Saturday, May 29, 2010

Jonathan Mayhew

While reading Whatever Happened to Justice?, My attention was directed to a sermon in 1750 by Jonathan Mayhew.  The format of the source from which I found this sermon was not easy for me to read so I resubmit it here for easy reading.  John Adams delcared Mayhew to be a "transcendant genius" and says that this very sermon was instrumental in sparking the American Revolution.  I urge everyone, but especially pastors to read this sermon and think about it.  I cannot see a flaw in his logic here.
Emphasis and formatting of the sermon are mine.


Let us now trace the apostle’s reasoning in favor of submission to the higher powers, a little more particularly and exactly. For by this it will appear, on one hand, how good and conclusive it is, for submission to those rulers who exercise their power in a proper manner: And, on the other, how weak and trifling and inconnected [sic] it is, if it be supposed to be meant by the apostle to show the obligation and duty of obedience to tyrannical, oppressive rulers in common with others of a different character.
The apostle enters upon his subject thus—Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. Here he urges the duty of obedience from this topic of argument, that civil rulers, as they are supposed to fulfil the pleasure of God, are the ordinance of God. But how is this an argument for obedience to such rulers as do not perform the pleasure of God, by doing good; but the pleasure of the devil, by doing evil; and such as are not, therefore, God’s ministers, but the devil’s! Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Here the apostle argues, that those who resist a reasonable and just authority, which is agreeable to the will of God, do really resist the will of God himself; and will, therefore, be punished by him. But how does this prove, that those who resist a lawless, unreasonable power, which is contrary to the will of God, do therein resist the will and ordinance of God? Is resisting those who resist God’s will, the same thing with resisting God? Or shall those who do so, receive to themselves damnation! For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good; and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Here the apostle argues more explicitly than he had before done, for revering, and submitting to, magistracy, from this consideration, that such as really performed the duty of magistrates, would be enemies only to the vil actions of men, and would befriend and encourage the good; and so be a common blessing to society. But how is this an argument, that we must honor, and submit to, such magistrates as are not enemies to the evil actions of men, but to the good; and such as are not a common blessing, but a common curse, to society! But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Here the apostle argues from the nature and end of magistracy, that such as did evil, (and such only) had reason to be afraid of the higher powers; it being part of their office to punish evil doers, no less than to defend and encourage such as do well. But if magistrates are unrighteous; if they are respecters of persons; if they are partial in their administration of justice; then those who do well have as much reason to be afraid, as those that do evil: there can be no safety for the good, nor any peculiar ground of terror to the unruly and injurious. So that, in this case, the main end of civil government will be frustrated. And what reason is there for submitting to that government, which does by no means answer the design of government? Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Here the apostle argues the duty of a chearful and conscientious submission to civil government, from the nature and end of magistracy as he had before laid it down, i. e. as the design of it was to punish evil doers, and to support and encourage such as do well; and as it must, if so exercised, be agreeable to the will of God. But how does what he here says, prove the duty of a chearful and conscientious subjection to those who forfeit the character of rulers? to those who encourage the bad, and discourage the good? The argument here used no more proves it to be a sin to resist such rulers, than it does, to resist the devil, that he may flee from us. For one is as truly the minister of God as may the other. For, for this cause pay you tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Here the apostle argues the duty of paying taxes from this consideration, that those who perform the duty of rulers, are continually attending upon the public welfare. But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as are continually endeavouring to ruin the public? And especially when such payment would facilitate and promote this wicked design! Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. Here the apostle sums up what he had been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers. And his argument stands thus—"Since magistrates who execute their office well, are common benefactors to society; and may, in that respect, be properly stiled the ministers and ordinance of God; and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public; it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom; and to reverence, honor, and submit to, them in the execution of their respective offices." This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience, to such persons as (although they bear the title of rulers) use all their powers to hurt and injure the public: such as are not God’s ministers, but satan’s? such as do not take care of, and attend upon, the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no natural and just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience? It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose incoherent manner; and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises. For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? "Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office."
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled [sic] to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.
I now add, farther, that the apostle’s argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to, such rulers as act in contradiction to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary. For, please to observe, that if the end of all civil government, be the good of society; if this be the thing that is aimed at in constituting civil rulers; and if the motive and argument for submission to government, be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority; it follows, that when no such good end can be answered by submission, there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; if instead of this good end’s being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about, and the ruin and misery of society effected by it, here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases, should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases, a regard to the public welfare, ought to make us with-hold from our rulers, that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render to them. If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle makes use of) it follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the tenor of the apostle’s argument in this passage. Not to discontinue our allegiance, in this case, would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which, we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies. It is true the apostle puts no case of such a tyrannical prince; but by his grounding his argument for submission wholly upon the good of civil society; it is plain he implicitly authorises, and even requires us to make resistance, whenever this shall be necessary to the public safety and happiness. Let me make use of this easy and familiar similitude to illustrate the point in hand—Suppose God requires a family of children, to obey their father and not to resist him and inforces [sic] his command with this argument; that the superintendence and care and authority of a just and kind parent, will contribute to the happiness of the whole family; so that they ought to obey him for their own sakes more than for his: Suppose this parent at length runs distracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children’s throats: Now in this case, is not the reason before assigned, why these children should obey their parent while he continued of a sound mind, namely, their common good, a reason equally conclusive for disobeying and resisting him, since he is become delirious, and attempts their ruin? It makes no alteration in the argument, whether this parent, properly speaking, loses his reason; or does, while he retains his understanding, that which is as fatal in its consequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it.

Note that there is another point of logic to consider in this argument.  If government is to punish evil and government becomes the evil it should punish, should not government then commit suicide to perform its proper function?  If suicide is wrong, and certainly unexpected of a government that is not doing its job, should it then be assisted in its death by its people withdrawing their support of it in the form of obedience and paying of taxes?
I can see no other logical conclusion if government refuses to repent of its evil.  To continue to support an entity that is in clear disobedience to God is to oppose God.  To do otherwise clearly disobeys the first commandment - "Thou Shalt have no other gods before me."
Some might argue that Mayhew was a "liberal" unitarian type of preacher and thus this sermon should be ignored but I don't see how that disqualifies his logic here.  I choose not to attack the messenger.
Maybe I better shut up - this could get me in trouble!

Friday, May 28, 2010

Principles In Liberty 50

Recorded on 5/28/2010
I basically recorded a call to Wells Fargo Bank concerning my HSA account about a $100 fee that was in their fee schedule.
The conversation is illuminating so I thought I would share it with you.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Principles in Liberty 49

I had a long chat with Red Beckman and Steve Pidgeon on various issues. This took me a long time to transcribe so my appologies. Hope you enjoy it!
Recorded on 2/18/2010

00:00 Introduction of Red Beckman
02:00 The High Crimes of Barack Obama (Steve Pidgeon) Dr. John Hanson
02:24 By realeasing a fake birth cert. Obama committed a high crime of mispersonation - 15 years in prison.
05:00 Red's theory on Obama - when subosed at Columbia, Obama was training at Pakistan.
08:00 Dr. Manning will be trying Obama at his church.
12:47 Steve Pidgeon - Book by ex op for the DOD called "Ghost".
14:50 Barak visited with the new power in Pakistan soon after airplane crash mentioned in the book.
15:44 Obama prounced Pakistan as if he has been there.
16:00 Manning shows clearly that Obama didn't attend Columbia.
16:19 Rashid Kalini - Hesbalah - was a prof. at Columbia and connected in Chicago. (Tony Resco) (Bill Aires) - on Commission funding the Arab American Association? who were funding Hesbalh.
17:48 Obama has taken $20M and spent it to repatriate Hamas agents.
18:30 Obama has been getting money to Hesbalah since the 80s.
19:30 $350M funding from Saudi Arabia into Obama coffers - a felony as well.
19:46 George Soros contribution - also a felony.
20:28 Elegibility issue of Obama is significant.
20:47 Red: in 1939 95% of the black people in this country were literate. They have deteriated ever since.
21:46 Red: Theological connection. No two prophecy teachers agree - so its not God.
23:00 Denominational world is confusion.
23:20 Satan is the God of the religeous world. (1980)
24:20 1979 at holiday inn meeting in Billings MT, a man came in and called Red.
25:05 At breakfast this man said to Red: I've gone to all the monitary conferences...
25:34 Steve (another steve) comes in ...
26:05 "Why doesn't somebody file a treason charge against Obama?" Steve Pidgeon - been done - everybody is in on it.
26:50 Now I see how Bible prophecy can be fulfilled - Obama.
27:30 Muslim Eschatology related to Obama. Mahdi fits Obama.
31:48 Steve Pidgeon - "I think the father has prepared Obama to be the anti-christ should it be his time."
33:40 At the G20 Sept. 23rd, 2009, meeting in Pittsburg, Obama gave Erdogon the green light to reform the Ottoman Empire.
34:30 Erdogon then immediately closes several defense pacts with surounding countries setting up the Beast (ottoman empire) to rise out of the sea.
36:00 Obama also intends to get Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews.
37:25 At Copenhagen, Obama went there to meet the president of the EU to agree to allow the Ottoman empire to declare itself a nation before the UN.
40:24 Same Reid and Rob Mekenna ignored Steves efforts to being Obama to justice.
40:50 Red: Sued a judge in 1993. All facts to be tried by 7th ammendment trial by Jury - not ruled on yet.
42:20 Every time Red filed to have an issue done by jury the issue was dropped.
43:00 Steve Pidgeon - Barack intends to rule in Jerusalem not here in the US.
44:20 Otoman empire is the nation that recieved the 'fatal headwound'.
47:45 Steve Pidgeon - get "Gods War On Terror."
48:30 Obama will betray everybody.
48:57 Back to Red's story about the guy at breakfast:
49:27 I've never heard of a speaker who could hold a croud like you (red) do.
50:00 Should I write a book? Wrote the "Born again Republic".
52:00 sold first 10,000 copies in a month.
52:50 Education has been hijacked.
53:20 Home schoolers are remarkable.
56:20 Home schoolers are so socially adept.
57:24 Red: Back the the theological issue: confusion
57:42 what happened in the begining? Why did God "repent himself" that he had made man? He made a mistake because he created Lucifer in a previous creation. Where was Lucifer at when there was no light? He was in heaven being an accusor.
59:54 Eternity goes both ways. How many creations have there been?
1:00:50 God turned out the light on the previous creation due to Satans rebelion.
1:01:20 God tells Lucifer he will redeem his planet.
1:02:00 You don't bind a spirit with chains. Man is to subdue and dominate the earth.
1:03:30 Let there be - the spoken word was sufficient. Why on the 6th day did God not say "let there be Adam"? A: He was challenging Lucifer's dominion of the planet when he made man out of the dust of the earth.
1:05:54 There is a plan to redeem this planet. "For God so loved the World".
1:07:20 It would be easier for us to recognize what is happening if we kept this in mind.
1:08:08 Lucifer will be taking on flesh - so he can be chained.
1:08:31 Judaism is anti-christ by definition.
1:08:50 Satan is a counterfieter.
6:09:53 Michael fought with Lucifer over the body of Moses.
1:10:20 The clay body of Jesus now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
1:10:30 Mark of the beast - a counterfiet of the rebirth of salvation - the "Death Again" experience.
1:12:28 In 70s, a guy named John Crans, a small time contractor, weekly meetings at the Holiday Inn in Billings Montana.
1:15:50 John Crans - read Revelation and he said "Christ is comming back and we better be ready."
1:16:14 Steve's bible study on end times.
1:18:00 Beckman on Jewish issue.
1:19:00 Jews are a religion not a race. (I tend to disagree - pharaseism is the religion)
1:20:20 The bankers are todays jews. Ashkanaze Jews.
1:22:20 Catholicism may have been created by the jews.
1:22:50 Steve: What is the popes mitre?
1:23:50 Red: Could Mohamed have been another product of the jews?
1:27:00 Vatican Assasins
1:27:20 Ezekial Emanual - kill off the elderly first. Planned genocide.
1:29:00 Bush indited at world court for war crimes.
1:29:30 Steve: "There is no law"
1:30:00 Red asked to campaign for George Bush by a friend. Within a few months the friend was "straightened out".
1:32:00 Korean War Stories
1:33:30 Steve: Bertram Russel - most evil guy in the world.
1:34:30 Jesuits and Stalin
1:37:00 Margret Chan of the WHO - another evil genocidalist.
1:38:20 AIDS came from a vaccine
1:38:50 Red: Lost a cousin in the war.
1:40:45 Steve: Assasination of McKinly
1:41:25 Planned subversion of US from the beginning.
1:42:00 Red: Sam Pits - inspired The Law that Never Was. (
1:48:30 S. 240 - Born Again Republic
1:53:00 Gordon Kaul

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Freedom Law School

I decided to participate in freedom law school for my own education and self protection.  So I am making this entry the place where I put recordings I am making of the classes.
Fellow students or just the curious can listen to these courses and benefit as I have.


Session 1  Refs: Spooner's Trial by Jury Article Whatever Happened to Justice The Law Jonathan Mayhew's Sermon that helped spark the revolution.

Session 2
Session 3