil government. "It is evident,"' says Vattel,²⁴ "that men form a political society, and submit to laws, solely for their own advantage and safety. The sovereign authority is then established only for the common good of all the citizens, and it would be absurd to think that it could change its nature on its passing into the hands of a senate and monarch. Flattery therefore cannot disown, without rendering itself equally ridiculous and odious, that the sovereign is only established for the safety of the state, and the advantages of society." This advantage results to the state by its government being "a praise to them that do well."—For the reverse of all this we refer again to the Roman government. Idolatry and cruelty were the high road to all praise, all honours in the court of the Cesars. With the two edged sword of the word,—" the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God," Paul cuts deep into the vitals of the Roman beast, and thrusts it deep under the imperial head.

(2.) By the infliction of punishment. "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."²⁵ God has implanted in the constitution of every being susceptible of pleasure and pain, a desire for the former, and an aversion to the latter. To this principle, viewed under each of its aspects, powerful appeals are made in the administration of the divine government. The whole system of promises and threatenings, rewards and penalties, addresses itself to this part of the moral constitution of the creature. The Creator endows the civil ruler with power to administer in part this system. His power as a revenger, appealing to the principle of fear, tends to prevent crime, and he does not bear the sword in vain.—He must actually take revenge upon him that doeth evil. The object of this revenge is not merely the reformation of the criminal, nor the influence of terror to prevent crime. He is a Revenger, ordained as the minister of God, to shew the righteous indignation of Jehovah in punishing the guilty. In capital punishment, the object cannot be the reformation of the murderer. And whatever modern visionaries may dream, every Bible believer must admit that the Judge of all the earth did once arm the civil power to take away life. He was at least then a revenger, but Paul Says he is so still. The word revenger admits of no other interpretation. Could we say of a father when he chastises his child that he is a revenger? Might we say of our Redeemer when he chastens those whom he loveth that he is a revenger? The magistrate, then, is authorized to take vengeance on criminals. But all those acts of vengeance are to fall, of course, on the guilty, and thus the vicious through fear are restrained; and the welfare of the people promoted.

This will all appear in a clearer light by contrasting it with the conduct of the Roman Cesar, Nero, the minister of the Dragon. He executed his own personal revenge in the murder of his mother, his wife, Seneca, the celebrated heathen moralist; and the revenge of all the heathen priesthood—the revenge of heathen idolatry,—upon whom? Those that did evil? No, emphatically, no; but on Christians. Here again we find the apostle aiming another deadly thrust at the beast. Though the beast of blasphemy thus set at defiance the laws of God, yet it is still true that the minister of God who possesses just and legal, authority, "beareth not the sword in vain, but is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."

II. We now invite your attention to the administration of this ordinance in the present state of the world, fallen from God, and yet spared under a visitation of mercy through a Redeemer.

l. It is committed by God the Father to the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator. We see this taught even in the first promise—"the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent." Satan had as a conqueror vanquished our ancestors in the garden of Eden, and having conquered them, he had in some sense overcome the world, of which the lordship had been committed to them. The Second Person of the glorious Trinity, the Eternal and only Begotten Son of God, appears, as the head of the covenant of grace, to introduce a dispensation of grace; and at the very moment when the world was ready to perish under the infliction of the penalty of the violated covenant of works, he lays hold of, supports, and establishes the pillars of the earth, and promises to conquer the destroyer. His right to do so, was according to the tenor of the covenant, to be purchased by his death in the room of those "who were chosen in him before the foundation of the world."²⁶Every thing necessary to the ruin of the kingdom of Satan, and the restoration of moral order among men, was committed to him. Among the rest the ordinance of civil government. In this character as head of the nations, he gave authority to the ancient patriarchs, before the flood, to govern their posterity. And though Cain and his murderous race, descended from a murderous father, went out from the presence of God, and founded governments as the seed of the serpent; and though the dragon gave the power, and the seat, and authority, to them "who were of old time men of renown,"—yet Messiah who will give the Roman beast with his ten modern horns to the devouring flame, sent destruction, by a general deluge upon the thrones, and people of the antediluvian Cesars. In this character, as the head of empires, he promised to Abraham the land of Cannan; destroyed the first-born in the land of Egypt; gave a body of civil laws, at Sinai, to the commonwealth of Israel; led, as the Captain of the Lord’s host, the armies of Israel to victory over the Canaanitish nations, put his chosen people in possession of their land, and governed the people of Jacob in all their civil concerns. As the great Conductor of all providential dispensations, "he has all power in heaven and earth given to him;"²⁷ "is made head over all things to his body the church;"²⁸ "and all things are subjected to him, except the Father who did put all things under him."²⁹ All thrones, principalities and powers are subjected to him as Mediator; in no other sense could they be given to him, for as God he possessed them equally with the Father. So Turrettin expounds the grant. In his exposition of Mat. 28:18. he says, "all power is to be given him," (Christ) "which necessarily supposes omnipotence, for he could not have all power in heaven and earth, as Mediator, unless as God he was Omnipotent."³⁰

Every one who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, when he fully understands what is here meant, must delight in the contemplation of the high glory to which God the Father has exalted Him, who is all our salvation, and all our desire. Glory to the sovereign mercy and free grace of our new covenant God, that he who became a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, who expired in agony on the cross to purchase us by his precious blood, has been exalted to the "right hand of the Majesty on high,"—made "King of kings and Lord of lords,"—that he has given us assurance, that he will reign until all his enemies are subjected to his regal sceptre, after he shall have "put down all the rule, and all the authority" which the Dragon has given to the tyrants and despots of the world, from the days of Cain, to the conspiracy of the horns of the beast against God and the rights of man ;—an Alliance, which, in the true spirit of the last head of the beast, they blasphemously call Holy.

2. The Bible is the rule by which the nations of the world are to establish their constitutions, and administer their civil affairs. The laws which it contains are the same with the original laws of our nature, imbodied in the covenant of works. Indeed one great object of the covenant of grace, is to restore all the chosen of God to the obedience of his laws. Jesus the Lord of creation comes with his word, and promulges it among the nations, and says to commonwealths, as well as to individuals, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to them, it is because there is no light in them." According to that word, proceeding from the Eternal Wisdom, kings are bound to reign, and princes to decree justice, even all the nobles of the earth.

3. It should be administered by men fearing God, hating covetousness, and able men. Not by infidels, duelists, profane swearers, sabbath breakers, card players, drunkards, adulterers, &c.

4. In subserviency to the interests of the church. We have no means of moralizing the nations that will ever prove effectual but the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and those institutions in which it is imbodied. Literature has evinced its impotency in Greece and Rome, whose citizens became more immoral in proportion to the progress which they made in knowledge. Athens was in the zenith of her literary splendour in the days of Demosthenes, who reproaches her with bitterness for her degeneracy. Rome, in her highest literary polish, brought forth a Cateline, a Caligula, a Nero. Paul gives you the state of her morals in the days of Nero.³¹

As the great object of civil government is the preservation of moral order among men, the nations are bound to render all their civil institutions subservient to that alone which can effectually reform the morals of the world. Kings and Queens should nurse the church. God has promised that they shall. He would not have promised it as a blessing, had it not been for the interest of the church and of the world. But as we have elsewhere32 illustrated these important topics, we proceed:—

III. To consider the duty of subjects. A question of much interest arises here. Are all the associations of men, and all the powers of the earth that are called civil governments, to be viewed as the ordinance of God? Are all who are called civil rulers to be considered as the ministers, the vicegerents of God, armed with his authority to rule the nations? However this question may be decided, there can be no doubt, that when the ordinance of civil government is constituted, and administered on the principles exhibited in the first and second divisions of this discourse, there are important duties devolving upon the subjects. Attend to them as exhibited by the Apostle Paul—obedience—tribute and custom—fear—honour.³³

1. Obedience. "Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God." "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake." "Submit yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for a praise to them that do well."³⁴ The powers delineated by Paul and Peter, as sent and commissioned by God to punish the guilty, and reward the good, are to be submitted to, and not resisted; and this not merely from a principle of convenience, but for conscience’ sake, and for the Lord’s sake. When these two are joined together we discover the principle from which the obedience must spring. God reigns by them as his delegates, whom he has solemnly invested with authority to rule in his name. In rendering obedience to them, we obey God, our Supreme King. When they issue a command to perform a duty, we obey it, not merely because it is right in itself, not merely because we find it recorded, but because it is enjoined by him whom God has sent to see that the command is fulfilled. The distinction should be carefully marked. Were we to be taken by an Algerine pirate, contrary to all law, all right, we would no doubt obey the officers of the pirate, when they commanded any thing not sinful, and also the master to whom we might be sold. A regard to the law of self-preservation, and humble submission to the afflictive dispensations of God’s providence, would not only render it allowable to yield such obedience, but would make it our duty. We would in some measure be bound for conscience’ sake to render such obedience. But we would not obey them as "God’s ministers sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for a praise to them that do well." We would not admit that the pirate sailed and made us prisoners, under a commission, sanctioned by the broad seal of Heaven; nor would we admit that even when they commanded us to do things in themselves just and right, they gave such command under the sanction of divine authority. To obey from a principle of this nature, would be offering dishonour to a just and holy God, that can never give a sanction to an act of injustice. The obedience, which an intelligent and conscientious man would render to the Algerine, would be the obedience for wrath’s sake, contemplated by the apostle. He would excite, by obstinacy, the robber, to add the sin of wrath and perhaps murder to his other crimes. He would be patient, lest through the wrath of his enemy, he should lose his life. Obedience for conscience, and for the Lord’s sake, proceeds from a respect to the high and solemn authority with which the power commanding is vested. The ordinance of man mentioned by Peter is limited in the same manner. It is not merely every thing which man may ordain, whether agreeable to the law of God or opposed to it, but that government only which in its origin, principle and administration, has the authority of God to act, and really does act in the punishment of evil doers, and in rewarding them that do well, that is to be obeyed conscientiously. Doing evil is the violation of God’s law, and doing well, with right motives, is the fulfilling of the same law; and these alone in God’s estimation constitute moral good and evil; and the same law measures the rewards and the punishments. When the subject obeys the commands of such a government, according to the tenor of the precept—"Submit yourselves," &c. he does so from an inward love and reverence for the holy law of God, in which "he delights after the inner man."

The power contemplated by Paul must be obeyed from this principle of conscience, on pain of damnation. Neglect to obey, as well as openly to resist, exposes to the vengeance of eternal justice, in whose majesty the power is arrayed.

2. The payment of tribute and custom. "Pay ye tribute also." "Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute—custom to whom custom." Those who are employed in attending to the general interests of the commonwealth are necessarily prevented from making efforts in the ordinary way, to provide for their temporal wants, and those of their families. The public is bound on principles of common honesty to make comfortable provision for their sustenance. National defences, internal improvements, the diffusion of knowledge, and other important public objects, cannot be effected without the payment of tribute and custom. The happiness and security of all are promoted by them, and all are bound to contribute their just proportion towards them. The principle upon which the payment is to be made ascends much higher. The former principle binds to pay for services rendered even by those who may not be recognized as the vicegerents of God. But the payment of dues to the powers mentioned by Paul, is ascribed to the fact that "they are God’s ministers attending continually upon this very thing." What is the very thing on which they attend continually? Not the receiving of tribute and custom, but the execution of the laws of God, in the exercise of their official functions. For they are God’s ministers, attending continually to their ministry, for God’s glory and the interests of the nation. Their whole time is occupied in the service of God, as public functionaries, that he has appointed; and therefore the tribute and custom are given to God, as a demand which he makes on the behalf of those public and honourable servants, who serve not their own evil passions, by deeds of iniquity, who serve not the cause of idolatry, or vice; but serve God continually. Wherever powers, thus ordained, are found in the continual service of God as accountable to him; custom and tribute are their due, and he who withholds, when he can give, withholds not merely from man, but from God his due.

3. Fear. "Wilt thou not then be afraid of the same?" "Fear to whom fear." Not that species of fear which a wild beast "devouring much prey, and stamping and breaking to pieces," produces, when he rushes upon the benighted, unarmed and feeble. Fear then is involuntary, and neither of the nature of obedience nor disobedience. As far as the law of God refers to this kind of fear, it is to check its extravagance. "Fear not them which kill the body, but rather fear him, who hath power to destroy both soul and body in hell." It is a degree of that fear which we are commanded to exercise towards God. "Fear God." "I will put my fear in your hearts."—A fear which is consistent with the exercise of love, respect and confidence. "Who would not fear before thee?" This comprehends angels, who are penetrated with a solemn dread of the glorious majesty of Jehovah, even while they enjoy its vision with the most rapturous admiration. The more clear the views of the divine excellency, revealed to the faith of the believer, the more does he fear this fear, though his assurance in the divine favour, and his confidence of safety from punishment, are confirmed.

It is quite natural, and even indisputable, that the powers ordained of God, clothed with the divine authority, and acting in the name of King of kings,—the Messiah, should be entitled to fear; for he who fears them, fears God, in them. Through the civil rulers the subject looks up by faith to the throne of God, a feeble image of which is presented in the throne of the earthly potentate, whom he hath inducted into office, on whose head he hath set the crown, and into whose hand he hath put the royal sceptre. The constitution which gives him his power, the laws which he administers, his own personal and official virtues, and the beneficent results of the exercise of his dominion, are all calculated to inspire the subject with fear, and that heart in which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad the fear of God, by his saving and gracious operations, will fear such a prince, filling such a throne. Did the throne, the personal virtues, the court, and administration of Nero,—did the Roman government present such an image of the throne of God? What notions can they have of God’s throne, who think so?

4. Honour. "Honour the king." "Honour to whom honour." Some seem to think, that the rights of men, and the Christian religion, do not allow us to employ the tokens of external respect, which are ordinarily expected by those who occupy high stations. They are not only allowable, but becoming, even to those who are not entitled to the honour which ought to be rendered to the magistrate who is God’s minister. Abraham bowed to the children of Heth, as a token of respect to a large family that treated him in a friendly generous manner. Much more than an attention to the ordinary forms of politeness, is comprehended in the honour due to a king. It is very nearly allied to the fear which is due to him; yet even as a sentiment of the mind it is distinguished from it, as it is not mingled with any apprehension of danger, from his power as a revenger. It is a high esteem for the office which the king fills, as ordained of God, and calculated to promote the declarative glory of the Lord of heaven and earth, and to advance the welfare of the nation. It restrains from speaking evil of the dignities emanating from God’s authority, and prompts to active exertions for strengthening the arm of government, and maintaining in its vigour that public sentiment, which constitutes the strength of a nation, and secures the administration of justice.

As the fear enjoined terminates ultimately and chiefly on God, so does the honour. Respect to an ambassador at a foreign court, is honourable to the government and nation that he represents; and when he is treated disrespectfully, his government is insulted through him. Jesus Christ says, "By me kings reign, and princes decree justice." Honour those who reign by his authority, and he is honoured; for their authority is an emanation of that holy and glorious authority, with which he as "Prince of the kings of the earth" is vested by his Father. They who love and honour the Son of God, as now exalted in his mediatorial glory, will love and honour those who represent him in the holy and righteous administration of holy and righteous laws, founded on a holy and righteous constitution. Never can we express too strongly the truth,—that holiness and righteousness alone are deserving of honour, and that all unholiness and unrighteousness, merit degradation. To bring holiness and righteousness into honour, and to maintain their honours, is the object of all law, of all government, in God’s dominions. For this purpose "the throne are cast down, and the Ancient of days sits, whose garment is white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire."³⁵ For this purpose "the Ancient of days comes, and judgment is given to the saints of the Most High, and the time comes that the saints possess the kingdom."³⁶For this purpose when God send his magistrates to execute his laws, they should be honoured. "Honour the king." Was this the tendency of the Roman constitution, of the government of Nero? What notions have they of holiness and righteousness, who think so?

5. Prayer. "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty."³⁷ In this command there are three things involved.

(1.) We pray that God will have mercy on the souls of the individuals, who are kings, or who occupy any subordinate, civil station in the commonwealth. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men (men out of all ranks) to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." This does not respect them as magistrates, for as such they are not saved, but as men; wherefore the apostle uses the words all men (pantaj anqrwpoj) not all kings, nor merely all (pantaj) the most common form of expression in the New Testament, but he inserts the word men to render it emphatic, that kings do not obtain salvation through the atoning blood of Jesus, as public functionaries, but as men, who are by nature and practice guilty, depraved, and ignorant; and require to be taught the knowledge of the truth, that they may be made free. This prayer, the Christian is bound to prays no matter how wicked the ruler, no matter though "the name of blasphemy" is written on the constitution of the government which he administers.

(2.) That God will balance their counsels, overrule their operations, so as to promote the interests of religion and the peace and comfort of his own people. This is the import of the reason assigned by the apostle for the duty—"that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." "God has the king’s heart in his hand and turneth it as the rivers of water whithersoever he will." It is impossible that the church and people of God should not be afflicted in some degree, by the public policy, and the measures of state, in those nations where they are domiciliated. The, apostle alludes to this—when he connects the "quiet and peaceable life" of God’s people with the prayer for kings. Godliness and honesty must be practised at every earthly hazard, and when the power of the nation is hostile to the religion of Jesus, as it was in the Roman empire, godliness and honesty expose to persecution—and prevent the saints from enjoying a "quiet and peaceable life." The apostle would have Timothy to know that none should seek "a quiet and peaceable life" by a dereliction of "godliness and honesty," but that they might pray, and were bound to prays that God would restrain their persecutors, and so regulate the public movements of the empire, as "that the word of the Lord might have free course and be glorified." Their motive in their prayers should not be to recommend themselves to the favour of the tyrants or impious rulers, that they might receive a regium donum, a royal bounty as a reward for their prayers in behalf of despotism, as some dissenting ministers now do for George IV. in Ireland. That God would thus restrain even a Nero, should be the earnest prayer of God’s people.

It is remarkable that the apostle confines his argument relative to prayer to these two topics.

(3.) That God would bless and prosper the king as his vicegerent upon earth give stability and dignity to his throne, and perpetuate the constitution of the empire, as his own ordinance, appointed for "a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well." This prayer ought to be made for God’s ordinance of civil government, whenever we find it constituted in such a manner as he approves. But to pray that God would give stability and dignity to thrones of iniquity, with which he will have no fellowship, would not, could not be the prayer of faith, for there is no promise for it on which faith can rest; it is directly contrary to many most express prophetic denunciations. In the Psalms of David we have many prayers for the king, for David by name; for the kings of Judah were anointed by the Lord. But there is not recorded either in the Old or New Testament, one prayer of any prophet, of any apostle, or of any saint, for any king of any other nation. I say not merely that none of them are prayed for by name, as David was, and as Samuel prayed for Saul, but there is no prayer for any king actually occupying any throne, except in the commonwealth of Israel—a remarkably significant omission.

That these distinctions may be illustrated by a plain fact, we refer you to the prayers of the church respecting the Pope of Rome. He is a temporal prince and governs as a king the ecclesiastical estate—a temporal dignity, which he holds as head of the Roman catholic church. His pontificate and princedom are connected so closely that the latter is founded on the former. Destroy his headship over the church, and you tear away the whole foundation on which the superstructure of his temporal authority is erected. A great majority of protestants, for three hundred years, have been accustomed to pray, both publicly and privately, that God would destroy the pontificate, with the "breath of his mouth, and with the brightness of his coming." These prayers may have been offered up in faith; for they have the promise of God on which to rely. Could any one pray in this manner, and yet supplicate that God would bless his holiness the Pope of Rome, and give stability to his throne and energy to his administration as a civil prince? Yet we may pray that God will be graciously pleased to bring to the knowledge of the truth the person of him who is the Pontiff, and that he will balance his counsels, restrain his persecuting rage, and overrule all his operations, for the interests of the church, and for the glory of Jesus her head.

This view of the subject is strengthened by the fact that the martyrs of Jesus, under the reign of the House of Stuart, when they were offered their lives, on condition that they would pray for the king, constantly refused, "counting not their lives dear;" while they expressed their willingness to pray that God would bring him to the knowledge of the truth, and save his soul; but their persecutors as well as themselves understood the distinction, and would not accept of this as a prayer for the king.³⁸ For no other formal reason than their refusal to pray for the king, many of them accepted the crown of martyrdom.

Relative to the question noticed in introducing this head,—we now proceed to inquire, whether all the governments that have ever been established in the world, no matter on what principles, or by what means; no matter how administered, or by whom, have been entitled to obedience, for conscience’ sake, and not to be resisted at the hazard of eternal damnation—to tribute and custom as God's ministers, attending to the very duty of praising them that do well, and terrifying evil-doers—to fear—to honour—as clothed with divine authority, and as presenting an image of the holiness and righteousness of the throne of the King of kings—and to the prayers of the saints for the stability and dignity of their thrones, and for the energy and perpetuity of their administrations. For all these the powers that are ordained of God, have a divine right to claim—all these their subjects are bound, under pain of damnation, to give.

Before we go into a detailed examination of the civil establishments of the world, it may be remarked, that the fall of man—the state of guilt and depravity in which every child of Adam is born—the extent to which these evils have spread themselves—co-extensive with the population of the globe—the aggravated crimes that have been perpetrated in every age of the world and in every nation, the gross ignorance, and barbarity of by far the greater part of the nations, in nearly all the successive generations of men—the countless millions that have "lived without God, and without Christ in the world"—the stupendous systems of idolatry, superstition, and profligacy that have grown up and acquired strength, with the strength of accumulated ages—and the enormous pride, ambition, and cruelty of depraved man; render it not unreasonable to suppose, that at least in some one age or nation, a system of civil polity may have been established, which God would not own, as ordained of him for "a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well." Since, even at this moment, Satan reigns "in the dark places of the earth, full of the habitations of horrid cruelty," over nearly 700,000,000 of the human family, with almost undisturbed sway, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in some part of his dominions he may have given "power, seat, and great authority," to his own vicegerents; who could not be God’s ministers, or vicegerents, at the same time that they are the commissioned agents of the prince of darkness.

Here, my brethren, I almost think I might bring this inquiry to a close. It would seem almost to offer insult to every sensible man, who believes the Bible, to say nothing of the Christian, were we to advance any farther. In such a world, in such a state, thrones of iniquity must have been established, by those who worship devils, and not God. It is impossible that they should not. But hold—the world thinks otherwise, and many Bible-believers profess to believe, and in charity we must admit do believe, that no such throne of iniquity has ever been set up in our fallen world—that all the powers of all the nations are the ordinance of God, to be obeyed, feared, honoured, and supported, and prayed for as God’s vicegerents, under pain of Jehovah’s eternal wrath and "the vengeance of eternal justice." Ah! my brethren, do any of you at this moment think so? I trust you have other views of your Lord, other conceptions of the immaculate purity of eternal justice.

"Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord—and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."³⁹ The Targum of Jonathan is, ‘he was a powerful rebel before the Lord;’ and that of Jerusalem, ‘he was powerful in hunting in sin before the Lord;’ and another Jewish writer says, ‘he was called a mighty hunter, because he was all his days taking provinces by force, and spoiling others of their substance; and that he was before the Lord, truly so, and he seeing and taking notice of it; openly and publicly, and without fear of him, and in a bold and impudent manner, in despite of him.’ See Gen. 6:11 & 13:13. The Septuagint renders it, against the Lord; he intended, as Jarche’s note is, to provoke him to his face: "Wherefore it is said; in a proverbial way, when any man is grown mighty and powerful, or is notoriously wicked, or is become a tyrant or oppressor of the people, that he is even as Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord."

So say all the modern commentators, many of whom honour modern "powerful rebels before the Lord," as the ordinance of God. Here was laid the foundation of the Assyrian or Babylonian empire, the first of the four universal monarchies of Daniel, laid by mighty acts of rebellion against Jehovah. Are rebels against earthly monarchs, the ministers, the vicegerents of those against whom they rebel? Are they to be honoured, feared, supported, prayed for, and obeyed, as the Lord’s ministers for good to the nation? Is rebellion against Jehovah a slighter sin than rebellion against an earthly prince? He who obeys, fears, supports honours, and prays for the rebel, dishonours the earthly prince against whom the rebellion is raised. Much more he who obeys, fears, supports, honours and prays for the rebel against the Messiah, dishonours him.

These two verses of Genesis are God’s record to lead us up to the origin of the great secular powers of the earth, and warn us against them.

To the rebel empire of Nimrod succeeded that of Cyrus the Medo-Persian bear—which yielded to that of Alexander, the Macedonian leopard—and the fourth beast more terrible than all that had gone before him, devouring, breaking, and stamping to pieces. Now if all these gained their power in the same manner with Nimrod, they are all mighty rebels against Jehovah. "Nimrod was called a mighty hunter, because he was all his days taking provinces by force, and spoiling others of their substance." Was ever any thing more descriptive of the whole tenor of the Medo-Persian Nimrod, of the Macedonian Nimrod, of the Roman Nimrod, of the Austrian, Prussian, Russian, British, French, Spanish, and Neapolitan Nimrods? The whole forming a mighty and complex system of rebellion against the Lord God omnipotent: the last of the four "ascendeth out of the bottomless pit,"⁴⁰—out of hell; upon his heads is written "the name of blasphemy"⁴¹ "the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority,"⁴² "and goeth into perdition,"⁴³ to the bottomless pit—to hell, whence he came, with all his ten horns. Is this the origin progress, and end of the "minister of God to thee for good," to be obeyed feared, supported, honoured, prayed for? "Credat Induces Apella."⁴⁴Yet so said all the swarms of Popish monks, both regular and secular, especially the Jesuits and the Pope, who have liberally denounced damnation against the Waldenses, against the Bohemians, against John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, against Zuinglius, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and all protestants, who resisted the encroachments of Popes and other tyrants. "The powers that be are ordained of God, and whosoever resisteth shall receive unto himself damnation," was thundered from the Vatican, from the thrones of tyrant and the pulpits of degraded, priestly panders of power. So said the House of Stuart to the Rutherfords, the Guthries, the Argyles, the Camerons, the Renwicks, in the lands of our forefathers. So said the Fletchers and others against the British Covenanters. So said the courtiers of George Ill. and the ministers of the the British establishment; so said the Quakers, and all other tories of the American Colonies, against the Washingtons, the Greens, the Mercers, the Montgomeries, the Clintons, the Monroes, the Adamses, the Hancocks, the Masons, and ,the Annans,⁴⁵ who were the patriots, the heroes of the American revolution—damnation from the throne, and the pulpit was fulminated against the warriors, and statesmen of, our country. The alliance, blasphemously called the holy, denounced damnation against the Neapolitans, Spaniards, and Portuguese, because they have resisted the "powers that be."⁴⁶

Are we to believe that all those advocates of passive obedience and non-resistance come on us armed with the authority of the apostle of the Gentiles? Surely the God of heaven would never set his seal to doctrines so monstrous. He has not. He has described the powers that are of him, in a way, that be who runs may read, in a way that gives not a shadow of countenance to impiety so monstrous, as to represent him denouncing judgment on all who wilt not obey, that, support, honour and pray for the Devil’s vicegerents.

Having now clearly established the fact, that there are powers constituted over the nations. By rebellion against God, and "by the force, power, and authority" of the Dragon; let us inquire what is the duty of the disciples of Jesus—of devout and conscientious men, when residing in such a nation.

They are bound to abstain from rendering civil homage to those commissioned agents of the prince of darkness. So far from their being bound to yield them their homage, upon pain of the curse, they expose themselves to the wrath of God by doing so; and no wonder; for he who unites himself with the rebellions Nimrods of the world, becomes himself a rebel. He says a confederacy with those whom God has doomed to go into perdition, (eij apoleian) and must expect to be a partaker of their plagues. "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink, of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out, without mixture, into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy angels; and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."⁴⁷"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."⁴⁸ The beast is the Roman government in all its forms, from the days of the kings, to the time of the present Emperor, Francis of Austria,—"to the time of the end." What is the worship of a civil power? undoubtedly obeying, supporting, fearing, honouring, and praying for it—all which, are comprehended in an oath of allegiance. But hear the commentators, though the meaning is self-evident without them. Bishop Newton,⁴⁹ speaking of the second or two-horned beast of the earth, the Roman hierarchy, has these remarks: "He supports tyranny, as he is supported by tyranny. He enslaves the consciences, as the first beast" (the secular power) "subjugates the bodies of men." As Mr. Whiston well observes, "he is the common centre and cement which unites all the distinct kingdoms of the Roman empire; and by joining with them procures a blind obedience from their subjects: and so he is the occasion of the preservation of the old Roman empire in some kind of unity, and name, and strength; which otherwise had been quite dissolved by the inundations of wars, succeeding the settlement of the barbarous nations in that empire."—In the same way Dr. Scott understands the worshipping of the beast. "So that tyranny upholds them" (the Roman Catholics) "as they uphold tyranny; they enslave men’s consciences, and help kings to enslave their persons."⁵⁰ "The western empire and its inhabitants are reduced by the machinations of a temporizing priesthood; to yield blind submission to the civil power, however impious, and tyrannical. The spirit of liberty and independence, which characterized the invaders of ancient Rome, is broken down by the efforts of the antichristian church, and the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, is inculcated from the several pulpits of oppressed Europe."⁵¹

"Worshipping the beast," then, is the allegiance of the subjects of the Roman empire, in its ten-horned, divided or modern state—the obedience and support rendered to its blasphemous claims to be the ordinance of God. Against this the heaviest vengeance is denounced, and for the most substantial reason. It is this support, which is the grand cement of the whole great system of iniquity, combined in the secular and ecclesiastical establishments of Europe. Remove this and the whole superstructure of iniquity, idolatry, superstition and tyranny crumbles into dust. Against the beast, John draws the sword of God, and strikes at the vitals. How tremendous the declaration that "the smoke of the torment" of those who espouse the cause of the beast, and yield to him their support, "ascendeth for ever and ever,"' from "the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone!" But it is "deserved punishment," for how can the lovers of the blessed Redeemer, degrade him by ascribing to him the abominations of the beast, and yield their homage to him who is characterized by blasphemy, who makes war upon the woman—the church of which Jesus is the head—the church which our Lord has purchased with his own precious blood? Not indeed that every one who is deceived will actually go into the bottomless pit, into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; for "the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin"—the pollution of even this sin may be washed away in the fountain which is opened in the house of David, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin, and for uncleanness; as the sins of many who have eaten and drunk damnation to themselves at the Lord’s table, have been washed away in the same fountain. But let no one "sin that grace may abound." "Let all the saints come out from among them and be separate, saith the Lord." Let them "repent and give glory to God." Neutrality is not permitted. God has again drawn out his glittering sword, and brandishes it over thrones of iniquity. Who can tell what it will accomplish, before it shall have finished drinking the blood of the stain? Our duty is not to "worship the beast, or his image, or to receive the number of the mark of his name."

CONCLUSIONS.—WE now proceed to make some application of the doctrines exhibited in the preceding discussion.

1. There must be a removal of the things which remain. God will speedily shake both the heavens and the earth, and cast out the dragon who has so long influenced the civil policy of the nations. The war has been indeed of long continuance, even from the days of Nimrod to the present time, but the day of decision is near. The contents of the last vial have already begun to be poured upon the nations, as the student of prophecy, who attentively observes the present movements of the nations, will not have much difficulty to perceive. "The day of the wrath of the Lamb is come, and who shall be able to stand before him?" The wars which grew out of the French revolution, raged with an extent and violence, never before exceeded, perhaps never equalled. Certainly, since the organization of the modern kingdoms of Europe, out of the feudal baronies, the thrones of kings never were before so shaken. The whole history of that war is a paraphrase on Rev. 14:14-16. "And I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his lead a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice, to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap;—for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped." All commentators refer this to great judgments inflicted on the kingdoms, in the dominions of antichrist, when the finishing of the mystery of iniquity is near at hand. Unlike all other wars, the late war may be traced, to one cause, and all its operations referred to the action of one spring—the revolutionary principle. The efforts of kings and nobles to defend their seats, were for a time utterly unavailing. The omnipotent anger thrust in his sharp sickle, and they could not resist him; but, filled with consternation and dismay they endeavoured to save themselves, by flight. Many of them fell on the high places of the field; and those who were permitted to escape, "had space given them to repent, but they repented not of their evil deeds." God hardened their hearts, as he did the heart of Pharaoh, to the end that he might destroy them, having raised them up, to make known in them his mighty power.

When he put down the rod of his wrath, or to use the metaphor of Revelation, when Napoleon, his sharp, sickle, was laid aside, and the kings permitted to return to their thrones they hardened their hearts against the God of heaven, without regarding the doings of his hand, set up their idols, restored the Roman Pontiff to his seat, rebuilt their altars, and set up their idols, with all the madness of idolatry, and with all, the fury of former oppression.

After the husbandman reaps his harvest, he rests a little, before he begins to reap the vintage. That pause we witnessed from the battle of Waterloo, to the commencement of the late revolutions in the south of Europe, when we heard "another angel come out from the altar, having power over fire, and cry out with a loud cry, to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe."⁵²

Does not the vintage synchronize with the seventh vial? The great city is dividing into three parts,—the revolutionary kingdoms—the kingdoms leagued to support the ancient order of despotism—and those kingdoms that remain neutral. Soon will the cities of the nations fall. The hailstorm of the seventh vial, begins to beat upon the empire of the ten horned beast. As the hail produced by the sounding of the first trumpet was symbolical of the invasion of the Roman Empire, by the Goths and Vandals, from the north, the region of hail—so the hail of the seventh vial may well be interpreted of the devastation producing, and to be produced, by Russian armies—the modern Vandals, led on by the Emperor, Alexander, who combines in himself more than all the power and skill of Radagaisus, Alaric, and Atilla—the "scourges of God," that desolated the nations, under the first trumpet. Is he not at present the sickle of the vintage? Does he not evince a disposition relative to the revolution in Greece, to employ, like Napoleon, the principle of revolution for the aggrandizement of his own person, throne and empire? Is not God employing him, as an instrument, to reap the vine of the antichristian earth, which is the vine of Sodom, and its vintage the vintage of Gomorrah? The whole aspect of the times indicates that God is preparing the way, by the speedy destruction of thrones of iniquity, for a glorious display of his own ordinance of civil government, as delineated in the Bible, to bless the nations with an equitable administration of public law, with an application of divine jurisprudence to the government of commonwealths, and with consequent peace prosperity, and felicity to the church, and to all the kingdoms of the world. For the accomplishment of these holy and beneficent purposes, "he cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah;" for this he cometh riding on the wings of the tempest, and his march will be glorious. "Even so come quickly, Lord Jesus."

2. The truths, and facts disclosed in the preceding discussion, call loudly upon the advocates of a scriptural magistracy, not to relax the tone of their testimony, nor to think of compromise, when they have advanced so near securing the victory by the word of this testimony, and by the blood of the Lamb. Many considerations render this admonition needful. Let the following suffice.

(1.) The instruments which the Governor of the nations employs in the subversion of systems of iniquity are at present, ungodly, profane, and generally infidel men, ignorant of religion—men who are goaded on by the fury of the oppressor—and who seem to have no other objects, but to free themselves from unjust and cruel exactions, and to enjoy unrestrained opportunities of licentious indulgence. With such men, the friends of true religion, and the advocates for social morality, can hold no communion, can have no co-operation. When opposition to any thing, however bad, comes from such a quarter, there is some danger that a good man will feel less abhorrence of that against which they rise up, from the very fact of their opposition. Neither on the right hand, nor on the left, should we "say a confederacy to all to whom this people say a confederacy."

(2.) Many of the ungodly men, who fill the thrones of iniquity, have had their hearts turned to co-operate in the great Bible-cause—and thus pay an external homage to Christianity, well calculated to deceive the unwary. The saints of the Most High have truly need of the wisdom of the serpent in such a crisis, when the occupants of power, illegitimate and tyrannical, are, at least many of them, giving aid to the distribution of the Scriptures, while those who oppose them contemn openly all true religion. Attention to the personal conduct of men in power—to the basis on which their thrones are erected, to their unrighteous administration of the affairs of society—and to the desolating judgments which the God of heaven has denounced against them, together with a devout sense of our duty to the Head of the church, and a determined resolution to abide by the testimony of our fathers—the martyrs and confessors of Jesus, in all its extent, will be necessary to guard us against the specious but hollow pretensions of the enemy.

(3.) The great shew of charity and liberality, for which of late there is so great an outcry, among nearly all professors, is calculated to mislead. The prince of darkness would have a total cessation of hostilities between the professors of religion and the subjects of his government—the instruments of his administration. There is danger that this seductive clamour may deceive even those who know better. The enemy will pay his court to the witnesses for truth, and even appear, to admit, in some measure the truth of their system, that an accommodation may be effected. Like Tiberius Cesar, Jesus Christ may be worshipped, provided it be in company with the 30,000 false gods of the empire. The great danger to the cause of truth, at present, is to be apprehended from flatteries. It is said of an ancient enemy—"through his policy also shall he cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many."⁵³ But what is the end of standing up thus "against the Prince of princes?" "He shall be broken without hand." Fixing our eyes upon the amazing progress of the Holy Scriptures, the active diffusion of intelligence relative to religious liberties, conversation, and magazines—the means employed for the education of the poor, and the liberal contributions made for religious and charitable purposes, we are in danger of forgetting that the great system of iniquitous government both in church and state remains entire, and that the enemy is yet fortified in his strong holds.

Though "the morning cometh," yet the call is, "Watchman, what of the night?"

3. Our last observation is,—let there be no relaxation of our efforts to promote a knowledge of the correct principles of moral social order. Every such effort in this age, by word, writ, or deed, shall tell. God has enriched, and will yet much more enrich the soil with the blood of the slain, and the seed sown, though but as "an handful of corn on the tops of mountains, shall shake with fruit like the trees on Lebanon." However valuable the exhibition of truth, in its native beauty apart, may be, it is never exhibited so effectually as when contrasted with error. Let us hold up to view the ordinance of civil government as instituted by the God of heaven, and administered by the Lord Jesus Christ, and contrast it boldly with its enormous abuses, which for ages have filled the world with mourning, lamentation, and woe. We shall then be understood. Let us name the horns of the beast, and the instruments that Heaven employs, as "carpenters to fray them," so that "he who runs may read." We cannot expose ourselves to greater dangers than those who have gone before us, "who have wandered about in sheep-skins, in goat-skins, in dens, and in caves of the earth, destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy;" and we, like them, through faith and patience shall inherit the promises. Even should we "resist unto blood striving against sin," our dying prayers will arm the last vial of Jehovah’s wrath against his enemies, with more signal displays of justice, "in taking vengeance upon them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of his Son," and in hastening the period, when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ—while our souls shall rest in security and glorious felicity under the altar, until we see "our blood avenged on them that dwell on the earth," and "the saints of the Most High take the kingdom."

To occupy the following pages, an extract from Dr. M’Leod’s Sermons on the late American War with Great Britain is subjoined, in answer to the

"Objection—Political remarks are unfavourable to devotion; and therefore unsuitable to the pulpit.

In endeavouring to obviate this objection, I feel as if I had to encounter the most difficult task which my subject imposes upon me. The devotional feelings of many professed Christians are so feeble, and have so little foundation in moral principle, that they are readily deranged or removed. Others, who have learned only the rudiments of religion, seldom consider it in any other light than as matter of mental comfort to an individual, without having any relation to their improvement and usefulness as members of society. As they would give their attention to the things of time, uninfluenced by Christian principles, they may wish to fix in the sanctuary their attention upon the concerns of eternity, without any reference to a general reformation of either church or state. It is ever to be expected that those, who are unwilling to consider religiously their political concerns, will be as unwilling to behave religiously in their political transactions.

This is the way to produce a separation between the two subjects. And yet the separation cannot be complete, unless all Christians are secluded from every concern in national politics; and the entire management devolved upon those, who will not be tempted to think of the Bible as the rule, or of piety as the principle, according to which civilians should act: and where would this end; but in the transfer of the undivided management of national affairs into the hands of infidels?

The principle of this objection, while it appears to proceed from spiritual-mindedness, is near of kin to the unenlightened devotion of the recluse or the hermit, who retires from the world into a life of solitude. It approaches monastic holiness more than the piety of Abraham, of Elijah of Daniel, of Paul, and of John the Divine. These were men of piety. They taught, and they practised the duties of political life, both in peace and in war, without thinking that it injured devotion: and even, in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, the beloved disciple is directed by his arisen Lord, to write of the contendings and changes of empire.

Believe me, brethren, if our religion is of the right description, and exists in a proper measure, we shall certainly be enabled to contemplate the providence of God in all human affairs, and apply the law of God to questions of civil polity, without either endangering a pious frame of mind, or engendering the evil passions of worldly politicians. I confess, however, that I feel, at the same time, for the infirmities of the weak; and should be disposed to avoid any thing that might have a tendency to mar their feeble devotion, did not duty require of the ambassadors of Christ, to apply the law of their God to all questions of practical morality."

S. YOUNG, PRINTER.

Footnotes:

[1] Blackstone, Com. vol. 1. p. 39.

[2] Pp. 41, 42.

[3] Romans 13:1.

[4] Romans 13:4.

[5] Revelation 13:1.

[6] Vide Faber; and M’Leod on the Revelation. Also Dr. Scott.

[7] Revelation 13:2.

[8] Romans 13:3-6.

[9] Psalm 8. Scottish Version.

[10] Romans 13:9.

[11] Anquetil’s Universal History, vol. 3. p. 511.

[12] So all Protestant Commentators apply the vision.

[13] Revelation 13:2.

[14] Revelation 12:9.

[15] Revelation 11:14.

[16] Revelation 11:15-17.

[17] Romans 13:4.

[18] Romans 1:23.

[19] 2 Timothy 4:17.

[20] Daniel 7:7,23.

[21] Romans 13:3.

[22] Isaiah 49:23.

[23] Isaiah 60:16.

[24] Law of Nations, p. 33.

[25] Romans 13:4.

[26] Ephesians 1:3.

[27] Matthew 28:18.

[28] Ephesians 1:22.

[29] 1 Corinthians 15:27.

[30] Vol. 1 p. 315.

[31] Romans 1.

[32] The Subjection of the Kingdoms to the Messiah.

[33] Romans 13:2, 56, 57.

[34] 1 Peter 2:13,14.

[35] Daniel 7:9.

[36] Daniel 7:22.

[37] 1 Timothy 2:1,2.

[38] Vide The Cloud of Witnesses and the Scots Worthies, throughout.

[39] Genesis 10:9, 10.

[40] Revelation 11:7.

[41] Revelation 13:1.

[42] Revelation 13:2.

[43] Revelation 17:11, Daniel 8:11.

[44] Horace.

[45] Two distinguished Seceder ministers, who were captains in the American armies.

[46] With all these even so good a man as Dr. Scott has leagued himself, though at the expense of contradicting himself far on Revelation 12 he styles the Roman government the Devil’s Vicegerent.

[47] Revelation 14:9-11.

[48] Revelation 19:20.

[49] Dis. on Pro. vol. 2. p. 292, 293.

[50] Scot on Revelation 13:11,12. pp. 428, 429.

[51] M’Leod’s Lec. on Revelation.

[52] Revelation 14:8.

[53] Daniel 8:25.

Beck: Restore America's Honor at the memorial of a white supremacist?

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:10:00 +0000

By: Devvy Kidd
August 28, 2010

Today the very popular, Glenn Beck, who has risen to fame and fortune on the FOX Network, is holding an event in Washington, DC. To say it has caused a firestorm of nasty projectiles from all camps is an understatement.

While billed as a non political event, Restoring Honor, one of the key note speakers is one of America's premiere political animals and opportunist extraordinaire, Sarah Palin, who has also risen to fame and fortune with her quaint, folksy, 'tough' gal image. Knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and how government systems actually work isn't part of her rhetoric.

Race baiting money grubbers like the "Reverend" Al Sharpton have their jockeys in a twist because today is the commemorative date for Martin Luther King's famous speech, 'I Have a Dream.' How dare anyone else hold a rally in Washington, DC on the same day and cut into Sharpton's day of glory! Beck insists he was unaware of the date; it's up to you to believe him. I happen to think it's likely he didn't remember. If not for the dust up, would you remember "this Saturday is the date MLK gave one of his famous speeches"? As someone who planned a major rally back on September 29, 1993, at the nation's capitol, my biggest consideration was the rally had to take place before Congress adjourned for the year, not who might have given a famous speech on the same day. Beck claims he scheduled it for Saturday and not Sunday for religions reasons.

Let me get on everyone's bad side here by pointing out a few inconvenient truths.

I monitor talk TV and by that I mean, I catch a segment here and there with Beck, O'Reilly, Van Susteren, Anderson Cooper and others. It's about all I can stomach at one time. Beck is big on books. So am I because I love to read and learn. Which is why I cannot understand Glenn Beck's constant praise of Abraham Lincoln and why he would hold his rally in front of a memorial dedicated to the original white supremacist who hated 'the Africans', wanted all of them deported, spit on the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and damn near destroyed the Union. How can Glenn Beck be so blind?

Republicans love to chant they are the party of Lincoln. How shameful.

"Lincoln had no intention of doing anything about Southern slavery in 1860. In his First Inaugural Address he announced that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the Institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He also promised, in the same address, to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Law even though lax enforcement of it or none at all would have quickened slavery's demise." The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, pgs 20, 21

DiLorenzo continues:

"White supremacist attitudes were not only on display in the Northern Black Codes and other pieces of legislation but were enunciated in Northern newspapers as well. As the Philadelphia Daily News editorialized on November 22, 1860, "It is neither for the good of the colored race nor of our own that they should continue to dwell among us to any considerable extent. The two races can never exist in conjunction except as superior and inferior...The African is naturally the inferior race."

"The Niles (Michigan) Republican wrote on March 30, 1861, that "this government was made for the benefit of the white race...and not for the Negroes." The Daily Chicago Times editorialized on December 7, 1860, that "evil and nothing but evil, has ever followed in the track of this hideous monster, Abolition." It continued, "Let [the slave] alone -- send him back to his master where he belongs.

"On January 22, 1861, the New York Times announced that it opposed the abolition of slavery. Instead, it proposed that slaves should be allowed to legally marry and should be taught to read and to invest their money in savings accounts. Those actions should be taken "to ameliorate, rather than to abolish, the Slavery of the Southern States" and would thus permit slavery to become "a very tolerable system.

"The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Lincoln's colonization proposals on March 11, 1861, when it pointed out that "Hayti lies in the torrid zone, the proper residence of the Negro." "The proposition that the Negro is equal by nature, physically and mentally, to the white man, seems to be so absurd and preposterous, that we cannot conceive how it can be entertained by any intelligent and rational white man." The Concord (New Hampshire) Democrat Standard, September 8, 1860. Ibid, pgs 30-31

Lincoln used the 'N' word freely and never tried to hide his dislike of 'darkies.' Lest you think DiLorenzo is some mad man, I can assure you, his books are fully footnoted with historical documents for reference and cross checking. He also wrote a column titled, An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult, which covered a book titled 'Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream' by Lerone Bennett, Jr. Let me give you a couple of paragraphs:

"Since so few Americans are aware of these facts, Bennett correctly concludes that "the level of ignorance on Abraham Lincoln and race in the United States is a scandal and a rebuke to schools, museums, media, and scholars." This of course is no accident; it's exactly the way the state wants it to be.

"Bennett is especially critical of how the Lincoln Cult uses black historical figures as pawns in its defense of "Father Abraham." For example, he contends that there is no way to get around the fact that Lincoln was a lifelong white supremacist, loudly proclaiming that he was opposed to "making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." He said far worse things than that, as Bennett documents. The typical response of the Lincoln Cult is to "find a slave or a former slave or, better, a Black officeholder to say that he adores Lincoln and doesn't care what people say . . . "

"Why, one would ask, is such a distinguished African-American journalist so incensed over the Lincoln myth? It is because of his twenty years of painstaking research, resulting in this book, that proves, among other things, what a vulgar racist Lincoln was. Bennett provides quote after quote of Lincoln's own words, habitually using the N-word so much that people in Washington thought he was weirdly consumed by his racism. Bennett tells of first-hand accounts by some of Lincoln's generals of how they left a meeting with him during a crisis in the war in which the president spent most of his time in the meeting telling off-color "darkie" jokes (Lincoln's language). General James Wadsworth, for example, was "shocked by the racism in the Lincoln White House."

DiLorenzo also has a problem with Glenn Beck's obsessive adoration of Abraham Lincoln and shall we say, fudging the truth?

Glenn Beck's Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"Despite his admirable performances discussing the founding fathers, socialism, progressivism, and other topics, Glenn Beck has been absolutely awful and sometimes untruthful when discussing Lincoln and his legacy. During one show he claimed to have read the actual original copy of The Confederate Constitution. I assume he made this assertion to show that he must really be quite the expert on the document. I didn't believe him when he said this, and his next sentence proved to me that he did not read the document. The next sentence was the statement that the formal title of the document was “The Slaveholders’ Constitution . . .” Anyone can look the document up at Yale University's online Avalon Project, which warehouses all the American founding documents, commentaries, and more, to see for yourself that Beck was wrong about this.

"Beck's next false statement was that, “I read it” (the Confederate Constitution) and “it wasn't about states’ rights, it was all about slavery.” Read it yourself online. It is a virtual carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution, with a few exceptions: The Confederate president had a line-item veto; served for one six-year term; protectionist tariffs are outlawed; government subsidies for corporations are outlawed; and the “General Welfare Clause” of the U.S. Constitution was deleted.....

"Moreover, Beck's hero, Lincoln, orchestrated passage through the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have formally and explicitly enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting the government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. This amendment passed the Senate and the House just days before Lincoln was inaugurated. In his first inaugural address he said he believed slavery was already constitutional and then, alluding to the Corwin Amendment, said: “I have no objection to it [slavery protection] being made express and irrevocable” in the Constitution. This was by far the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American politician, coming from the president himself. Beck and the wacky preacher posing as an intellectual made no mention of this."

While I strongly disagree with DiLorenzo about free trade, I highly recommend his books. One thing is for certain, and DiLorenzo accurately begins the discussion in Chapter 3 of his book, the "civil" war was unnecessary; slavery could have been and should have been abolished peacefully:

"In a famous public letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln explained that he wasn't particularly concerned about emancipation per se; forcing the secessionists to remain in the Union was his main objective:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, not is it to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, pgs 34-35

As for dishonest Abe being the great emancipator:

"The Emancipation Proclamation was immediately excoriated through the North (and much of the world) as a political gimmick. The New York World newspaper sarcastically editorialized that:

The President has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous."

"Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, mocked the Emancipation Proclamation by saying, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

"Lincoln himself maintained that the Proclamation was merely a war measure, not an attempt at genuine emancipation. In a letter to his Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, he admitted that the original proclamation had no legal justification, except as a military measure." Ibid, pgs 36-37

Forced into Glory by Lerone Bennett is over 600 pages and while he methodically lays out the truth about Lincoln, I felt as the book wore on it became a lot of whining.

Americans have been taught monstrous lies about Abraham Lincoln and all school books who portray him as some sort of hero should be burned. The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC should be bull dozed along with FDRs. How many Americans know Lincoln literally tore up the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

"You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce...and prohibit any further publication thereof...you are therefore commanded to forthwith arrest and imprison the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers." Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864

"Even though the large majority of Americans, North and South, believed in a right of secession as of 1861, upon taking office Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law; blockading the Southern ports; suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoning WITHOUT TRIAL thousands of Northern citizens' arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; censoring all telegraph communications;...

"This amazing disregard for the Constitution," wrote historian Clinton Rossiter, "was considered by nobody as legal." Rossiter generally praised Lincoln, however, as a "great dictator" and a "true democrat," who phrases that are not normally considered to be consistent with one another." The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, pgs 130-132

As for Martin Luther King, one has to tread carefully when speaking about him or be labeled as a racist. You are expected to turn a blind eye to his serial adultery and close communist ties. Fortunately, there are individuals in this country who believe truth trumps lies and have exposed the real man as nothing more than a hollow pawn for a much bigger agenda:

Government Cover-ups: Martin Luther King Jr.

"3) COMMUNIST BACKGROUND AND CONTACTS: It appears that King established an early liaison with the American Communist Party and sought to create civil unrest in support of the revolution. His own biographer, David J. Garrow admitted that king once privately “described himself as a Marxist.” King constantly surrounded himself with Communists, hired them, and even went to great lengths to keep them on through secret relationships. King’s personal secretary in the 1950s was communist and homosexual Bayard Rustin. According to Sen. Jesse Helms, “King was repeatedly warned about his associations with known Communists by friendly elements in the Kennedy Administration and the Department of Justice [DOJ] (including strong and explicit warning from President Kennedy himself). King took perfunctory and deceptive measures to separate himself from the Communists [Stanley David Levison and Hunter Pitts O’Dell ] against whom he was warned. He continued to have close and secret contacts with at least some of them after being informed and warned of their background, and he violated a commitment to sever his relationships with identified Communists.”

"4) IMMORAL AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR: Dr. King had an ample reputation as a philanderer and abuser of women of ill repute. The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover had run surveillance on King and his entourage for years attempting to gather data on his Communist connections. While the Bureau did surveill King’s attendance at Communist meetings, but most of the surveillance records show an extreme preoccupation after hours with illicit sex. In deference to King’s usefulness in promoting a national holiday for civil rights, US Federal judge John Lewis Smith, Jr. ordered all the FBI records sealed up in the National Archives for 50 years (till 2027). When I was Executive Editor of Conservative Digest, I called retired Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray and asked him what was in the evidence locked away. His answer surprised me. He said there were approximately 15 file cabinets of evidence on King--14 of them were full of recordings and transcripts of his illicit relationships with prostitutes. Only one file cabinet contained evidence of his Communist relationships.

"Even former co-workers have blown the whistle on King’s scurrilous conduct. The Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his book, And the Wall Came Tumbling Down, King spent his last night in the motel having an immoral liaison with three women and then beat one of the woman in the morning before he was shot. Assistant Director of the FBI Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter to Sen. John P. East (R-NC) in which he stated that King's conduct consisted of "orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women." The FBI surveillance records covering his first night in Stockholm, Sweden, where he was to receive the Noble Peace Prize, document that his only interest was how to secure prostitutes for he and his entourage. An orgy followed. King's surveillance and wiretaps were personally authorized by then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. If these allegations are true, this man should never have been put forward as a national hero. Yes, I am aware that other national heroes have had there weaknesses, but King's conduct borders on a Clinton-like sexual addiction."

I can't find my copy of Martin Luther King, Jr The Man Behind the Myth by Des Griffin, but it is fully documented with photos. Here is part of a review:

"Martin Luther King: The Man Behind the Myth by Des Griffin is an interesting little pamphlet concerning the civil rights leader who has been beatified by the Establishment. What was behind the civil rights movement and the social and racial chaos in the fifties and sixties? This book does not provide all of the answers, but an interesting figure in American history is revealed as a pawn in a much wider conspiracy. This book is sure to be offensive, and would be condemned as "racist," but any "racism" on Griffin's part does not come from Christian Identity theology or neo-Nazi paganism. Martin Luther King was known for his parties and exploits with women. He also, as many have noted, was affiliated with communists for his whole career. The SCLC (Southern "Christian" Leadership Conference) was the creation of liberal whites and communists. King's theology was not one of traditional Christianity, but rather the social gospel of liberal humanitarian social radicalism..."

I know the author, Des Griffin, and I can tell you he is no racist. Des is a careful researcher and a good, decent human being. Yes, his writings are considered controversial because he dares to look behind the curtain to get to the truth instead of accepting the current flavor of lies dished up by "historians" and politicians. You can purchase MLK The Man Behind the Myth directly from Des on his web site.

Two American icons. Mountains of propaganda and lies. The only way to restore America's honor is with the truth.

__________________________________________

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; two million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Visit Devvy's website at: http://www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy's radio show broadcasts Mon-Fri. To listen, go to: http://www.devvy.com/new_site/rense_show.html

Jerry Johnson interview on The Covenanter Report

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:07:00 +0000

The Covenanter Report will feature Jerry Johnson of Nicene Council on Tuesday, August 31st. We will be discussing dispensationalism, its effects upon America and how we can recover a Biblical worldview. If you have a question or a comment for Jerry Johnson you can call (914) 338-1860 to get on the program.

Dispensationalist John Hagee has a new book on the market entitled "Can America Survive?" We have stated several times on this program the real question should be "Can America Survive Dispensationalism?" On this program, Jerry Johnson from the Nicene Council, will discuss the influence of dispensationalism in American society. We will also be discussing dispensationalisms errors and how we can recover a proper Biblical worldview.

About Jerry Johnson:

Jerry Johnson Founder/President, NiceneCouncil.com/The Apologetics Group, Inc. Jerry Johnson is the Founder and President of NiceneCouncil.com and The Apologetics Group, Inc. (Apologetics Group Media). He has earned a Master of Arts in Christian Studies and a Master of Philosophy in Theology and Apologetics from Whitefield Theological Seminary. He is currently working on a doctorate from Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Jerry was the senior writer and researcher for the best selling documentaries Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism and The Marks of a Cult: A Biblical Analysis. He also was the author of corresponding study guides for both films.

Recently, he has also hosted and produced Late Great Planet Church: The Rise of Dispensationalism.

Jerry is a member of the Board of Regents for Whitefield Theological Seminary and serves as an adjunct professor at Knox Theological Seminary and Veritas Theological Seminary.

Since 2005, Jerry has been a Chaplain for Baseball Chapel serving the Seattle Mariners' minor league team, the Pulaski Mariners.

Introduction to Covenant Commission Ministries

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:18:00 +0000

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

America, Georgia, the Church, and our families stand at a crucial defining moment.

Families are in ruin with marriages torn apart by divorce, children without absolutes, and the authority structure of the home in anarchy.
Churches are in disunity internally and externally, theologically corrupt, without discipline, and filled with unregenerate members.
Unrighteous laws, crooked politicians, and an apathetic electorate govern civil society.

David asked in I Samuel 17:29, "Is there not a cause?" Just as there was a need for righteous men to oppose the evil in his day, so too it is pressed upon us to do the same.

America is witnessing the destruction of the Home, Church, and Civil Government. However, the most important question is presented in Psalm 94:14:

"Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?"

Consequently, the common theme that led to Israel's captivity is the same problem in America.

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?..." -Isaiah 6:8

"And he saw that there was no man..." -Isaiah 59:16

"And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold..." -Isaiah 63:5

"Run ye to and fro...see now...seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it." -Jeremiah 5:1

"And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none." -Ezekiel 22:30

We are suffering from a curse—apathy, wickedness, and cowardice in our leaders!

Although we have a deficiency of leadership, there is a rousing among the grassroots. Over 60% of American’s know the US is going in the wrong direction. This has materialized into the Tea Party Movement, the State Sovereignty Movement, and general voter dissatisfaction.

While much of this is well and good, this is not going to solve our problems. These movements will fail due to a lack of godly leadership in the home, church, and civil government along with our deficiency in Biblical and Constitutional principals. They will fail to reform our nation because they do not address the whole issue within every institution. Partial political reform will not save us. Economic conservatism alone cannot transform our institutions for the glory of God.

Our answers come by Jesus Christ through His Word. Jesus said the Word of God was sanctifying truth that will set us free. The agent commissioned to teach and establish God’s Word is Christ’s Church. It is the pillar and ground of the truth. Therefore, Biblical Christianity is the foundation of restoration for our land. Consequently, it will only occur when the Church fulfills its duty in proclaiming the whole counsel of God to every area of life.

There must be regeneration, revival, and reformation stemming from the Church to restore the home, church, and civil government.

Covenant Commission is not a para-church organization but a ministry of a local church working together with other churches, organizations, and individuals. Our commission is Matthew 28:18-20 to build Christ's Church by assaulting the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18).

We must breach the leadership gap among the people and grassroots movements. Covenant Commission is ready to charge and begin building this new reformation at the grassroots in American faith and practice.

Covenant Commission’s plan is three-fold: 1) Connect; 2) Communicate; 3) Commission.

Covenant Commission is seeking to connect with churches, organizations, and individuals to create a network of theologically Reformed Christians capable of laying the foundation and providing the leadership for reformation. In communicating the proper message, Covenant Commission will help aid churches, organizations, and individuals in educating themselves for a transformational influence upon our institutions. Once we establish a unified and educated body, we must then commission this awakened giant to fulfill responsibilities in reclaiming, advancing, and preserving Christ’s Kingdom in America. Only then, we can become that city set on a hill to reach the nations throughout the world once again.

Although we seek to establish a new reformation, we are not generating new ideas, strategies, or principles. We may have new technological means to communicate our message and ideas, but our principle strategy is not new. We are looking to the past for our counsel. We do not revere ourselves on the same level as the Reformers but look to them for guidance. As they connected with others of like-mind, used the means of their day to communicate the Biblical principles of the 5 Sola’s, and then commissioned the strategic actions for success, we shall do the same. This is the foundation of our strategy.

Covenant Commission's experience comes from a background of direct ministry involvement for 14 years. It all began for Covenant Commission's director growing up the son of a Baptist minister. James Brown Jr. was taught the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture creating a solid Sola Scriptura foundation. He was also taught constitutional government due to a strong influence from his Southern heritage.

He attended Bible College in Indiana and served in the United States Marine Corps as a member of F.A.S.T. Company (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team). James has also been an assistant pastor and the pastor of two churches. He is currently planting a Reformed Baptist church in the middle Georgia area. He and his wife Sonya have eight children.

Assistant Director Devin Maddox works in the aviation industry with a degree in Aviation Maintenance Technology. He has been a deacon and is currently serving as an assistant pastor in a Reformed Baptist church plant in middle Georgia.

Seeing the need beyond the survivalist and escapist mentality of the modern church and various Christian organizations, Devin accepted God's calling to help establish Covenant Baptist Church and Covenant Commission. He has moved his family to the middle Georgia area believing God is faithful to the vision and calling of His people. He and his wife Lucy have three children and are expecting their fourth.

In past years of experience, both in church, ministry organizations, and political campaigns, Covenant Commission brings the opportunity to build a new direction for revival and reformation. This experience includes:

Radio: FM, short-wave, and internet. Presently, Covenant Commission is airing through Blog Talk Radio for The Covenanter Report.
Video: Presently, Covenant Commission is producing a weekly web video show, which will begin airing in the coming weeks. This short production will be the video end of The Covenanter Report.
Conferences: Throughout the Midwest and the South, we have been involved in hosting and participating in Bible Conferences, rallies, revivals, and other events
Newsletters: We are currently working towards producing an online newsletter and online sermons for evangelistic outreach.
Website: Our purpose is to design a simple yet appealing interactive site to connect, communicate, and commission the saints of God to reform all of society.

In the fall of 2008, as a precursor to Covenant Commission, we organized a community Prayer Rally with several churches participating. Leading up to the event was 40 days of prayer for revival and reformation. In conjunction to this event, we helped organize community led prayers at the high school football games after the school board stopped the official school led prayers.

In 2009, we were able to speak at TEA Parties here in Georgia. Currently on our web site, you can view a video from a TEA Party in South Georgia.

By the Providence of God and leading by example, Covenant Commission is steadily developing a Christian voice within the patriotic movement. While the internet provides many opportunities, helps build connectivity, and cut costs, it is not a replacement for direct ministry. It is still going to take time, energy, hard work, grass-roots involvement, and financial support. Most importantly, it is going to take the power of God.

Although many Christians are bewildered by the current devastation within the home, church, and civil government, Covenant Commission is moving beyond defensive survival strategies toward victory. We will not surrender our God-given commission or inheritance on the altar of defeatism.

We will not compromise or retreat in the battle. Our aim is absolute victory in fulfilling our commission as every kingdom becomes “the kingdoms of our Lord” (Revelation 11:15).

We are asking every church, every family, every man, every woman, every organization, every church leader and every political leader to join with us in exalting Jesus as both Lord and Christ over all the earth. Specifically, here in America it means reclaiming the home, church, and civil government through regeneration, revival, and reformation.

God is looking for men—pastors, statesmen, fathers/husbands—who will take the bull by the horns and not let this nation die. I can hear Moses crying, "Who is on the Lord's side?" Will there be an answer in the affirmative or, as so many times in history, will God say, "I found none."

For Christ & Covenant,

Pastor James Brown Jr. & The Covenant Commission Staff

The Covenanter Report Program Schedule

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:00:00 +0000

To view our upcoming programs click here.

Need Adobe Reader? Click here to download latest free version.

Obama's Ramadan Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:22:00 +0000

Following is the full text of the speech:

Good evening. Welcome to the White House.

To you, to Muslim Americans across our country, and to more than one billion Muslims around the world, I extend my best wishes on this holy month. Ramadan Kareem. I want to welcome members of the diplomatic corps; members of my administration; and Members of Congress, including Rush Holt, John Conyers, and Andre Carson, who is one of two Muslim American Members of Congress, along with Keith Ellison.

Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties, seders, and Diwali celebrations. These events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.

These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose - including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious - a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack - from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam - it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders - these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion - and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms - it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us - a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

In my inaugural address, I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. That diversity can bring difficult debates. Indeed, past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be - and will be - today.

Tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan—making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.

Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came here to forge their future. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories, and helped lay the railroads. They helped build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America—still in use today—is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities—including mosques in all fifty states—also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police, firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.

These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend upon, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our Founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected - our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability to perfect our union.

For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Thank you all for being here, and I wish you a blessed Ramadan. And with that, let’s eat.

The Real Newt Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:06:00 +0000

The newly updated video about Newt Gingrich by the John Birch Society. Newt Gingrich is often viewed as a conservative politician. This video highlights a speech that John McManus, president of the John Birch, gave in 1996 with new updated information, which exposes the REAL Newt Gingrich by examining his track record.

The Real Newt Gingrich from Frank on Vimeo.

For more information on Newt Gingrich:

Newt Gingrich: The Establishment’s Conservative

Who is the Real Newt Gingrich - Part One

Who is the Real Newt Gingrich - Part Two

The Real Karen Handel

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:01:00 +0000

Why is Karen Handel lying about her PRO-CHOICE and PRO-GAY record?

A. Handel has many ties to the gay community in Atlanta.

1. She was a dues paying member of the Log Cabin Republicans of Atlanta (Republican organization that favors gay marriage and adoption) back in 2002-03.

http://www.politicalvine.com/karenhandel/HandelCheck.jpg

http://www.politicalvine.com/karenhandel/SOSHandelSig.jpg

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/jun/16/karen-handel/did-handel-ever-joing-log-cabin-republicans/

2. The Southern Voice (pro - gay newspaper in Atlanta) has written many times about her support and contact with the gay community.

http://www.peachpundit.com/2006/05/26/southern-voice-documents-handels-hypocricy/

3. Handel is on the record supporting “domestic partner benefits” while running for Fulton County Commission Chair.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/handel-e-mails-show-544379.html

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/06/08/karen-handels-e-mails-with-log-cabin-republicans/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway

B. Handel is PRO-CHOICE on abortion.

1. Handel is the only Republican candidate (out of seven) not to be endorsed by the Georgia Right to Life organization.

http://www.grtl.org/docs/2010%20primary%20Endorsements-Statewide.pdf

2. While serving as Fulton County Commission Chair in 2005-06 she voted to give Planned Parenthood (one of Georgia’s largest providers of abortion) $ 1.2 million of our tax dollars.

https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:31756.6728031516/rid:2d98033d91c3809b0741a07aceac7c0d

Ethics problems – Karen Handel speaks about her opponent’s ethical problems but is hypocritical of her own.

A. While chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners Karen Handel gave favorable contracts and zoning requests to those that who later donated to her Secretary of State campaign. Was Karen Handel involved in a “pay to play” scheme?

http://ethics.georgia.gov/Reports/Campaign/Campaign_Name.aspx?NameID=466&FilerID=C2006000168&Type=candidate

B. Currently the Georgia Ethics Commission is investigating the Handel campaign for three complaints of accepting contributions over the legal limit.

http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/07/13/ethics-commission-investigating-handel-contributions/

Karen Handel has never finished a job she has started and is always thinking about moving up the political ladder. She left her job in the Governor’s office to run for Fulton County Board of Commissioners, then left early to run for Secretary of State and again quit to run for Governor. Handel didn’t even finish her college degree. We need someone who will stay and fight for all Georgians not just use us as a steppingstone for her political ambitions.

Source: Conservative Citizens of Georgia

Covenant Radio Premiers this Tuesday

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:34:00 +0000

Covenant Commission's radio talk show will make its debut this Tuesday on Blog Talk Radio at noon eastern standard time. The Covenanter Report is going to be a twice weekly show airing on Tuesdays and Fridays.

The lineup will consist of a hosted call-in show with frequent special guests. Hosting the show will be Covenant Commission's director James Brown Jr. who also pastors Covenant Baptist Church. Devin Maddox will co-host once a month. Topics will include current events, politics, theology, and family issues. Be sure to turn in to this new cutting edge program discussing regeneration, revival, and reformation and strategies in which to lead us to victory!

Islam: The Religion of Depravity

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:55:00 +0000

Egyptian lawyer calls on Muslim men to rape Israeli women. Lie, rape, and murder—the character traits of the religion of peace.

Obama Mocks God by Calling Evil Good

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:27:00 +0000

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." -Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -Leviticus 20:13

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." -I Corinthians 6:9-10

Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities. Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise. An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level. Thanks to those who came before us the brave men and women who marched, stood up to injustice, and brought change through acts of compassion or defiance we have made enormous progress and continue to strive for a more perfect union.

My Administration has advanced our journey by signing into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which strengthens Federal protections against crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation. We renewed the Ryan White CARE Act, which provides life saving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS, and finally eliminated the HIV entry ban. I also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to give LGBT patients the compassion and security they deserve in their time of need, including the ability to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions.

In other areas, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a series of proposals to ensure core housing programs are open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. HUD also announced the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services has created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders.

Much work remains to fulfill our Nation's promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans. That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits. We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment. I am also committed to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal.

As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles. Our Nation draws its strength from our diversity, with each of us contributing to the greater whole. By affirming these rights and values, each American benefits from the further advancement of liberty and justice for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

See More:
Obama reaffirms support for gay rights

Obama holds gay pride reception, vows to overturn 'unjust laws'

Help reform the Home, Church, and Civil Government.

Go to www.covenantcommission.org

Is MacArthur really in a position to preach against the Cargo Cult?

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:35:00 +0000

By Bojidar Marinov

MacArthur takes a shot at the Word of Faith Movement here:
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B091222

He compares it to the Cargo Cult. Remember those aboriginals in the South Pacific during WWII who looked at the airstrips and the sea ports built by the US Navy Sea Bees? Once the Sea Bees built those airstrips and sea ports, the Cargo started coming - lighters, tools, machines, etc. So the aboriginals decided that it is a powerful magic, and they started mimicking the Sea Bees, building their own airstrips and sea ports, and praying to the gods of the Cargo to bring them Cargo too.

And MacArthur points to that, and points to the Word of Faith Movement, and says, "They are the same." They have no clue how the civilization produces all this good stuff, they just believe that by prayers they would manipulate God to bring them Cargo from the sky.

Well, he is right about the Word of Faith Movement. But...

What about MacArthur himself? Does he have a clue how the civilization produces the good stuff he is enjoying every day? Does MacArthur have a comprehensive worldview to explain how and why the Western civilization is so affluent? Does he teach his listeners how to build the Kingdom of God as civilization - does he ever teach about anything else beyond the limited spiritualist world of personal piety and may be church life?

He doesn't. In MacArthur's world, we have this free and prosperous society he lives in pretty much in the same way the aboriginal saw the cargo coming: It fell from God (or the gods). MacArthur has no explanation how and why America is what it is; he just takes it for granted. MacArthur never talks about issues like economics, law, law enforcement, science, political structures, business organization, media. He talks about conversion and changing of individual souls but he never talks about converting (baptizing) whole nations.

If MacArthur went as a missionary to those aboriginals, what would he do? What would he explain to them where the cargo comes from? Does he have a Biblical view on this matter? Or would he just dismiss their questions as irrelevant; and simply lead them down the path of over-spiritualization and pietism? Would he be able to build the Christian civilization our forefathers here in America built, or would he just create another Cargo Cult less materialistic, but just as ignorant about the reasons and the blueprints of civilization?

MacArthur is safe in America. He and his brand of overly spiritualized, pietistic Christianity can exist only in a land where someone before him had a comprehensive Biblical worldview, and built a civilization on that worldview, so that now MacArthur can be irrelevant and clueless, and teach his listeners to be the same. MacArthur is no different from these Cargo Cult worshipers for just like them he has no clue of the work of the Holy Spirit in building the civilization of the Kingdom of God. MacArthur's brand of Christianity is just another version of the same Cargo Cult he is preaching against.

MacArthur needs to pull out the beam from his eye first. He has the responsibility before God and his listeners to learn and teach the whole message of the Bible, not only a watered down pietistic version of it. Before he opens his mouth to speak against the Cargo Cult, he must make sure he is not one of its worshipers.

Bojidar Marinov is a Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. He is the founder of the Bulgarian Reformation Ministries. He and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria; a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman.

Handel Not Pro-life According to Group

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:27:00 +0000

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga -- The Georgia Right to Life Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC) holds political candidates in this state to a very high standard in order to receive the pro-life endorsement. "We live in the 21st century", says Melanie Crozier, Political Director for Georgia Right to Life, "where new biomedical advances bring new challenges that necessitate a new pro-life paradigm. We must protect all human life." GRTL PAC's policy has proven to be a success for Georgia legislation that protects all innocent human life from the earliest moments of biological development to the natural end of life. Currently, Georgia is numbered eighth in the nation, by Americans United for Life, in passing pro-life laws.

Presently, of the six leading Republican candidates for Governor, five of the six are endorsed by the GRTL PAC. "There is one candidate though, who does not merit GRTL's endorsement, and that is Karen Handel." says Crozier. "Ms. Handel proclaims herself pro-life; however, she does not meet the 21st century demands of being pro-life." says Dan Becker, President of GRTL.

"For instance, Handel believes that a child may be aborted based on its manner of conception. When I asked her directly her thoughts on the value of embryos, she answered that she does not believe that an embryonic human is a child."

Based on Ms. Handel's own statements, she does not meet the GRTL PAC's criteria and will not be endorsed in this primary election or the November election, without a change in her positions.

The PAC urges all Republicans to vote for Life in the July 20th primary by voting for one of the five GRTL PAC-endorsed candidates: Jeff Chapman, Nathan Deal, Eric Johnson, Ray McBerry or John Oxendine.

All candidates that were endorsed by GRTL PAC have signed the PAC affirmation statement which says that they agree with our position on the Personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death and the attendant need for a Personhood Amendment to our state Constitution.

They also affirm that there should be no exceptions in abortion law based solely on the manner in which a child is conceived, that there should be restrictions on destructive in-vitro fertilization (IVF) practices that women should not be coerced into having an abortion, and that abortions based on race and gender should be outlawed in our state. These five candidates are solidly behind GRTL's pro-life agenda for legislation that restores effective, legal protection to all "persons" under Georgia's State Constitution.

Immigration and the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:39:00 +0000

Is there a different standard of law to be applied to the non-resident alien and the resident alien? Guest Host Joel McDurmon continues his look at what the Bible teaches about immigration on The Gary DeMar Show.

Calvinism: An Essay

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:16:00 +0000

By Rev. Patrick H. Mell
Baptist minister
Confederate Veteran

Originally Published
Savannah, Georgia:
J. H. ESTILL, Public Printer.
1875

"Calvinism" has been assigned to me as the theme for an essay. Though the subject is embraced in a single word, the topics it contains are too numerous to admit of thorough discussion within the limits assigned me. My essay, therefore, will rise only to the dignity of notes on Calvinism.

What is Calvinism? It is a system of doctrine believed to be contained in the Bible, developed first more elaborately and consistently by John Calvin, and therefore called by his name. This term, though, is used merely for convenience as a designation, and not to imply, either that these doctrines owed their origin to the Genevan Reformer, or that Calvinists are responsible for all the sentiments advanced by him.

The distinctive characteristic of Calvinism is that it maintains God's sovereignty over all things, sin not excepted; and that His will is shown either efficiently or permissively in all existences and all events on earth. He is not only a creator and preserver, but a sovereign and efficient ruler. His providence and His grace, therefore control all things and events, great and small, good and bad, material and mental. From intelligent choice, he permits everything in men that is morally wrong, and by his grace, efficiently works in them everything that is morally right. As creator, an upholder, and a governor, he has intelligence enough to know what objects he would accomplish; and his wisdom and power are adequate to all the demands of the undertaking in its incipiency, its process, and its consummation. The world, therefore, in all its physical and moral details, is just as he designed it to be; and in all the terms of its history—in its special as well as its general results, he will accomplish that which he designed in its creation, in its preservation, and in its government. He did not err in his plan; therefore nothing operates in his system unexpectedly to him. He is not deficient in power, therefore nothing operates there in spite of him. "God disposes of and directs to some particular end, every person and thing to which he has given, or is yet to give, being; and makes the whole creation subservient to and declarative of his own glory." "The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 14:4). "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places" (Ps. 135:6). "The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass: and as I have purposed so shall it stand. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back!" (Isa. 14:24, 26, 27). "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36).

Descending to particulars, and limiting our view to the scheme of salvation, Calvinism teaches,

First, in regard to men in a state of nature.

1st. That they are totally depraved, utterly destitute of any remaining natural good, or any communicated spark of grace. This total depravity is not to be confounded with corruption, nor to mean that men are as depraved as they can be; for it is consistent with the admission that they have amiable feelings and upright deportment among themselves; but to be understood to mean a total destitution of any principle of conformity to God’s law, which requires supreme love to God, and deportment towards men regulated by a design to please and glorify Him. In a state of nature, God is not in all their thoughts. "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 5:18).

2nd. As to the origin of this depravity, Calvinism teaches that it was in consequence of Adam’s sin. The progenitor of the race was the federal head of his descendants, submitting to the test for all. His sin, therefore, was imputed to his posterity; and in his fall, they fell. "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (Rom. 5:16).

3rd. As to the means of recovery, Calvinism teaches man’s utter helplessness. Being sinners in character and conduct, none are able to renew their hearts, nor make atonement for their sins. Even after the atonement of Christ is offered in the gospel to their acceptance, none, without divine influence, are willing to accept Christ as Saviour, nor are able to understand experimentally the truth as it is in Jesus. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." In this condition, and without divine influence—while they will never attempt to glorify God—nothing that they can do can please him; for "they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

4th. As to justification, it teaches that men are just with God, through the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. Nothing that they can do will be accepted as the ground of justification; for "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). "Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5:9). "He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). "David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputed righteousness" (Rom. 4:6). "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (4.3). "For us also, to whom it shall he imputed, if we believe" (4:24).

Second, As it respects Divine agency in the scheme of redemption, Calvinism teaches,

1st. That God is the efficient author of everything morally good in the creature. Whatever he does in man’s behalf, is done in accordance with a purpose entertained from eternity. This purpose found its development in the covenant of redemption entered into by the persons of the Trinity, and its execution in the work thus assigned to them severally. The Father, as the representative of the godhead, devised the plan and sent his Son to execute it; the Son, as the substitute for the sinner, makes atonement and works out complete righteousness; and the Spirit applies the work of Christ in the regeneration, justification, sanctification, and salvation of the sinner.

Calvinism teaches, again,

2nd. That God proceeds in the salvation of sinners on a definite plan which descends to all the details. In the covenant of redemption he gave to his Son a definite number of the human race to be his people, whom he would redeem from the curse of the law, bring into newness of life by regeneration, justify freely by his grace, keep by his power through faith unto salvation, guide by his counsel, and afterward receive into glory. "Whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Those thus chosen and saved, are designated not because of faith and good works foreseen in them; but, in part, that they might have faith and might perform good works. Those not chosen are not reprobated in the sense that, they are prohibited from seeking the benefits of salvation; nor in the sense that any influence is imparted to them inducing them to reject the gospel; but they are simply passed by and permitted to follow their own inclinations, without any invincible influence adequate to make them willing in the day of his power. In this election and rejection, God is influenced by no difference of natural character in the parties perceived, nor in any conduct foreseen; but only by his will, sovereign and infinitely wise; and this, too, for the manifestation of his glorious perfections. "For he saith to Moses, I will mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15). "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, with much longsuffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?" (9:22, 23).

II. Though this system, as a whole, is sustained by the general tenor of the Scriptures, and in all its parts by definite passages, men sometimes hesitate to receive it because serious objections seem to lie against it. All such objections may be resolved into the three following:

1. The system seems to make God the author of sin:

2. It seems to exhibit God as a partial being:

3. It seems to represent that he makes men merely to damn them.

Before taking them up in order, it is proper to remark that these objections do not lie exclusively against the Calvinistic system.. It can he shown that they press just as heavily against the Arminian, with others just as grave superadded. [This the present writer has shown in a published work on predestination; the part answering these objections can be read in this connection if the Institute desire it.] The only way to escape the objections is to deny, with the Pelagians and Socinians, God’s foreknowledge; and if this be denied, then there comes in a flood of other objections more pressing and more weighty still.

The great difficulty in the Calvinistic system, is the sovereignty which it ascribes to God over sin; and the occasion it offers, therefore, for the plausible objection that if sin exists by his will of purpose, he is then, if not the author, at least in some sense the favorer of it. It is easy and safe to admit that his will is all-powerful in everything that is morally good; and that his agency can he efficient in securing such good without doing violence to human freedom; for we can easily see how he can legitimately and philosophically work in men to will and to do of his good pleasure. But how can we, consistently with correct views of his character, say that in any manner wicked men perform wicked actions in accordance with his will? It may help us to elucidate this question if we consider it in connection with the two most prominent instances of sin recorded in the Bible:

1st. Take the first instance given—Adam’s sin. Did God have no volition concerning it before it occurred? Was he taken by surprise? Having failed in his first intention, viz.: to have nothing but good in his system, did he reluctantly submit to the existence of evil, and doing the best he could in the circumstances, set up against it an antagonistic influence which should wage war against it a precarious warfare that, after a struggle of six thousand years, leaves sin, if not triumphant, at least unsubdued and unexpelled? Did God not know before he created Adam, that if he made and placed him in the Garden of Eden, he would sin and fall? We are bound to answer in the affirmative, not only because we admit God’s Infinite foreknowledge, but because we are told (2 Tim. 1:9) that a provision was made in eternity in anticipation of that event; for there was a purpose and a grace given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Did he not, then, permit Adam to sin? We must reply in the affirmative; for, foreseeing the event, he could have declined to create him; or he could have kept the tempter away from him; or he could have strengthened him against his wiles. Having permitted him to sin, did he not will to do so? And having willed to permit him to sin, did he so will from necessity; i.e., as a choice of evils which he could not entirely escape, or did he have some infinitely glorious end to attain, of which Adam’s sin was to be the occasion?

We do not escape this difficulty by saying Adam was a free agent, whose nature it was not God’s purpose to violate; that he was placed in the Garden of Eden, endowed with reason and a moral constitution, possessing all the light necessary to discriminate between right and wrong, and having impressed upon him all the motives to impel him to choose the right and reject the wrong; that Adam, then, in the exercise of his native freedom, on very natural principles, by his own voluntary choice, in spite of God’s will of precept, wickedly transgressed and fell. All this we also grant and maintain; but it does not remove the difficulty. Did not God know, before he had created him, that this voluntary agent whom he would make, subjected to this test which he would impose, would, acting upon these natural principles, transgress and fall? Admitting God’s foreknowledge, we must admit that before he created Adam, he knew that he would fall and willed to permit it. Can any reason be suggested why God by His will of purpose should ordain that an event so heinous and, in some respects, so disastrous as the sin of Adam should occur? We can at least, see this, that if sin had not entered into the world neither would there have been a Savior. God would not have been manifested in the flesh. Christ would not have been preached as the Savior of sinners. The attributes of God would not have been exhibited and harmonized before the intelligent universe by the cross of Christ at which mercy and truth meet together and righteousness and peace kiss each other. We know that the intelligent universe has gained infinitely more by the acquisition of Christ than it lost by the sin of Adam. Now if God knew from eternity the infinite value of the mission of Christ, and saw that the sin of man was necessary as the occasion for that mission, does He necessarily become either the author or the favorer of that sin because He resolved to permit Adam to commit it? For Calvinism, while it asserts God’s sovereignty over sin, abhorrently rejects the supposition that He tempts men, or works within them to influence them to sin. In what respect, then, is it unphilosophical or unscriptural to say that God, looking at Adam’s transaction in its character as a sin, by His will of precept, forbid it, and, by his judicial dispensation, punishes it; but regarding it as the indispensable occasion for the bestowal of his glorious grace, by His will of purpose, ordained it, and in His providence furnished the occasion for it? And is not Calvinism philosophically and scripturally sustained, then, when it discriminates between God’s will of precept and His will of purpose, and asserts that the former is the rule prescribed for the government of his creatures, which, when violated, justly brings condemnation and punishment upon its infractors: while the latter is a rule to govern himself, which will he infallibly secured whether men obey him or sin against him ? If the mere fact that God willed to permit Adam to sin, makes him the author or the favorer of that sin, then no system of doctrine would relieve him from such embarrassment excepting one which would ascribe to him profound ignorance of that transaction, both before and at the time of its performance, and would banish him, like the God of the Epicureans, to some remote part of his universe, away from all cognizance of human affairs.

2nd. Again: passing over the many other instances recorded in the Bible which illustrate the doctrine of God’s sovereignty over sin, take the case of the crucifixion of Christ. In regard to this, without hesitation, we must admit two things: 1st that the crucifixion of Christ was the most atrocious and heaven-daring crime recorded in earth’s annals; and 2nd, that, wicked as it was, God ordained that it should occur just as it did. Had the Jews not despised and rejected Christ he could not have been crucified; and if he had not died in the place, at the time, and in the way in which he did, multitudes of prophecies would have failed of fulfillment; God’s plan of recovering mercy would have been thwarted; and all men would have perished in their sins. Should we hesitate therefore to say that God ordained the crucifixion of Christ, wicked as it was? And, should we say so, would we in effect be charging God, with being the author or the favorer of that horrid crime? Did the company of disciples misrepresent the holy God, or admit that he was the author or favorer of the atrocious sin, when he said, "For of a truth, against thy holy child, Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done?"—(Acts 4: 27, 28) Did Peter speak unadvisedly, and does his language admit of the dreadful interpretation that God was the author or the favorer of this great sin, when he asserted, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain?"

Peter’s assertion, when analyzed, contains three propositions. 1st, That the Jews acted with perfect freedom when they crucified Christ. 2nd, That God exercised complete sovereignty over their sin. And 3rd, that their wickedness suffered no abatement because it was in harmony with God’s determinate counsel and foreknowledge. And this, in a nut-shell, is the doctrine of Calvinism. But how can God’s sovereignty over sin and man’s free-agency in it be both true, and yet God be free from all complicity with it? Pelaganism and Socinianism escape the difficulty by severing the Supreme Being, in some sort, from connection with his creatures, and banishing him to some remote region of his universe, where he is kept in profound ignorance of sins at least until after they have been committed. Arminianism, while it admits God’s foreknowledge, and grants that he permits the commission of sin, thinks it relieves itself from embarrassment by denying his sovereignty over it. According to this system, God makes man a free-agent, gives to him a constitution that enables him to make moral distinctions, sets before him the right as distinguished from the wrong, and plies him with motives in the shape of arguments, persuasions, warnings, threatenings and promises of reward; but he has in advance no purpose to subserve by men’s sins. All that he does, acting contemporaneously with the sin, is to restrain it; overrule it for good; in the best way possible counteract it; and, in the last resort, punish it. But the system strangely shuts its eyes to the fact, that, in admitting God’s foreknowledge and his permission of sin, it logically grants his sovereignty over it. Before the world was, he foreknew that Adam would sin, and that the Jews would crucify Christ; and, in eternity, he resolved to permit these sinful deeds. Now, whether he thus resolved for ulterior objects, as Calvinism asserts, or for no reason beyond the mere resolution itself, in the view of the objector to Arminianism he is seriously complicated with those sins. If he resolved to permit sin for ulterior purpose, then the objector to Arminianism may charge that it exhibits God as favoring sin because of the good of which it is made the occasion. If he resolved to permit it for no reason beyond the mere resolution itself, then the objector may denounce Arminianism for intimating the horrid proposition that God resolved to permit sin for the mere pleasure that he found in it.

1st. Calvinism holds that man’s free-agency in the commission of sin and God’s sovereignty over it are both true, though to harmonize them may be above human faculties. Consciousness and the word of God both assure us, that, when we sin against God, we do so, not by compulsion, but freely and willingly; and reason and scripture both teach that God is sovereign ruler of the universe, accomplishing his ends in great things and in small, by bad things as well as by good, making the wrath of man praise him, and where, in its excess, it would fail of this, restraining it. Did God, who by his determinate counsel and foreknowledge delivered Christ, authorize the Jews to crucify him, or put it in their hearts to do so? Calvinism, abhorrently and with emphasis, answers no! How, then, can God secure his determinate counsel in the wicked actions of free agents without influencing them in those actions? Calvinism has no answer to give. This is one of the deep things the human mind cannot fathom; one of the high things it cannot reach. But our want of capacity does not vitiate the truth. What human mind can form of the Triune God a conception which could be transferred to the canvas? But what renewed heart has not demonstrated in its experience the subsistence of the Godhead in the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? So, knowing from consciousness and the word of God that we are free agents; believing from reason and from scripture that God is a sovereign and almighty ruler, who accomplishes all his pleasure; and seeing, as well from what God says as from his treatment of sin, that he is neither the author nor the favorer of it; we may well refuse to give up any or all of these truths, so clearly revealed and so easily understood, because there springs out of their combination another question pertaining to the working of the Infinite Mind, and the operations of the Infinite Agent, which our ignorant and finite minds cannot solve.

2nd. The second objection, viz.: That Calvinism represents God as a partial Being, springs from a confusion of ideas, or from a misapprehension of terms. Partiality results from some quality in the object, or connected with it, to attract favor. Now, Calvinism teaches, that all men are equally destitute of such quality; and all are equally the subjects of God’s condemnation and disfavor. He feels, therefore, no partiality to any; for all are, by nature, children of wrath. He chooses some to salvation and eternal life; not because he feels any peculiar complacency towards them, but influenced solely by the good pleasure of his will, to the praise and glory of his grace. He has a reason, infinitely wise, for choosing one and rejecting another; but that reason is not to be found in the character of the chosen. The very statement of the Calvinistic doctrine, therefore, is a sufficient answer to the objection. If this is not satisfactory, let the fallacy of the objection be exposed in another way. God has, towards some, a love of benevolence, which is exhibited in choosing them to eternal life. Is that, properly, called partiality? Very well call it so, if you please. Then, it becomes a proposition to be disproved, if denied, and not a series of words to be shaped into the form of an objection to itself.

3rd. The objection, that God seems, by this system, to make men merely to damn them, does not lie against Calvinism, because of any essential difference between it and Arminianism. Indeed, no system, acknowledging future punishments, can entirely escape it, excepting by a denial of God’s foreknowledge. If to decree, from eternity, to permit men to follow their own inclinations, and to punish them for their sins, is equivalent to resolving to make men merely to damn them, then, to foreknow from eternity, that if they were created, they would thus perish, and to resolve to create them notwithstanding, though there was no invincible necessity to do so, is equivalent to the same thing. We would not, then, escape this difficulty, by abandoning our ground and going over to Arminianism. The only sure way to escape it, is to believe with the Universalists—that there are no future punishments; or, with the Pelagians—that there is no divine foreknowledge. But, neither of these opinions can we receive, so long as the Bible teaches—that they that believe not shall be damned; and, that known unto God are all his works, from the beginning.

III. While the scriptural support to the Calvinistic system is ample and entire, and reason can furnish the most irrefragable arguments, from admitted premises, to sustain it, the system finds not a mean corroboration from the character of its influence and effects.

It will, no doubt, be admitted, that in their lives, Calvinists, as a class, do not fall below the standard of morality and piety, attained by the advocates of other systems; and, that in good works, and in the enterprises of benevolence, they are not outstripped by those who differ from them. We waive, therefore, all argument on this point. For, no doubt, it will be readily admitted by all intelligent and candid persons, that Antinomians and Fatalists are as essentially different from Calvinists, as they are from Arminians or Pelagians.

1st. What is the influence of Calvinism upon the unconverted? Its tendency is to produce in them that conviction, without which they cannot be induced to take the first step towards attaining the salvation wrought out by Christ. The great difficulty in the way of their prompt movement, is the lurking hope, if not belief, that their case is not a desperate one; that their sins are not so heinous but that they can be obviated, very easily. In their delusion, they suppose it is only necessary for them to will, which they can easily do at any time; and put into execution their resolution, which is also, completely in their power; and their salvation is at once secured. They, consequently, act upon the principle, that it is running no great risk to postpone salvation to a more convenient season. Give me, say they, but a day’s notice, while on my dying bed, and I will make my peace with God. Now, let the doctrine that Calvinism teaches be received by the sinner, and his self-complacency is gone, and his sense of security is gone. Seeing that he is totally destitute of any good—that he is inexcusably complicated with sins of the darkest dye—and that he is utterly helpless—he abhors himself repents in dust and ashes, and cries to God for help. It is no offset to this to say that sinners, who hear the Calvinistic doctrines, plead that if such things are true, there is no need for any action on their part, at all; since, if they are to be saved, they will be, any how. This is not the language of a candid man, who believes the doctrine of his own sinfulness, and helplessness, but a disbeliever, who thinks that by this pretended reductia ad absurdum, he can best parry the thrusts of truth, and best maintain himself in the determination to postpone salvation, and to continue in sin. The one beyond his depth, away from shore, will feel but little, if any, concern, so long as he is convinced that the water is not deep, or that by a few muscular strokes, directed by his own will, he can reach firm footing. But, let him feel that he is in unfathomable depths, and that his skill and strength are less than nothing; and he will make the welkin ring with his cries for help. So Calvinism teaches the sinner that he is utterly lost, and that in God alone is his help; and urges him to look to God, and to call upon him.

2nd. The awakened sinner is in danger of taking up with a refuge of lies. The most common is the temptation to make himself the object of his trust. He is in danger of making, what he does, or what he feels, or both, a substitute for his Savior. He has done certain things, he has experienced certain feelings, and he is in a certain state; he has felt, first, very badly, and then, by a sudden transition, very good, therefore, he has been accepted. Calvinism tells him, that not deeds, and feelings, and frames, but Christ, is his Savior; that, at this point, there is nothing for him to do, but to believe in Jesus. Just as he is, must he accept Christ as his Savior; for, "he that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith shall be counted to him for righteousness." Never until, if not in theory, at least, experimentally, he can. receive the Calvinistic doctrines of his utter sinfulness and helplessness; of God’s sovereign grace; and of a righteousness wrought out for him by Christ, and imputed to him on his believing, can he obtain scriptural comfort, and eternal life.

3rd. The system finds confirmation in the experience of the Christian. Only while he admits, in all its force, the total depravity of his heart by nature, does he experience humility and self abasement. So long as he has no doubt, that God, by his own sovereign grace, without any merit perceived or foreseen in him, regenerated him by his Spirit, and adopted him into his family, does he experience the depths of gratitude, and ascribe praise to him for that salvation. So far from being paralyzed by a sense of dependence upon God, it is only when he admits, in all its force, that it is God who works in him, to will and to do, that he works out his own salvation with fear and trembling. He knows, and demonstrates, in his own experience, Paul’s paradox: "When I am weak, then am I strong." Placed upon his knees, he never uses the language of the Pharisee: "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are;" but rather the sentiment of the poet

Why was I made to hear his voice,
And enter while there’s room;
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?
‘Twas the same love that spread the feast,
Which sweetly forced me in;
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin.

In his confessions, he admits his ignorance, his native depravity, and his helplessness, and looks to God, not only for forgiveness, but for help, in his petitions he recognizes God’s sovereignty. Does he ask for blessings for himself? He bases his plea upon no merit in himself, even the least, but upon Christ’s merits, and upon God’s free, undeserved favor. Does he beseech blessings for others? He appeals to God on the supposition, that he rules in all things. Without reserve, he asks him to renew the hearts of unconverted friends; to bestow upon them conviction, and repentance, and faith; and to draw them by the cords of love. Whatever may be the Christian’s theoretic belief, in his prayers he acts upon the assumption, that salvation, in himself and in others, is all of God.

4th. The doctrines of Calvinism, if believed, are a sovereign remedy against the two great heresies in the so-called Christian world, viz.: ritualism, or sacramental salvation, on the one hand, and rationalism, on the other; the one the offspring of superstition, the other, the product of infidelity. The former, a mere bodily exercise, substitutes ceremony and the manipulations of the priest, for the work of the Spirit and the experience of the heart: the latter makes religion a mere intellectual exercise, and exalts reason above the authority of God’s word. Rejecting everything in the Bible above human comprehension, it selects, of the comprehensible, only that which the understanding ratifies as reasonable and proper. An infallible safeguard against each of these, is Calvinism, if its doctrines are cordially embraced. No one accepting, in its fulness, the doctrines of human depravity, and the necessity of a change wrought by a supernatural agency—who believes in regeneration effected by the mysterious operations of God’s Spirit, and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ—in short, no one who believes in a spiritual religion and that grace reigns, through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord, can ever be foolish enough to risk his soul’s salvation upon forms and ceremonies; or presumptuous enough to prescribe what God ought to teach or to reject anything that He reveals, because it does not meet the demands of his finite reason. Rather would such a man say, "Let God be true, but every man a liar." True, some of the "Reformed churches," who hold the Calvinistic system, have, in their formularies, expressions which would seem to indicate that baptism, administered to unconscious infants, will, somehow, work the regeneration of their souls. But this results because they inconsistently brought out with them, from Rome, this relic of Popery. Under the influence, though, of the Calvinism they preach these utterances have become a dead letter; for their intelligent advocates explain them away, and indignantly deny, that in their practice they are influenced by any such unscriptural and inconsistent dogma.

5th. It is no inconsiderable argument in favor of the Calvinistic system that, as one of its effects, it presents God in a dignified and honorable aspect. It is surely a worthy view of God, to represent him as a sovereign and efficient ruler, who accomplishes all his pleasure and is never thwarted; who is the author of everything good in his system and who is especially entitled to all the praise of our salvation. What a contrast is there between this system, and that which would represent him as anxious and impotent—as waiting with solicitude for men to give him a pretext to interpose; now, passing a decree in their favor, upon the supposition that they have furnished justifiable occasion, and then, reconsidering and reversing, when he has discovered that he acted on insufficient grounds; and all the while, surrounded by inextricable confusion, which, an invincible necessity prevents him from abating, and which he must reluctantly content himself with overruling, and directing to results that are attainable, since he cannot secure the highest and the best. Such a God, impotent, and subordinate, and changeable, dependent on contingencies that he does not ordain, and distracted by confusion that he cannot control, is not the God of Calvinism. Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he pleased. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. To whom be glory forever. Amen.

In conclusion, it becomes a serious and practical question—whether we should not make these doctrines the basis of all our pulpit ministrations. If this be, indeed, the gospel system, sustained by such arguments, and attested by such effects, every minister should be imbued with its spirit, and furnished with its panoply. It is not necessary, indeed, that we should present its truths, always in the form of dogmatic or polemic theology—though, even these should not he entirely neglected, if our people are not, as yet, thoroughly indoctrinated—but our hearers should never be justify in doubt as to the fundamental truths, that sinners are totally depraved, and utterly helpless that men must he regenerated by God’s Spirit, and justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, before they can obtain God’s favor; that God’s people are created by him, in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which he had before ordained that they should walk in them, and that they are kept by God’s power, through faith, unto salvation that God is the sovereign ruler of the universe, and the author of every thing, morally good, in the creature. In short, that the sinner has destroyed himself, but in God is his help. And, surely, it will not impair the efficiency of the minister himself, for him ever to remember that his sufficiency is of God.

Does the Bible Teach Open Borders for Immigration?

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Thu, 27 May 2010 03:19:00 +0000

Guest Host Joel McDurmon talks about the recent law passed in Arizona allowing police officers to check documentation of anyone they "stop, detain or arrest". Joel compares "christian socialist" beliefs to scripture to see how well they hold up.

HSLDA Chairman Criticizes Supreme Court Decision

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:32:00 +0000

Purcellville, VA—Yesterday, by a 6 to 3 vote the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the United States to sentence juvenile offenders to life in prison without parole in non-homicide cases in Graham v. Florida, released May 17, 2010. The Court cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and other international law to buttress its constitutional interpretation.

“It is bad enough for the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism. It is far worse when the justices employ international law in support of their far-reaching edicts,” said Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. “We have not ratified the UN child’s rights treaty—its provisions should not be finding their way into Supreme Court decisions.”

Farris was the author of a brief in Graham v. Florida on behalf of 16 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The majority opinion twice references Farris’s brief in its discussion of international law. Farris is also the chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches constitutional law.

“There is simply no place for international law or practice in interpreting the American Constitution. International law has its place in deciding truly international cases—but a case involving juvenile offenders in Florida is a domestic case through and through,” Farris said. “It was plainly gratuitous for the majority to employ international law in this context.”

Farris’s brief was filed in direct response to a brief from Amnesty International which had urged the Court to use international law as a binding rule.

Amnesty also argued that the United States was the only nation in the world to sentence juveniles to life without parole. “The materials submitted by Amnesty International included a hodgepodge of letters and emails supposedly on file in Amnesty’s offices. Such ‘evidence’ would not be admissible in a traffic court; it is shocking that the Supreme Court relies on such data to make constitutional decisions,” Farris said.

“Our brief demonstrated that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the UN’s official monitoring body) had found that dozens of nations were in violation of the juvenile sentencing standards of the UN child’s rights treaty. It is simply fiction to say that the United States is the only nation which authorizes such sentences.”

Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) introduced a resolution (S. Res. 519) last week that urges President Obama to refrain from sending the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Senate for ratification.

“S. Res. 519 seeks to put the Senate of the United States on record that American law and only American law should govern our families and our juvenile courts,” Farris said. “I hope that every American who believes that we should remain a self-governing nation will call their Senators today to urge them to become a co-sponsor of S. Res. 519.”

The True Theory of Civic Penalties

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Mon, 10 May 2010 23:18:00 +0000

By Rev. R. L. Dabney

The true theory is: that punishment is just, because God has delegated a modicum of His retributive function to the magistrate, His representative; and that this modicum of retribution is just, because the transgressor deserves it. It satisfies the supreme demand of justice. As the well-doer deserves by his virtue the reward of well-being, so, by parity of reason, the ill-doer deserves suffering. This account of the matter is simple, and is true to the imperative intuitions of the conscience.

For instance, when you catch the murderer of your own family, red-handed, the intuitive impulse is to retribution. Is it wicked? No. Malignant? No; but just. Are you thinking of policies and preventive tendencies? No; reason and heart simply and directly call for satisfaction for ill-desert. But is not penalty preventive? Is not the policy and advantage properly looked for by the magistrate in punishing? Yes, as a subordinate end. But if mere preventive policy is thrust into the place of first and sole ground, excluding the intrinsic ill-desert of crime, and claim of justice for satisfaction, then punishment ceases to be a glorious justice, and degenerates into a trickery.

The magistrate sits as, first, God's representative and vicegerent, charged to maintain, so far as his function extends, the essential justice of God. He sits, second, as appointed guardian and protector of order and the common welfare; hence his penal administration (as his penal legislation) is bound to be, first, strictly just, rewarding and punishing each, so far as he can without divine attributes, according to his desert; and second and subordinately thereto, penalties must be, framed and used as to be most protective of the common virtue, order and welfare.

Thus, suppose that the theft of a sheep might be equally rewarded, so far as desert goes, by so many stripes or by so much imprisonment. But the magistrate perceives that the stripes will have a good deal more deterrent effect with that kind of people than the jail. This would not justify the magistrate in inflicting either the stripes or the jail unjustly, but it would justify him in inflicting, on the really guilty sheep-stealer, the just stripes in preference to the just imprisonment. In favor of the exact and regular administration of justly ascertained penalty, both these relations of the magistrate, the essential claims of justice, the subordinate, prudential, repressive policy, argue powerfully. On the latter point, note that invariable regularity and certainty of penalty are best for the deterrent effect, satisfying the reason and conscience of the community, and even of the criminal class (otherwise outraged by partialities of administration), and leaving no flattering hope of impunity to allure to transgression. For a modicum of hope that one may, like previous transgressors, sin and escape, counts with the tempted for much more, probably ten-fold more, than it is worth. Irregularities in punishing are therefore, practically, premiums on crime. To yield to mere kindness here is to favor the very man (culprit) who does not deserve the magistrate's favor at the expense of those (law-abiding) who do deserve and are entitled to it.

The chief magistrate who pardons causelessly is therefore unrighteously attacking and punishing the innocent for the sake of the guilty. It is best, therefore, that the pardoning power be limited to such cases as have been unjustly convicted, or on inadequate evidence of evil intention; and such as, by reason of some new circumstance, as chronic sickness, would suffer under the literal execution of the verdict more than the judge who pronounced it intended or claimed.

Immigration, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Thu, 06 May 2010 08:17:00 +0000

by Rob Natelson

Is the Immigration Bill Unconstitutional?

Many “progressive” opponents of the Arizona immigration law are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government.

That foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government is commonly asserted. But it is a myth – at least if one respects the Constitution’s text and original understanding.

Before explaining why, I have to say that a claim that the Constitution reserves powers exclusively for one level of government is an unusual argument for “progressives” to make. In general, of course, the most vocal “progressives” could care less about what responsibilities the Constitution assigns to what levels of government.

It’s not just that they favor the federal government invading the sphere that the Constitution reserves to the states. It’s also that they have repeatedly urged state and local governments to invade the supposedly exclusive sphere of the federal government.

Remember all those campaigns for state and local governments to adopt nuclear-freeze resolutions, South Africa boycotts, and nuclear-free zones?

Anyway, let’s move beyond the limitless subject of political hypocrisy to describe just how the Constitution does distribute foreign affairs authority.

First, the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority over foreign policy. Congress and the President can pre-empt an issue by exercising one or more of their enumerated powers. If Congress dislikes a state action in that realm, Congress can pass a law overriding it.

If, however, Congress has not acted or acted incompletely, the states have certain reserved powers to act on their own. In other words, the Constitution acknowledges concurrent, although subordinate, state authority over foreign affairs – including immigration.

How do we know this? From both the constitutional text and from the record left by those who debated and ratified the Constitution. Here is the evidence:

Instead of simply stating that states have no foreign affairs powers, the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) only lists a few specific foreign affairs powers denied to the states. For example, a state may not make a treaty or enter into a confederation with a foreign government.
Under a rule of interpretation widely recognized by the Founders, the Constitution’s listing implies that all foreign affairs powers not denied remain with the states (subject to veto by federal law or treaty).
In addition to prohibiting the states from exercising a few foreign affairs powers, the Constitution lists a few others subject to congressional pre-approval – such as the power to make non-treaty compacts with foreign governments. If foreign policy power were exclusively in the federal government, the Constitution would not recognize that states had any ability to enter compacts with foreign governments.
Nowhere does the Constitution include language such as “all state authority over foreign relations is hereby abolished.” On the contrary, at several points the document assumes some state authority over the subject is retained. For example, the Constitution explicitly acknowledges state power to tax foreign goods to fund inspection programs. It elsewhere assumes that if Congress chooses not to adopt a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” the states may adopt their own laws.
The historical record confirms what the text suggests. For example, the records of the Constitutional Convention tell us that the delegates considered whether states could impose embargoes on foreign goods, and deliberately decided to leave that power with the states. A committee of the First Federal Congress recognized this power also.

The doubt about the judicial fate of Arizona’s law arises only because of the Supreme Court’s occasional practice of striking down state laws that Congress has decided to leave alone. This occurs primarily in the area of commerce and foreign affairs, and appears to be driven in part by the historically-false claim that federal power in those areas is exclusive.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court also sometimes lets such enactments stand. So what the Court would do with the Arizona law is anybody’s guess.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

May 5, 2010

Rob Natelson is Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Montana and a nationally-known expert on the American Founding. After a quarter of a century in academia, he is leaving this year to fight full-time for freedom at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado. His constitutional publications can be found at www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm. The views expressed here are his own, not to be attributed to any organization or institution.

Copyright © 2010 Tenth Amendment Center. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

End Times: How Christians Lose!

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Mon, 03 May 2010 17:42:00 +0000

There are some implications we do not completely agree with in this video. However, we do agree with the general purpose and the eschatological implications of this video. Thanks Molotov!

All We Need is Love?

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:56:00 +0000

Dead men speaking from the grave on modern heresies

By Horatius Bonar, 1809-1889

Some speak as if the servant were greater than the Master, and the disciple above his Lord; as if the Lord Jesus honoured the Law, and His people were to set it aside; as if He fulfilled it for us, that we might not need to fulfill it; as if He kept it, not that we might keep it, but that we might not keep it, but something else in its stead, they know not what.

The plain truth is, we must either keep it or break it. Which of these men ought to do, let those answer who speak of a believer having nothing more to do with Law. There is no middle way. If it be not a saint's duty to keep the Law, he may break it at pleasure, and go on sinning because grace abounds.

The word duty is objected to as inconsistent with the liberty of forgiveness and sonship. Foolish and idle cavil! What is duty? It is the thing which is due by me to God, that line of conduct which I owe to God. And do these objectors mean to say that, because God has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, therefore we owe Him nothing, we have no duty now to Him? Has not redemption rather made us doubly debtors? We owe Him more than ever; we owe His holy Law more than ever; more honour, more obedience. Duty has been doubled, not cancelled, by our being delivered from the Law; and he who says that duty has ceased, because deliverance has come, knows nothing of duty, or the Law, or deliverance. The greatest of all debtors in the universe is the redeemed man, the man who can say, 'The life that I live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.' What a strange sense of gratitude these men must have, who suppose that because love has cancelled the penalties of the Law, and turned away its wrath, therefore reverence and obedience to that Law are no longer due! Is terror, in their estimation, the only foundation of duty, and when love comes in and terror ceases, does duty become a bondage?

'No,' they may say, 'but there is something higher than duty, there is privilege; it is that for which we contend.'

I answer, the privilege of what? Of obeying the Law? That they cannot away with; for they say they are no longer under Law, but under grace. What privilege, then? Of imitating Christ? Be it so. But how can we imitate Him whose life was one great Law fulfilling, without keeping the Law? What privilege, again we ask? Of doing the will of God? Be it so. And what is the Law but the revealed will of God? And has our free forgiveness released us from the privilege of conformity to the revealed will of God?

But what do they mean by thus rejecting the word 'duty', and contending for that of 'privilege'? Privilege is not something distinct from duty, nor at variance with duty, but it is duty and something more; it is duty influenced by higher motives, duty uncompelled by terror or suspense. In privilege the duty is all there; but there is something superadded, in shape of motive and relationship, which exalts and ennobles duty. It is my duty to obey government; it is my privilege to obey my parent. But in the latter case is duty gone, because privilege has come in? Or has not the loving relationship between parent and child only intensified the duty, by superadding the privilege, and sweetening the obedience by the mutual love? 'The love of Christ constraineth.' That is something more than both duty and privilege added.

Let men who look but at one side of a subject say what they will, this is the truth of God, that we are liberated from the Law just in order that we may keep the Law. We get the 'no condemnation', in order that 'the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us' (Rom. 8:4). We are delivered from 'the mind of the flesh', which is enmity to God, and not subject to His Law, on purpose that we may be subject to His Law (Rom. 8:7), that we may 'delight in the Law of God after the inward man' (Rom. 9:22), nay, that we may 'with the mind serve the Law of God' (Rom. 7:25),that we may be 'doers of the Law' (James 4:11). These objectors may speak of obedience to the Law as bondage, or of the Law itself being abolished to believers; here are the words of the Holy Ghost. The Law of God is just the Law of God, that very Law which David loved, and in which David's Son delighted; and it would be well for such men meekly and lovingly to learn what delighting in it, serving it, doing it are.

'Do we make void the Law by faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law' (Rom. 3:31), that is, we set it on a firmer basis than ever. That Law, 'holy, and just, and good,' thus doubly established, is now for us, not against us. Its aspect towards us is that of friendship and love, and so we have become 'the servants of righteousness' (Rom. 6:18), yielding our members servants to righteousness (Rom. 6:19). We are not men delivered from service, but delivered from one kind of service, and by that deliverance introduced into another, 'that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter' (Rom. 7:6), as 'the Lord's freemen' (1 Cor. 7:22), yet Christ's servants (1 Cor. 7:22). Thus obligation, duty, service, obedience still remain to the believing man though no longer associated with bondage and terror, but with freedom, gladness and love. The Law's former bearing on us is altered and, with that, the nature and spirit of the service are altered, but the service itself remains, and the Law which regulates that service is confirmed, not annulled.

Some will tell us here that it is not service they object to, but service regulated by law. But will they tell us what is to regulate service, if not law? Love, they say. This is a pure fallacy. Love is not a rule but a motive. Love does not tell me what to do; it tells me how to do it. Love constrains me to do the will of the beloved one; but to know what that will is I must go elsewhere. The Law of our God is the will of the beloved One, and were that expression of His will withdrawn, love would be utterly in the dark; it would not know what to do. It might say, 'I love my Master, and I love His service, and I want to do His bidding, but I must know the rules of His house, that I may know how to serve Him.' Love without law to guide its impulses would be the parent of will-worship and confusion, as surely as terror and self-righteousness, unless upon the supposition of an inward miraculous illumination, as an equivalent for law. Love goes to the Law to learn the divine will, and love delights in the Law, as the exponent of that will; and he who says that a believing man has nothing more to do with Law, save to shun it as an old enemy, might as well say that he has nothing to do with the will of God. For the divine Law and the divine will are substantially one, the former the outward manifestation of the latter. And it is 'the will of our Father which is in heaven' that we are to do (Matt. 7:2), or proving by loving obedience what is that 'good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God' (Rom. 12:2). Yes, it is 'he that doeth the will of God that abideth for ever' (1 John 2:17). It is to 'the will of God' that we are to live (1 Peter 4:2), 'made perfect in every good work to do His will' (Heb. 13:21), and 'fruitfulness in every good work' springs from being 'filled with the knowledge of His will' (Col. 1:9,10).

God's Way Of Holiness. Horatius Bonar. Evangelical Press 1979, 12 Wooler Street, Darlington, Co. Durham, DL1 1RQ, England. First Published 1864. Pages 68-88.

The Saint and the Law. Horatius Bonar.
http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Christian%20Life/saintlaw.html

Nullification Reconsidered

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:19:00 +0000

HTML clipboard

by Clyde Wilson

With the destructive evil of centralized power becoming every day more evident and 10^th Amendment resolutions appearing in various State capitals, publication this month of the second volume of Professor W. Kirk Wood’s magisterial three-volume Nullification: A Constitutional History, 1776–1833 is serendipitous.

For the first time in a half century and long past due, serious people are beginning to search for ways that the famous "checks and balances" of the American constitutional order might be invoked against a regime which recognizes no limits to its power. Such a search leads naturally to a new look at accepted history and "law." Prof. Wood, whose knowledge of the primary documents of early American history is astounding and incomparable, has marshaled overwhelming evidence on the matter.

There is not the least doubt in the mind of any HONEST person who has studied the record, that the preponderance of people who framed and ratified the Constitution intended to form a more perfect Union "for the United States of America," not to establish a United State, a sovereign national power. This understanding was reemphasized in the first Ten Amendments, clearly stipulated restrictions on the powers of the central apparatus. The understanding was sealed in concrete, so people mistakenly believed, when Jefferson and his party took office on "the principles of 1798," the unequivocal declarations by Virginia and Kentucky of their right to block acts of the central government that exceeded its delegated powers.

True, there was an element among the Founders who wanted an unchecked central power. Like every other push for more centralized power since, the primary motive of the Hamiltonians was rent-seeking. But, of course, rent-seekers always portray their agenda as essential for some good purpose – general prosperity, equality, national defense, or some other alleged social good. But so strong was the allegiance to a confederal understanding of the Constitutional regime, that the central power men had to lie about their intentions. In power Hamilton began to push actions that he had argued in the deceitful polemic, The Federalist, that the central government would never, ever do.

Professor Wood’s evidence is not likely to influence academic historians, political scientists, and law professors. With a few exceptions they are not interested in evidence, only in fashion. False and even childishly superficial arguments about our history and the Constitution flourish today and have long done so. The assertion that Americans’ "original intentions" were a centralized state has always rested upon coercion, chutzpah, and lies. The most egregious being when Lincoln declared the deliberate, open, democratic, and constitutional acts of secession of the Southern states to be mere "combinations" of criminals too numerous to be arrested by the marshals.

The centralists made a great rhetorical coup when they formed the argument so that their version of the Constitution seems the natural, unquestionable one, and the position of the critics is merely "a compact theory" made up after the fact by bad people for evil purposes. Wood’s evidence makes it clear that the opposite was the case. It was the centralists who made up theory post facto against established understanding. Their theory was bolstered by semantics and false history. James Madison was not the "Father of the Constitution" but a weaselly trimmer who constantly contradicted himself. Which is why he is the hero of every bad historian, "political philosopher," and tyrannical judge in the land. Daniel Webster did NOT win the famous debate with Robert Hayne of South Carolina on State rights. In the Senate and in public opinion Webster was the loser. He became the winner only by subsequent propaganda. South Carolina’s bold nullification of the tariff in 1832, against nearly the entire American establishment, is always stated by the historians to be a failure. But it accomplished its purpose – to bring down the rate of taxation.

There is a large American anti-centralist literature, entirely persuasive to anyone who will study it, which of course eliminates most American "scholars." Jefferson, Randolph of Roanoke, Taylor of Caroline, William Rawle, St. George Tucker, John C. Calhoun, Albert T. Bledsoe, Alexander Stephens, and the 20^th century work of James J. Kilpatrick recently discussed here all make an irrefutable case. But never has the evidence been so massively gathered and deployed as in Wood’s Nullification: A Constitutional History. He shows an unequaled knowledge of the primary sources and of historians and their errors.

It is good to have this ammunition in our arsenal. An interest in devolution has been modestly flourishing and, it would appear, steadily increasing in recent years. Not only the Tenth Amendment resolutions, but the Free Vermont Republic, the Middlebury Institute, the Abbeville Institute, the Southern National Congress, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and other groups have achieved what was only a short time ago unthinkable – a serious discussion of checking and even escaping from the jaws of Leviathan by asserting the long dormant power of the people of the States – the multiple sovereigns who created the United States and gave it all the legitimacy that it has. When you speak of secession, devolution, nullification these days you no longer receive derisive hoots but rather looks of serious if puzzled interest.

One of the greatest of American sages and most effective critics of centralized power, John Taylor of Caroline, wrote that States do not have rights. People have rights. States are instruments by which the people may assert their rights against usurpers and oppressors. Little noticed in the national media, the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, has been embattled with the federal power and the interest groups of his own State. He is insisting that any money received from the federal "stimulus" bounty be used to pay off debt rather than be poured down the black hole of public "education." The controversy is at this writing not settled, and Governor Sanford will probably lose. But it is a start.

Meanwhile, promoters of 10^th Amendment resolutions need to understand that the 10^th Amendment does not enforce itself. Nor will it ever be recognized by any of the three branches of the central apparatus or existing political parties. It will have to be enforced by the people of the States whose freedom it was intended to protect.

April 10, 2009

Clyde Wilson [send him mail] was a professor of history but is recovering nicely, thank you. His most recent book is Defending Dixie.

Foundation For Moral Law Defends City Prayers

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:05:00 +0000

The Foundation for Moral Law (FML) in Montgomery, Alabama, founded by Judge Roy Moore, sent a letter Thursday to the City Council of Birmingham, Alabama, and Mayor William Bell, Sr. explaining that prayers offered at city meetings are constitutional and an important part of American history. On April 8, 2010, the Wisconsin-based atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), sent the Council a letter complaining about prayers being spoken at city meetings. FML attorney Ben DuPré told the City Council that the Constitution is on the Council's side and urged it to “continue scheduling prayers without censorship and with the full freedom of religion that the First Amendment guarantees.”

Judge Roy Moore said of FFRF's baseless threat letter, “This is just another example of removing prayer from our society. I support Mayor Bell and the Birmingham City Council in their efforts to keep morality in civil government, which is something we need throughout the State and Nation.”

FML explained in its letter that radical secularist groups like FFRF and the ACLU routinely send bullying letters to city and county legislative bodies that contain distorted legal claims in the hopes of intimidating local officials into stopping prayers or at least censoring the content thereof. “In reality,” FML assured the City Council, “the law is on your side,” citing the First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding legislative prayer in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

FML encouraged the City Council to “not be cowed by the FFRF in its nationwide crusade to remake America into its own secular, atheist image. If local bodies like the Birmingham City Council stand up to their intimidation tactics, the FFRF won't have a prayer.”

The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization, is located in Montgomery, Alabama, and is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.

Amos Rucker. A Black Confederate

noreply@blogger.com (Covenant Commission) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:39:00 +0000

By Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.,
Chairman,
Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee
Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans

On August 10, 1905, Amos Rucker, a ex-Confederate soldier and proud member of the United Confederate Veterans, died in Atlanta, Georgia. His friends of the UCV had previously bought a grave site and marker for he and his wife Martha who had limited income. Amos Rucker was one of many thousands of Black Southerners who fought for the South during the War Between the States.

Amos was a servant and best friend to Sandy Rucker. Both men joined the 33rd Georgia Regiment when the South was invaded. Amos fought as a regular soldier and sustained wounds to his breast and one of his legs that left him permanently crippled.

Amos Rucker joined the W.H.T. Walker Camp of the United Confederates after the war in Atlanta, Georgia. He would faithfully attend the meetings that were held on the second Monday of each month at 102 Forsyth Street. He was able to remember the name of every man of his old 33th Regiment and would name them and add whether they were living or dead.

Amos Rucker and wife Martha felt that the men of the United Confederate Veterans were like family. Rucker said that, "My folks gave me everything I want." The UCV men helped Amos and wife Martha with a house on the west side of Atlanta and John M. Slaton helped with his will and care for his wife. Slaton was a member of Atlanta's John B. Gordon Camp 46 Sons of Confederate Veterans and was governor of Georgia when he commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank.

Funeral services for Amos Rucker was conducted by former Confederate General and Reverend Clement A. Evans. A article about the funeral related that Rucker was clothed in a gray Confederate uniform and a Confederate flag covered his casket. It is written that both white and black friends of Rucker came to pay their last respects. They was not a dry eye in the church when Captain William Harrison read a poem, entitled, "When Rucker called the roll."

A grave marker was placed in 1909 by the United Confederate Veterans that for many years marked the graves of Amos and Martha Rucker but some say it was taken many years ago. Only the caretaker knows where the graves are located.

Information for the story came from the book "Forgotten Confederates- A Anthology about Black Confederates" compiled by Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segars and R.B. Rosenburg."