Covenants Part IX Allegiance and Faith
In the previous lesson we discussed the Dominion of Man, the Corporate State, the natural law and legal systems. Allegiance is a form of faith. It is the tie that binds.
"Man's primary allegiance is to his vision of truth,
And he is under obligation to affirm it."1
The concept of allegiance is defined in Black's as, "The obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one."2
This of course only refers to a citizen that is a member as opposed to one that is a mere inhabitant. 3
As an example a "Natural Allegiance," as stated in English law, "is due from all men born within the king's dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, which cannot be divested by any act of their own." This of course refers to a time when the free dominion of the land was no longer held by the people. They had lost that position of "freemen" upon the land created by God and had become subjects under oaths of fealty or acts and applications under the dominion of kings. Such allegiance is a form of worship.4
In principle, the Declaration of Independence and the so called "American Revolution" could not divest that obligation on its own. It was the freemen, domiciled upon their own land, that had already removed themselves from that particular binding dominion of the king many years before, with the manumitting charters of Charles the I and II. The Charters did not set men free. Freedom does not come so easy. They allowed men the opportunity to seek, struggle and strive to eventually be born on their own land, their own free dominion in the new world of the Americas.
"The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free."5
This Maxim of English law was either forgotten or ignored by George the III, although proclaimed by many men of England like William Pitt and Parliament itself. And it was the usurpation, by George, of the rights of the freeman living in the American republics which gave lawfulness to the Declaration of Independence. In actuality it was the King who did the revolting not Americans.
"I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor."
-- King George III of England
The only real freemen in America were those who made the effort to establish the ownership of land as an estate, a free dominion as a free individual. Hamilton did not include the non landed popuace called "our rabble, or all unqualified persons, shall have the right of voting, or not be taxed; but that the freeholders6
and electors, whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not be deprived of that right."7
The principle upon which Natural Allegiance stands, although presented under other names, is the basis of the obedience owed a Father by his Children8, Parens Patriae.9
Other forms of owed obedient allegiance are Master, by his Servants,10 or a Sovereign, by his Subject,11 or a Benefactor by his Client.12
The fact that the State governments, as Republics of America before and after the adoption of The Constitution of the United States, rested not in the hands of the State governments but in the hands and hearts of the individual freeman living on his land, an estate in fee simple as an allodium. The state governments had no real sovereign authority to make the United States a sovereign nation with dominion over the People. The States knowing they had only a "titular" authority,13 adopted the Constitution creating the United States in the name of the people who vested themselves in that corporate being.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."14
Even Alexander Hamilton wrote against the bill of rights, "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations...."
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of a nation, than a constitution which has regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."
He went on to say that the bill of rights were "unnecessary" and even "dangerous." "They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"15
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."16
The once colonial --- and now state --- administrative government and other equitable and economic interests wanted a Constitution. The State or status of the sovereign people was independent of the administrating government in the republics.17
This explains the need to use the phrase, "We the People of the United States." This new agreement had almost no power over "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." For he, "had a new self-reliance. Wrestling with his soul and plough on week days, and the innumerable points of the minister's sermon on Sundays and meeting days, he was coming to be a tough nut for any imperial system to crack"18
and he certainly didn't want this new Constitution.19
In those days of individual sovereignty, each household was a state "independent of their form of government". They learned to come together in groups called hundreds. But their loving alliances often fail under the burden of affluence and abundance. Men forget that their neighbors rights are as important as their own and instead of loving their neighbor as themselves they began to covet their neighbors goods in social democracies and are more content to live by the sweat of others than by that of their own brow.
Today, the government is referenced as the United States Federal Democracy even though at the beginnings of government in the America's the word Republic was the title most sought and most used. Is there a difference?20
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…21
"Republic. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its government."22
We see here that there may be more than one sense to the word republic. First, the 'administration of affairs' is open to citizens and it can be referred to as a commonwealth, which denotes the general welfare of the people or the public. In the other sense, a republic 'signifies the state independent of its government'.
What does that mean? Haven't we been taught that the state is the government? Here it says the state is independent from the government. The word state in Webster's has almost twenty different definitions. A state is a status or an estate or a condition of life, which, in the case of a republic can be independent of its government.
In another place we find the word republic defined, "A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens… A state or nation with a president as its titular head; distinguished from monarchy." In this definition we see again that the supreme power is in the hands of the citizen who is entitled to vote to choose the ministers of government but it is not a common purse where you can take away the rights of your neighbors.
The representatives are in charge of administrating the affairs of government. In the second definition it states that the singular executive is titular. Titular is defined as, "existing in title or name only; nominal…" while a monarch is "a single or sole ruler of a state… a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind."23 A leader of a true republic does not rule the people nor do the people rule over each other as in a democracy. In such a republic people are free to rule themselves, "free from things public".
In a democracy the majority rule over the minority while in a pure republic the majority may choose those who will minister to the public affairs of the people. In a republic of noble and virtuous souls there are few affairs of the people that are not taken care of by the people.
This idea of people taking care of people is actually what is meant by "altars of clay".24
For a number of reasons men need to come together in more systematic groups, hence the altars of stone25
, republics, democracies, kings and tyrants. The less men control their own willful greedy bestial nature the more they move under the despotism of tyrants.
The United States Federal government is to guarantee to every State, status or condition of life a Republican form of government, a government where men are free from things public. Why then does the government of the corporate States and the United States seem to have such a supreme authority over almost every aspect of its citizenry and their lives? Whose fault is this, who is to blame? Is it the usurpation of government or the ignorant, greedy and covetous application of men?
When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23:1-3
What is the true nature of this American Republic? What should be the true nature of a Republic? Plato's Republic was very much contrary to those early Republics where kings and central governments were ousted or rejected or exited.
Today, there are many nations calling themselves republics but they are very different from each other and many are different than they were in their beginnings.
Some may assume that the United States of America and the original Republic are one and the same thing but you have to look no farther than April 3, 1918, when the new American Creed was read in Congress beginning with the words, "I believe in the United States of America as a government… whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed: a democracy in a republic." In other words the U.S. Federal democracy is a corporate political society that exists within the Original Republic, a Republic that predates the United States' Constitution.
The United States was not a continuation of the Government of the people, but a departure by certain select people and institutions. Some may ask why the United States needed a Creed, but the fact is that all governments are systems of faith. Fidelity is from the word "fides", meaning "confidence, faith, trust".
The creation of the United States could not subject an entire nation of free people to the will of that corporate body to make law by the signatures of a few men, by the adoption of representative forms of government that were not given such power to begin with. Nor could it gain such power by the vote of the people even if such a vote had been called for which we have seen earlier26 is not the case.
How does a government get its power and authority?
Can it just take such exercising authority?
Those captured by pirates and robbers remain free.27
Because:
Things captured by pirates and robbers do not change ownership.28
Governments obtain power and men become bound to obey those institutions on earth, for numerous reasons.
All of those aspects, pitfalls, and reasons are warned against or forbidden in the Bible and by the teachings of Jesus Christ, although not always by those who profess to know him.
"or to take any oath of allegiance to the Government thereof" Article II The Jay Treaty, Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation Concluded November 19, 1794
One thing common to Republics is the remaining power of the people to contract for, apply to, and receive gifts, gratuities, and benefits. Such contracts, covenants, leagues or applications steadily erode access to freedom common to a responsible, self-reliant and diligent free people.
"The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute." Proverbs 12:24
Anglican ordination in England required an oath of allegiance to the British crown which had ordered the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and the "Test Act" again required all civil office holders to take oaths of supremacy and allegiance.
A 1393 "Statute of Praemunire" stipulated that "lands, tenements, goods, and chattels are to be forfeit to our lord the king" for showing disrespect and contempt for the crown by asserting superiority of any legal authority outside the kingdom. There was a great pressure to compel these oaths and there was a great movement to avoid them based on a Biblical faith in Christ the king and Lord of a kingdom which was at hand.29
To avoid such oaths of allegiance men fled with their families to the Americas in hopes of being freemen under God instead of subjects serving governments with the sweat of their brow and bowing down to law makers who exercise authority yet profess to be Christian.30
If the Bible was about government and man's relationship to it, and it was;
If Israel and Judea was a government, not a religion, then Christ was a king of a government;
If Jesus was the highest son of David... and he was, then he was king of that government;:
If Christ preached a kingdom, and he did, then we should seek it;31
If he told us to do the same, then we should;
If He said it was at hand, and He did, then it is here now;32
If He was a king. and appointed that kingdom---and he did---then where is it;33
If it is within you, then it should be manifested in you and your actions;
If he told us not to take oath, then we should not;34:
If he told us not to exercise authority over each other, then we should not --- even if we are legal voters;35
If we are to live by the sweat of our brow, then we should not live by the sweat of others;
If we are not to covet our neighbors goods, then we should not tax them to obtain our desired benefits;
If we love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves, then we should be as concerned about his rights as we are about our own;
If John told us to make straight the way of the Lord, then we should be doing that today;
If the power and authority to rule and judge men is reserved for gods then we have strange gods before us;36
If allegiance and service is a form of bowing down and worship---and it is--- then we worship other gods;37
If governments with ruling power are based on the law of the father ---and it is--- then we call men on earth Father;38
If the Church is a government based on faith, hope, and charity, then it is about time we restored the non coercive Church;39
If we are supposed to seek the kingdom of God and its righteousness then we should not be seeking governments that do not manifest that righteousness;
If the United States is almost an exact duplicate of Rome, then it is not Christian in design.40
Yes, Roman government at the time of Christ and the early "Church" bore an uncanny almost mysterious resemblance to the United States. The Emperator of Rome, translated "commander in chief", were originally elected by an electoral college of the Senate, served a term of office and ran again for election on platforms the promised a return to the public and claimed to promote family values. They often held other offices which included the "presidency" of Rome and the Apo Theos,41 who appointed imperial --- or federal--- judges throughout the empire.
They were dependent upon their constitution and a division of power that eventually became centered in their commander and chief and president, and brought about tyranny that persecuted the early Christians. They were never persecuted because of religion for religious freedom was guaranteed by the Roman constitution. They were persecuted because they would not swear allegiance to any other King but Jesus.
Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, [one] Jesus.Ac 17:7
How can so many so called Christians today read the Bible--- and take so much of it literally--- but cannot see that Christ was preaching a form of government which operated on faith, hope, charity, and the perfect law of liberty? Abraham left the men that devised civil government with codified laws and compulsory taxes in Ur and Haran; Moses brought the people out of a government where the people had a tax liability equal to several months of labor each year, the gold and silver was in the treasuries of the government, the people only had a legal title to land and the banks charged interest on anything you borrowed.
Moses gave the people a government where they only paid taxes to support the government "according to their service", charitable taxes were given as "freewill offerings" or self inflicted "sin offerings"; all the gold and silver was in the hands of the people and interest was almost completely forbidden.
"In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6
Jesus did much the same as Moses, Abraham and many other free governments up until our modern times. The first century Church was a well organized and self disciplined republican system of governance, an "ever increasing state". It was not like the kingdoms of the other nations where men ruled over other men. This included monarchs or a single man ruling or democracies where the mob, your neighbors, rule over you.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Php 2:12
Christ preached a kingdom of service, charity and sacrifice not entitlements, benefits, and forced taxation. He told us to apply to His father in Heaven and not benefactors in man made governments. He taught us faith, hope, and charity, according to or God given freewill, not the making of statutes and regulations by men in positions of power enforced by men with weapons of war. It is because we apply to benefactors other than the LORD that we owe Caesar what should be God's alone.
"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;" Luke 22:25
That kingdom He preached and appointed is still at hand42 and it is the mission and obligation of the "Church", ekklesia or "called out" assembly, to teach and preach and serve that kingdom. For those who seek that kingdom and its righteousness they can began to find it now while they are still "friends" with the "unrighteous mammon."43
The Church --- as we have come to call it had a particular structure and was composed of particular kind of men, ordained under particular conditions to do a particular tasks for the people who sought the kingdom of God on earth.
"..., and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:" Da 4:34
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Mt 6:33
May we all seek the kingdom and its righteousness, may we receive it in our hearts and minds and may we manifest that kingdom in our words and deeds, using our heads and our hands to do the will of our Father in Heaven on earth from this day forward unto the end of time.
Footnotes:
|
Share this
page 
