Come-Outerism: The Duty of Secession from a Corrupt Church by William Goodell

Come-Outerism: The Duty of Secession from a Corrupt Church by William Goodell

What follows is a historically relevant precedent for an apologetic in favor of the idea that it is the obligation of every professing abolitionist to confront and agitate professing christians on the grounds of their being derelict in their responsibilities towards the weightier matters of God’s Law, their sloth in failing to seek God’s Kingdom, and how their distracting rituals in their government-owned buildings are not safe spaces to shield them from the harsh truth that they take God’s name in vain.

While Goodell provides a tacit logical proof in support of a continued grass-roots approach towards repentance, revival, and obedience to God, we recognize that some of his presuppositions are inaccurate: specifically, he is mistaken about how Scripture defines a “church” and how it does not refer to a musty building with sing-song and sophist rituals, or even to a fellowship of believers, but to the network of ministers who sustain their congregations of families in a daily ministration of their charity. If Christians sought the Kingdom of God as they should, and kept Heaven’s political model for society, then their adhocratic accountability would entirely remodel what we call “Christianity.”

Anyway, the pamphlet is long enough without needing too thorough of an opening disclaimer:





James G. Birney has proved that the “American Church is the Bulwark of American Slavery,” and Stephen S. Foster that “the American church and clergy are a Brotherhood of Thieves.” Having thus shown the American church to be corrupt, we present our friends with another link in the chain of argument, from the hand of William Goodell of Utica, being his well-known Essay on the “Duty of Secession from a Corrupt Church.”

The American Anti-Slavery Society is frequently charged with being opposed to all church organizations. The charge has been again and again both denied and refuted. Those who care to know our views in regard to the churches of the country and the course we urge our members to adopt, will find them clearly defined in the following pages. Though we differ on other points, on this Mr. Goodell and ourselves are entirely agreed.

The very head and front of our offending

Hath this extent — no more. W. P.


Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’ — Rev. xviii. 4.

Our Protestant commentators tell us that by the ‘Babylon‘ of the Apocalypse, we are to understand a CORRUPT CHURCH, and that the proclamation which John heard in heaven — ‘Come out of her, my people’ is to be regarded as a divine admonition to all faithful Christians, warning them to secede from such a church, as from the Anti-Christ, doomed to perdition, at the brightness of the Savior’s appearing. It is true they suppose, that the corrupt church, particularly intended, is the church of Rome; but it is nevertheless equally true that their construction of the passage involves and is founded upon the principle, that whenever and wherever a church, (however distinguished, once, by the divine presence and favor) becomes corrupt and apostate, it is the duty of all true Christians connected with it, to secede from it, because it has thus apostatized, and is become corrupt. It has never been doubted that the church of Rome was once a true church, and the reason always given for coming out of her is her apostacy and corruption.

Nor is it pretended that the Romish church is the only corrupt, apostate, anti-Christian church that the world has yet seen, and that is now to be found. The Greek church has commonly been considered by Protestants to be essentially on the same foundation with the Romish. And both in Old England and New England, the founders of our present churches and denominational arrangements have repeatedly gone through the process of ‘gathering churches out of churches’ (Cotton Mather’s prediction concerning the churches in New England.), on the same principle. The Puritans derived their name from their efforts to secure, in this way, a pure church. And if it be true, as it doubtless is, that secessions have often been made on lighter grounds than the alleged apostacy, and anti-Christian character of the church seceded from, that fact only places in a still stronger light the universal recognition, by Protestants, of the duty of seceding from an anti-Christian church. Indeed, to deny that duty would be equivalent to renouncing the Protestant faith, and would require our return to the Romish communion.

Our commentators, moreover, do not commonly construe the Babylon of the Revelations to mean exclusively the Romish church, nor do they confine the application of the command, in the text, to the Protestant reformers, nor to the duty of seceding from the Romish communion. Thomas Scott says, expressly:

‘This summons concerns all persons in every age; they who believe in Christ, and worship God in the spirit, should separate from so corrupt a Church, AND FROM ALL OTHERS THAT COPY HER EXAMPLE of idolatry, persecution, CRUELTY and TYRANNY, and avoid being partakers of her sins, even if they have renounced her communion, or else they may expect to be involved in her plagues’.

In describing, still further, the anti-Christian practices, on account of which the Romish church, and ‘all others that copy her example,’ should be renounced, and separated from as corrupt and anti-Christian, the same writer adds:

‘Not only slaves, but the souls of men, are mentioned as articles of commerce, which is the most infamous of all traffics that the demon of avarice ever devised, but by no means the most uncommon. The sale of indulgences, dispensations, absolutions, masses and bulls, hath greatly enriched the clergy and their dependants, to the deceiving and destroying the souls of millions, and thus by feigned words they made merchandize of them ‘, nor has the management of Church preferments and many other things, been any better than trafficking in human souls; and it would be gratifying if we could say that this merchandize has been peculiar to the ROMISH anti-Christ.’

Again, in his ‘Practical Observations‘ on the chapter, the same commentator says:

‘Too often INJUSTICE, OPPRESSION, fraud. avarice or excessive indulgence are connected with extensive commerce, and to number the persons of men with beasts, sheep and horses, as the stock of a farm, or with bales of goods, as the cargo of a ship, is, no doubt, a most detestable and unchristian practice, fit only for Babylon the Great.’

And, after alluding again to those who ‘traded in the souls of men,’ in the way of ecclesiastical traffic in cures and benefices, he adds:

‘How fervently should we then pray that God would raise up reformers, who may contend as firmly, as perseveringly, and as successfully, against this vile merchandize, as some honorable and philanthropical persons have against the accursed slave trade. For, when Christ shall come again, to drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple, he will have much to do with other places besides Rome’


‘But the vengeance of Heaven is coming upon Rome, not for gestures, garbs and ceremonies, though multiplied, ridiculous, and of bad consequence in themselves, but for idolatry, ambition, OPPRESSION, CRUELTY to the people of God, imposture, AVARICE, LICENTIOUSNESS and spiritual TYRANNY. These are the sins, which have reached to the heavens, the iniquities which God remembers, and the evils FOR WHICH we must STAND ALOOF from her communion, and that of ALL OTHERS THAT RESEMBLE HER, or we shall be involved in their destruction.’

Thus we have Scott’s authority for identifying the abominations of a pro-slavery Protestant church with those of the church of Rome — for applying the warning voice of the text to the former as well as to the latter — for insisting that cruelty, tyranny, injustice, oppression, the trafficking in the ‘souls of men,’ the numbering of the persons of men with beasts, sheep and horses — with bales of goods — are preeminently among the iniquities, a participation in which makes a church (however once favored and spiritual) an anti-Christian church — ‘the evils for which we must stand aloof from her communion, and that of all others that resemble her, or we shall be involved in their destruction.’

It was a flagrant outrage upon self-evident and fundamental morality on the part of the Romish church, that arrested the attention of Luther, and convinced him that such a church could not be the true church of Christ That sale of indulgences to commit crime was nothing different, in character, from the tacit consent of the American churches in general, and with few exceptions, that those to whom they extend religious fellowship, and with whom they voluntarily sustain ecclesiastical relations, may continue to practice abominations equal to any conceived or provided for by the customers of John Tetzel: and this is true, whether commercial, political, ecclesiastical or social advantages constitute the purchase money pocketed by the churches. The common complaint, that the agitation of the subject disturbs and endangers the churches, and hazards their peace, sufficiently attests this.

But are our commentators right in teaching the duty of secession from a corrupt and anti-Christian church — a church guilty of cruelty, tyranny, oppression, avarice, injustice — a church that trafficks in slaves, in bodies and soul of men — a church that consents to, or tolerates, or licences such abominations among its allies and supporters? And were the Protestant Reformers right, in acting upon this same principle of secession from such a corrupt church?

In maintaining the affirmative of this question, we shall endeavor, first to explain, and then prove and illustrate, the duty of secession from an apostate church.


The discussion before us requires a clear understanding of what is meant by a corrupt, or apostate, or anti-Christian church. In order to this, it may be well to notice a few things, very commonly relied upon as evidences or credentials of a sound Christian church, which, on reflection, will be found to be no evidences at all; being common to true churches and to many of those that have apostatized.


Many persons seem to take it for granted, that their church must be a true church, because it was founded by the authority of God, and by wise and good men, or because it consisted of good men, at the time of its organization or at some past period of its history — because it was founded on the true model, was enriched with divine influences, was abundantly favored with effusions of the Holy Spirit, and was remarkably instrumental in the conversion of sinner and the spread of the true religion.

Many of the descendants or successors of the Puritans seem to reason in this way. So do many of the followers John Wesley. At least, they evidently feel thus, if they would not adventure to frame an argument upon the assumption. On the same principle, other sects boast the apostolical succession of their ministers and bishops. The Romanists, by the same rule, prove their church to be the true church, and all seceders from it to be schismatics. And the Pharisees could defend themselves in the same way, again the scathing denunciations of the Messiah, who reproved them for their oppressions, by boasting, ‘We have Abraham for our father!’

This method of proving a church to be a true church of God, will never become plausible until it is made to appear that men, whose forefathers or predecessors were righteous, were always righteous themselves, or that God will accept men for the righteousness of their progenitors or predecessors, whatever their own characters may be. But it is a method which will probably continue in use, so long as anything else besides the exhibition of present good fruits and of sound Christian character shall be made a test either of church membership, or of the character of an assembly or church.


Either with or without a reference to the historical documents of their sect, many persons seem to claim a Christian character for their respective churches, on account of their present adherence to a scriptural church polity — regular organization — regular ordained pastors— exact and scrupulous observance of positive institutions — rites— ceremonies — ordinancesbaptismssacrificesfastsfeastssabbaths — meetings — prayersworship.

One sect is founded and supported on the simple ground of its supposed scriptural accuracy in respect to water baptism — another on the ground of its supposed observance of the precise day originally designated as the Sabbath — another on the ground of its rejecting outward rites and observances altogether. Partizans of these and other religions sects not unfrequently manifest their reliance on these circumstances, in estimating the Christian character of their church or sect. Tell them wherein their church or sect has openly violated the fundamental principles of a sound Christian morality — trampled upon the crushed poor, or neglected to plead faithfully in their behalf— alas! they know it all — they confess it all — they lament it all. They are even loud, perhaps, in their complaints of these delinquencies; they have been so, for many years, and they see no prospect of a change for the better. But they cannot think of seceding from their sect or church. Oh! no! That would be the sin of ‘schism.’ Why so? Because they think their church is, after all, a true Christian church, and they thus judge, because their definition of a church of Christ obliges them to give the Christian name to all the churches that they regard as having been scripturally constituted and regularly organized and governed, and who maintain in their purity and integrity the scriptural observances and rituals of religion.

If this sort of credentials can prove a church to be a true church, then the Pharisees, in Christ’s time, and their fathers in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, could have readily proved themselves to constitute the true church of God. The first and fifty-eighth chapters of Isaiah, and the seventh of Jeremiah, will show in what estimation God regards credentials of this sort, when separated from a practical regard for the oppressed and the crushed.


But when, in addition to their historical and ritual credentials, the members of a church can point to their correct orthodox creed, they often seem to think that the evidence is complete, and that no dereliction of duty towards the oppressed can prove that such a church is not a true church of Christ.

A profession of correct Christian principles is a very good thing, but it is only a profession, after all, and professions without practice will avail nothing to prove Christian character, either in an individual or in a church. The creed of a church is its profession — and if it be a correct creed, it is a profession of sound principles — nothing more. These principles or ‘doctrines’ are ‘according to godliness.’ — They furnish the grounds, the reasons, the motives for a correct Christian practice. If truely loved and obeyed, a correct Christian practice and a sound Christian character will be the result. An intelligent profession of these principles amounts to an intelligent promise to perform all the duties of religion; and therefore a church covenant is appended to the church creed. But what if the promise is habitually and constantly broken, at vital points, instead of being performed? Will the promise avail instead of the performance? If so (but not otherwise) a correct orthodox creed may prove the Christian character of a church that neglects and refuses to plead for the Lord’s poor! Till then, it will be true that the orthodox creed of such a delinquent church will be its condemnation, instead of its security. It will be the sure evidence of its guilt It will testify that (unless the creed were stupidly adopted, without a consideration even of its meaning) the church has sinned and is sinning against its known and recognized principles of duty, and must therefore be doubly condemned. The orthodox Pharisees, on this account, were more pointedly condemned by the Savior than the heretical Sadducees, who made lower professions. The grossly heretical churches of our own day, that do not plead for the oppressed, have sinned against less light, and probably contracted less guilt, and become less intolerably odious and offensive in God’s sight, than many of the churches that rely on the evangelical creeds to screen them from censure on account of their practical derelictions. They do less dishonor to God, to Christ, to Christian principles — to the very principles in the distinctive profession of which they glory; and on the loving reception of which human salvation depends. When God rises to judgment, the churches that ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness’ must drink a double portion, and drain the cup of trembling to the last dregs. Far be thy feet, Christian reader, from the threshold of such churches then! In that day it will be seen that the positive institutions of Christianity and the revelations of a sound Christian faith, in their integrity and purity, were talents put into the hands of the churches, to be improved; and that if buried and disregarded, they will prove swift witnesses against them.


These are often regarded as the sure signs that a church is, of course, a true Christian church, and no exhibitions of its inhumane CRUELTY and its CONTEMPT or fundamental MORALITY will reverse the decision! All this betrays an utter ignorance or forgetfulness of true religion itself— of the things wherein it essentially consists. ‘This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous.’ The ‘pure religion’ of James — of the ‘golden rule’ — of the two great commandments on which ‘hang all the law and the prophets,’ seems to have no place even in the conceptions of those who rely on such tests.

Equally regardless are such men of the facts of the world’s history and of its present spiritual condition. The Pharisees could compass sea and land to make one proselyte. In their devotions, they were sufficiently vociferous and earnest, breaking out, as by irrepressible impulse, at the very corners of the streets. They were by no means the cold-hearted, stiff, dull, phlegmatic formalists that some men picture them to be. Paul regarded himself as having been exceedingly mad, absolutely insane, with the prevalent enthusiasm of the sect, before his conversion. The same spirit composed the atmosphere of the Romish church, at the very period when its spiritual despotism and its manifold corruptions were engendered and ripened into giant maturity. The present mummeries and superstitions of that church are but the skeletons, the shells, the monuments of its ancient enthusiasm, fanaticism, mysticism and rhapsody. (See Spiritual Despotism’ by the author of ‘Natural History of Enthusiasm— a work in which the rise of the Papal power is traced with a graphic pencil, and shown to have grown up, along with its absurd and blasphemous pretensions and dogmas, out of the rank soil of a spurious; religious excitement, in which reason and common sense were outraged, and the practical duties of life set aside, as unworthy the attention of the spiritually minded and devout.) To galvanize this skeleton into its former life and activity, to revive again and to restore the departed spirit of its now unmeaning rituals — the spirit of the most soul-stirring and wide-spreading enthusiasm the world oversaw — appears to be the object of Dr. Pusey, and the writers of the ‘Oxford tracts.’ And not a few of the most zealous among the English clergy, of the ‘evangelical‘ stamp, the patrons of ‘revivals,’ have been captivated by them, and drawn away to ‘wander after the beast, whose deadly wound’ is likely to be ‘healed ‘ by the process. If modern travellers may be credited, something of the spirit invoked by the Puseyists has been conjured up, in Popish countries, not infrequently, within the last century.

At Naples, in Sicily, in various parts of Italy, in Portugal, and in South America, there have been repeated religious excitements, among the Romanists, in our own day, the description of which casts into the shade — so far as excitement and intense emotion are concerned — the religious excitements of our own country. Whole cities have spontaneously thrown aside their secular avocations, for a succession of days, and in some cases for weeks, it is said. The population, en masse, have eagerly thronged the streets in procession, moved by alternate terrors and transports — sometimes wringing their hands in agony, dashing themselves headlong upon the pavements or into the mire, and imploring the intercession of the ‘Blessed Virgin’ for the forgiveness of their sins. Then receiving absolution from their priests with frantic gestures and clamorous exultations. But did these Romish ‘revivals ‘ bring forth the fruits of righteousness? Ah! that is the question by which Protestant as well as Romish revivals should be tested. What should be thought of revivals conducted by itinerating evangelists, who carry on, likewise, a traffic in men, women and children, during their revivals? Such things have been witnessed, and a prominent minister lately preached, in Baltimore, with a pair of handcuffs in his pocket, which, immediately after the sermon, he put upon a female slave, on ship board, to be transported to the South. And we have, all over the country, ‘revivals’ conducted by preachers who will not plead for the enslaved — nor listen to such a plea — nor suffer their church doors to be opened for one — by preachers in close fellowship and brotherly intercourse with the slave-buying preachers of the South (The editors of our northern religious newspapers, for the most part, are just as ready to record, in tones of gratulation, the revivals in the slave States, as any other; though they cannot be ignorant that the preachers are commonly slaveholders, and that the mass of the converts continue to be either slaveholders or slaves!), and making up a common purse with them, to send the gospel to the heathen! What shall we think of such efforts to convert sinners and to evangelize the world? Can such ‘missionary exertions and revival efforts,’ with the excitements growing out of them, prove that a church, though devoid of humanity, and trampling decent morality and common honesty under foot, is a true Christian church? If so, why may we not join with the clergy of Rio Janeiro and of Naples, in promoting revivals, and with the Jesuits in carrying the gospel to China? No revivalists have got up greater excitements. No Missionaries have been more enterprising, or have numbered a greater company of Converts. There is a philosophy that counts it a sign of a sickly state of religion to make nice metaphysical distinctions between true religion and false. The healthiest state of religion, it teaches, is that in which men are religious, without knowing why or wherefore — without understanding or inquiring wherein true religion consists. If this be sound philosophy, and if ignorance be, therefore, the mother of devotion, all we need is zeal and excitement, and we may venture to harmonize with all who exhibit quantum sufficit those qualities, without stopping to dissect, to analyze, to scrutinize either their character or their fruits. But if religion be a ‘reasonable service’ — if God invites us to ‘consider our ways’ — to ‘know what manner of spirit we are of — to ‘examine’ ourselves — to ‘try the spirits whether they be of God’ — to ‘beware of false prophets — to ‘take heed and beware of men’; — then the philosophy of unconscious, unknowing, undiscriminating, impulsive, mystic, unexplainable religious excitement should be tossed to the breeze or into the moonbeams; and manly reflection, and logical scrutiny, and homely common sense should be welcomed into the field of experimental religion, as well as of everyday business and demonstrative science. The missionary and revival claims of churches in league with oppressors will be understood and adjusted then.

Are we censorious, severe, profane or hostile towards revivals of pure religion, because we thus speak? Turn over the voluminous writings of our own distinguished American theologians, on this very subject. Examine what Edwards, and Bellamy, and Smalley, and Hopkins, and Emmons have written concerning religious revivals and conversions, and upon the necessity of discriminating between true false and the true. You shall there see, in substance, all we have here written, and much more, that we have not room to write. You shall learn from those unimpeachable witnesses, the abundant occasion there has been, in this country, to enter into discussions and discriminations of this sort. You shall be instructed that religious excitements are, (of themselves, and aside from the good fruits they produce,) no evidences in favor of either an individual or a church, being common to all the religions of the known world, the false as well as the true, the Romish as well as the Protestant, the Pagan as well as the Christian — that they are as common on the banks of the Ganges as on the Connecticut or the Hudson — that nothing short of practical good fruits and holy living can furnish any evidences of truly gracious affections, and that where love to God and man, and a filial discharge of the relative duties of life, are not exhibited, all religious emotions, and excitements, and transports, are worthless and vain. (To this very point, the closing part— the climax of ‘Edwards on the Affections’ is devoted, and the absurdity of the too prevalent notion to the contrary is shown up with the cool, latent, solemn, weighty irony for which the gigantic author is so remarkable. Edwards on the Revival contains much to the same purpose.)

An almost incredible amount of labor, (and by the ablest and most honored ministers of the country,) has been expended to expose the worthlessness of ‘revivals’ that do not bring forth the fruits of righteousness. And yet, after all, the ’well substantiated and unrebutted charge against a large‘ portion of the ‘American churches,’ that they are the very ‘bulwarks of American slavery,’ with all its abominations and its blood, is gravely met, forsooth, with the plea that these churches must not be charged with apostacy, because they are blessed with ‘revivals.’!


It will be pleaded, nevertheless, that there are, to some extent, true revivals of religion in the churches that stand aloof from the cause of the enslaved — at any rate, that some instances of true conversion take place in their midst, and that among their members and ministers they enrol many persons of undisputed piety, including a large portion of the active friends of the enslaved. How, then, it will be asked, can we come to the conclusion that they are not to be regarded as true churches of Christ? And how can we be called upon to abandon the churches which Christ has not abandoned, and whom be still visits with the converting and reviving influences of his Spirit? Answer, — Zecharias and Elizabeth, and many others of their day, were pious persons, and were converted, of course, in the bosom of the Jewish church. But the Jewish church, at that time, was, nevertheless, apostate, and as such, was doomed to be cast off speedily, and overthrown. And the multitude of converts, afterwards, under the preaching of John the Baptist, of Jesus Christ, and of their disciples, and even on the day of Pentecost, did not prove the Jewish church to be in a sound state, nor avert the catastrophe that followed. The great majority, including the leading and governing influences and officials, were corrupt, and, instead of repenting, filled up the measure of their iniquities, in the midst of these conversions and “revivals.” And so the Jewish Church, as such, was broken off for its unbelief.

The Romish church, in her worst state, could boast her truly pious members and ministers. True conversions, of course, took place in her bosom. Who doubts the piety of Thomas a Kempis, and Fenelon, and Massillon, and Bourdaloue — men whose writings are still read for edification and instruction by the best Protestant Christians? Luther and the reformers were converted while members of the Romish church. Was that circumstance a good reason why they should not repudiate and abandon her, as anti-christian? By this rule, the Protestant Reformation could never have taken place. For none would abandon the Romish church for her anti-christian character, before they were themselves converted, but as soon as they there converted, the rule we have under consideration would require them to regard the church wherein they were converted a true church, because of their conversion, and therefore it would be schismatic to secede.

It is commonly held that the true church was comprised for the most part within the Romish communion, until the time of the Reformation, when it ‘came out’ in accordance with the admonition of our text. Had they listened to the objection under review, they would, nevertheless, have remained. And when the Protestant secession took place, it was not on the principle that no true Christians were left behind, or that conversions there had utterly ceased to take place; but it was on the principle that the church, as such, the church as a body, the church as governed, was anti-Christian and corrupt.

The truth is, the converting grace and power of the Holy Spirit are not limited wholly to the churches and the communities that Jesus Christ regards as truly Christian — nor to the instrumentalities that true churches embody and wield in his service. God converted Abraham amidst the idolatrous worshippers in Ur of the Chaldees; but that did not prove the idolaters true worshippers, nor nullify the call to Abraham to come out from among them, and be separate. He converted Cornelius, and ‘in every nation, he that fears God, and works righteousness, is accepted of him.‘ Mahomedans and Hindoos, when converted at all, are converted before they secede from their anti-christian, ecclesiastical connections, but this does not prove that those connections are sacred, and divinely appointed. In short, the objection assumes a principle which would prove that the wide world itself is the Christian church, for it cannot be doubted that conversions sometimes take place in the world and without the employment of any direct instrumentalities by an organized church.

We conclude, then, that neither historical credentials, nor ritual observances, nor orthodox creeds, nor missionary zeal, nor religious excitements, nor real conversions, nor a minority of truly pious members and ministers, nor all of these combined, can prove a church, as a whole, to be a true Christian church.


What then do we mean by a corrupt church?

A church is not to he renounced as corrupt and anti-christian, merely because its members are not absolutely faultless — nor merely because it may contain some corrupt and wicked members, whose hypocrisy is undetected by their associates — nor because its faith and practice may be, in some measure, and in minor particulars, ‘defective and faulty.’

But a church becomes manifestly corrupt and anti-christian, whenever a majority of its members, or its leading and governing members, and officers, and influences, become so. A Christian church is an assembly or congregation of ‘faithful men’ An anti-christian church is an assembly or congregation of unfaithful men. The character of an assembly or church is nothing distinct from the character of the members of which it is composed, and the influence which, as a body, it exerts.

A professed Temperance Society ceases to be really such; when its members, or a majority of them, cease to be temperance men, and to exert, individually, and as a body, an influence in favor of true temperance. And so a professed Christian church ceases to be truly Christian, when its members, or a majority of them, cease to be so, and when, at vital points, they fail, either individually or collectively, to exert an influence in favor of righteousness, humanity and truth.

A church may prove itself corrupt and anti-christian, by its course, in either of the following particulars, viz:

By its renunciation of any of the fundamental truths of the Christian religion;

By trampling on humanity, or disregarding its essential claims;

By habitually violating the precepts of a sound Christian morality;

By becoming carnally minded, and covetous, instead of spiritually minded and benevolent;

By an absence of the spirit of Christ — or by ceasing to do his work — the work for which Christian churches were founded;

By despotic usurpations — and lording it over God’s heritage;

By willfully retaining ungodly and wicked men in their communion and fellowship: for ‘a little leaven leavens the whole lump.’ (I Cor. v. 6 -13.) The church becomes responsible for, and is infected with the iniquity which it sanctions by its fellowship with the transgressor.


What good reason can anyone give for retaining a connection with a corrupt church — an anti-christian church — such a church as has been described? For what purpose should you remain? What obligation do you thus discharge? What divine precept do you thus obey? What heaven-appointed relation do you honor? It cannot be the relation between Christians and the church of Christ, for an anti-christian church is not His.

What is there to cling to, in remaining with such a church? Do you thereby fasten yourselves to the throne of the Eternal — to the great principles that form the pillars of the universe? Do you thereby cling to God, to Christ, to the Holy Comforter, the Reprover of Sin, the Revealer of Righteousness and Judgment to come? On the other hand, do you not weaken, if not sever, the cords that bind you to these, to the kingdom of heaven, by cherishing connections of so opposite and hostile a character? Ponder, carefully, a few of the reasons why you should secede from such an apostate church.


Its credentials are fallacious, its claims are not valid. It relies on its historical documents, its parchments, its rituals, its creeds, its professions, its partizan zeal, its proselytizing activity, its periodical or occasional excitements. It claims to be true, because there are true men who have not yet deserted it! It claims to be Christ’s church, because its iniquities have not yet wholly intercepted and quenched the overflowing streams of divine mercy, and driven away the Divine Spirit from all of its members, and from the entire human race! This is the full inventory of its fair claims. Here its appeal rests. Farther than this, it cannot honestly go. As for performing its abundant promises, as for preaching deliverance to the captives, executing judgment for the oppressed, pleading the cause of the poor, delivering the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them, showing the people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sin, coming up to the help of the Lord against the giant crimes of the age, cleansing her own garments from the clotted gore of human victims —this. This is a work that she cannot pretend to have performed, to have commenced, to have desired, to have contemplated, at all! How worthless, then, are her claims! Such a church professes to be what it is not. It is a counterfeit, an imposition, a deceit, a sham. What right can any man have to cling to a deception, to say by his connection with it that he considers it a veritable reality, a thing of worth, and deserving veneration and confidence? Reader! If you believe such a church to be Christ’s church, you are deceived, and do dishonor the Savior, and the institutions he has founded. If you believe no such thing, and yet maintain a connection with it, you certify to an untruth, for your connection with it says to everybody that you consider it a true church.


You cannot maintain a connection with a corrupt church without becoming partaker of her sins, and receiving of her plagues. So says the voice from heaven, which John heard, In Patmos. And conscience, and reason, and common sense testify to the same thing. In all human affairs, the principle now insisted upon is practically recognized.


All communities hold persons responsible for the crimes to which they are accessory, by giving countenance and support to the principals, or actual offenders. If a person merely looks on and sees the commission of a crime, but does nothing to prevent it, if he conceals it, or still associates with the wrong doers, thereby giving them the currency and support of his influence in society, and thus enabling them to continue and extend their injuries in the community, all men will hold such an individual responsible for the crimes of his associates; and, in most cases, the civil law itself will deal with him as severely as with the principal transgressors themselves.

If an organized society or association of any description commits a criminal act — if, for example, it authorizes the murder of one of its own members, or of any other person, whom it may deem an enemy or offender — if the murder be accordingly committed by the officers or committees of the society, or by volunteer executors of its will — an intelligent and right-minded community will hold each and every member of that society responsible for the crime, if they knew of it either before or after its commission, and did not do all in their power to prevent it, or to bring the criminals to justice. And, in case the society, as such, or its leading members, seek to shelter the criminals, or justify or apologize for the crime, or refuse to repent of its commission, the persons who still continue to remain members of such a society, will always be held more or less culpable or guilty, whatever protestations of their own personal innocence they may make. This weight of responsibility will rest on them, so long as they live, unless they withdraw their fellowship and support from the society or association that committed the crime, or sheltered the criminals. God has so framed the human mind, that men must, and will, of necessity, throw the blame of a society’s criminal acts upon the individual that continues to give the society his support. And God himself has abundantly revealed (as in the text) his own fixed and settled determination to do the same thing. On the same principle, the punishment of national sins falls upon the individuals, however humble their station, of whom the guilty nation is composed.

Suppose now, that, instead of the crime of murder, a society commits the crime of enslaving or imbruting their fellow-men, or of countenancing its members, or others, in that practice, what reason can be given why the same principle should not be applied? And suppose that society should call itself a church, a Christian church — a Presbyterian church — a Methodist church — a Baptist church — a Congregational church — can anybody tell why the same rule should not apply to the associated body, and to the members of whom it is composed? Will the sacredness of church institutions release them from the operation of those great moral laws by which God governs the universe? Such a thought would savor of blasphemy! It would contradict the express declarations of God. It is specially and emphatically in respect to a corrupt church that God says, ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.‘ Of all the societies that ever existed among men, a professed Christian church is the association to whom the universal principle of holding the members responsible for the acts of the body, should be most faithfully applied. — For the nature of the organization, and of the objects it was designed to promote, gives prominence to individual accountability, and repudiates the doctrine of subjecting the conscience of the individual, or of the few, to the control of the many. The very business of this organized society, is to teach and exemplify human duty, and when it becomes itself a transgressor, and betrays its high trust, a ten-fold weight of obligation rests on the individual member to withdraw the support of his connection with the apostate body.

A church, like every other associated body, is nothing distinct from the individuals of whom it is composed. And their individuality is not to be destroyed or merged in the ‘corporation.’ To deny the duty of secession from a corrupt body, is to deny and reverse these self-evident axioms. It is to make the man the creature of the association. It is to nullify the command, ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.‘ It is, moreover, to deny, in effect, that accountability or guilt can pertain to associated action, for if these do not pertain to the individuals of whom the body is composed, they can exist nowhere, at all.


It cannot be consistent with honesty to remain connected with a corrupt and anti-christian church, especially with a church that will not protest against the dishonest robberies and thefts of slavery — a church that maintains fraternal fellowship with the robbers, which is ‘a companion of thieves, and a partaker with adulterers.‘ If there be any dishonesty in slavery, there is dishonesty in the churches that sustain it, and there is dishonesty in those individuals by whom such dishonest churches are knowingly sustained. To deny this, is to deny that men can he ‘partakers in other men’s sins.’ And it must he doubly dishonest to remain connected with such a church, when convinced that the church is anti-christian, apostate, corrupt. For such a church, as already noticed, is itself a deception, a counterfeit, a sham. And he that knowingly gives his countenance and endorsement to a deception, a sham, becomes himself a deceiver. He leads others, so far as his influence extends, to rely upon that which he is persuaded, in his own mind, is unworthy of confidence — to rely upon that upon which he is unwilling himself to rely — a plain breach of the command, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’

Suppose you should join with some of your neighbors in establishing a bank, the business of which, you suppose, is to supply the community with a sound circulating medium, a truly trustworthy currency, that may be depended on, a currency of intrinsic value, and, in reality, what it professes or purports to be. But, after a while, you discover that the main business carried on by the company or the directors, is to manufacture and put in circulation a spurious or counterfeit currency, of no real value, but which the people around you, relying on the reputation and standing of the company and its members, (including such men as yourself,) are ready enough to receive, and render an equivalent for, and pass from one to another. Some of them part with all they have to obtain it; they hoard it, and think themselves independent for life, while you know or suspect that they will find themselves bankrupt, whenever a scrutinizing eye, that of a creditor, perhaps, comes to be fastened upon it.

What would people think of you, if, with a full persuasion of all this, you should continue your connection with such a company? And what would you think of yourself? Would you ever suspect yourself of being an honest man? Or could you satisfy your own conscience, or vindicate your course to your neighbors, by merely declaiming against counterfeit money, and scolding, perhaps, at the directors, for making and passing it? Or could you satisfy yourself or your neighbors, by pleading that the company was regularly organized — that its officers were duly elected and commissioned — that the forms and etiquette suitable, or authoritatively prescribed for such companies, had been scrupulously observed — that they had been very active, zealous, indefatigable, in prosecuting their business, and in multiplying to the greatest possible extent, the specimens of their workmanship, acid in filling every nook and corner of the land or of the world with them? Would you maintain that, after all its delinquencies, it was, nevertheless, a true and trustworthy banking company, on the whole, because of these things, or because, in addition to them all, it had for a long time, in years past, very faithfully circulated a sound currency, and because, even now, a certain proportion of genuine and good money was to be found among its issues?

Would your remonstrance against the spurious emissions satisfy your own conscience, or your injured neighbors, so long as you continued your connection with the company, supported its cashier and clerks by your payments, met with the company at its festivals, enjoyed its warm fires and its sumptuous fare, pocketed your portion of the dividends, and discountenanced, by your example, the efforts of those who would leave the charter of the company taken away, for its malpractices, and the community warned against its deceptions?

The cases, to be sure, are not parallel, in all things, for parables, (as the old divines tell us,) ‘do not run upon all Fours’ — they do not, and cannot agree in all the minor traits of the picture. The finite cannot fully explain the infinite, nor things temporal shadow forth, perfectly, the things unseen and eternal. The loss of an estate, by counterfeit money, is a small matter, compared with the loss of the soul, by receiving, as trustworthy, a counterfeit and worthless religion. The man that makes and passes counterfeit money commits a small crime, and inflicts a light injury, in the comparison with him who gives currency to a spurious religion. A sham church is as much more mischievous and abominable than a sham bank, as the bankruptcy of the soul for eternity, is worse than pecuniary insolvency for life.

The difference between time and eternity, between gold and heaven, between dollars and holiness, is the measure of the different degrees of criminality between the adherent and supporter of a sham bank, and the adherent and supporter of a sham church. No wonder, then, that God says, ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

If the keepers of a lighthouse, on the sea-coast, instead of maintaining a true light, should hold out a false light, calculated to deceive the mariner, and make him think himself on a remote and safe point of the coast, when, in fact, he was about running on a reef of rocks, all mankind would cry out against the inhumanity of the person who should continue to lend the keepers of that lighthouse his support, while he knew perfectly well the mischiefs they were doing.


But the church is set to be the lighthouse of the world, and a false church is a false lighthouse, and lures men to destruction. The man that knowingly supports such a church, is equally guilty with those whose character and teachings make it a false church. Nay, he is, oftentimes, more guilty than they, because he sins against more light.

The pro-slavery members and ministers of a pro-slavery church may really think it to be a true Christian church. But abolitionists belonging to such churches know better, or ought to know better, and cannot well plead ignorance in extenuation of their conduct, in supporting such false and mischievous moral lights. If the light that is in them be darkness, how great is that darkness!


Men who know not, experimentally, the truth and reality of religion, have a claim on us for truthfulness and fidelity in all our exhibitions of the religion we profess. Those exhibitions are most impressive that are made by our example. When they see us maintain a visible connection with a church, they have a right to infer that we regard it a true Christian church, and that the example there exhibited is, in our view, and in the main, and notwithstanding our complaints of some defects, a fair Christian example, a specimen of Christian conduct, an exemplification of the religion of Jesus Christ. But if the church is radically corrupt and apostate, then we hold up to them a false specimen of the Christian religion. If they rely on our truthfulness and fidelity, they will be led into fatal mistakes in respect to the nature of that religion. If they are disgusted with it, on account of its injustice and despotism, their rejection of it will be likely to involve their rejection of Christianity altogether, believing (as they must needs do, if they credit our testimony,) that injustice, pride and despotism are not inconsistent with the Christian religion. But if injustice, pride and despotism, be their besetting sins, and if they are intent on finding a religion that will allow them in the practice of these vices, then our testimony will embolden them to trust in the religion of a pro-slavery church, (and the more especially if we profess to be the earnest friends of the enslaved,) — but such a religion being a false religion, and not the religion of Jesus Christ, will do them no good, but bind them more firmly in the delusions of the grand deceiver of souls.


Some abolitionists cannot bear to think of disconnecting themselves with the pro-slavery churches to which they belong, because, as they say, they want to take their families to some religious meeting on the Sabbath, and they know of no other place of public worship where they could attend. But the first question to settle is, whether slavery be a self-evident and aggravated sin, utterly inconsistent with the Christian religion, and whether an earnest advocacy of the claims of the oppressed be essential to the character of a true Christian, IF THIS BE THE TRUTH, THEN AN INCORRIGIBLE PRO-SLAVERY OR NEUTRAL CHURCH IS AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And to educate your family in such a church, is to educate them in a false religion, which they must renounce before they can be saved; and the renunciation of which, as already observed, with the renunciation of the Bible itself! If you would do all in your power to shut up your children to the horrible alternative of either embracing a false religion, or else rejecting religion altogether, the most effectual way of securing the result will be, while you profess to abhor and loathe slavery, to educate them in a pro-slavery church to which you lend the sanction of your own membership and support.

Would you educate your children in the Romish church, or teach them to worship in a Mahomedan mosque, because you could get access to no other place of public worship?

You know you would not. And there are professed Protestant Christian churches in this country, whose errors are such, in your view, that you probably would not educate your families in their places of worship. But can they be more odious in God’s sight, or more dangerous to your children, than those professedly evangelical and orthodox churches, where the Lord Jesus Christ himself, (in the persons of his crushed poor, ‘the least of his brethren,’) is scornfully thrust into a corner, or out of doors, and where not a lisp must be uttered in his behalf?


We are bound to deal truthfully and honestly with the members of the churches with which we have connected ourselves. If we think them true Christians, and the churches true churches, then we ought to walk lovingly with them, and not pester them incessantly with ‘doubtful disputations’ concerning minor points in which we do not happen to be precisely agreed. Let them go their own way, and we will go ours, in respect to such things. But if the points on which we differ are manifestly vital points, in which the very pith and essence of true religion are, in our view, plainly involved, and if their course be exactly opposite to ours, it follows clearly that either they or we are fundamentally wrong, and that, on one side or the other, there must be a radical change, or else there can be no foundation left, upon which we can truthfully and honestly walk together, in the mutual recognition of each other as Christians. A solemn re-examination of their ground, must then become the duty of both parties. If, after such a review on our part, we still find ourselves unable either to change our opinions, or to conceive that the point at issue is otherwise than fundamental to true religion, then we are bound in common honesty and common humanity to acquaint our associates with the convictions to which we have arrived. And if they cannot be persuaded to review and to change their position, we are bound, as faithful men, to shape our conduct in accordance with the principles we profess, and separate ourselves from them.


Nothing short of this is demanded by the covenant obligations into which we enter, on joining ourselves to a church. — We then solemnly promise to watch over and admonish each other in love. If we see the members of the church astray, and that too on points essential in our view to human salvation, and do not warn them of their danger, their blood and our own broken vows will settle, together, upon our guilty heads. And no mere lip-service will suffice to the discharge of this duty, if our actions do not agree with our words; which they cannot, if we continue to sustain church relations with those whom we regard as having proved themselves by their practice to be deficient in the vital elements of sound Christian character, and whom we cannot reclaim.


How can we secure the respect and the confidence of our neighbors, (whether church members or others) unless our faithfulness be exhibited, when the proper occasion presents itself, in the manner that has been described? We profess to believe, for example, that human rights are inalienable and self-evident — that chattel slavery is the most palpable and deadly violation of those rights — that its victims have a claim upon the prayers and exhortations of all men, especially of all Christians — that Christian character is, in fact, defined and moulded by the advocacy of their claims. Yet we continue by our church relations to certify, to endorse, as it were, the Christian character of those who notoriously neglect, and even contemn and deprecate the performance of that heaven-imposed duty! Here our acts are in direct contradiction to our words. And which will our neighbors believe? If our remonstrances and arguments and scripture quotations were beginning to make church members tremble and inquire, our fraternal recognition of them as Christians, at the communion table, and in other associated religious action, takes back again all we had said. Their consciences are relieved. They conclude we are insincere or mistaken, for they know we are inconsistent, and they are more and more disgusted with our apparent pertinacity and stubbornness in pressing upon them sentiments by which we ourselves will not practically abide, and which our actions show that we do not regard vital to Christianity, after all! Is it strange that, under such circumstances, a number of abolitionists, retaining church connections year after year with churches whom their professed principles should lead them to discard as anti-christian; have been dealt with by those same churches, and suspended and excluded, {not for their abolitionism — Oh! no! this is always disclaimed,) but for their disturbing the peace of the church, and annoying the members perpetually with their notions which they evidently hold as notions, merely, and not as principles, upon which their own lives are to be squared, and their ecclesiastical relations determined?

Abolitionists are evidently losing the public confidence, on account of their inconsistency in this respect, and especially are they losing their influence with the members of the churches to which they belong. Just as their reputation and influence were destroyed at one time by their adhesion to the political parties [All political parties in this country must sustain slavery; since all voters and office-holders, either by implied or express oath, agree to sustain the United States Constitution; and that is a pre-slavery instrument Abolitionists, therefore, should have nothing to do with any political party. — Note By The Editor.] that sustain slavery, so do they now suffer, in the same way, from their support of the churches that are equally subservient to the same wicked system.

Abolitionists who have seceded from their old political parties on account of their pro-slavery character, and yet cling to churches and ecclesiastical bodies of the same character, bring their sincerity, even in their political efforts, into suspicion, and diminish their strength, even in that favorite department of their activity.


We cannot discharge our duty to the slave, while connected with a pro-slavery church, any more than we can while connected with a pro-slavery party in politics. The churches can no more be neutral than the political parties. And the churches not enlisted on the behalf of the enslaved, are as truly the props of the slave power, as any political party in the land, indeed, such churches furnish, to a great extent, the moral atmosphere in which the political vices of the country vegetate. (The legislature of the State of New York excused themselves from recommending the constitutional extension of the elective franchise to the colored people, because as they alleged, the Christian churches did not give them an equal place in their houses of worship, and seminaries of religious learning!) And the morals of the State can hardly be expected to be in advance of the Church. To support a pro-slavery church is to place our feet upon the necks of the crushed poor — and upon their mighty Avenger and our own Judge, who has declared that he will constitute them his representatives at the last day, and treat us according to our treatment of them. Of course, we must abandon such churches, if we would not ‘partake of their sins, and receive of their plagues.’


All these require that Christians should secede from a corrupt church. Such a church professes to be a true Christian church — to exemplify true religion — to follow Jesus Christ — to do the will of our great Father in heaven. But all these professions are hollow and vain. Most manifestly is this the case with those churches that sympathize with oppressors, that will not plead for the oppressed — nor testify against a system of man-stealing, of theft, of forced concubinage, of impurity, of cruelty, of compulsory heathenism, of tyranny, and of blood. To endorse the pretensions of such churches, as true churches of Christ, is to dishonor, wrongfully, the institution of the Christian Church — is to belie the nature of true and undefiled religion — it is virtually to blaspheme Christ — it is to insult the God of purity, the Avenger of the oppressed. To say that these churches are his churches — that their religion is his religion — that their character is his character — is to say the very worst thing of him that can possibly be said. But to retain membership in these churches is to say that we do regard them as his churches. And to say that they are his churches is virtually to say that they bear in a good measure his moral image, and that the character they habitually exhibit is recognized by us as a reflection of his own!

Many who would deem it a sin and a disgrace to support a pro-slavery party in politics, or to vote for any pro-slavery man as a candidate for civil office, will nevertheless support a pro-slavery church, a pro-slavery religious sect, and pro-slavery teachers of religion; thus plainly declaring, by their acts, that they consider a political party a more sacred and holy thing than a church — that while they cannot endure the spirit of slavery in the former, they can very well tolerate it in the latter — that a man whose moral character does not qualify him to be a constable or a path-master, may nevertheless be a member, or even minister of a Christian church! What a practical insult to Christian institutions— to church and ministry — have we here! Can it be that such persons honor the church and ministry of Jesus Christ? One is almost tempted to suspect that they sympathize with those who would bring those divine institutions into contempt certain it is, that this is the natural tendency of their course. Nor will it remove the difficulty to plead that men may be entitled to a place in the Christian Church, yet nevertheless lack the information and clearness of vision requisite to the proper discharge of a civil office. Our teachers of religion, at least, should know as much, on great ethical questions, as our legislators, and magistrates, and constables. And besides, the question of supporting the old political parties and their candidates, is a moral question, and not a question of intellectual qualification, at all. The friends of freedom require of them no test but that which the nation itself has, long ago, declared to be self-evident, and made the foundation of the government. From President down to path-master, the candidates all acknowledge the ‘self-evident truth.’ Not a man of them is so stupid as not to know the difference between a man and a brute. And all the friends of freedom ask of them is to ACT in conformity with this knowledge.

Let them only do this — let them but ‘remember them that are in bonds as bound with them,’ and the ‘independent nominations‘ of abolitionists would be instantly abandoned. It is a MORAL disqualification, and NOTHING ELSE, that deprives them of anti-slavery votes. And yet this same moral disqualification is made no obstacle to the introduction of these same men into the Christian ministry and the Christian church! Very evidently, no community that permanently insists on a higher MORAL TEST in political life than in ecclesiastical life, will loner retain any affectionate reverence for the latter. The moral test must rise as high, at least, in religion, as in politics, in the Church, as in the political party. Otherwise, the moral test in political life cannot be maintained, and will be abandoned in despair. There can be no possible alternative, unless it be the utter DISGRACE and ABANDONMENT of church institutions, altogether. The problem whether an embodied political morality could long survive an embodied religion, is one which we need not now stop to discuss. Those who think l could, must already have arrived at the conclusion that churches are of little or no value — a conclusion that it will be impossible for those to avoid, who think to secure liberty by political action without their aid. Our ‘liberty party’ men may very honestly and very properly disclaim the anti-church doctrines that another class of abolitionists propagate. [This is intended by the writer as a reflection on those who are commonly known as ‘Garrison Abolitionists.’ But he overshoots the mark. That body have never maintained, as abolitionists, any ‘anti-church doctrines,’ other or different from those set forth by the writer himself in this tract; which they now and here republish as one of the best expositions of their views. If individuals have taught any other doctrines, the “class” he refers to, is not responsible, since it has never endorsed them. — Note by the Editor.] But they ought to know that no such disclaimers, however earnest and sincere, can do away the anti-church tendencies of an attempt (should it be made) to save a corrupt and sinking State without the aid of a purified and true church — a tendency from which their own minds could not long escape, though they may be insensible of it, now.


Requires that Christians should secede from corrupt churches. In such churches they are fettered and crippled, and prevented from doing the good they might do, as individuals, if connected with no church at all. But Christian churches were designed to enable Christians to do more good, by a connection with them, than they could do while standing alone. So long as true Christians remain connected with corrupt churches, they not only diminish their power, and curtail their opportunities of doing good, but all the good they do accomplish, and all the good fruits they exhibit, are made subservient to the honor and credit of a corrupt church, and are used up so to speak, in their service, instead of going to the support of a true church; just as Romanism has been strengthened by the adhesion of pious members, and as the Colonization Society, for a long time, deceived and sponged up, and turned into its own impure channel, all the anti-slavery feeling of the free States. In the same way, there are now scores and hundreds of pro-slavery churches, with pastors and officers of the same stamp, sitting like an incubus upon the poor slaves, and upon the cause of Christian freedom, that derive their main strength, or much, at least, of it, from the support of the professed friends of the enslaved. In multiplied instances, churches of that stamp (leaving pecuniary support out of the account) keep up a creditable appearance of being Christian churches, merely because there are abolitionists enough connected with them to carry on their prayer-meetings, conferences. Sabbath schools, Bible classes, and monthly concerts for them, while the majority, or the officials, content themselves, chiefly, with an attendance on the Sabbath day exercises; and with a magisterial supervision that shuts out the claims of the enslaved, erects the negro pew, forbids the use of the house for an anti-slavery meeting, refuses to read a notice, and snarls, perhaps, at the mention of the oppressed in a prayer.


Evil communications corrupt good manners‘ in a meeting-house, and in a church, as well as everywhere else. ‘Lead us not into temptation,’ is a prayer that requires of the petitioner that he runs not wantonly into temptation, nor remain there, without necessity and without warrant How shall a Christian and a friend of freedom secure himself from the seductions that must beset him in a corrupt church — in a pro-slavery church? What necessity is laid on him to encounter this temptation? Or where is his warrant for so doing? What right has he to expect the divine protection while disregarding the injunction — Come out of her, my people. In what way can such a person be preserved from temptation and from apostacy, but by being induced to comply with this command?

If he continues to protest against slavery as a heinous sin, and against the support of it by the church, as inconsistent with her Christian character — and if (the church still retaining its position) he nevertheless continues his connection with it, and thus endorses its Christian character, then his acts contradict his professions, and he makes shipwreck of his fidelity in this way. The only alternative left him (short of secession) is the more common one of relaxing, modifying or suspending his testimony against slavery, defending his continued connection with the church by seeking out apologies for the church itself, and thus bringing his principles down to the low standard of his practice. Scores of prominent ministers, and thousands of active church members, once zealous in the cause of Christian freedom, have in this way, and for the sake of peace and quiet with their religious associates, and of maintaining a reputable standing among them, (and under the delusion of making themselves useful by this means,) relaxed their exertions in the cause of the oppressed, till their voices are no longer heard in their behalf, and they cease to identify themselves with their former fellow-laborers in the cause. This well known power of pro-slavery churches and ministers to neutralize first, and then silence, their anti-slavery members, constitutes altogether the most formidable obstacles with which the anti-slavery cause has ever had to contend, and the prolific parent of apostacy, in its varied forms. The recreancy of professed abolitionists in their political relations, may be chiefly charged to the delinquencies of the churches and ministry by whom their political ethics have been shaped; and little must that man know of human nature, or of human history, who should expect the purification of the State, without the purification of the Church.

As this power of a pro-slavery church and ministry is most effectual against freedom, so we know it is the power most relied upon by the conservators of oppression, both at the North and at the South. Such churches and ministers calculate, with certainty, upon the ultimate dereliction of the abolitionists whom they can retain in their connection. Hence their confident boasts and predictions, that ‘the excitement’ will speedily subside. And hence, too, their sensitive outcry against any, attempts at secession, on the part of those whom they stigmatize as ‘fanatics,’ ‘incendiaries,’ and ‘disorganizers,’ and whom they ought to have excommunicated as such, long ago, if they were sincere, and probably would have done, but for their encouraging prospects of success and progress in curing them of their sympathy for the enslaved. The Christian church was designed as an asylum into which men of integrity might run, in order to secure themselves from the evil communications and temptations that almost overwhelm them elsewhere. But when churches become the most effective tempters to transgression, it is high time for the people of God to ‘come out of them, lest they partake of their sins, and receive of their plagues.’


And this suggests the general remark, that Christians are bound to secede from corrupt and apostate churches, because instead of answering the original ends of their institution and organization, they become, by their perverted use, the most effective of all possible or conceivable instrumentalities for destroying the cause of righteousness they were designed to promote, and for promoting the cause of unrighteousness they were intended to destroy. Universal church history may be cited as presenting one extended commentary on this remarks and those who shall come after us will read and perceive, in the records of our own age and nation, one of the most striking illustrations of the same truth. Common sense teaches us the absurdity of sustaining arrangements and wielding instruments that produce results directly opposite to those which they were intended to subserve, and which their supporters design to promote. To this, likewise, the sacred Scriptures agree. The salt that has lost its savor is to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. The well-arranged and highly cultivated vineyard, that instead of producing grapes, brought forth wild grapes, was to be trampled down and laid waste. (Isa. ch. v.) Of churches, as well as of individuals, it may be demanded — ‘If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?‘ And the candlestick that cannot be made to diffuse useful light, is to be removed out of its place. To cling to a corrupt and perverted church organization is to sacrifice the end to the means. It is to idolize the instrument, instead of using it, nay, after it has become an instrument of evil instead of good. This is the essence of superstition, and the very way in which the worst superstitions are engendered, introduced and perpetuated.


The duty of secession from a corrupt church is the same thing, in essence, as the duty of maintaining gospel doctrine in a true church. In both cases, the pith of the matter is the separation of the good from the evil, and the evil from the good — that the faithful may be preserved from corruption, and that the apostates may be rebuked, and, if possible, reclaimed. In both cases, the duty devolves on each and every member of the church, and is not confined to majorities or to those in official stations. IT WAS AS COMPETENT IN LUTHER TO EXCOMMUNICATE THE POPE AND THE ROMISH CHURCH, AS IT WAS IN THE POPE AND THE ROMISH CHURCH TO EXCOMMUNICATE LUTHER.


Secession from an anti-christian church is demanded by the very definition, as well as by the object of a true church. ‘A church of Christ is an assembly of believers’ — ‘a congregation of faithful men.’ All, therefore, who honor and prize the Christian church, are bound to secede from a congregation of practical unbelievers — of unfaithful men. To do otherwise is to sin against the organization itself It is disorganization of the worst kind. It mixes good men with bad men in the church Just as they are mixed in the world, and thus it practically denies the distinction between the church and the world. Equally clear is it that no Christian can have a right to support a church, or remain connected with it, if the church does not promote the object for which Christian churches were originally founded. Christian churches were organized to separate God’s people from a wicked world — to embody their Christian example — to secure their mutual watch-care over each other — to maintain wholesome discipline — to act as a reformatory body —to instruct the ignorant — to rebuke and reclaim the transgressor. To support churches that fail to do these things, and that do the very reverse of them all — (churches that knowingly admit and retain the wicked within their enclosures, that exhibit an ungodly example, that strengthen the hands of the wicked, that oppose reformatory efforts, that stifle instructive discussion, that apologize for flagrant transgression) — to support such churches, we affirm, is to oppose the high and holy objects to which Jesus Christ instituted a church on earth.


In a word: the reasons for seceding from a corrupt and un-godly church are the same with the reasons for joining and supporting a true Christian church. For the one is the opposite of the other. No man can belong to, and support a true church and ministry, while he belongs to and supports an anti-christian church and ministry. All the time he retains a membership in a corrupt church, he neglects, of course, the duty of joining himself to, and supporting, and being supported by, a true Christian church. He does that which, if every other Christian should do, there would be no Christian church (as an organized visible body) on the earth, and there would be no organized churches, except corrupt, anti-christian churches, to be used for the conversion of the world. Whether the final triumphs of Christianity are to be achieved under such auspices, let those judge who have learned that ‘out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’


The duty of secession from a corrupt church implies, of course, that all proper and scriptural measures for its reformation have been kindly and faithfully, but unsuccessfully employed. Such a work as secession is not to be undertaken without counting the cost, nor without seeking counsel of God) in humble reliance upon the divine aid. No selfish or partizan feelings should be admitted or indulged. The too common practice of breaking up church relations in a pet, in a spirit of personal contention, with angry altercation and expressions of resentment, cannot be too pointedly condemned. Whenever churches are divided in this way, the seceders, though they may have the right on their side, (and though the deserted church may be never so corrupt,) can accomplish little or nothing in favor of the objects they would promote. Their bad temper and wrong conduct will be observed and perhaps magnified, and the moral effect of their testimony will be neutralized, if not destroyed. And when the excitement shall have subsided, they will discover, perhaps themselves, that they have acted passionately and rashly, and not in the spirit of Christ. Intelligent Christian principle, and a deliberate, conscientious, holy, disinterested regard to God’s glory and the good of mankind, having had little, comparatively, to do with their movements, do not now come to their aid, to sustain them in their new and trying position. They are thus exposed to the dangers of seduction and compromise; and, under given circumstances, will be likely to recede from their ground, and join affinity, either in church relations, or by associated religious effort, with the same corrupt churches from whom they have come out, or with some others of a similar description. Thus the cause of church reformation will be retarded, on the whole, instead of promoted, by their secession. On this subject, we cannot now treat as fully as its importance demands, but we may be certain that the true spirit of Christian reformation is evermore the spirit of holy love, of consecration, of humility, of prayer, and of a sound mind.

As a matter of form, it should be added that, whatever efforts may have been previously made to enlighten and reform a relapsed church, the final measure of secession should not ordinarily, if ever, be taken, without distinctly stating to the church in some formal way, by letter or otherwise, the grievances of which the parties complain, and stating also that unless those grievances are redressed, by a return of the church to the path of Christian duty, a division or secession must, of necessity take place. If this communication produces no salutary effect, the way will then be open for going forward in the work of secession, and of organizing a new church. This measure will cut off occasion for saying that the secession was irregularly made, and that it was a breach of the covenant obligations into which Christians enter, when uniting themselves to a church.


1. ‘Schism! schism!! schism!!!’

What! ‘Schism’ to come out of Babylon? If it be schismatic to be separated from the churches of Jesus Christ, then it is ‘schismatic ‘ to remain in an anti-christian church — not schismatic to come out from it.

2. ‘But we are too few and too feeble.’

In whom then, is your strength, your life? Is it in yourselves, or is it hid with Christ, in God? You had better not enter into or hold any church relations, until you learn that the strength of the church is in Jesus Christ — not in herself, nor in the number and reputable standing of her members. ‘Where two or three are met together, in my name,’ says the Savior, ‘there am I in the midst of them.’ And he says this with special reference to church organization and church action. [See Matthew xviii.1] If the real Christians belonging to a church are ‘too few and too feeble’ to constitute a church by themselves, how much more strength do they gain, in addition, by their connection with those who are not the people of God, and who oppose, instead of cherishing their aims? You would not, (would you?) maintain ecclesiastical connections with Belial, on account of the pecuniary strength he might afford you?

3. ‘But what if I cannot find “two or three” to come out of Babylon with me? Must I come alone?’

Yes, certainly, if you would not ‘partake of her sins and receive of her plagues.’ At Constantinople, at Rome, at Mecca, you would not ask whether you ought to stand alone, or stand with the enemies of the cross of Christ would you? Why, then, ask the same question in the State of New York, or in New England, or in Ohio?

4. ‘But we are conscious of a low tone of spirituality among ourselves, and do not feel competent to the task of organizing a new church.’

No wonder your spirituality is at a low ebb, and that you are chilled, almost to death, by the icebergs that embrace you. How are you to get warmth in such company? The slaves, it is sometimes said, are not yet prepared for freedom. But is slavery the school in which to prepare them? God commands you, to come out from among them, and be separate, ‘and he will receive you.’ This plain command you disobey, and excuse your disobedience by pleading that you have little spiritual life. Disobedience is not the way to gain spiritual vigor. The way to gain more spiritual strength is to exercise what you have. Then shall ye know, if ye follow on, to know the Lord. Ye are not straitened in him. Ye are straitened in your own selves. To obey is better than sacrifice. Let not obedience be deferred, because the fire on the altar burns dimly.

5. ‘But by separating from the church with which we are connected, we shall lose our influence with the members, and can then do them no good.’

How much good are you doing them, now? What progress have they made under your influence, during the past year? for the last five years? Is it you that are exerting an influence upon them or is it they that are exerting the influence upon you. The probability is, that you have lost your influence upon them, already, by your inconsistency, in maintaining a connection with a church that your professed principles require you to regard as anti-christian; and that no measure, except secession, on your part can give you any hold upon their consciences, or make them believe that you are sincere, and in earnest. The case must be so, if you have continued your connection with them for many months after the righteous cause they contemn had been fairly presented, or offered to be presented before them, and they had turned a deaf ear, or rejected the claim. If your duty in this respect has not yet been discharged, you should lose no time in discharging it, and not make the neglect of one duty your excuse for neglecting another. The claims of the slave have been distinctly before the nation for ten years. And the justice of the claim was declared ‘self-evident’ by the same nation, nearly sixty-seven years ago. It is the simple question whether a man should be made a chattel — a brute — and such a question need not perplex a Christian church, many weeks.

6. ‘Our secession would weaken and discourage those who, in the main, hold our views, but who cannot, at present, be persuaded to abandon their church.’

Answer. — They ought not be weakened and discouraged in a course of wrong-doing. Your example of obedience may encourage them to the discharge of the same duly. What if Luther had remained in a corrupt church, until he could have persuaded all whom he considered true Christians, to come out with him? and until he could thus persuade them without setting himself the example! (Will any suggest that the principles of Christian union are violated by leaving a corrupt church? Those principles, certainly, cannot require us to cling to such churches, nor to the corrupt portion of them. Such a union would be anti-christian union. And as to the sound portion of such churches, we cannot be bound to hold anti-christian connections, in order to remain with the seceders from such church will establish new ones on the principle of receiving all Christians, they will be guilty of no schism, and it will be no fault of theirs, if some of their brethren consent to a separation from, rather than quit a corrupt church, to go with them.)

7. ‘But secession, as a means of reformation, is without precedent Even Luther did not secede, till he was first thrust out of the church.’

Perhaps the church of England, the Puritans and other Dissenters, might furnish us with a precedent for secession, not to claim higher authorities, which our objector might be inclined to dispute. (What was it but secession when the Apostles organized new churches among the Hebrews and the Gentiles? Whenever the members of an old church organize a new one, are they not accounted seceders? But the Jewish church was a national church, from which the ancient prophets could not secede, as they might have done under the New Testament economy persons from its communion? What occasion or what meaning could there be in the command to ‘come out from a corrupt church, if we were to remain till we are thrust out?) But if the practice were without precedent, it would not be without command. The text is explicit — ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’ Suppose nobody had ever furnished us with a ‘precedent,’ by complying with the divine injunction, would that blot it out, or excuse our neglect of it?

8. ‘But we must wait till we are excommunicated for our faithful discharge of duty, before we secede.’

Who says so? Does God say it, in the text, or anywhere else? And what is the philosophy of the maxim? How can we faithfully discharge our duty, while our actions contradict our professions, and while we give our support to an anti-christian church? And suppose Satan should adopt the more cunning policy of not casting us out of his Babylon, at all? Must we remain there, and give it our sanction, until the mighty Angel from heaven takes it into his hand, and plunges it like a mill-stone into the sea, to be found no more at all? Shall we not be in danger of sinking with it, and of remaining in it, whether Satan ever gets ready to thrust us out of it, or no? What says the text? And what warrant have we for deferring to obey the divine mandate, until Satan chooses to give the signal for us to obey? Or will it be said that a church does not give evidence of being anti-christian until it excludes all pious persons from its communion? What occasion or what meaning could there be in the command to ‘come out’ from a corrupt church, if we were to remain until we were thrust out?

9. ‘But if the persons whom you call upon to secede from a corrupt church, be admitted to be Godly and righteous person, now, notwithstanding their present connections, (and to such only is the exhortation addressed,) how can it be made to appear that their quitting the church is necessary to their escaping the divine judgments? If they are Christians already, is not that sufficient? Will secession change their character? Will it make them more than Christians? Or will the Judge of all the earth destroy the righteous with the wicked?’

Imagine to yourself the righteous Lot, addressing this same plea to the angel that was urging his speedy flight from Sodom? What would you say to such an argument? Would it not occur to you that the righteous are scarcely saved? That persevering obedience to the divine commands is the only condition of their salvation? That in such obedience, the salvation of the Bible essentially consists?

But be it so, that good men may live and die in the bosom of a corrupt church, and escape final perdition, at last — what then? They may possibly do thus, because they are not aware of the corruption of the church, or because their duty to come out of it, has not been distinctly presented to them. If their ignorance be their excuse, can you make the same plea? Or are you content to do wrong, to support a counterfeit church, and thus destroy souls, so long as you can be persuaded that you are safe, yourself? Is this the religion that can preserve you amid the seductions of a corrupt church? Beware! It is a hazardous experiment, at best, and remember that severe chastisements and lamentable privations, short of final banishment, may punish your derelictions of duty.

10. ‘But we make a wide distinction between Christian fellowship and church connection. We do not extend Christian fellowship to corrupt churches, or to the corrupt portion of them. Our connection with these is merely nominal — it is a nonentity.’

But the church of the living God, to which you ought to belong, is no ‘nonentity’ — no counterfeit — no sham. And a vital connection with such a church and its members is not ‘merely nominal.’ What right, or what good reason can you have for maintaining a nominal connection with a nonentity’ — a sham? A ‘nonentity,’ too, that claims to be a true church of Jesus Christ? That is recognized, and honored, and confided in, as such, because, perhaps, of your ‘nominal’ connection with it? Of all shams, church shams are the worst, and from their sure doom, how shall their supporters be divorced?

To say that you maintain a connection ‘nominally,’ is to say that you maintain that connection ’by name, or in name only.’ (‘Nominally. By name, or in name only.’ — Webster’s Dictionary.) It is to say that you profess to maintain a connection which you do not maintain really! What right have you to make such a hollow profession? After all, are you quite certain that a connection is merely ‘nominal’? When Paul urged the Corinthian church to put away from themselves that wicked person, (I Cor. v.) he demanded, ‘Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?’ What if the Corinthians bad argued that the connection was a merely nominal one?

11. ‘But is not the kingdom of heaven likened unto leaven hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened?’

Yes, truly. And this parable was designed to illustrate the power of truth on the heart, or the power and progress of the gospel, or of a true church (remaining such) in converting the world. And mark! the leaven must be wholesome leaven, not saturated with poison! The figure is never used in the Bible to show that Christians must remain in a corrupt, anti-christian church, in order to restore it, nor has church history yet recorded the successful experiment. The old leaven of iniquity is always to be purged out of the church (1 Cor. v. 7.) — the very doctrine for which we contend.

12. ‘But the tares and the wheat must be permitted to grow together until the harvest.’

Where? In the church? Or in the world? Christ’s own exposition of the parable (Mat. xiii. 38,) informs us explicitly that the field in which the tares and the wheat are allowed to ‘grow together’ is ‘The world Nothing of the kind is said about the church. And those who apply to the church what Christ says of the world, very evidently take it for granted that there should be no distinction made between the church and the world; and no more church discipline maintained in the one than in the other! Disorganization follows, of course.

13. ‘But we cannot see into men’s hearts’ — ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.’ (Mat vii. 1.)

This text, as Scott justly observes, cannot forbid the exclusion from the church of such members as disgrace their profession — nor forbid Christians to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly. In the same chapter, Christ bids us, ‘Beware of false prophets,’ and because we cannot see directly into men’s hearts, bids us know ‘the tree by its fruits.‘ Censorious and rash judgments alone are condemned. Some judgment of men’s character, we cannot but form and express.

14. ‘Does it not savor of Phariseeism to secede from churches, and call them corrupt?’

No. Not if the evidence of their corruption is plain and palpable — no more than it does to refuse the admission of openly wicked men into the church, in the first place — no more than it does to gather churches out of the world, in any case, (unless all are permitted to join that church, who desire it.)


Of each and every one of these objections, and of many more, like them, it may be observed that, if valid, at all, they are equally so against secessions from all corrupt churches (the Romish, for example,) as well as from corrupt Protestant churches, in America. They likewise forbid all excommunications of unworthy members. They equally forbid all tests of church membership, particularly those predicated on evidences of Christian character. They involve principles which, if carried out, would disband all the church organizations in the world, except those (such as national churches for example,) that claim or welcome the entire community, good and bad indiscriminately, as their members. Above all, they are objections against the discharge of a plainly revealed Christian duty.

It will be understood that we advocate secession from anti-christian churches, with the view of organizing Christian churches in their stead. Of this work, we intend to treat in our next number. [With regard to the formation of new churches, abolitionists, as such have nothing to do. Their duty is performed, and their responsibility ends, when they have persuaded a man to disconnect himself from a pro-slavery body. His conduct after that, in relation to church organizations, must be left to himself and his own convictions. — Note by The Editor.]

The Answer To Abortion

The Answer To Abortion

As long as people keep “praying” to human civil government for an end to abortion (and therefore for perverted justice), it will never be abolished. The only thing that can abolish human abortion is for the people to repent of being a part of the bureaucratic political world that exercises authority over the people while promising them benefits.

The true Gospel sets us free from these evils, for they are a judgement upon those who reject God to be their magistrate, finding favor in human rulers to be their false gods. Seeking to enact legislation for any reason, but especially on either side of the abortion debate, is an act of hatred towards your neighbor by the simple fact that you desire the State’s authority to enforce policy onto your neighbor, requiring his bondage through taxation for the system to function. True Christians were already granted a perfect Kingdom at Pentecost in which abortion is abolished and even criminalized without authority exercised over each other. The message of the Gospel to statists and authoritative religion is to repent and to stop wasting your time with the ways of this “world” and start seeking the kingdom of God instead.

If one desired to evangelize the 501c3 churchy culture, they dare not imagine that reaching the “clergy” is an efficacious way of obtaining an audience with the “laity”. It is pretty much accepted in both instinct and experience, that reformation of churchianity and repentance from dead works must be a bottom-up endeavor, in spite of the power centers who have a vested interest in not just maintaining the status quo, but being the status quo.

But how ridiculous is it when professing abolitionists forget this hard-earned lesson and continuously endeavor to place their faith in gaining the ears of kings and rulers and Benefactors who exercise authority? They continue headlong into destruction, tempted by the glamor of political pursuit like rats in a maze, looking for an easy way to obtain their goals, through the sloth of socialism by the might of its institutions. The desire for power corrupts judgment. The increasing faith in magistrates debases minds. Continuing to chase the Nicolaitan pipe dream like Balaam and Korah, even after experiencing repeat calls to repentance, self-examination and doctrinal purity is reminiscent of another scene that professing abolitionists are used to:

Going into the ballot box even after being called to personal responsibility and pure religion is akin to the stubbornness evidenced in self-deceived mothers who continue to walk into the abortion clinic after those on the sidewalks outside point out that she knows better and pleads for her reconsideration.

Abortion is the greatest symptom of a culture full of reprobate minds. Greater than chattel slavery. Greater even than homosexuality, which is the example Paul gives as a symptom of society trusting in magistrates to begin with. When men no longer desire to be ruled by God in their hearts and minds, they will appeal to democracy to determine their morality, including the literal murder of prenatal children.

Take that fact, and realize that abortion and homosexuality were just as common in Christ’s day as they are in ours, but that the Gospel he preached is focused on proscribing the need for magistrates to rule over society and use its taxes to do so. His message is that sin begets sin begets sin. Idolatry (trusting in magistrates and their institutions) and covetousness (welfare and “justice” at the expense of your neighbor’s income) and sloth (failing to provide for your family to prevent them from turning to Egypt during times of famine) begets bondage (social contracts, taxation, heavy legal burdens) which begets sins like homosexuality and abortion (not needing a strong family because you have a strong civil bureaucracy to provide for you through fiat currency and compartmentalized professions within an infrastructure making strong families and the practice of biogenesis expendable.)

Couple these two realities with the fact that the Israelites described Pharaoh’s provision for them during their sloth in the face of famine as a “good thing” even though it meant their slavery.

These ideas joined together make the “good” that magistrates do little more than the same pragmatism that abolitionists are used to condemning pro lifers for. Evil so that good may come? The road to hell is paved with that logic.

To more pointedly address the problem, federal government, like all human civil government is meant to be a tyranny. Its purpose by God is to make those within its grasp to cry out for putting their faith in them to begin with. Sin leads men to bondage, and this is why taxation is justice. The rise of tyrants is their very sin coming home to roost. Nothing can redeem them from it unless Christ provides a kingdom through His Gospel, and their repentance is thereby rewarded.

Any good that false gods do is in spite of themselves and Satan has every right and ability to use it to further human bondage. And he will. Because the rebellious are encouraged to cry out to God for salvation and righteousness, and not some governor or politician.

The natural solution to the abortion holocaust is this:

Repent and begin preaching the true Gospel. Preach it at the abortion clinics, in the culture of death, on street corners, and even in front of the churches, converting hearts to facilitate the jurisdictional exchange into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Build up said Kingdom of God as prescribed by the Great Commission, teaching and sanctifying new congregants in the perfect law of liberty.

Start coming together in congregating abolitionist societies characterized by service and freewill offerings to love your neighbor as yourself. Begin to keep the weightier matters, including establishing justice through interpersonal accountability.

Be networked together by an existing alternative government of servant and bond-servant ministers, recognizing that the governments of this “world” rest upon the shoulders Satan and take on his image to oppose and lead astray those made in God’s image.

In conclusion, we all are to “seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness“, and not seek to rule over one another through the legalism of pagan legislation. This message cannot be made any more simple, yet the vast majority of professing Christians get it so wrong.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)


A Dirge for Common Sense

A Dirge for Common Sense

“Common sense is not so common.” (Voltaire)

Common sense is actually universal to mankind. That statement may be tautological, but only to thoroughly express the claim that everybody has common sense because God made them upright and in His image.

“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

The disconnect between what Scripture says about human nature being upright and full of common sense, and with the common observations of human nature revealing that it is foolish, clumsy, prideful and sinful begins with the fact that most people must go out of their way to actively choose “common nonsense,” because they cannot handle the implications of the common sense that God had granted to them at their conception. Being imbued with sense would not allow the people to reject God and his righteousness while simultaneously rejecting false gods and the bondage of their civil societies. They must choose either God or Mammon in actuality, so they must lie to themselves to try and have both. They must pretend to give up the internal truth that is common to all men, in order to pretend to be ignorant in order to pretend to be comfortable in their self-deception. They must lie, even to the point of usurping their God-given common sense. In doing so, they usurp God as their god and choose politicians as their gods to rule over them in His stead. Even professing Christians must lie about the nature and desires of God, attempting to make Jesus compatible with their patriotism or their political pursuits.

“A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon. Straightforward ideas appear strange or unfamiliar, and any thought that does not follow the conventional curve or twist, is supposed to be a sort of joke.” (Gilbert K. Chesterton)

Therefore God gives them up to their pretense, so that they may realize their self-delusions. When they reject the Law of God that washes the inside of the cup, in favor of the legalist systems of men which wash the outside of the cup only, they earn for themselves a reprobate mind, which invariably justifies the perverse justice of bureaucratic and legislative backpedaling into the acrimonious disorder and confusion that we call damnation. When the internalized Law of God which sanctifies men gets replaced by the legalism of men in civil authority, God gives them up to be ruled by the gods of your choosing, and abandons you to the self destruction that comes with it.

“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. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

When the kingdom of God was preached to those of the kingdom of Rome, under its civil bondage, they were told that they would not be adopted into God’s jurisdiction without repenting of the sins that brought them into subject citizenship. Their bondage did not merely hinge on the idea that they did not believe in the existence of God, but rather on the fact that they abandoned God’s Law and raised up institutions to govern them instead. The “drunkards” of civil bondage refers to those in Ephraim, recalled in Isaiah 28, as a synecdoche for men addicted to “the wine of Babylon” which dulls and perverts the spirit as fermented drink dulls and perverts the brain. Because power corrupts, the rulers in Ephraim were drunk on greedpower, and entitlement which are all covetous and tyrannical traits acquired by emulating the Babylonian government model represented in the nations around them (and all instances of human civil government.) The subject citizens under these governments share in the state of drunken confusion from being turned over to their reprobate minds after tasting the socialist benefits offered by false gods, turning the people into cowards and slaves. Drunkards of Ephraim are those who seek offices of authority (politicians, bureaucrats, and “church leaders“) by endeavoring to get drunk on greed and power. Likewise, their constituents, subjects, and “congregations” gratefully imbibe the wine from their tables to partake in their inebriating benefits.

“The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1)

The original Hebrew here does not include the phrase “there is“. The phrase was added by translators, in grammatical license, to try and make sense out of the verse for their potential audience. The sentiment should be read as: “The fool hath said in his heart, No God.”

This is not a description of atheism, for the early Christians were called atheists by the polytheistic Romans, not for some philosophical notion of the origin of the universe, but for desiring to be ruled by God alone and not by the many civil magistrates of their bureaucratic society, which are represented by the ceremonial, and nationalist icons and symbols of a superstitious pantheon of institutions that dole out government services. They chose to rely on the providential benefits of God and not the socialist benefits of Caesar.

The fool is the one who says he does not want to be ruled by God. The verse actually describes the foolishness of despising God’s dominion and going out from under His rule only to be, through sloth or covetousness, ruled by human magistrates who offer socialist benefits and exercise bureaucratic authority. This foolishness is also consistently described in another passage:

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

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25)

God made man upright, to have the common sense that it is foolish to despise the dominion granted to the obedient by Him, only for them to give up that dominion and become property of false gods through taxation and perverted social compacts. Fools give up God’s glory which naturally inspires men to love Him as their one lawgiver and judge and to love their neighbor as themselves. They exchange His natural law for the civil laws of human civil governments and turn away from Him as their figurehead in order to pursue the godheads represented by animal totems and dead rulers whose names plaster temples made by human hands, like all government institutions and bureaucratic offices. From the Golden Calf and other gilded statutes that formed federal reserves, to busts and Rushmores that represent members of civil pantheons, to anthropomorphic icons of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman origin over temples of government function, to bald eagles and dead presidents on currencies, to sports mascots and the names of famous magistrates indicating bastions of public education, to cartoons representing political parties… all pagan superstitious iconography is shorthand for political foundations in the past and the present. Even the word “creature” in Romans 1 means “civil institution” as it does in the Great Commission:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)

Fools become fools when God gives them up to a reprobate mind after they give up God as their magistrate for the uncleanness of socialist lusts, to dishonor their bodies by making them a surety for collective debt through corvee bondage. They form autonomous machines and give life to bureaucracies through incorporation to turn against them in divine justice for their idolatry. This is why God gives them over to a reprobate mind, for the end result of their self-destruction. In fact, the darkening of “foolish hearts” in Romans 1 that produces a debased or reprobate mind comes from the Greek “skotos“, and is “metaphorically, of ignorance respecting divine things and human duties, and the accompanying ungodliness and immorality, together with their consequent misery.” This is rebellion against doing God’s will in maintaining a free society, where men pretentiously feigning ignorance, giving themselves license and excuse to sin. Hyperbolically, “this is the power of (night’s) darkness, i.e. it has the power of rendering men bold to commit crimes.”

Naturally, the “consequent misery” of pretentiously excusing oneself to be “bold to commit crimes” against God’s Law, entails being kicked out of the Garden of God’s jurisdiction and into the civil bondage of false gods of human civil government who, through democracy and government license, enabled by socialist welfare states, provide society with a chaotic and destructive framework lacking in personal responsibility, which invariably increases the immorality of society exponentially. When man centralizes his powers of choice, desire for for provision, and judicial responsibilities into human institutions of force, socialism, and legalism, he creates a power vacuum in society that will be filled with unrighteousness, poverty, and bondage; dispersing decadence, debt, destruction, and damnation.


This darkening of men’s hearts, rendering their minds reprobate, is evidenced in their attempts to suss out the machinations of their own slavery and in imagining false ways to liberty. They will commit themselves to political or economic power in order to render their Satanic system more favorable to them according to their desires, as if institutionalism could ever produce liberty and not more institutionalism. This occurs because man slothfully interprets the notions about life, liberty, and the pursuit of property only in the context of his presuppositions.

As an example, many of those who presuppose themselves to be Christians can only interpret scripture in the context of their bondage. Most people take for granted the things contained within their normalcy bias because they are interpreting the way society works through a worldview that recognizes that they are in bondage, but really have no idea how far in bondage they are. They are fish in a dirty bowl, imagining the water is clean because they have no frame of reference by which to know better. Their “Gospel” may “set them free” from some “poor habits” and secure them from “eternal torment” of some sort, but as long as his real bondage remains the standard by which all of his ideas are subjected, man will always be “learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth“. He is sowing seeds of the status quo into every idea he has to compete with or reform the status quo. He is trying to recognize the problem on the problem’s terms, adopting the world‘s view of the world in his confrontation with the world. Whatever solution he tries to create from that premise will always have a little bit of the problem remaining in his conclusion concerning a solution. Like the Pharisees, his foolish heart has been darkened. The good news is that there exists a real solution to adopt, only because there is “freedom indeed” in the Gospel of Christ. He came to preach scripture in its original context of true freedom but, unfortunately, modern Christians have chosen to adopt the dead tradition of the Phariseesinterpretation of Scripture.

501c3 Churches are not the only institutions that propagate this cycle of darkening hearts and debasing minds, however. Public schools are also designed to create a culture that disregards common sense and wisdom. Public education is not only a wicked endeavor because it is a fruit of socialist covetousness where you must demand that your neighbor work without pay so that his taxes fund a bureaucratic institution to raise your children for you, but neither is its curriculum merely some mistaken, bumbling, botched, and unintentional dumbing-down of federal children. Public schools are a source of propaganda, social engineering, and cultural dialectics invented to create chaos, distraction, and a New World Order in the darkened hearts and minds of those who have given up on God to be their god, in favor of human magistrates.

“There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student in America believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative…. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness—and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of the various claims to truth and the various ways of life and kinds of human beings—is the great insight of our times.” (The Closing of the American Mind. Allan Bloom. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, pp. 25-26)


It is not just as though this dumbing down of “civilized” society through human institutions is merely a direct fruit of having been given over to a reprobate mind by God’s judgment. This falsification of information and perversion of wisdom is made deliberately habitual by men who seek power and therefore the internal weakening of their civil slaves by replacing truth with falsehood, eradicating any notion of discernment or wisdom in the people as part of the process. This imposed weakness is disguised as an edification in knowledge and false teachings. Everyone claims to be “seeking truth,” as if collecting information from teachers, published literature, and from all sources available to them is the path to truth. “The bigger one’s library the more truth he has,” but the indiscriminate gathering of information and then storing it all together is an exercise in futility.

Seeking truth is more of an exercise in culling than in collecting. Gathering information is easy… and usually worthless. Culling bad information is the key to finding truth. Truths that are hidden in a flood of lies and untruths get lost in the noise. Truth is not in the volume of information you may collect, but rather in the careful rejection of un-truths. The age of readily available information is the age of ever-increasing ignorance. If knowledge is power, the common sense by which to distill truth from knowledge is the means by which to wield that power.

“…Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth…do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” (2 Timothy 3:7-9)

This premise of darkened hearts permeates every single aspect of society, from our myopic and limited ideas about personal holiness, to that which we classify education, to our bumbling understanding of employment and economics. It is common for the foolish mind to presuppose some liberty in his daily life where he can “vote with his wallet” in some presumed economic choices within his supposed “capitalist” economy. He may even express his liberty and power of choice in saying “the Market provides” as some enigmatic, but ultimately meaningless gesture, which is much akin to the phrase “Nature selects” for those darkened minds who seek to replace natural, scientific laws of Nature’s God with the counterfeit of evolutionism.

The concept of the “market” is an idiomatic, tautological reification, supposing creative attributes to an ethereal and anthropomorphized notion of economy. In reality, the “market”, as is currently and commonly recognized, provides nothing. It is itself provided by socialist Benefactors who exercise authority, and is enabled by bureaucratic institutions, and their tools of supposed commerce. It is clearly evident that western society is a socialist society, and that everything we call “economy” is just characterized by as system of compartmentalized goods and services which is inherently pertinent to all communist societies. Our national economies are so specialized and interdependent that we are forced to be reliant on our neighbor to labor and be productive in order to ensure our own survival. From auto mechanics, to grocery store clerks, to hospital attendants, to construction firms, to tradesmen, to bankers, to agriculture, to public education, or any other contribution to society imaginable; there is no concept of independence or personal power of choice that is inherently found in a capitalist free “market” society. Each person in each industry relies on each person in every other industry to perform their functions and tow the line in order to ensure the success of society as a whole.

This is the nature of collectivism, and not a “free market”. The only thing inhibiting our economy from being readily recognized as socialist is a thin, apparent disconnect between what we have to contribute (our labor, goods, and services) and what we extract, at any given moment, from what our neighbor has to contribute (his labor, goods, and services). That disconnect is the illusion of choice through the magic of currency. Which is provided and manipulated by a socialist institution to make efficient our socialist transactions. The so-called “market” is not unlike a food service: a suburban buffet with different food items from which to choose. But the buffet itself, along with its individual edible options are already pre-determined by the arbiters of the buffet, or in this case, the human civil government which decided whether or not our “money” is even acceptable at the establishment long before we ever walk in the door. We cannot choose to go to another buffet, unless we expatriate citizenship for that of another socialist country who will just exercise the same degree of authority over us because we rely on it to provide choices for us through an “economy“.

The false gods of human civil government provide “the market”. They are your providers and protectors. And their providence comes from compelling you and your neighbor to be assimilated into mass cauldrons of human flesh where every single transaction is evidence that you survive because you and your neighbor are enslaved together, and the fruits of their slavery are provided for you by arbiters of your “market”. Your market is just an mob of cannibalism, and your choices within it are just as “free” as whatever is permissible by the license granted by human civil government, which has become your authoritative father as his economic privileges. Your “freedom” is to chose to either be subjected to a bureaucratic economy, or to starve to death. In what world do slaves have “free markets?” We have expounded upon this idea thoroughly here.

Abolitionism is inherently an anarchist endeavor, and vice versa. They cannot be separated from each other. Statism is sin and sin is often characterized by some degree of statism, for when men refuse to be ruled by God in their hearts and minds, they will look to democracy to codify and give license to their desires and foolishness. They will legalize plunder and murder and homosexuality and adultery. They will create authority in their own image in order to fill the vacuum left by God’s authority and the being made in His image as a jurisdictional privilege of that political reality.

There is no abolition of anything without seeking the literal Kingdom of God, a competing nation and government (that does not exercise authority) to the foolish kingdoms established by statists. Even if some of those statists are professing Christians who take the Lord’s name in vain by committing themselves to democracy in futile, useless vanity. Of course, the Bible tells us that debased minds will be hard-pressed to understand this message of internal common sense:

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)

The Adversary, through a spiritual jurisdiction incumbent upon a political one, warps the minds of civil slaves, causing them to believe in the campaign promises of false christs, and baptizes them into the kingdoms of bondage through social security enrollment and birth certification.

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24: 23-24)

We have detailed here many examples of false gospels of civil magistrates throughout history, and the great feats of empire that can be accomplished through civil bondage and socialist worldviews. Their worlds were invariably ordered and disciplined but, like all authoritative empires, end in social collapse through moral and economic bankruptcy. The order of human civil government is always short-lived and skin-deep, because it is a refraction and perversion of the natural order of Godly civil government.

“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” (Hosea 4:6)

Alternatively, “ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat. (Latin for “ignorance of the law excuses not” and “ignorance of law excuses no one”.)

This truth claim naturally has something to do with the reason why unbelievers and statists have no argument against Christ’s anarchist Gospel, but can only suppress it and ignore it and try to stamp it out. But as long as people refuse to know their Bible, they will continue to ignore their bondage and pragmatically go to the ballot box for their salvation. As long as Satan keeps professing Christians on the hook of political efficacy, the Kingdom of God will never be established in America.

It is common sense that anarchy does not lead to chaos. What it does lead to is the rejection of the fundamental sins of outsourcing your God-given responsibilities to love your neighbor and execute justice and show mercy and provide for the needy to the satanic cabal of human civil government that exercises authority over society while pretending to play benefactor. This is the opposite of pure and undefiled religion, by definition. Anarchy prevents chaos by demanding and enabling personal moral fidelity to social virtues and community ethics.


The (un)righteousness of false gods in tailor-made suits with partisan politics, corridors of power, and campaign managers will invariably destroy a society. When you have man-made authority and contracted welfare-through-taxation, you do not need family to hold you accountable or a voluntary network of freewill charity to sustain you. When you have anaerobic departments of “peacekeepers” and military subsidized by forced contributions, you do not need voluntary self-sacrifice to protect your neighbor, your children, or yourself, so those faculties in a man whither and entropy into negligent uselessness, and then religion becomes impure and defiled.

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” (Thomas Paine, Common Sense)

Do you find abortion to be wicked, homosexuality an abomination, imperialism to be revolting? You still have a conscience. Do you find human civil government to be an efficacious instrument to improve society and call its markets “free”? You have lost your common sense.

“The known and willful support or perpetuation of an error is a crime against humanity and a sin against Him who is Truth. To cling to error or defend error when one has reason to suspect it may be error reveals a heart that does not fully love the truth for the truth’s sake.

To strenuously support and shield from scrutiny what we believe when we are aware that its truth is questionable reveals a heart that is not completely candid. We are supposed to be children of light, and to be afraid to shine light upon what we believe shows a love still for darkness.

Although all men have an innate and genuine thirst after truth and corresponding disgust for error, there may exist, strange as it may seem, extreme opposition to the acceptance of certain truths–an absolute hatred of them, because they differ from what we now believe, because they require changes in us which we do not want to make, because they require the confession that we have been mistaken and have held error—so the mind will not give them fair treatment—It hardens against them and imposes unjust tests and will not give them the courtesy of fair and respectful attention. Prejudices, vicious habits of thought, pride of opinion and of denominational belief, ignorance, suspicion, bigotry, blind following of religious and denominational leaders so becloud and benumb the mind that it cannot and will not see its own errors, or the truth of others–when with a little unprejudiced examination the truth could be seen.” (Randolph S. Foster, Studies in Theology, Vol. I, pp. 9, 10, 18, 31.)

Romans1 USA

“AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘Stick to the Devil you know.’

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘The Wages of Sin is Death.’

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘If you don’t work you die.’

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”

(“The Gods of the Copybook Headings” by Rudyard Kipling)

American Gods, Part III

American Gods, Part III

The United States is just as pagan in principle as the pagan nations in ancient history. This is neither traducement nor libel towards American political culture, because it openly has exemplified innumerable characteristics of those ancient civilizations. What we call “Capitol Hill,” the Romans called “Capitoline Hill.” What we call “commander in chief,” the Romans called “Emperator.” What we call “president,” the Romans called “Principas Civitas.” What we call “appointer of supreme court justices,” the Romans called “ApoTheos,” or “Originator of Gods.” The political world of the United States is so much identical to the political world of the Pax Romana (which oversaw and decreed the persecution of Christians for endeavoring to be sanctified of that world) that our entire legal system is modeled after theirs.

“‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence. That rule of action which every particular nation, commonwealth, or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called “municipal” law, to distinguish it from the “law of nature,” and from international law.” (See Bowyer, Mod. Civil Law, 19; Sevier v. Riley, 189. Cal. 170, 244 P. 323, 325)

It is therefore no surprise that, after witnessing how the office of President is identical to the offices of ancient rulers on all of the practical levels that so many of the superstitious characteristics will also bleed over.

Horatio Greenough. George Washington (1840)
Horatio Greenough. George Washington (1840)

Greenough patterned the image after a classical statue of the Greek god Zeus at Olympia, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Washington sits on a throne, its panels containing the image of Helios, one of Zeus’ innumerable sons, carrying the sun across the sky on a horse-drawn chariot. It harkens back to Ben Franklin’s remarks concerning the heroic figure of Washington as he sat in a chair during the Continental Congress. The image of the sun was carved on the back of the general’s chair.

Greenough Helios
Horatio Greenough. Helios.

Greenough Hercules
Horatio Greenough. Hercules.

The other side of the throne shows the image of another son of Zeus. The baby Hercules and his twin brother Iphicles are shown in their crib. Their mother, Hera, became so enraged when she discovered Zeus had fathered Hercules by a mortal woman that she threw a snake into their crib. The infant Hercules is shown killing the snake with his bare hands. A five-pointed star is shown over the head of Hercules – an upside down pentagram.

Washington Monument original
Robert Mills. Washington Monument.

The original design of the Washington Monument by Robert Mills was supposed to have been a Greek-style temple, topped by a sculpture of Washington in a chariot, and pulled by six horses. Greenough’s statue looks strikingly similar to the posture of Washington in Mills’ conceptual drawing. The outstretched hand that holds a sword would have actually been holding the reins of the chariot. It is probable that Greenough likely designed the statue as a demo to get the entire commission of Washington, chariot and four horses for the monument.

These depictions are strikingly similar to the artistic expressions of ancient civilizations, reminiscent of pagan temples and the hubris of constructing pyramids. Human rulers compel idolatry. While this fact is much more readily perceived in older cultures, American civil society seems to be tight-lipped about the mass adoration owed to mere men or, at the very least, endeavors to sanitize it through secularized, rose-colored glasses. The mythos surrounding Washington surely calls that whitewashing into question. But, if history is going to continue to repeat itself then, as is mentioned in Part II, the mythos surrounding Abraham Lincoln is going to attempt to upstage George Washington (and the Pharaohs too).

Daniel Chester Finch. Abraham Lincoln (1920)
Daniel Chester Finch. Abraham Lincoln (1920)

The building is in the form of a Greek Doric temple and contains a large seated sculpture of Abraham Lincoln. Below Lincoln’s hands are representations of the fasces, or a bundle of rods bound by a leather thong. Fasces were a Roman symbol of power and authority, a bundle of wooden rods and an axe bound together by leather thongs. Fasces represented that a man held imperium, or executive authority. Exercising imperium, a Roman leader could expect his orders to be obeyed, could dole out punishment, and could even execute those who disobeyed. The fasces he carried symbolized this power in two ways: the rods suggest punishment by beating, the axe suggests beheading. On its surface, the fasces imply power, strength, authority, and justice. Depicted throughout the Lincoln Memorial, are the fasces, and even above one of them is the American motto “E Pluribus Unum,” or “Out of Many, One”, the crux of collectivism. “Fasces” is the root word for “fascism,” a political ideology marked by nationalism, totalitarianism, and imperialism that exerted a dramatic force over global politics particularly in the 1930s and 1940s, most infamously in Germany’s Nazi Party, which was modeled on the Italian fascist movement.

Temple: edifice or sometimes merely an enclosed area dedicated to the worship of a deity and the enshrinement of holy objects connected with such worship. The temple has been employed in most of the world’s religions. Although remains of Egyptian temples of c. 2000 B.C. show well-defined architectural forms, it seems likely that temples were hewed in living rock at a still earlier age: the cave temples of Egypt, India, China, and the Mediterranean basin may be viewed as later developments of such primitive shrines.

Doric: The Dorian immigration (before 1000 B.C.) was a prelude to the building of Greek temples, at first made of timber and sun-dried brick. The superb stone and marble buildings on a defined floor plan were achieved in the middle of the 6th cent. B.C., although the most perfect examples, like the Parthenon (5th cent. B.C.), came later. The Greek temple customarily stood in a temenos, or sacred enclosure, along with accessory shrines, colonnades, and buildings housing the temple treasures. It was built not as a place for assembled worship but as the dwelling for the deity, whose colossal sculptured representation was placed in the naos, and illuminated by the daylight entering through the tall entrance portal. In larger temples, to support the roof lintels, two interior rows of columns divided the naos into nave and side aisles.

Here is an original design of the Lincoln Memorial. Here are some more projected designs.

Lincoln Memorial original. Henry Bacon
Henry Bacon. Lincoln Memorial

“Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

There were many gods and many lords for the people to choose from in first century Rome. They each desired to rule over the people, provide benefits for them through the providence of taxation, and receive their homage and worship through civil slavery and the unity of their elective voice, just as in the days of Nimrod. That one voice is what established the Tower of Babel where, if men could collectively come together by the civil yoke of the fasces, and create an idolatrous institution of human civil government, then they can become the masters of their own destiny and usurp God’s rule and, through rebellion, solidify the rule of a “so-called god” – a man – who endeavors to play Benefactor while exercising authority.

This attempt to escape the rule of God only ever brings one under the rule of Satan, primarily by believing the same lies he invented in the garden of Eden: you will know good and evil and legislate your own morality, and you will be like God and have democratically-endorsed sovereignty over mankind. Satan’s yoke is heavy. It is a bondage in which the Israelites found themselves under Pharaoh (and many other magistrates) despite calling themselves God’s people. It is the same bondage experienced by those who claim to be living in “the land of the free.” While some of America’s slogans (like that one) are complete fabrications, some others do not actually refer to the God of the Bible (even though most think they do), but the top-down polity of Gentile tradition.

This blog post is the last part of a three part series. You can read the first part here and the second part here.


American Gods, Part I

American Gods, Part I

America is not a Christian nation under monotheism. It is a pagan nation, polytheistic in essence; emulating the civil, philosophical, and religious practices of Rome and other Babylonian cultures before and after Rome. The Roman Consul, much like the American President, was an elected position. It also carried the honor of deification. With every election America’s pantheon grows adding to its numbers more and more magistrates and rulers, according to the pattern of history.

“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods (rulers, judges) which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods (rulers, judges) of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

America’s gods/rulers/magistrates obtain their own (literal) idols and symbols (like flags and national animals) and temples (government buildings). Serving them, as mentioned in Joshua 24, is not merely bowing to them in idle worship, but participating in their civil jurisdictions where they maintain equitable rights over you, your labor, your children, and your propertyPharaoh, Caesar, President, god, lord: these positions claim divine right to your allegiance, your service, your sacrifice, and yourself. Whether or not you are comfortable with looking at these positions as “gods”, what Scripture has to say about submitting your allegiance, service, sacrifice, and yourself to any magistrate other than God is still true. Every position of ruler has had its own apotheosis throughout history. Nimrod, as Gilgamesh, had his own epic recorded, to establish his supremacy and “divine right” to rule. Pharaoh, through coronation, had positional divine power as intermediary to the gods. As did Caesar, even though he was democratically elected. And so, too, the President of the United States through inauguration, is given an apotheosis.

Constantino Brumidi. The Apotheosis of George Washington (1865). Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.
Constantino Brumidi, “The Apotheosis of George Washington” (1865), Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.

During the year after the assassination of Lincoln, a monumental work was undertaken by Constantino Brumidi (1805-1880) to depict the apotheosis of George Washington on the ceiling of the recently completed new dome of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. It is strange to think that expensive construction such as the dome was being undertaken during the Civil War. Brumidi had emigrated from Italy following the 1848 revolution and took American citizenship. In Italy he had done work for the Vatican and while living in New York he made a name for himself doing religious paintings such as the Crucifixion of Christ, the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, and the Assumption of Mary.

Among the many striking things about Brumidi’s fresco are the following: the monumental physical scale of the painting, the fact that it was given such prominence in the expanded and rebuilt US Capitol Building, that it was completed at considerable cost during wartime, the clear religious iconography used by Brumidi as he had done previously in explicitly religious paintings in Italy and in New York, the fact that this was not the first occasion when artists depicted the assumption to heaven of Washington and suggested he had god-like powers (the first was immediately after Washington’s death in 1799), and the links made between the military leader Washington who defeated the British to “forge” a nation” and the acts of Lincoln in using military force to “preserve the union”.

The fresco he did for the rotunda of the Capitol dome covers an area of some 4,664 square feet and includes a large central piece showing the apotheosis of George Washington surrounded by six allegorical pieces showing aspects of American life and culture – “War,” “Science,” “Marine,” “Commerce,” “Mechanics,” and “Agriculture”. The following is a description of this work:

Washington has become godlike (if not a god) and has ascended into heaven. He sits on a cloud wearing a military jacket in purple (the traditional color worn by the Roman emperor) and his legs are wrapped in a sheet (also purple). In his left hand he holds a sword and his right hand is gesturing to a book (possibly the constitution of the US). At his left sits Victory draped in a green sheet and wearing a laurel wreath, holding a branch and blowing a trumpet. To Washington’s right sits Liberty. She is wearing a red Phrygian cap and holds the book to which Washington is gesturing in her left hand; in her right hand she is holding the Roman fasces.

Surrounding Washington, Victory, and Liberty in a circle are 13 maidens who represent the original 13 colonies which formed the federation of the United States. Some of them are holding a banner which says “E Pluribus Unum” but others have their backs turned towards Washington to indicate those states which attempted to break away from the union during the Civil War. Around the perimeter of the fresco are 6 large pieces which show in allegorical form various aspects of American life and culture. Immediately under Washington, the commander-in-chief of the victorious Continental Army which defeated the British Empire is of course “War”, followed in clockwise order by “Science,” “Marine,” “Commerce,” “Mechanics,” and “Agriculture.” Below is a detail of the allegory of “War”:

“Liberty” (or “Columbia”) is seen in the more aggressive pose of a warrior brandishing a sword in her right hand and carrying a shield with the stars and stripes in her left hand. At her left side is an equally aggressive American eagle with mouth open and talons clutching a sheaf of arrows. Beneath them are their defeated enemies who are hard to identify but are most likely an assortment of tyrants, kings, and oppressors who are very fearful of Liberty and her eagle. The woman at the left has her hands outstretched in a pose of submission; the white bearded man next to her is clutching a cannon; the dark bearded man in the center is attired in a uniform of boots, breastplate armor, and helmet, and appears to have a club or weapon in his left hand; the person next to him is wearing a brown cloak and is holding a burning torch in his or her right and left hands; the final figure to the right is holding their hand to their face in a look of bewilderment at the power of Liberty.

1. Apotheosis of Washington, War
War, with Armed Freedom and the eagle defeating Tyranny and Kingly Power.

2. Apotheosis of Washington, Agriculture
Agriculture, with Ceres seated on the McCormick Reaper, accompanied by America in a red liberty cap and Flora picking flowers.

3. Apotheosis of Washington, Mechanics
Mechanics, with Vulcan at the anvil and forge, producing a cannon and a steam engine.

4. Apotheosis of Washington, Commerce
Commerce, with Mercury handing a bag of money to Robert Morris, financier of the American Revolution.

5. Apotheosis of Washington, Marine
Marine, with Neptune holding his trident and Venus holding the transatlantic cable, which was being laid at the time the fresco was painted.

6. Apotheosis of Washington, Science
Science, with Minerva teaching Benjamin Franklin, Robert Fulton, and Samuel F.B. Morse.

No doubt the American Nationalist will observe these inherently pagan details and excuse them as hyperbolic storytelling and maybe even delusions of grandeur to create a culture for the United States and establish it among the historical narratives of older nations who have similarly earned their place in history. But the truth of the matter is that these curiosities of American folklore are just further evidence of man believing Satan’s lie in the garden: “You will be like God.” Now, it is not evident that either Adam or Eve endeavored to rule over human subjects. But we know that Cain did. He created the first mentioned city-state, naming it Enoch, and “tilled” the adamic clay from which God created man, binding them in social contracts and becoming their ruler. In this same fashion, Nimrod became a “mighty provider instead of the Lord,” binding the people in civil bondage with the granting of benefits extracted through forced contributions.

When man wants to play God and rule over the people it is hardly ever subtle, as you can see. When it comes down to it, America’s slogans do not refer to the God of the Bible, but the top-down polity of Gentile tradition.

This is blog post is the first part of a three part series. You can read the second part here and the third part here.


Human Civil Government and the Perversion of Justice

Human Civil Government and the Perversion of Justice

If the devil came to you and said, “I will let you ban abortion in its entirety if you allow me to enslave the people to the bonds of human civil government through statute labor and making their children a surety for debt,” would you take the deal?

“Imagine that you yourself are building an edifice of human destiny that has the ultimate aim of making people happy and giving them finally peace and rest, but that to achieve this, you are faced inevitably and inescapably with torturing just one tiny baby, say that small fellow who was just beating his fists on his chest, so that you would be building your edifice on his unrequited tears would you agree to be its architect under those conditions? Tell me, and don’t lie!” (Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov)

Human civil government is exclusively maintained by statute labor and borrowing against future generations, whose parents make a surety for debt through social security and other legal entanglements. True abolition redeems man from the dominion of man, and secures them as freemen under Christ rather than make them property of the state.

Praying to the State for righteousness is the kind of pragmatism that both Moses and Christ refused to practice. Satan may grant a small victory in exchange for dominion, but God does not look favorably on the idea of sacrificing the liberties of all for lives of some. The key is not to outsource our responsibilities to corporations like human government who will only take our appeals as excuses to expand their power, and therefore our bondage, but to retain our personal responsibilities and, by extension, our rights. Our rights come from God unless we opt to be ruled by tyrants instead, and transact our rights for privileges and responsibilities for civil liabilities.

For example, this is why praying to the state to legalize recreational drugs like marijuana is met with regulations on tax and usage. This is also why praying to the state to secure the freedom of some men from chattel slavery in 19th century America, resulted in the civil bondage of all men through the 14th amendment.

“The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership, as opposed to the former use of the word, which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment, for there surely was. The Fourteenth Amendment was an across-the-board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States Federal Government.” (The Covenant of the Gods, Citizen vs. Citizen)

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment,

“No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it.” (Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs Mayor & Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 [1854])

Contrary to popular belief, chattel slavery was not an exclusive institution of the southern states, but an institution of the Federal government. As will be shown in this case, a universal truth should be expressed: social maladies like injustice are primary fruits of human institutionalism, and rarely exist in anarchist societies. They are encouraged and protected by human civil government, pushing interpersonal accountability and true justice to the back alleys, and killing any notion of social virtues that the people may have to police themselves in an adhocratic and righteous community.


Prior to the Civil War, the United States government was prepared to amend the Constitution in order to make chattel slavery permanently legal in the United States. This “Corwin Amendment“, passed (and openly supported) by a northern-controlled Congress on March 2, 1861, was meant to entice the southerners to stay in the Union and remain as its tax slaves, to be treated as an agricultural colony to the northern, industrial states through tariffs, which are an act of war and a means of exploitation. Through the tariff, southern farmers were maintaining between seventy-five and eighty-five percent of the cost of operating the Federal Government. Eighty to ninety percent of that money was being retained and used in northern states for civil infrastructure and political corruption. This economic exploitation propagated exponentially the existing demand for the “free labor” of chattel slavery to exist in the south, which means that the United States Government directly benefited from the institution of chattel slavery by its own insistence upon tax slavery. The Corwin Amendment is as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

To add injury to insult, one of Abraham Lincoln’s campaign promises to northern, industrial voters was to actually raise the tariffs against southern trade, which is something he actually did do. But to further compound chattel slavery as a federal institution, he announced in his inaugural address:

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Because the white southerners were being impoverished by the United States government, no promise of legalized slavery would convince them to remain in the Union. When authoritative governments cannot bribe their potential civil slaves through benefits, protection, or, in this case, license to remain in their power, then they will invariably resort to intimidation to keep their human property. This dual-strategy has been evidenced all throughout history, even in Pharaoh who offered compromises to retain his tax slaves and, upon being rejected, sought to retain them through violence. The United States government is no different. When the southerners decided to exercise autonomy and slough off the heavy tax burdens of the United States government, that government committed to imperialist aggression against them. To highlight the perverted justice of the United States’ government its opinion on its institution of slavery never changed:

“If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley.)

After the Civil War decimated the south and sacrificed countless lives on the altar of human civil authority, one of the primary legislative “solutions” offered by the United States Government to the problem of chattel slavery in 19th Century America, was protection through subjection to ALL people, regardless of race, as a benevolent Benefactor who exercises authority. This could only be done through application, either on your own accord or on your behalf by someone who had equitable rights to you, through Novation. To this day, federal government assumes jurisdiction over born children, through the consent of their parents, by granting them Employee Identification numbers.

“Birth Registration Document: The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R., section 422.103)

This subterfuge of one form of slavery with another one is widely documented and explained for anyone who looks to understand it. It doesn’t occur through birth certification only, but also through applying for the right to vote.

“In order for any government to grab power and maintain it, it must have “subjects” or “citizens“. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), “Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. (Herriot vs City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d. 48, 500 P.2d. 101, 109)”

So, by declaration of the 14th Amendment, all persons born from that point forward, and all naturalized people, had just become citizens (i.e. subjects) of the United States Government, obviously without their knowledge (babies) or understanding (the Negroes). The Federal Government had just reached past the jurisdictional boundaries of the state and county lines and claimed all its babies and all Negroes.

In Section 2, it then states that only males 21 years of age who are citizens of the United States may be allowed to vote in Federal and State elections. That means that only those men who willingly claimed U.S. citizenship on voter’s registration cards (though they didn’t realize the implications) were also brought in as subjects of the Federal Government. (The Federal Government’s power and control are growing fast!) However, it stipulated that those who had participated in rebellion (the South) were excluded.” (Lyon, L.C., 2021. The Day Our Country Was Stolen. [online]

This “solution” towards chattel slavery by replacing it with corvee slavery was not exclusive to the United States, but also characterized the perverted justice towards slavery in Great Britain as well. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, authored by the professed abolitionist William Wilberforce, was essentially a proposal for a loan borrowed by the British Government for the sum of £20 million. The purpose of these funds was to purchase the supposed freedom of British slaves from slaveholders and to compensate them for their loss of income associated with freeing the slaves. This payout from the 4% consolidated loan, was equivalent to around 40% of the British Government’s total annual budget.

“The majority of Government borrowing is financed through the issuance of UK Government bonds known as gilts by the Debt Management Office (DMO) and as such, the majority of the Government’s debt is held in gilts. A gilt is a financial instrument that pays coupons (interest payments) twice per year to the holder of the gilt, up to and including the date on which the amount borrowed is finally repaid. Gilts are typically sold to large investment banks which, in turn, sell the gilts on to end-investors. These banks are known as the Gilt-Edged Market Makers and consist of 19 firms.

The Slavery Abolition Act (1835) Loan was rolled over into the Government’s gilt programme, ultimately into an undated gilt, the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after). The term ‘undated’ refers to the fact that this gilt was issued with an earliest potential redemption date of 1957, but it was not compulsory for the gilt to be redeemed at this date. The 4% Consolidated Loan was redeemed on 1 February 2015, as part of the Government’s decision to modernise the gilt portfolio by redeeming all remaining undated gilts…

Money borrowed to fund the Slavery Abolition Act (1835) was therefore fully repaid in 2015. The long gap between this money being borrowed and its repayment was due to the type of financial instrument that was used, rather than the amount of money borrowed.” (HM Treasury. Freedom Of Information Act 2000: Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Information Rights Unit, London, 2018.)

Just like in the United States and in every other instance of human civil government, debt owed by political administrations are deferred onto their taxpayers. The indentured servants in this particular instance necessarily include the recently freed slaves who then became subject citizens of the Crown, and therefore had to continue to work without pay through the extraction of income taxes. For 180 years the civil slaves of Great Britain, including the descendants of its former chattel slaves were responsible for paying the cost of “abolishing” slavery. Civil institutions are socialist pyramid schemes that can never actually do justice. They not only fight slavery with slavery, but fight everything with slavery, and exist by slavery, and consistently take on more debt because they can afford to. Because they have slaves to work it off for them.

Human slavery is always unlawful according to God’s Law whether or not it is “illegal” according to man’s legalism. Satan may have granted “victory” in the lip service of the governments of the United States and Great Britain to criminalize chattel slavery in the 19th century but, in exchange, transferred that very heinous practice of corvee bondage over their remaining populations through enticing, but deceitful offers of benefits through civil citizenship. While the promised benefits run out after a short while, the resulting bondage lasts from generation to generation.


One can only imagine how much more closely the noose will tighten once the federal government endeavors to “protect” prenatal humans as an answer to our prayers to it for “justice”. “He who takes the responsibility incurs the right.” (Maxim of Law) Surely the issuing of birth certificates will be replaced by “conception certificates”, and embryos will be numbered and catalogued as civil slaves, and pregnant mothers will be closely monitored for the purposes of securing the future of the prenatal chattel citizen who, now as a guaranteed civil investment, will eventually soak up a little bit of the national debt through taxation within the system.

Their incubators (mothers) will be regulated in diet and other choices that may or may not harm the child, and their performance will determine whether they will be allowed to produce future children, resulting in either mandatory sterilization as a penalty or they will be offered tax-funded benefits as incentive to produce a “healthy” pregnancy by some arbitrary federal standard.

There will be mandatory in-utero-vaccines. Every doctor and midwife incorporated with the state (which will be all of them), will be required to notify the state of pregnancies. “Unhealthy” fetuses will be automatically enrolled in disability or welfare programs upon their birth. Eventually, pregnancy will become a privilege instead of a right, and certain classes of citizens will be sterilized. Women are already civil slaves, with ever-diminishing rights, because “The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father.” (1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502.)

Surely abortion will not be truly abolished but, like slavery, will change forms. Just like one law meant to free the slaves actually enslaved us all, so one law meant to abolish abortion will actually abort us all. Relying on human civil government to “abolish” abortion will necessarily make the birthing situation worse for both mother and child. “Man is a term of nature; person of civil law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [1914], “Maxim,” p. 2136.) When you make the pre-born child government property through legal personhood and civil citizenship, then the government not only has a right, but a responsibility to make executive decisions for the child regarding healthcare, birthing delivery, and anything else imaginable, once you broaden the legal boundaries of an oppressive, socialist institution to include them. We are already seeing this play out in Alabama.

“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”

“A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” (American Law and Procedure; Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910)

In addition to the criminalization of abortion by wicked men who desire to have more power over you, being a gateway for that power to manifest itself in unbearable and wicked ways, the very necessity of publicly policing criminal activity is itself a perversion of justice. There is no use in praying to the false gods of the unrighteous mammon for the criminalization of abortion if you are not also praying to them for the execution of that justice too. Public “service” requires that you covet your neighbor’s goods. His taxes are what allows “law” enforcement to even exist. If “taxation is theft“, then obviously any benefit produced by taxation (including public salary) is also, unequivocally, theft. It is the sin of receiving such socialist benefits that is the original definition of “shedding” your neighbor’s “blood” as expressed in Scripture, often repeated, because making your neighbor’s livelihood and property a liability for your policies and benefits, through bureaucratic force, is depriving him of the liberty that is inherent to his life. When you covet a man’s livelihood through his taxes, you take away his life. By enjoying the fruits of another’s labor by force, you drink his blood. Only offerings that are given up willingly are those that contain none of the blood that comes with living by the sword of human institutionalism.


A better notion in performing the weightier matters of God’s Law, one that will establish justice and not pervert it, is to take personal responsibility for your neighbor’s righteousness and security from harm. In order for a free society to dispense justice under God, each man would have to be personally responsible to that endeavor. For example:

“The roots of local responsibility for crime prevention seem to lie in Anglo-Saxon customs that placed prevention squarely on the local community through the tithing and the ‘Hue and Cry‘. Every male over the age of 12 had to belong to a group of nine others, called a tithing. These ten men were responsible for the behaviour of each other. If one of them broke the law, the others had to bring that person before the court. The sanction, to make the system work, was that if they did not, they would all be held responsible for the crime. This usually meant paying the victim of a crime for their loss. The community was also responsible for doing their best to chase after a criminal. Anyone wronged could call upon everyone else in a community to chase a criminal simply by calling on them to do so by “raising the hue and cry” – calling out for help. Everyone nearby was then supposed to join in the chase. If they did not make an effort then the whole community was held responsible for the crime and would face punishment themselves.” (Bingham Heritage Trails Association)

The early Christians maintained an organized system of welfare based on freewill offerings. Partakers of their charitable daily bread were expected to be righteous, new creatures after having received the baptism into the free society established by Christ. This is because every free person is ruled by God through His Spirit and the writing of His Law on their hearts and minds, referred to as the washing of the inside of the cup. This it to contrast against the reprobate minds and darkened hearts that idolatrous men are given over to when they raise up false gods to rule their members through the legalism of civil law and thereby wash the outside of the cup through compulsion and threat of punitive vengeance. Because even free societies must practice justice in pursuit of the weightier matters, God establishes a natural framework for maintaining righteousness in His Kingdom. Every member of every family was covered by their respective patriarchs whose proper stewardship meant keeping them righteous and upright in his natural authority over his family and natural submission to the God of liberty. In addition to this natural chain of command, each patriarch had a form of accountability to every other patriarch within their congregational network. This adhocratic pursuit of justice, mercy, faith, and welfare had a common sense system of accountability and appeals: If any member was found to be slothful, deceitful, covetous, or in some other way deleterious to the continued success of Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven, then they were confronted in the judicial steps laid out by Christ in Matthew 18, and if they were found unrepentant, then they were barred from partaking in the daily ministration of this righteous society. This form of exile was honored by God who gives righteous communities the right to bind in Heaven that which they bind on earth. There are a couple of options for those who have been “handed over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh” which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5. They could either starve to death without the provision and protection of a free society, or they could be forced by hunger to supplicate to their former civil masters for covetous welfare in exchange for them going back into civil bondage. In this way, human rulers are a terror to wicked works because righteousness is a retention of liberty to prevent one from going under their administrations.

This terror is one of the wages of sin which leads to death because sin leads to the kingdoms of darkness. One of the rotten firstfruits of this death is taxation, but it is sensible to include within those wages all of the perverted justice inherent to human civil government, the worst of which is literal death through capital punishment. It was upon this altar of human sacrifice, the ultimate barbarity of the institutions incorporated by human sin, that Jesus Christ subjected himself voluntarily, taking the full force of the natural recompense for idolatry and disobedience to God upon Himself as an innocent man in order to save those who would repent and seek His kingdom, and be spared to suffer under such justice for their idolatry. If the worst thing that pagan governments have to offer their criminals is capital punishment, and Christ went willingly unto that punishment, then any lesser punishment that those governments have to offer are naturally included in Christ’s payment. For the repentant only, however, and not for the unrepentant, or those who claim to have repented but only take Christ’s name in vain without seeking his kingdom. It should be expressed, as a part of the full circle of the topic, that perverted justice and punitive savagery are not the only symptoms of idolatry and outsourced justice. The flipside of the coin of allowing ruling men to decide good and evil for society also incorporates their protection of license from those who would do true justice. It is common to see both abortion and homosexuality to be institutionalized and enabled in socialist societies, as well as usury, warfare, poverty, pedophilia, medical malpractice, police brutality, racism, broken homes, mass shootings, political corruption, organized crime, false flag terrorism, real terrorism, propaganda, fornication, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, revilers, extortioners…

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” (Jonathan Swift) Even if the civil laws of legalists, which wash the outside of the cup, have given some lip service to the criminalization of a wicked thing, they are wholly unable to actually abrogate that thing from society. This is because they simultaneously and invariably also criminalize any form of true justice performed by would-be righteous citizens desirous of performing the weightier matters. Including self-defense and defense of one’s neighbors. In spite of the systems of legislators, executives and courts being bumbling, inefficient purveyors (but really perverters) of justice, they are effective at criminalizing all justice that exists outside of their scope, abrogating them as vigilantism and frontier justice. This is because the powerful of society must give lip service to the prevention of criminal activity while actually preventing the righteous from preventing criminal activity. Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies, but cannot hold the big ones.” … “Such laws, said Anacharsis, are like spiderwebs: they catch the weak and poor, but the rich can rip right through them.” All these rules can do is centralize justice, making it to none effect, and criminalize true justice by preventing good people from policing their own communities and holding their own peers accountable. They do this by also centralizing and institutionalizing social welfare which taxes the poor to benefit the rich. The benefits that do make it to the poor only ever enable the poor by creating dependency. They are a socialist reward for sloth and covetousness, inherently demanding wickedness, rather than being an incentive for righteousness, frugality, and productive labor. It is no wonder that their justice and their welfare are reflective of each other, neither being of any effect. “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” (Anatole France, The Red Lily)

As we have written about here, it is not human laws that abrogate wrongdoing, but the kingdom of God replacing the kingdoms of the world that abrogates wrongdoing. A righteous and free society is dependent on charity and service, rather than entitlements and exercised authority. As such, the need to be included in a voluntary network of daily ministration ruled by God alone is enough to make the people good, law-abiding citizens. If they do not work, they do not eat. If they do not love their neighbors as themselves, they do not eat. If they are criminals, violent, rapacious, or in any way deleterious to the promulgation of the literal Kingdom of God, then they do not eat. A community that desires to follow God and serve each other in both welfare and accountability, which ensures their own survival and success, will not even eat with those who work contrary to the way of God. The wicked are dead to a righteous society. They are taken outside of the camp, casted into the outer darkness where they inherit the just deserts of their sin in weeping and gnashing of teeth where God extracts His vengeance; sometimes in direct, supernatural punishment, sometimes through the penalties of human bondage which are swords bore by rulers not in vain in their civil Hell. Free people do not have human rulers to whom they can outsource their social injunctions to mercy, justice, faith, and pure religion. It is because the righteousness of liberty is written on their hearts and minds, enabling them to keep the commands of God and to love their neighbor as themselves, that keep them just and therefore enable them to perform justice.

“Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the people were the fountainhead of justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen, and the law which they administered was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these non-professional courts, the Norman king, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers who devoted most of their time and energy to the administration of justice, and the courts over which they presided were so efficient, they gradually all but displaced the popular, nonprofessional courts.” (Clark’s Summary of American Law. p 530.)

“The lex fundamentalis of natural law is the duty of every man, so far as in him lies, to strive that the welfare of human society in general be secured and maintained.” (Pufendorf: On the Duty of Man and Citizen: Introduction By Walther Schucking and translated by Herbert F. Wright.)

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8)


The Purpose of Agitation

The Purpose of Agitation

Our civilization, a modern incarnation of the mammon of unrighteousness is effectively akin to a pool of water. It is stagnant, and putrid, and is the host to cultures of flesh-eating bacteria, hiding an anaerobic swamp of slothful, covetous sin and creeping things, carefully submerged underneath a thin layer of tepid film, an undisturbed, whitewashed veneer of false peace and status quo, empty promises of “everything is going according to plan.”

The preferred method to dealing with this mess seems to be to ignore it, to live comfortably with it, to not disturb it, to react against anybody who does, and to paint it with another coat of whitewash and look the other way. After all, breaking the surface of the water will only set the mosquitos into a frenzy, putting everybody at risk of discomfort, not to mention unleashing the rancid stench contained by the top layer of flimsy film. Anybody who uncovers the falsehoods and moral decay of society is necessarily the “bad guy” and spoilsport, who should only learn to live and let die, going along to get along.

The only way to actually deal with the situation is to agitate the environment, to stir up all of the ugly symptoms made by putrefaction and stifling silt, to drain the dark filth of moral leprosy and spiritual deadness, deftly dealing with the root cause, getting one’s hands dirty because somebody has to make that sacrifice and do hard things: like tearing down strongholds, destroying falsehoods and established, institutional principles, so that the way can be made for fresh water to be pumped in, as well as the life-producing effects it brings.

“Agitation is persistent, long-term advocacy for social change, where resistance to the change is also persistent and long-term. This definition applies to the efforts of individuals like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gloria Steinem, and Cesar Chaves, as well as to historical figures like William Wilberforce (who fought to eliminate the British slave trade), William Lloyd Garrison (who battled for the elimination of slavery in the United States), Susan B. Anthony (who fought for women’s suffrage), and John B. Gough (who argued for temperance).” (The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control: Third Edition. John W. Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, David P. Schulz. 2009)

While many people from different backgrounds throughout history can be said to be called “agitators,” the practice of agitation must have a consistent worldview by which to engage in moral suasion. That worldview is a Biblical one, considering the moral vehicle of Natural Law is piloted by Nature’s God and his unchanging and perfect stance on righteousness. In fact, He constantly advocates for His followers to be agitators, among lost societies, and among their own society, characterized by personal responsibility towards mutual accountability.


“For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” (Ephesians 5:8-14)

The greek word “elegchó” for reprove in verse eleven is an imperative to convict, refute, and especially to expose. In order for unfruitful works of darkness to be reproved and repented of, they must first be exposed and quarantined, made distinct through shame and conviction so that they maybe be replaced with fruitful deeds of light and restoration unto God and Neighbor.

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:23-25)

Some readers may have an emotional aversion to the word “agitation,” linking it to sentiments of contentiousness or unnecessarily abrasive confrontation. However, the word has a firm foundation in human history to dismiss these knee-jerk reactions. Probably the most famous agitator of the nineteenth century, William Lloyd Garrison, focused heavily on the chattel slavery practiced by many Americans, but equally recognized the incompetence of human civil government to adequately address it. These sentiments were wholly inspired by his Christian worldview and interpretation of the Gospel.

“Above all, Garrison was an ‘agitator.’ Because he placed a radical faith in the individual conscience, he believed that anything that gets people thinking and talking about an injustice would eventually contribute to its overthrow. ‘There is nothing,’ he wrote in 1838, ‘like agitation. Free discussion will finally break all fetters and put down all usurpation.’ Agitation was the ultimate political tool of the radical liberal, for it sought revolutionary change without coercion.

Garrison’s liberal faith in agitation allowed him to maintain an open, ongoing dialogue with many people who had not yet embraced his most radical positions. (He was, unfortunately, far less charitable to those who had once held his own views but then abandoned them.) The Liberator’s ‘Refuge of Oppression’ section always gave ample space to proslavery or (anti-Garrisonian) perspectives—partly to denounce them, of course, but partly to underscore the liberal value of free speech. Though Garrison personally renounced all violence and participation in government, he acknowledged that more moderate activists could do much good. ‘Thousands who are not prepared to come into the fulness of our principles,’ he wrote in 1839, ‘have been aroused by the light they cast upon the corruption of governments to labor to purify them.'” (Dan McKanan. Identifying the Image of God: Radical Christians and Nonviolent Power in the Antebellum United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)

This mode of Abolitionism necessarily helps to give it a flair of tireless “extremism” and intensity as a bulwark against the apathy of a whitewashed, sepulchral society. It was so fundamental to the professing abolitionists of chattel slavery, that historians will write books on this topic alone because it is included in any detailed reference to the era. Articles are still being written to highlight the uncompromising, unstoppable force of anti-slavery agitators who carried the torch of Abolitionism, not to be dissuaded or distracted by the more moderate and lukewarm proponents of anti-slavery sentiment.

“Antislavery activists proposed colonization, establishing an American colony in Africa for freed slaves and free blacks, as a safe alternative to emancipation. Immediatism, or the immediate abolition of slavery, originated in the anti-colonization movement and agitation from immediatists resulted in Britain abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833.” (The Abolitionist Movement by Julie Holcomb)

“Two phases of antislavery agitation occurred in the United States during the nineteenth century, one pacific and intended to persuade the South that slavery should be given up, the other seeking to induce the North to use her influence in congress to wipe out what was considered a blot on American civilization. Of the first movement Benjamin Lundy, a New Jersey Quaker, was the leading spirit. He was persistent and patient, and wished to secure the cooperation of slave holders, who generally feared that antislavery agitation would suggest insurrection to the minds of the slaves. He traveled extensively in the South, organized emancipation societies, and published a paper, The Genius of Universal Emancipation, as a means of promoting his ideas. He met no opposition from Southerners, but succeeded only in the sections in which there were few slaveholders, and chiefly with his fellow Quakers. His period of activity extended from about 1815 to 1831.” (Bassett, John S. Short History of the United States. New York, 1913.)


The role of the prophet, well-established throughout scripture, has always been one of agitation, rightly dividing the word of truth and making straight the very narrow way of salvation and faith; exposing, rebuking, and condemning the wicked works that lead men wantonly into the socialist bondage of coveting the deceitful benefits of magistrates and the providence of their civil institutions. The agitator is against the world, for the world, defying every delicate sensibility to boldly proclaim justice and mercy in an unjust and merciless society. He takes it upon himself to intercept public opinion in the market places and public squares, and oppose it with the opinions and injunctions of the living God, needing no other authority but his conviction, and no other strategy but preaching the Kingdom of God in the face of the kingdoms of men. He wields reason and conversation as apologetic tools, arguing with those who profess themselves wise, but are really fools, believing in the pragmatic gospel of men in bondage.

“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.” (Frederick Douglass, “West India Emancipation speech”)

The concepts of bondage and liberty are not political issues to be delegated to and regulated by the policies of politicians. Rather they are sin issues and repentance issues belonging to the heart of every man who can blame no other but himself for his own slavery, who must begin to take back his personal responsibility towards social virtues in order to begin seeking first the Kingdom of God. This is the posture of every prophet in Scripture. They proscribe the practices of Man, made in God’s image, immorally exchanging his equity and power of choice to false gods and their national economies for temporary comfort, safety, and fiat prosperity. When slothful, covetous men endeavor to make covenants with other gods through Social Security, the agitating prophet assumes the unpopular aim of counterculture. When cannibals enter into the flesh pots of rulers, binding themselves together in mutual surety, compelling each other’s forced contributions to sustain their standards of living, the prophet protests, declaring the practice to be a murderous rejection of God’s will. When parents bastardize their children, selling them into bondage for tax write-offs, placing them on the altars of the Molechs, Baals, and Nebos, outsourcing their responsibilities to nurture, raise and teach their children, agitators boldly proclaim this to be child sacrifice and the destruction of God’s political party—the family.

These are just a few examples of the common obscenities proudly practiced by those who profess themselves to be Christians, who claim that Christ has set them free while they themselves are servants of corruption; while they walk into religious service providers on Sunday mornings, saying “Lord, Lord” with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him. Agitation, Agitators, Prophets, and Gadflies are necessary for the preservation of a people beholden to a whitewashed culture full of slothful people, sluggardly asleep in the Valley of Dry Bones.


Agitation is not for cowards. It is not for hypocrites. It is not for the lost. It is for the Christian who knows that Christianity comes at a price, who knows that seeking a Kingdom based on service and charity will be met with the imperialism of the kingdoms who rule by force and fear and wrack and ruin. True believers must not lose their saltiness or hide their light. They must stand on truth alone, not on false peace, and must boldy carry out their duties to the Great Commission, faithfully declaring bondage to be sin, liberty to be righteousness, and the people to be in grave danger of literal damnation characterized by economic, social, and spiritual collapse into weeping and gnashing of teeth. In short, the purpose of agitation is to shake the tree of bondage so aggressively that everybody who falls from its branches will immediately start sowing the seeds of liberty.

“I AM aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as Truth, and as uncompromising as Justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead.” (William Lloyd Garrison, The First Issue of ‘The Liberator.’ January 1, 1831)

Awaken those who falsely believe they are free. Do hard things. Be the villain in a society that villainizes true heroes for the sake of leisure, comfort, and fattening their hearts in the day of slaughter. Organize together and make remonstrance and demonstration. Be willing to be labeled as seditious and treasonous for righteousness’ sake. Be willing to be martyred and crucified to establish a real, lasting Kingdom for posterity. Demand the immediate, unconditional, and total liberty for those made in God’s image, declaring “Let my people go,” accepting no compromise. Demand it from the people, including yourself, all of whom have willingly gone with the multitude to do evil, trading your God-given rights and responsibilities for false god-given privileges and contracted obligations. Christians were not called to live comfortable lives. They were meant to be ambassadors of a King and His Gospel to a lost and perverted generation playing the adulteress to human civil government. Go and do likewise.


The Imago Dei

The Imago Dei

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

“And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” (Genesis 2:15)

Two things relevant in these verses are exclusive to human beings compared to all other created organisms: That they possess the imago Dei, which is so beholden by abolitionist ideology, and that they have been given the Dominion Mandate to steward the rest of creation by God. In effect, God gave man a lawful title to the earth, so long as he dressed it and kept it. Because this concept of Dominion is so closely related to and contingent upon the privilege of being made in God’s image, it is necessary to look at a few of its definitions.

Courtesy of the Blue Letter Bible:

“Strong’s H7287 – רָדָה – radah – dominion

  1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down

    1. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate

    2. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate

  2. to scrape out

    1. (Qal) to scrape, scrape out”

Courtesy of Black’s Law 5th edition:

Dominion. Generally accepted definition of “dominion” is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., C.A.Tex., 522 F.2d 1299, 1307.

Title to an article of property which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it.

Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.”

In addition to defining Dominion, Black gives us further insight:

Dominium. In the civil and old English law, ownership; property in the largest sense, including both the right of property and the right of possession or use.

The mere right of property, as distinguished from the possession or usufruct. The right which a lord had in the fee of his tenant.

Sovereignty or dominion.”

The image of God is inherent to human beings. It gives them their specialized worth, their rights to be respected and protected, and the responsibility to live as free souls under God. These rights, however, are met with obligations to retain them and nurture them, to dress them and keep them. This means that the labor of a man is inherently tied to his success, and what he has in a free society is what he produces. “Labour was the first price, the original purchase – money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.” (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations) The divine gift of dominion enjoyed by freemen is an inheritance that lasts from generation to generation. One of the first-fruits of dominion is allodium as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Allodium. Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof.”

A man who finds himself paying property taxes has given up his right to take dominion.


Our rights are the essence of ourselves. Man enjoys the land and the beasts created for him by God and the fruit of his own hands and labor, then passes those benefits on to his progeny and posterity. “An heir is another self, and a son is a part of the father.” (Maxim of Law) All of these benefits and rights and property come from God and man has an obligation to be good stewards of them, to invest in them and to give the yield of his labor to posterity and to his fellow man in charitable welfare as he loves his neighbor as himself. The pure concept of Dominion, foreign to modern man, was in common practice in early colonial America for those seeking to flee the fruits of human civil government.

“The ordinary citizen, living on his farm, owned in fee-simple, untroubled by any relics of Feudalism, untaxed save by himself, saying his say to all the world in town-meetings, had gained a new self-reliance. Wrestling with his soul and plow on weekdays, and the innumerable points of the minister’s sermon on Sundays and meeting days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to crack.” (History of the U.S. Vol.1 James Truslow Adams, p. 176.)

The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility rests on possession and use of land.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson) And farming has always been an important lifestyle in Christian tradition. The establishment of the Christian idea of Abolitionism, an ideological framework ordained by the God-man Jesus Christ, the servant-king of freemen, was and is necessary to foster the fundamental sentiments and convictions apparent in a free society as characterized by the Dominion of the Imago Dei:

“Natural law was the first defense of colonial liberty…some colonists went so far to claim that their [rights] were granted by the ‘King of Kings’ and therefore ‘no earthly Potentate can take them away.’” (Origins of the American Revolution, By John C. Miller. Published by Stanford University Press, 1959. And The Other Side of the Question: or A Defence of the Liberties of North America.)

“The churches in New England were so many nurseries of freemen, training them in the principles of self-government and accustoming them to the feeling of independence. In these petty organizations were developed, in practice, the principles of individual and national freedom. Each church was a republic in embryo. The fiction became a fact, the abstraction a reality…” (Lives of Issac Heath and John Bowles, Elders of the Church and of John Eliot, Jr., preacher in the mid 1600, written by J, Wingate Thornton. 1850)

When man forfeits his responsibilities to “dress and keep” his dominion, he loses it. Man ceases to reflect the Image and Sovereignty exampled by his Godhead in losing the lawful stewardship granted by him. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) This entails abandoning the responsibilities to “dress and keep” the earth, and personal property, to the false gods of authoritative government. In exchange, man receives a perverted stewardship from those false gods over land and property through legal title, as opposed to the lawful title of God’s stewardship. A legal title is

“one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of ‘equitable title.’” (Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd. p 1734.)

An equitable title is antithetical to a legal title. It is defined as “the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.” (Ibid.) Man converts the very objects contingent upon his own dominion into the dominion of another. He does this by forfeiting his lawful title, granted to him by God in exchange for a shadow of true possession and rights that merely appear to be real but are no longer. He would have done right to retain his lawful title as characterized by “clear” and “good” titles. These are:

“synonymous; ‘clear title’ meaning that the land is free from incumbrances, “good title” being one free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record.” (Ibid.)


So, why does Man discard his real rights to land, property, and power of choice? Why does he invest the beneficial interest of those things to human civil government? He does this in fear and faithlessness to God. He does this in covetousness for his neighbor’s goods. He does this in the sloth of failing to increase his equity and provide for his own. He strips his own inherent dignity from himself through sin, in order to pragmatically partake in the deceitful benefits of human civil government, where he can outsource his personal responsibility towards the Dominion Mandate to the capable bureaucracies of human civil government. He sells himself into bondage for a mess of pottage by selling his birthright. To reiterate in more legal terms, “Man is a term of nature; person of civil law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [1914], “Maxim,” p. 2136.) Man is made in God’s image. A Person is made in the image of a false god, until he is born again in God’s image.

“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.

A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” (American Law and Procedure; Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910)

The legal name of a person gives a civil authority power over that person, especially through contracts and their signatures. He who takes the responsibility incurs the right. So men do not only give up the rights to their property and labor to be placed into the coffers of bureaucrats, but also the rights to their very identities. “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:” (Exodus 34:12) The wantonness of civil citizenship inspires them to reject the God that made them in order to partake of the pragmatic false providence of false gods instead of providing for themselves and each other righteously from the rewards and earnings of their dominion as free souls under the one, true God.

“But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” (2 Peter 2:10)

The word for government in this english translation comes from the Greek word kuriotes which is more often (and accurately) translated elsewhere as dominion. When man grants his rights and responsibilities (dominion) first granted to him by God, to other magistrates in exchange for benefits and gratuities, protection and subjection, and contracted privileges and obligations under Feudal rulership, man no longer enjoys the equity owed to him as a creation bearing the image of God. He despises “self-government“, lusting after socialist benefits, seeking to be governed by bureaucracy in order to partake in the rudiments of society. This is most commonly done in pursuing the comforts of the flesh.

“And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:

And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.

And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.” (Genesis 25:29-34)

Giving up all the things that make being made in the image of God meaningful, man in his disobedience is reduced to bearing the image of some false god, as a surety for debt. Having given up his birthright of dominion, he sells himself into bondage, under the dominion of human rulers who desire to play Benefactors and protectors, distributing their own providence for their subject citizens. Professing christians do this every day, generation after generation, completely unaware that the early Christians were killed for refusing to “go under the power of any” as the Apostle Paul exemplified.


God gives man dignity. He is not an untamed brute in the wilderness or a beast of burden in the fields. This dignity is most notably expressed in God’s mandate for him to have dominion. In his obedience to the dominion mandate, the one creature that is excluded from Man’s equity is his fellow man. And it is the purpose of the ideology of Abolitionism to liberate man from the dominion of man if any find themselves subject to manmade institutions. These institutions and their gods act as sovereigns over the property you use, giving you their own version of stewardship to maintain. And not just your property, but your children.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” (Hosea 4:6)

“The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father.” (Ibid.)

You give them the equitable rights to the fruits of your work, your property and your children through certificates, contracts, covenants, and constitutions. They allow you to have a mere legal guardianship in the exchange that can be taken away at any time for any reason and given to another just as arbitrarily. They retain allodium, dominium, and dominion and lease them to you through legal titles and legal custody.

“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8)

The Gospel of God removes the evils of civil society by first removing the evils of men’s hearts. It restores every man to his family and property. Most of what is called civil oppression happens by consent, both implicit through sloth and explicit through the covetousness of contract. But for those who endeavor to repent and seek the Kingdom of God, they can become free souls under God as God made them: upright and under his dominion. In doing so, they will rebuke the bastions of political authority that makes subject citizens out of Man, recognizing that making him a beast of burden out of taxation and heavy legal burdens is contrary to God’s purpose for mankind.

“How rich, how poor, how abject, how august, How complicate, how wonderful is man! Distinguished link in being’s endless chain, Midway from nothing to the Deity! A beam ethereal, sullied and absorpt; Though sullied and dishonoured, still divine!”

Such is man, in every clime—above all compacts, greater than all institutions, sacred against every outrage, priceless, immortal!

By this sure test, every institution, every party, every form of government, every kind of religion, is to be tried. God never made a human being either for destruction or degradation. It is plain, therefore, that whatever cannot flourish except at the sacrifice of that being, ought not to exist. Show me the party that can obtain supremacy only by trampling upon human individuality and personal sovereignty, and you will thereby pronounce sentence of death upon it. Show me the government which can be maintained only by destroying the rights of a portion of the people, and you will indicate the duty of openly revolting against it. Show me the religion which sanctions the ownership of one man by another, and you will demonstrate it to be purely infernal in its origin and spirit.

No man is to be injured in his person, mind, or estate. He cannot be, with benefit to any other man, or to any state of society. Whoever would sacrifice him for any purpose is both morally and politically insane. Every man is equivalent to every other man. Destroy the equivalent, and what is left? “So God created man in his own image—male and female created he them.” This is a death-blow to all claims of superiority, to all charges of inferiority, to all usurpation, to all oppressive dominion.” (Garrison, William Lloyd. No Compromise with Slavery an Address Delivered to the Broadway Tabernacle, New York. Project Gutenberg, 1854.)

The imago Dei is one of two theological propositions that necessitate the restoration of mankind to liberty under God. Read about the other theological proposition here. Perhaps it is beneficial to add an excerpt of creative writing by T.H. White from his take on the Arthurian legend The Once and Future King, a sort of parable as it relates to the image of God so long as he retains dominion over the rest of creation:

“People often ask, as an idle question, whether the process of evolution began with the chicken or the egg. Was there an egg out of which the first chicken came, or did a chicken lay the first egg? I am in a position to say that the first thing created was the egg.

“When God had manufactured all the eggs out of which the fishes and the serpents and the birds and the mammals and even the duck-billed platypus would eventually emerge, he called the embryos before Him, and saw that they were good.

“Perhaps I ought to explain,” added the badger, lowering his papers nervously and looking at the Wart over the top of them, “that all embryos look very much the same. They are what you are before you are born—and, whether you are going to be a tadpole or a peacock or a cameleopard or a man, when you are an embryo you just look like a peculiarly repulsive and helpless human being. I continue as follows:

“The embryos stood in front of God, with their feeble hands clasped politely over their stomachs and their heavy heads hanging down respectfully, and God addressed them.

“He said: ‘Now, you embryos, here you are, all looking exactly the same, and We are going to give you the choice of what you want to be. When you grow up you will get bigger anyway, but We are pleased to grant you another gift as well. You may alter any parts of yourselves into anything which you think would be useful to you in later life. For instance, at the moment you cannot dig. Anybody who would like to turn his hands into a pair of spades or garden forks is allowed to do so. Or, to put it another way, at present you can only use your mouths for eating. Anybody who would like to use his mouth as an offensive weapon, can change it by asking, and be a corkindrill or a sabre-toothed tiger. Now then, step up and choose your tools, but remember that what you choose you will grow into, and will have to stick to.’

“All the embryos thought the matter over politely, and then, one by one, they stepped up before the eternal throne. They were allowed two or three specializations, so that some chose to use their arms as flying machines and their mouths as weapons, or crackers, or drillers, or spoons, while others selected to use their bodies as boats and their hands as oars. We badgers thought very hard and decided to ask three boons. We wanted to change our skins for shields, our mouths for weapons, and our arms for garden forks. These boons were granted. Everybody specialized in one way or another, and some of us in very queer ones. For instance, one of the desert lizards decided to swap his whole body for blotting-paper, and one of the toads who lived in the drouthy antipodes decided simply to be a water-bottle.

“The asking and granting took up two long days—they were the fifth and sixth, so far as I remember—and at the very end of the sixth day, just before it was time to knock off for Sunday, they had got through all the little embryos except one. This embryo was Man.

“‘Well, Our little man,’ said God. ‘You have waited till the last, and slept on your decision, and We are sure you have been thinking hard all the time. What can We do for you?’

“‘Please God,’ said the embryo, ‘I think that You made me in the shape which I now have for reasons best known to Yourselves, and that it would be rude to change. If I am to have my choice I will stay as I am. I will not alter any of the parts which You gave me, for other and doubtless inferior tools, and I will stay a defenceless embryo all my life, doing my best to make myself a few feeble implements out of the wood, iron and the other materials which You have seen fit to put before me. If I want a boat I will try to construct it out of trees, and if I want to fly, I will put together a chariot to do it for me. Probably I have been very silly in refusing to take advantage of Your kind offer, but I have done my very best to think it over carefully, and now hope that the feeble decision of this small innocent will find favour with Yourselves.’

“‘Well done,’ exclaimed the Creator in delighted tones. ‘Here, all you embryos, come here with your beaks and whatnots to look upon Our first Man. He is the only one who has guessed Our riddle, out of all of you, and We have great pleasure in conferring upon him the Order of Dominion over the Fowls of the Air, and the Beasts of the Earth, and the Fishes of the Sea. Now let the rest of you get along, and love and multiply, for it is time to knock off for the week-end. As for you, Man, you will be a naked tool all your life, though a user of tools. You will look like an embryo till they bury you, but all the others will be embryos before your might. Eternally undeveloped, you will always remain potential in Our image, able to see some of Our sorrows and to feel some of Our joys. We are partly sorry for you, Man, but partly hopeful. Run along then, and do your best. And listen, Man, before you go…’

“‘Well?’ asked Adam, turning back from his dismissal.

“‘We were only going to say,’ said God shyly, twisting Their hands together. ‘Well, We were just going to say, God bless you’.”


The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The topic of Anarchism is typically associated with notions of rebellion and agitation which tend to bring to mind the feelings of hard-nosed masculinity, destructive power and societal chaos. This might have something to do with the fact that is the inclination of those under “a strong delusion” to believe that anarchism is lawlessness, and so they muddy word meanings and make crooked the way to “salvation“.

True anarchism, complete in ideology, is not chaotic or exclusively summed up in masculine power, but thrives upon a nurturing, self-sacrificial spirit that is very commonly manifested in women: with wives, and with mothers. Anarchism without the assistance most easily associated with a feminine or meek spirit does not create or care for a free society. It does not love its neighbor unto a cooperatively prosperous society. However, despite these misconceptions about anarchist philosophy, one thing should be made distinctly clear: Women are the first vessels of society. Society is born out of a womb of a woman, and without women, there is no society. It has no life. In an anarchist society, a free society, a righteous woman’s sacred job rests upon the weightier matters of society, like health, education, and welfare.

Free women, not outsourcing their responsibilities to human civil government fulfill many necessary roles in the support of the family, and therefore the strengthening of society. They are the primary healthcare practitioners in a free world. Experts in chemistry, they are responsible for the nutrition of their families as deft dieticians that nurture and empower society through holistic wellness. They are the primary teachers, knowledgeable educators, building up future productive members of a free society in matters of arithmetic, history, theology, and various other subjects; the most important being ethics and virtue. Free women are proficient examples of welfare, sacrificing their lives for the betterment of husbands and children, expressing the very image of tireless service and diligence.


The virtue of a free wife even includes testing the mettle of her husband, compelling him to rise to the occasion of being a provider, husband, father, and leader. As they are lawfully one flesh, she provides him with the reinforcement towards his headship, being a servant to his coverture, meekly attending to the affairs of the family.

“…the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage.” (Blackstone [1769])

This notion of coverture is often revealed in Scripture as “covering”, the word being used to refer to delegating authority and receiving protection. Coverture was often expressed through various imagery and metaphors, especially in mentions of clothing. Going out from under delegated authority and its inherent protection was sometimes described as being naked. The New Testament describes the covering a man has over his wife idiomatically as long hair, and uses the metaphor of short hair to describe a woman without a lawful covering, calling it a shame unto her. The reason why man had lawful representation over his wife in a patriarchal free society was to serve as a protection over the weaker vessel, to manage the affairs of their estate, and to be lawfully regarded as both leader and provider of the family. When this political relationship was compromised, society was in danger of no longer being free.

“And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:8-9)

“Husband and Wife are considered one person in law.” (Coke, Litt. 112; Jenk. Cent. Cas. 27.)

“A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband.” (Coke, 3d Inst. 108.)

“All things which are the wife’s belong to the husband.” (Coke, Litt. 299.)

Uncommon in modern society, which is corrupted by the distractions afforded in seeking or relying upon bureaucratic authoritative structures and positions, women endeavoring to be free have no need to exercise authority over their neighbors or usurp the roles of their husbands. This is because they are already daughters of a King whose Spirit writes his law on the hearts and minds of other freemen after having freed them from the need of human rulers and therefore the repercussions of contentious women who seek to use sinful society to exercise bureaucratic authority. The great progress of free women, in addition to the paramount roles of helpmeets and mothers, is that of moral suasion. To declare their King’s decrees and explain his ordinances and to simply call the culture to repent unto his kingdom is authority enough for free women. Even the authority of this Great Commission is ultimately one of encouragement: nurturing the lost to be proper citizens of God’s Kingdom.

In a worldly, broken society, one characterized by human civil government, women commonly attempt to usurp their husband’s equity, endeavoring to remain separate, legal persons who no longer serve the family, but rather serve the human civil government through employment, or voluntary indentured servitude. They give up their roles to be the family’s educator, healthcare practitioner, and welfare agent to the corrupted system intrinsic to human civil government, which rely on the forced contributions of the people. In giving up God for the civil authority of false gods, they are given over to a reprobate mind where they tend to become loud, boisterous, and even endeavor to be masculine, giving up the nature of God for the weaker vessel, and taking up the nature of the Adversary by rejecting the Holy Spirit’s calling. In an effort to become equal with men, they find an equal share with them in bondage, completely dissolving the family unit in a deathblow of selfish ambition.

However, the Son of God who re-rights the wrong order of society sets repentant women free of their former covetous ambitions and restores them to the liberty inherent in a righteous society built from the bottom up by righteous gender roles, does so by His Gospel which maintains the power, not only to restore common sense to women who have been given over to a debased mind in chasing idolatrous political endeavors, but also restores the people to their original glory of being made in God’s image, which excercises true dominion over the earth instead of each other.

Read more about Biblical gender roles here.

girly AHA

Why be Evangelical?

Why be Evangelical?

As the first tenet of Abolitionist ideology, we understand the importance of preaching the Kingdom of Heaven at hand, hoping to persuade men unto repentance and faith so that they may partake in the congregations of the Lord.

To be evANGELical is to be God’s “messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God”. The Great Commission, though mostly ignored and twisted by professing Christians today, is a perfect example of what it means to be evangelical.

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Any consistent approach to liberty will be one that honors God’s order of creation and pays homage to the truths with which he has blessed us. In discussing the civil bondage that man makes for himself and his neighbor can only be regarded through a lens of sin and repentance and how they relate to judgment and faith. The lofty discussions about human civil government, political action, taxation, non-aggression principles, and any other bulwark against liberty must be from a Biblical worldview and a Christian perspective. This is because human civil government is a sin issue and the road to liberty is a repentance issue, characterized by obedience to God.


The concept of Liberty, to most, is a pretty idea that is applicable to anybody who likes pretty ideas, and can be distilled from any worldview, background, or walk of life, tacked on or accessorized to be compatible with most presuppositions, and shared by peoples of incompatible lifestyles, beliefs and opinions. Most who like the idea of liberty are willing to be yoked together under a big tent, displaying common banners like libertarianism, voluntaryism, minarchism, anarcho-whatever, or any other house divided against itself, covered up by false unity. Inclusivity invites ideological dissimilitude or worse: ideological laziness. Molding the idea of Liberty into a common cause and rallying point of agreement invites treating it like a hobby or an emotional support group that agrees on one myopic facet of one pretty idea, though not on how the idea should be implemented, nor even on why it is an important idea in the first place. This sort of covering up of division in favor of a common cause is necessary to fabricate a self-righteous perception of having “strength in numbers” and statistical comfort in the herd. But because the symptoms of ideological division are suppressed, this behavior demands the self-destruction of infighting among the ranks and being subject to divide-and-conquer strategies from those who share a homogenized worldview in favor of corrupting tyranny and manipulative oppression.

Surely there are those who would accuse abolitionists of being “gatekeepers” under some larger umbrella concept of a “liberty movement” because they present an uncompromising, ideologically-driven framework by which liberty must be understood. However, the fact is that the gate already exists. Scripture says that the gate is narrow, and that the path that leads to the gate is itself, not only narrow, but winding and difficult. It is just the abolitionist’s prerogative to make straight this way of salvation, to walk it, and to preach its exclusive efficacy for the Kingdom of God and its exclusive provision of a free society. Liberty is the reward only for those who obey the King of freemen and carry their crosses by which to make each other free. The narrow path to the narrow gate is exclusive to those who chose to repent of the sins that have led them into bondage, including turning back from walking the incrementalist broad path towards the wide gate in “the name of liberty” without recognizing they were actually walking in the opposite direction of liberty. Only the Gospel of the Kingdom of God can liberate man from the dominion of man, and only Jesus Christ is the political savior worthy of devotion and honor. This means that, while liberty is meant for everybody, not everybody is meant for liberty.


This is not to say that humanists and secularists are unable recognize the wickedness of being mastered by their fellow man. Surely God making upright, those made in his image still gives those who reject him the ability to recognize common sense truth, but the fact is that they cannot account for that truth and have no ideological framework on which to interpret it. This is also why it is the rejection of God which leads men to recognize the truths of liberty but wholly reject them in order to form the bonds of human civil government. When men no longer desire to be ruled by God, He gives them up to a debased mind. When they have a debased mind, they will fail to keep his commands. When they fail to keep his commands, they soon disregard social virtues, fail in keeping the Sabbath, dishonor their fathers and mothers, and eventually chase after other gods for provision and protection, which will enslave them into the Egyptian bondage that we all find ourselves in today.

It has exclusively been on behalf of God’s nature and desires for his creation that famous men in the Bible have liberated their neighbors from bondage or warned them against the dangers of rejecting God from their worldviews. Abraham rescued civil citizens from the yokes of Ur and Haran. Moses liberated the Israelites from the covenants they made with EgyptGideon refuses the voice of the people to have him rule over them. Samuel refuses to give the people a king, then warns them of the consequences for their sin. Nehemiah makes friends of the unrighteous mammon, then secures the freedom of the Israelites and moves them away from human rulers. John the Baptist condemned the political bondage of the Pharisees to Herod and Caesar while overseeing the conversion of many into a kingdom of freemen. Jesus Christ himself refused to subject that kingdom to the Pax Romana and established a nation for freefolk who keep his perfect law of liberty.

Even though the subjects of bondage and liberty can be over-complicated and muddied from secular points of view by economists, political affiliates, and humanistic presuppositions, they ultimately and firmly rest on two theological propositions:

  1. The imago Dei gives man a certain nobility that, when maintained, prevents him from being ruled over by other men. When God gave to Mankind the Dominion Mandate, establishing his prerogative to subdue the earth, fellow image bearers of God were not included in that subjugation.
  2. The God-man himself, stepped down into the darkness of human civil society to establish a kingdom in order to liberate man from the dominion of man, including the sins that lead them into that bondage. Jesus Christ, the king of Judea, became like us in all things, humbling his sovereignty in order to provide an example for his disciples to follow while having a name for which they can make appeal in order to live as free souls under God. Read more about this here.

All Must Be Told

The reason why worldviews in competition with Christianity cannot consistently provide a framework for a free society is because they invariably presuppose the validity of the principles that necessitate a free society while simultaneously rejecting the very foundation for those principles. The worldview of the humanists, “atheists,” nihilists, and postmodernists contain the tenets of subjective morality, exclusive materialism or naturalism, and the idea that all beliefs must rely on observational evidence in order to be valid. The reasons for all of these tenets are intrinsically related, and that is because they each conveniently rule out the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible in a childish pretense of forcing their debate opponents to intellectually disarm themselves in a sort of philosophical socialism. They attempt to penalize Christians for the natural advantage that their worldview affords them in contrast to the slothful and covetous worldview of those who reject the existence of God. This is only one reason why (we will use a general term) “modern atheism” is directly related to socialism. It insists upon professing Christians disqualifying their own worldview in order to operate on an even playing field with the pseudo-worldview of professing atheists.

Professing atheists tend to claim that the reason that morality is subjective (while also ejaculating that “the God of the Bible is immoral“) is because, they might say “nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective.” However, the real motivation behind this tenet is more along the lines that, if there were a source of objective morality that established right from wrong for all mankind, then they would necessarily have to deal with the conviction and shame of rebelling against that standard. Pretending that morality is subjective (even while hypocritically declaring liberty to be an objectively good notion) is the integrous equivalent of a petulant child pretending to not hear his mother’s scolding over his deliberate misbehavior. The tenet is nothing more than the practice of putting their fingers in their ears and their head in the sand. However, there is one sense in that morality is subjective: Either it is subjected to the arbiter of the objective standards for morality (a just and righteous God), or it is subjected to the debased mind that a just and righteous God gives men over to when they refuse to be ruled by Him. In the case of the latter subjugation, those men invariably eventually are themselves subjected to the false gods of human civil government who promise to reflect the “subjective morality” of the majority of the people through democracy, but always just tend to reflect the end results of such a worldview: corrupted, tyrannical, covetous, violent, and oppressive. Man cannot be good without God. Those who try, raise up men to be gods over them. The beliefs of professing atheists contradict their worldview, more often than not. They will habitually and incessantly make claims about morality. Some right. Most wrong. They may express condemnation over a pedophile or a rapist, citing that “consent” should be the standard for sexual acts. And while they are mostly correct in that assertion (they would also wrongly assert that voluntary intercourse in the exclusive context of matrimony between two polarized genders is not the standard) they cannot account for that standard without appealing to some ultimately arbitrary presupposition. They know right from wrong, often lie about that knowledge, and do not know why they have that knowledge.

Professing atheists also tend to claim that the reason why naturalism is the superior worldview is because it automatically discounts “magical skydaddies who grant wishes and perform miracles and demand your blind belief” and asserts that “only natural and physical processes such as evolutionism operate in the universe and account for all of existence” or something to that effect. The actual reason why professing atheists must reduce themselves to a materialistic worldview is because the existence an immaterial Creator who is not contingent to the Universe would require their acknowledgment and a complete overhaul of their lifestyles to conform to His majesty and power. It is much more convenient to dismiss this reality in order to commit to their selfish lifestyles and self-will. The irony of the kind of debased mind that asserts that the world is naturalistic and that God does not exist is that it also presupposes and takes for granted concepts that it cannot account for. In order to elevate the scientific method, professing atheists presuppose truth while rejecting the idea that absolute truth exists. This is because the material world is always changing or “evolving” and if truth is materialistic then it must also be subject to change. This does not prevent them from ever making truth claims in their hypocrisy, however, even though they cannot account for truth in a materialistic worldview where entropy is the dominating force. Professing atheists do tend to imagine themselves to be logical, but do not assert that logic is universal to all men, but, like morality, is relative. This necessarily means that they must consistently believe that contradictions in logic are acceptable, or that logic can change, or that it is made of matter, but you will be hard-pressed to find one that will admit it. Because that would mean they could never rely on logic in any meaningful way and that their entire worldview is simultaneously logical and illogical from moment to moment and from person to person because then reality would have to be subjective and they would have no reason not to imagine themselves to be lost in an absurd twilight of confusion with no substantial meaning or conceivable purpose. All the same, they refuse to admit that logic is universal, unchanging, and immaterial because they would have to try to account for these factors without appealing to a universal, unchanging and immaterial God which is impossible and self-refuting. No doubt, most of them are more willing to admit that they could be programs in the Matrix, nothing more than a disembodied brain in a vat running simulations, or a floating port-a-potty in space dreaming of their everyday lives, than they are willing to repent, come to their senses and admit that God must exist and that they are just more comfortable pretending that He doesn’t so they can think and act how they desire.

Lastly, professing atheists assert that the reason why only observational evidence is an acceptable standard for truth claims is that Christians believe in the “god of the gaps.” The more scientific study that occurs, the fewer gaps there are, the less reason one has to put their blind faith in the existence of God. “I only believe in something if the evidence supports it.” Naturally, the real reason should be obvious. If God is immaterial because he is spirit, then resorting to a tenet of exclusively observational evidence of physical criteria would conveniently rule out God’s existence by narrowly defining it to exclude him. In essence, “God does not exist because he does not fit into the arbitrary rules I have made to examine the universe because I do not want him to exist.” So, while on the surface the ideas that: all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and that beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated, appear to be rational and logical, they are anything but. Professing atheists must have ultimate standards for determining the validity of evidence for their beliefs, and no doubt they would appeal to whether the evidences have been falsified by other observers, but ultimately they must appeal to their own reasoning to determine whether those conclusions are valid. And what do they appeal to in order to determine that their reasoning is valid to make that determination? Their own reasoning, of course. A worldview contingent upon entirely observational evidence is necessarily tautological and absurd for the same reason subjective reasoning is both the crux and the condemnation of a godless worldview. When the reason why you know something is true is because you trust your own powers of reasoning, then you are ultimately only ever supporting yourself with yourself. What you believe is valid because you say so because you say so because you say so… The irony is that everybody intrinsically knows that God exists.

The professing Christian, equipped with the integrity to assert that an immaterial, unchanging, and universal God who is not contingent upon the physical universe (which has a point of origin that cannot be observationally evident, by definition) exists, has a starting point to consistently recognize truth, and morality, and logic, and reason. That necessarily includes recognizing that only the truth claims found in the Bible are consistent and ultimate. Not just with itself in a logical framework to understand various physical sciences, from cosmology, to archeology, to molecular biology, to history, but also to understand political science and why men go under the civil authority of ruling men, how to get them out again, and just what makes mankind special enough to be eligible for that kind of redemption.

A materialistic worldview cannot account for these things without being entirely arbitrary and literally whimsical. Only a Christian worldview has the ability and integrity not to just consistently prescribe a righteous and free society, or condemn an unrighteous and enslaved society, or actively liberate man from the dominion of man, but it also expresses the reason why those who reject God as their authority, find themselves under the dominion of Benefactors who exercise authority.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [man-made institutions] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25)

All of scripture either describes and warns against the way to bondage and death or prescribes and instructs the way to liberty and life. These are not just hyperspiritual concepts that have little to no impact in this life. The jurisdiction of Heaven is not just a place awaiting dead men or some second coming of Christ. Hell is not just a punitive reality for unrepentant, deceased sinners. These paths are taken while you are alive and their destinations are likewise experienced by the living; their choices  in this life determining their ultimate fate after determining their present jurisdiction.

And this is why the topics of bondage and liberty are concerned with the Gospel of God, which must be preached, not out of man’s wisdom which so often perverts the truth and makes victims out of sinners, but from the perspective of God who desires that every man repent before he be redeemed unto liberty and new life.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)