Religious liberty and separation of church and state 1

RELIGIOUS LIBERTYAND SEPARATION
OF CHURCH AND STATE
(Dan 2:43 [KJV])
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry
clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed
of men: but they shall not cleave one to another,
even as iron is not mixed with clay.
WHO ARE “THEY”
WHO ARE “THE SEED OF MEN”
WHAT IS TO CLEAVE?
DOES IT SOUND LIKE A MARRIAGE UNION?
BETWEEN WHO AND WHO?

THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD
• (Gen 6:1 [KJV])
• And it came to pass, when men began to
multiply on the face of the earth, and
daughters were born unto them,
• (Gen 6:2 [KJV])
• That the sons of God saw the daughters of
men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all which they chose.

(Gen 11:5 [KJV])
And the LORD came down to see the city and
the tower, which the children of men builded.
(Gen 11:6 [KJV])
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one,
and they have all one language; and this they
begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained
from them, which they have imagined to do.

• But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle
with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was
productive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the
daughters of men that they were fair." The children of Seth,
attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain's descendants,
displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the
worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements
that were now constantly before them, and they lost their
peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they
became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the
seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they took them
wives of all which they chose." The children of Seth went "in the
way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly
prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of
the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;"
they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened.“PP 82

THE MARIEGE OF CHURCH AND STATE
• We have come to a time when God's sacred work is
represented by the feet of the image in which the iron
was mixed with the miry clay. God has a people, a
chosen people, whose discernment must be
sanctified, who must not become unholy by laying
upon the foundation wood, hay, and stubble. Every
soul who is loyal to the commandments of God will
see that the distinguishing feature of our faith is the
seventh day Sabbath. If the government would honor
the Sabbath as God has commanded, it would stand
in the strength of God and in defense of the faith
once delivered to the saints. But statesmen will
uphold the spurious Sabbath, and will mingle their
religious faith with the observance of this child of the
Papacy, placing it above the Sabbath which the Lord
has sanctified and blessed, setting it apart for man to
keep holy, as a sign between Him and His people to a
thousand generations. The mingling of church craft
and state craft is represented by the iron and the clay.
This union is weakening all the power of the
churches. This investing the church with the power
of the state will bring evil results. Men have almost

• (Gen 3:15 [KJV])
• And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel.
• (Jas 4:4 [KJV])
• Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not
that the friendship of the world is enmity with
God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of

• Cain and Abel represent two classes that will exist in
the world till the close of time
• By this history the Lord would teach all men that His
Word is to be implicitly obeyed. Cain and Abel
represent two classes,--the wicked and the righteous,
those who follow their own way and those who
conscientiously keep the way of the Lord to do justice
and judgment. The enemy of God and man tempted
both Cain and Abel; but while Cain accepted the
temptation, Abel refused it. {ST, March 21, 1900 par.
8}
• Abel did not try to force Cain to obey God's
command. It was Cain, inspired by Satan
and filled with wrath, who used force.
Furious because he could not compel Abel to disobey
God, and because God had accepted Abel's offering
and refused his, which did not recognize the Saviour,
Cain killed his brother. {ST, March 21, 1900 par. 9}

• In the case of Cain and Abel we have a type of two classes that
will exist in the world till the close of time; and this type is worthy
of close study. There is a marked difference in the characters of
these two brothers, and the same difference is seen in the human
family today. Cain represents those who carry out the principles
and works of Satan, by worshiping God in a way of their own
choosing. Like the leader whom they follow, they are willing to
render partial obedience, but not entire submission to God.
Man, in the pride of his heart, would like to believe that he can
confer some favor upon God; that our heavenly Father may be
the receiver, and not always the giver.
• And in all ages the multitudes have accepted the Cain principle, and have
maintained that a partial obedience is all that is necessary ……Those who
cherish error have ever manifested a spirit of intolerance toward the
obedient children of God. They are actuated by the spirit that led Cain to
slay his brother. {ST 1886 DEC 23}

WHAT IS THE STATE AND HOW DID IT START?
It is certain that if the two greatest of all the commandments had always been
observed by all men, there never could have been a State on the earth. {1900 ATJ,
CHPA 10.1}
There would have been society, but no State. The government would have been
altogether the government of God; He, the only King, the only Governor, on earth
even as in heaven. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 10.2}
There would have been society, but no State. Because, men loving God with all the
heart, and all the soul, and all the mind, and all the strength, and their neighbors as
themselves, the will of God would have been done on earth even as in heaven. All
would have been one united, harmonious, happy, holy family. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 10.3}
There is an essential distinction between society and the State. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 10.4}
"Society is the union which exists between men, without distinction of frontiers--
without exterior restraint--and for the sole reason that they are men. {1900 ATJ,
CHPA 10.5}
"The civil society or State is an assemblage of men subject to a common authority, to
common laws,-- that is to say, a society whose members may be constrained by
public force to respect their reciprocal rights. Two necessary elements enter into the
idea of the State: laws and force."--Janet, Elements of Morals, p. 143.

ORIGINS OF THE STATE
This distinction, however, though clear and easily
evident, is seldom recognized. Indeed, it is not
recognized at all by those who are anxious to
secure the union of religion and the State. {1900
ATJ, CHPA 11.1}
But men did not observe these two "first of all the
commandments." They would not love God with all
their heart; they would not love their neighbors as
themselves. They rejected God as their only ruler,
their only sovereign, and became ambitious to rule
over one another. And thus originated politics and
the State.

The earliest records--those of the plain of Shinar--witness that the people at
first had a knowledge of the true God. The records of the next two of the
earliest nations, Egypt and Assyria, bear witness to this same thing. {1900 ATJ,
CHPA 12.5}
In all these places the earliest records testify that the gods were their first rulers
and the real kings; while men, in the places of authority, were but the servants,
the viceroys, of the gods who were held to be the real kings. {1900 ATJ, CHPA
12.6}
For instance, one of the earliest records from Shinar runs thus: "To [the god]
Ninridu, his King, for the preservation of Idadu, viceroy of Ridu, the servant, the
delight of Ninridu." Another: "To [the god] Ninip the King, his King, Gudea,
viceroy of [the god] Zirgulla, his house built." Another: "To Nana, the lady, lady
splendid, his lady, Gudea, viceroy of Zirgulla . . . raised."--Empires of the Bible,
chap. 6, par. 3, 4.

The records of Egypt and Assyria testify preciselyto these same things. And at that time,
also, there was no State. There was society. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 13.4}
There came a time, however, when even this lingering knowledge of God as king and the
only rightful ruler, was cut off; and the man himself assumed the full title and
prerogativesof king. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 13.5}
The first man to do this was Nimrod. Nimrod was the first man in the world who had the
boldness to take to himself the title and prerogative ofking, in the face of the yet
lingering idea of God as king. And the name which he bears itself testifiesto the fact that
his action in this was considered by men, and also by the Lord, as precisely the bold thing
which is here indicated. The word "Nimrod" "signifies rebellion, supercilious contempt,
and is equivalent to 'the extremely impious rebel.'

ORIGINES OF STATES
That is, Nimrod was the first one to establish the might, the power, the authority, of
human government, in the form of an organized State. He was the first man to assert the
power and prerogatives, and assume the title, of king over men. "And the beginning of his
kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." {1900 ATJ,
CHPA 14.3}
Consequently: "With the setting up of Nimrod's kingdom, the entire ancient world entered
a new historical phase. The oriental tradition which makes that warrior the first man who
wore a kingly crown,points to a fact more significant than the assumption of a new
ornament of dress, or even the conquest of a province. His reign introduced to the world a
new system of relations between the governor and the governed. The authority of former
rulers rested upon the feeling of kindred; and the ascendancy of the chief was an image of
parental control. Nimrod, on the contrary, was a sovereign of territory, and of men just so
far as they were its inhabitants, and irrespective of personal ties. Hitherto there had been
tribes--enlarged families--society: now there was a nation, a political community--THE
STATE. The political and social history of the world henceforth are distinct, if not
divergent."--Empires of the Bible, chap. 6, par. 7.

Such was the true origin of the State. The State was, and is, the result of the
apostasy of men from God. Such only could possibly be its origin; for if all
men had always observed the two "first of all the commandments," it would
have been impossible for there ever to have been any State. There could have
been no human authority exercised. All would have been equally subject to
God; He would have been the only sovereign. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 15.1}
Before Nimrod there was society. Respect of the rights of persons and of their
property was maintained. It was only when the apostasy grew, and men got
farther and farther from God, that the monarchical idea was established and
personified in Nimrod. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 15.2}
Let no one misunderstand. This is not to say, nor even to imply,
that there should now be no human government, that there
should be no State, nor even that there should be no monarchy.
It is simply to say that which is the truth, that if there never had
been any apostasy from God, there never could have been on
earth a State, nor any human government.

It is true that these things are the consequences of the apostasy from God. But men
having apostatized from God, these things all, even to such monarchy as that of
Nimrod or of Nero, became necessary, just in proportion to the degree of apostasy.
{1900 ATJ, CHPA 16.2}
It is better that there should be a government, bad as it may be, than that there
should be no government at all. Even such a government as Nimrod's or Nero's is
better than none at all. But without apostasy there could never have been any
human government at all; and without the apostasy having gone to a fearful length,
there never could have been any such government as Nimrod's or Nero's. {1900
ATJ, CHPA 16.3}
Nimrod's example was eagerly followed by all the tribes around, until they were all
absorbed in it. Society had passed away, and only States remained;
and these universally idolatrous. In all that region, only Abraham
believed God, even his own parents being idolaters. "They served
other gods." Joshua 24:2. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 16.4}

BABYLONIAN MYTHS ON THE ORIGIN OF RULERS
The myth of Marduk begins with Annu, “the head deity of Babylonian mythology,”2
looking down upon earth in dismay. The land is in chaos, overrun by flood-waters
and monstrous serpents. Annu senses that bringing order to such chaos is a job for
Marduk, the first-born son of the moon goddess Ea. So Annu summons Marduk and
asks him to organize the earth.Marduk agrees to the task, but “only on the condition
that he be made first among the gods and that his word shall have the force of the
decree of Annu . ” 3 Annu accepts Marduk’sterms and vests him with “the powers
and insignia of kingship– and Marduk’s word was declared to have the authority of
Annu.” Armed with divine power, Marduk goes to earth and separates dry land from
sea. He polices the monsters, and any evildoer foolish enough to oppose him
receives the wrath of God. The result of Marduk’s ordination was depicted in the
Stele of Naram-Sin, now in the Louvre. In this very ancient Babylonian
monument, Annu is shown imbuing Naram-Sin (Enoch to the Hebrews) with power
over a mass of other beings. Annu’s name,seen in the tip of the stele, is the
cuneiform symbol for “heaven,”the double-cross,…RULERS OF EVIL 267

Marduk wears the Annu signature like a cop with his badge. It
makes him a god. In fact, the ordination-of-power
iconography of ancient Babylonian nations was never
without it. Even today, we find it in the flag of Great Britain,
said to be the union of St. Andrew’s Scottish cross and St.
George’s English cross. We find it prominently displayed in
the decor of government buildings, especially courtrooms.It
forms the motif for much of the decorative architecture of the
U.S. Supreme Court Building, interior and exterior. The
pavement surrounding the Obelisk of Caligula in St. Peter’s
Piazza, where the multitudes stand to receive papal edicts
and blessings,is inlaid with a gigantic A n n u signature. No
doubt about it: a very ancient symbol has remained
consistently identified with the presence of

(Gen 4:8 [KJV])
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the
field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
(Gen 4:9 [KJV])
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not:
Am I my brother's keeper?
(Gen 4:10 [KJV])
And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me
from the ground.
(Gen 4:11 [KJV])
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy
brother's blood from thy hand;
(Gen 4:12 [KJV])
When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a
fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

MARK OF CAIN
(Gen 4:13 [KJV])
And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can
bear.
(Gen 4:14 [KJV])
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth;
and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a
vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that
findeth me shall slay me.
(Gen 4:15 [KJV])
And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain,
vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark
upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

OATH OF AUTHORITY
MARK
H226 (Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and
Hebrew Dictionaries)
H226 ‫אֹות‬' owth (oth) n-f.
1. a signal (literally or figuratively), as a flag,
beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence,
(Exod 31:16 [KJV])
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a
perpetual covenant.
(Exod 31:17 [KJV])
It is a sign{oth} between me and the children of Israel for
ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

POWER TO RULE OVER SONS OF MEN
Receiving authority to govern requires taking an oath which binds the initiate to a
code of rights and responsibilities. Interestingly ,our word “oath” is cognate with the
Hebrew WFA (pronounced “oath”), which is the word translated “mark” at Genesis 4
: 1 5 , “the Lord set a mark upon Cain.” Knowing this, we may accurately say “the
Lord put Cain under oath,” an oath visibly represented by the various insignia
governments display. The mark, then,may stands for a covenant between God and
Cain. It is not the all-encompassing sort of covenant which God struck with the
humbly obedient Abraham – “ And I will establish my covenant between me and
thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”Cain’s unwillingness to obey the letter of
Yahweh’s commandments made him unfit for intimacy with the divine. In Cain’s own
words, “from thy face shall I be hid.” The exile covenant was strictly limited to
assuring God’s vengeance against anyone who would threaten Cain’s life. In matters
of wisdom, correction, instruction in righteousness, Cain was on his own. He was on
his own, also, if he should try to attack the peaceful. The mark
was a covenant of retribution only.

THE AUTHORITY TO RULE
Just as Marduk demanded protection from the monsters he had been
asked to control, C a i n demanded protection from possible assailants in his
exile. God graciously accommodated Cain by “set[ting] a mark” upon him
which made Cain seven times more powerful than any mortal competitor.
The mark served as the very “powers and insignia of kingship” Annu had
granted Marduk. It empowered Cain to rule all human beings likely to
challenge his protective mark, beings unafraid of Yahweh’s name,beings
who shared Cain’s environs “out from the presence of the Lord.”..IBID 271

ACHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES
Armed with his mark, C a i n began the rulership of evil. The Bible
accounts for Cain’s movements after his ordination. He took a wife and
sired a son. Then, he built a city and named it after his son, “Enoch.”1
8 Centuries later, Enoch disappeared under the silt of Noah’s flood. It
passed from memory to mystery to oblivion, until the 1840s, when
archaeologists following the Bible’s descriptions of Babylonia began
excavating in present-day Iraq. Along the Euphrates River, near Al
Khidr, they discovered numerous strata of ancient settlements. The
deepest stratum, beneath which there was nothing but bedrock, had
called itself Unuk. “Unuk was founded on the oldest bricks,” declared
one of the leading archaeologists, a renowned classical linguist from
Queens College, Oxford,named Archibald Sayce.

Having deciphered and evaluated large numbers of clay tablets from the site,
Professor Sayce issued the opinion in 1887 that Unuk was indeed biblical Enoch, the
city built by C a i n and his son.Lecturing at Oxford, Sayce also pointed out that one
of Cain’s mythological names was Marduk– an important contribution to the
Marduk-equals-Cain hypothesis. Unuk’s dominant temple bore the title “house of A
n n u , ” further enhancing the probability that Marduk’s myth was spun from Cain’s
murder of Abel. As ruler of Unuk, C a i n was known as Sargon – or, as other
translators have rendered the spelling, Shargani, Sarrukinu, Sargoni,etc. These
variations of Sargon are composites of the Babylonian shar, meaning “king” and
gani, kinu, or goni, meaning “ C a i n . ” It would be hard to say Sargon means
anything other than “King Cain.”

AUTHORITY PASSED ON
The insignia of power and kingship did not vanish with Cain’s death. That C a i n built
the original city with his son implies that the mark was intended to be an hereditary
entitlement. The son’s name implies that he received the power of the mark from his
father.“Enoch” in Hebrew means “the initiated” – to be inducted by special rites, to
be instructed in the rudiments or principles of something.” Scripture implies that
Enoch and perhaps Cain in turn initiated other deputies and successors. Four
generations after Cain’s birth, we find Enoch’s great-great grandson Lamech still
exercising,in fact augmenting, the prerogative of divine vengeance: Lamech said to
his wives, “Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have
killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven
times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.”34
Receiving authority to govern requires taking an oath which binds the initiate to a code of
rights and responsibilities.[OATH]

EXAMPLE OF THE LAWS
The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law
code of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to about 1754 BC
(Middle Chronology). It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of
significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king,
Hammurabi, enacted the code, and partial copies exist on a
seven and a half foot stone stele and various clay tablets. The
code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)[1] as graded
depending on social status, of slave versus free man.[2] Nearly
one-half of the code deals with matters of contract, establishing,
for example, the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon.
Other provisions set the terms of a transaction, establishing the
liability of a builder for a house that collapses, for example, or
property that is damaged while left in the care of another. A third
of the code addresses issues concerning household and family
relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity, and sexual
behavior. Only one provision appears to impose obligations on
an official; this provision establishes that a judge who reaches an
incorrect decision is to be fined and removed from the bench
permanently.[3] A few provisions address issues related to military
service.

Laws of cain and of God
1. The rulership of cain was established so as to keep the
children of disobedience under control.
2. The people of God following God’s moral law would be
finished being killed if there was no restrain on the
children of cain, hence the need for civil laws.
3. Much of the laws which were to restrict cain’s seed had a
lot in common with the law of Jehovah and so the children
of God had no problem to abide by them, except when
these laws contradicted God’s commandments.
4.

THIS PASSED ON TO ALL NATIONS
In the beginnings of Egypt the same course was followed as in the beginnings
of Babylon and Assyria. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 24.1}
At first they knew the one true God; and He was their only King, their only
Ruler. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 24.2}
But they did not like to retain God in their knowledge; and therefore they went
into idolatry, and from idolatry into monarchy. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 24.3}
The Egyptian records state that the first rulers of Egypt were the gods; after
them the demigods; and after these the kings. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 24.4}
In Egypt, however, the king was not content, as in Assyria, to call himself the
viceroy of his god; he claimed to be the very embodiment of the god itself-- the
god was personated in the king; from him, it was declared, the people
"received the breath of their nostrils;" he was "the giver of life."--Empires of
the Bible, chap. 7, par. 38, 44.

• Babylonians and Assyrians believed that the power
to rule others was of gods and to be a ruler one had
to be a representative of a god or be a god himself.
• These kings saw no higher authority than them as
they were both kings and gods
• The problem then was that the kings controlled both
affaires of state and religion since they were not just
representatives of gods but embodiments of
gods{gods themselves}
• This is the rebellion of cain who accept not God’s
authority but makes his own.

Such was the true origin of the State. The State was, and is, the result of the
apostasy of men from God. Such only could possibly be its origin; for if all men
had always observed the two "first of all the commandments," it would have
been impossible for there ever to have been any State. There could have been
no human authority exercised. All would have been equally subject to God; He
would have been the only sovereign
God chose Abraham then to be the father of all them that believed God; the father of all who
will have God alone to be their God. Abraham represented then the religion of God, the
beginning of the church of God. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 16.5}
And from that State God separated Abraham. He said to Abraham, "Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee."
Gen. 12:1. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 17.1}
And in thus separating Abraham from that State, from his country, God taught the people
then, and through all time, the separation of religion and the State, the separation of Church
and State. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 17.2}
And it must not be forgotten that in the case of Abraham, this universal example, the
separation of religion and the State, was the separation of the individual believer from the
State. And as Abraham was at that time the church, and he was separated from the State, in
this it is plainly taught that the true separation of Church and State is in the separation of the
individual church-member from the State. Besides, it is perfectly plain in itself that where the
same individual is a member of the Church and of the State at the same time, there is at once
in him a union of Church and State.

Abraham, representing at that time the church of Christ,
being thus totally separated by the Lord from every State and
country on the earth, there is thus shown to all people, as an
original truth of the Gospel of Christ, that there should be
total separation of Church and State, and that the church of
Christ can never have any country in the world. And in thus
showing that the church of Christ can never have any country
in this world, He shows that the individual {1900 ATJ, CHPA
20.3}
members of the church of Christ can never have any country
in this world; for that which composes the church of Christ is
the individual membership. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 21.1}
So also dwelt Isaac and Jacob, heirs with Abraham of the
same promise, accepting with Abraham separation from

ISRAEL,GOD’S PLAN
(Isa 33:22 [KJV])
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is
our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he
will save us.

At the end of the forty years they were encamped in the plain
of Moab, opposite Jericho, preparatory to entering the land of
their possession. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 28.4}
While there encamped, the will of God concerning them was
declared by an irresistible inspiration upon the prophet
Balaam, and in words of instruction to His people for all time.
{1900 ATJ, CHPA 28.5}
And the words are these: "Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and
shall not be reckoned among the nations." Num. 23:9.

At that time the Lord's people composed "the church in the wilderness" (Acts
7:38); and in thus declaring that they should dwell alone and not be reckoned
among the nations, He plainly declared His will that His church should be
forever separated from every State and nation on the earth. {1900 ATJ, CHPA
28.7}
God never intended that His people should be formed into a kingdom, or State,
or government, like the people of this world; nor that they should in any way
be connected with any kingdom, or State, or government, of this world. {1900
ATJ, CHPA 29.1}
They were not to be like the nations or the people around them. They were to
be separated unto God "from all the people that are upon the face of the
earth." Ex. 33:16. The people were to dwell alone, and were not to be
reckoned among the nations. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 29.2}
Their government was to be a theocracy pure and simple--God their only King,
their only Ruler, their only Lawgiver. It was indeed to be a church organization,
beginning with the organization of "the church in the wilderness," and was to
be separated from every idea of a State. The system formed in the wilderness
through Moses, was to continue in Canaan; and was intended to be perpetual.
{1900 ATJ, CHPA 29.3}

"The government of Israel was administered in the name and by
the authority of Jehovah. The work of Moses, of the seventy
elders, of the rulers and judges, was simply to enforce the laws
that God had given. They had no authority to legislate for the
nation.“{PK 604} For God had declared plainly, "Ye shall not add
unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish
aught from it." Deut. 4:2. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 29.4}
Thus the principles of their government were solely those of a
pure theocracy. And such "was and continued to be the
condition of Israel's existence as a nation." In any government it
is only loyalty to the principles of the government, on the part
of its citizens, that can make it a success. Consequently, on the
part of Israel, it was only loyalty to the principles of a pure
theocracy--God their only King, their only Ruler, their only
Lawgiver--that could possibly make that government a success

ISRAEL BEGINS IT’S
FALL"Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died,
being an hundred and ten years old. . . . And also all
that generation were gathered unto their fathers; and
there arose another generation after them, which
knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which He had
done for Israel." "And the children of Israel did evil in
the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim; and they
forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought
them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other
gods, of the gods of the people that were round
about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and
provoked the Lord to anger. And they forsook the
Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth." Judges 2:8-13.

When the Israelites first settled in Canaan they acknowledged the
principles of the theocracy, and the nation prospered under the
rule of Joshua. But increase of population and intercourse with
other nations brought a change. The people adopted many of the
customs of their heathen neighbors and thus sacrificed to a great
degree their own peculiar, holy character. Gradually they lost their
reverence for God and ceased to prize the honor of being His
chosen people. Attracted by the pomp and display of heathen
monarchs, they tired of their own simplicity. Jealousy and envy
sprang up between the tribes. Internal dissensions made them
weak; they were continually exposed to the invasion of their
heathen foes, and the people were coming to believe that in order
to maintain their standing among the nations, the tribes must be
united under a strong central government. As they departed from
obedience to God's law, they desired to be freed from the rule of
their divine Sovereign; and thus the demand for a monarchy
became widespread throughout Israel.PK 604

Then all the evils that came upon them only as the result of their apostasy and
idolatry, they charged back upon the government of God. In their unbelief and
apostasy, they could see in the continued raids of the heathen, by which their
country was sacked, and themselves were oppressed, only evidence that for all
practical purposes the government of God had failed. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 31.1}
They therefore reached the conclusion "that in order to maintain their standing
among the nations, the tribes must be united under a strong central
government. As they departed from obedience to God's law, they desired to be
freed from the rule of their divine Sovereign; and thus the demand for a
monarchy became widespread throughout Israel.“[PK 604} Accordingly, they
said to Samuel, "Make us a king to judge us like all the nations." I Sam. 8:5.
{1900 ATJ, CHPA 31.2}
As their hearts were fully set on having a king like all the nations, and as
practically they were much like all the nations anyhow, the best thing the Lord
could do for them was to let them have their king. Nevertheless, He said to
Samuel, "Protest solemnly unto them." I Sam. 8:9. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 31.3}
Samuel did so, but still they insisted: "Nay; but we will have a king over us; that
we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out
before us, and fight our battles." I Sam. 8:19, 20. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 31.4}

THAT CHURCH UNITED WITH THE
STATE
It was to save them from all this that the Lord had said of them, "The people shall dwell
alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." {1900 ATJ, CHPA 32.3}
If they had remained faithful to this principle, there never would have been amongst
Israel a State or a kingdom. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 32.4}
Therefore, in announcing this principle, God intended forever that they should be
completely separated from any such thing as a State or kingdom on the earth. {1900 ATJ,
CHPA 32.5}
And as when that word was spoken they were "the church," it is absolutely certain that in
announcing that principle, God intended to teach them and all people forever that His
plainly-declared will is that there shall be a complete separation between His church and
every State or kingdom on the earth;that there shall never be any connection between
His religion and any State or kingdom in the world. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 32.6}
And, further: As that people were then the church, and as the Lord said they rejected Him
when they formed that State and kingdom, it is perfectly plain by the Word of the Lord
that whenever the church forms any connection with any State or kingdom on the earth,
in the very doing of it she rejects God. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 33.1}

Israel as "the church," which is "the pillar and ground of the truth," was the
depository and the representative of the true religion in the world. Then when Israel
formed themselves into a State, this was nothing else than a union of religion and
the State. And as their forming of a State was contrary to the expressed will and the
solemn protest of the Lord, it is clearly the truth that any connection between
religion--and above all the true religion--and the State is positively against the
expressed will and the solemn protest of God. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 35.1}
And as Israel, the depository and representative of the true religion, in order to
form a union of religion and the State, had to reject God, it is certainly true that
every other people, in forming a union of religion and the State, do, in the very
doing of it, reject God. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 35.2}
Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than that the God of heaven and earth, the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is eternally opposed to a union of religion and
the State. He will never be a party to any such transaction. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 35.3}
But Israel was the church, while all the nations were States. Israel, therefore,
could not be like the nations without forming themselves into a State. {1900
ATJ, CHPA 34.4}
But Israel, being the church, could not possibly from themselves into a State
without at the same time, and in the very doing of it, forming a union of
Church and State.

LIKE EVERY NATION
God has never been allowed by His professed people to reveal Himself to the
world as He really is. His church has always been too willing to "be reckoned
among the nations," too willing to be "like all the nations." She has always been
too willing to be joined to the State, to be a part of the State, to have religion a
matter of State and government, "like all the nations." And so it is with the
church in all the world to-day. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 36.3}
"The days of Israel's greatest prosperity were those in
which they acknowledged Jehovah as their King--
when the laws and government which He established
were regarded as superior to those of all other
nations."--Patriarchs and Prophets, chap. 59, par. 8-

CHURCHES TODAY
Instead of magnifying God's laws and government before all the world, as
superior to the laws and governments of all the nations, and showing
unswerving allegiance to them as such, the people of the professed
churches of God seek to mingle heavenly citizenship with earthly
citizenship; and to bring down from their superior place the laws and
government of God, and mix them up with the laws and government of
all the nations in an unseemly and ungodly union of religion and the
State. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 38.4}
And thus the people of the professed churches of God, of the young
people's societies and leagues professing Christianity--of all the
combined church elements of the land--are following directly in the track
of the church of ancient Israel; they will not dwell alone; they will be
reckoned among the nations; they will be like all the nations; they will
join themselves to the State; they will form a union of religion and the
State; they will reject God, that He should not reign over them. {1900 ATJ,
CHPA 39.1}

ISRAEL REJECTED GOD
Israel would form a State, and have a king, that they might be
"like all the nations." {1900 ATJ, CHPA 40.1}
All the nations were heathen. To be "like all the nations," then,
was only to be like the heathen. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 40.2}
All the nations became heathen by rejecting God. Then when
Israel would be "like all the nations"-- like all the heathen,--
they could do so only by rejecting God. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 40.3}
It was therefore but the simple statement of a fact when the
Lord said, "They have rejected Me, that I should not reign over
them." {1900 ATJ, CHPA 40.4}
When Israel formed a State, they thereby created a union of
religion and the State. But they had to reject God in order to
form a State. Therefore they had to reject God in order to
form a union of religion and the State. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 40.5}
It follows, therefore, plainly, that no people can ever form a
union of religion and the State without rejecting God.

THE RESULTS OF THAT UNION ARE SEEN IN THE PROBLEMS OF
SAUL, THE FALL OF DAVID,THE APOSTACY OF SOLOMON,THE
DEVISION OF THE KINGDOM INTO TWO,THE FALL OF THE
NORTHERN KINGDOM AND LATTER THE DISTRUCTION OF
JERUSALEM AND THE CARRYING AWAY OF JUDAH INTO
CAPTIVITY BY THE BABYLONIANS.IT’S AT THAT TIME WHEN
GOD SAID:
"Remove the diadem, take off the crown; . .
. exalt him that is low, and abase him that
is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it;
and it shall be no more, until He come
whose right it is, and I will give it Him." Eze.
21:25-27.

TEACHING IT TO HEATHERNS
DANIEL 3
But being an idolater, and having grown up amid idolatrous systems, Nebuchadnezzar did not
know this. With idolaters, religion always has been, and still is, a part of the government. In
heathen systems, religion and the governments are always united; while in the true system, the
genuine Christian system, they are always separate. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 52.1}
And this was the lesson which God there taught to Nebuchadnezzar. In a way in which it was
impossible not to understand, the Lord showed to that king that he had nothing whatever to
do with the religion, nor with the directing of the worship, of the people. The Lord had
brought all nations into subjection to King Nebuchadnezzar as to their bodily service; but now,
by an unmistakable evidence, this same Lord showed to King Nebuchadnezzar that He had
given him no power nor jurisdiction whatever in their souls' service. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 52.2}
The Lord thus showed to King Nebuchadnezzar that, while in all things between nation and
nation, or man and man, all people, nations, and languages had been given to him to serve
him, and he had been made ruler over them all; yet in things between men and God, the king
was plainly and forcibly given to understand that he had nothing whatever to do. The God of
heaven there taught to that king, and through him to all kings, rulers, and people forever, that
in all matters of religion and worship, in the presence of the rights of conscience of the
individual, the word of the king must change; the decree of the ruler is naught.

DANIEL 6
"O king, live forever. My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths,
that they have not hurt me; forasmuch as before Him INNOCENCY was found in me;
and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." {1900 ATJ, CHPA 58.3}
That is divine testimony, published to all the world, that innocence before God is found
in the man who disregards any human law that interferes with his service to God. It is
also divine testimony that the man who disregards such laws, in so doing does "no hurt"
to the king, to the State, nor to society. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 59.1}
Thus God taught to the rulers of the Medo-Persian Empire the separation of religion
and the State; that with men's relationship to God, rulers and States can have nothing
whatever to do. And it was written for the instruction of all rulers and States unto the
world's end. {1900 ATJ, CHPA 59.2}

OUR GREAT EXAMPLE
He came to reveal to men the kingdom of God,--to enunciate its
principles, to manifest its spirit, to reveal its character. Of it He said:
"My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. "Except a man be born
again, he can not see the kingdom of God." John 3:3. And His apostles
declared,
"My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36.
"My kingdom is not of this world." Every kingdom, every State, every government of
men, is altogether of this world and of this world alone. How then can anybody be of
any earthly kingdom or State and of the kingdom of God at the same time? Those
who are of the church are of the kingdom of God, because the church is the church
of God, and not of this world--it is composed of those who are "chosen out of the
world." Those who are of the State are of this world, because the State is altogether
and only of this world.

And, indeed, were not "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory
of them" offered to Jesus for ?? very own? Why did He not take
them and ?? over them and convert them and thus save them --He
could not, because to have taken them would have been to
recognize "the god of this world," by whom they were offered.
Luke 4:5-8. And so is ever, the kingdom of this world is offered ever
only by Satan; and all who are Christ's will refuse it, as did our
Example, and as did Moses, His chosen ?? runner and type. {1900
ATJ, CHPA 62.3}
Christ was and is the embodiment of the church and of all
Christianity. Therefore, and thus, in the Word of Christ, in the very
principles of the cause of Christ, there is taught the separation of
Church--of Christianity--and State as complete and as wide as in
the separation between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of
this world; and that is as complete and as wide as is the separation
between God and this world.

GOD AND CAESER
(Matt 22:17 [KJV])
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto
Caesar, or not?
(Matt 22:18 [KJV])
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye
hypocrites?
(Matt 22:19 [KJV])
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
(Matt 22:20 [KJV])
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
(Matt 22:21 [KJV])
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render
therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the
things that are God's.

CEASER,A UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Accordingly, Christ says in another place, "Render therefore
unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the
things that are God's." Matt. 22:21. In that time the head of the
Roman Empire, the personification of the world's power, was
Caesar. And in that Roman world-system it was claimed that
whatsoever was Caesar's was God's; because to all the people of
that world-system Caesar was God. He was set before the
people as God; the people were required to worship him as
God; incense was offered to his image as to God. In that system
the State was divine, and Caesar was the State. Therefore that
system was essentially a union of religion and the State. {1900
ATJ, CHPA 63.2}

The land of the Pyramid, Egypt, is where Caesarean Rome was
inaugurated. By “Caesarean” I mean the empire whose head commands
not only affairs of state but those of religion as well. Caesarean Rome
officially began in Alexandria, Egypt, at the temple of Jupiter, on the
winter solstice – December 25 – in the year 48 BC, when a fifty-two-
year-old priest of Jupiter was declared to be Jupiter’s incarnation, thus
“Son of G o d . ” His name was Caius of the family of Marius, Caius
Maria. After deification, and occasionally before, Caius Maria was
referred to as “Caesar,” a cabalism formed by the letter “C” (for Caius)
attached to “Aesar,” the Etruscan
word for “God.” The G o d Caius. (Suetonius, the first-century
biographer of the Caesars, suggests that the title was formed from
prefixing Aesar with the numeral “ C , ” meaning “hundred.” God of the
Hundred, or Hundreds.) RULERS OF EVIL 215

When Attalus III died in 133 BC, he bequeathed all his kingdom’s
Babylonian grandeur to the Romans. But no Roman emperor was deemed
fit to receive it because the Roman constitution had never suffered a man
to be deified. The bequest lay unclaimed until 48 BC, when Caius Maria
Caesar was declared God Almighty in the Serapion, Alexandria’s temple
of Jupiter. Deification entitled Caesar now to assume the title Pontifex
Maximus. To indicate his infinitely holier status, he took the name
“Julius.”7 The name was a claim of descent from Julius Ascanius, the
legendary son of legendary Aeneas..{RULERS OF EVIL 216}

JESUS REFUSED THE DEIFICATION OF CEASER
In view of this, when Jesus said, "Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are
God's," He denied to Caesar, and so to the State, every
attribute, or even claim, of divinity. He showed that another
than Caesar is God. Thus He entirely separated Caesar and
God. He entirely separated between the things which are due
to Caesar and those which are due to God. The things that are
due to Caesar are not to be rendered to God. The things due to
God are not to be rendered to Caesar. These are two distinct
realms, two distinct personages, and two distinct fields of duty.
Therefore, in these words Jesus taught as plainly as it is
possible to do, the complete separation of religion and the
State; that no State can ever rightly require anything that is due
to God; and that when it is required by the State, it is not to be
rendered.

NEVER POLITICAL
"Speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me," He refused, with the
words, "Man, who made Me a judge or a divider over you?" and then said to them all,
"Take heed and beware of covetousness; for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance
of the things which he possesseth." Luke 12:13-15
Jesus could have told this man just what was right. He knew the right in this case,
but the brothers were in a quarrel because both were covetous. Jesus virtually
said, It is not my business to settle controversies of this kind. He came for another
purpose--to preach the gospel, and so to arouse men to a sense of eternal
realities, that they might not lose eternity from their reckoning. So it is not the
work of a minister to settle the temporal affairs of the people. Christ gives men an
example, that his work and that of his followers is to persuade souls to be
reconciled to God. Many things will arise to divert the mind from God and the truth
for this time; but we are not to enter into the controversies that are coming to the
front. They are started in the councils of hell, and the children of God are not to
turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Let them press on their way, looking unto
Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. GCB FEB 17 1897

The Lord Jesus is disappointed in his people. He is the Captain,
they are to file under his banner. They have no time, wisdom, or
strength to spend in taking sides with political parties. Men are
being stirred with an intense activity from beneath, and the sons
and daughters of God are not to give their influence to this
political strife. But what kind of a spirit takes hold upon our
people, when those who believe we are now under the
third angel's message, the last message of mercy to the
world, brothers in the same faith, appear wearing the
badges of opposing political parties, proclaiming
opposite sentiments and declaring their divided opinions.

WHY DID HE REFUSE
(John 6:15 [KJV])
When Jesus therefore perceived that they
would come and take him by force, to make
him a king, he departed again into a mountain
himself alone.
Again and again Christ had been asked to decide legal and
political questions; but He refused to interfere in temporal
matters. . . . He stood in our world as the Head of the great
spiritual kingdom that He came to our world to establish,--
the kingdom of righteousness. His teaching made plain the
ennobling, sanctifying principles that govern this kingdom.
He showed that justice and mercy and love are the
controlling powers in Jehovah's kingdom.-- "Testimonies for
the Church," Vol. IX, page 218

And why was it that Jesus thus persistently kept aloof from all affairs of politics
and the State? Was it because all things political, judicial, and governmental were
conducted with such perfect propriety, and with such evident justice, that there
was no place for anything better, no room for improvement such as even He
might suggest?--Not by any means. Never was there more political
corruption, greater perversion of justice, and essential all-pervasive
evil of administration, than at that time. Why, then, did not Jesus call
for "municipal reform"? Why did He not organize a "Law and Order
League"? Why did He not disguise Himself and make tours of the
dives and the gambling-dens, and entrap victims into violation of the
law? And why did He not employ other spies to do the same, in order
to get against the representatives of the law evidence of
maladministration by which to arraign them and to compel them to
enforce the law, and thus reform the city, regenerate society, and
save the State, and so establish the kingdom of God? Why? The people
were ready to do anything of that kind that might be suggested. They were ready
to cooperate with Him in any such work of "reform." Indeed, the people were so
forward and so earnest in the matter that they would have actually taken Him by
force and made Him King, had He not withdrawn Himself from them. John 6:15.

"The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and
oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses--extortion,
intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil
reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national
enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of
those in power. He who was our Example kept aloof from earthly
governments--not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but
because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external
measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually and
must regenerate the heart.
"Not by the decisions of courts, or councils, or legislative assemblies, not by the
patronage of worldly great men, is the kingdom of Christ established; but by the
implanting of Christ's nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. 'As
many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even
to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' Here is the only power that can
work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the accomplishment of
this work is the teaching and practicing of the Word of God."--Desire of Ages,
chap. 55, par. 12.

ESTABLISHING GOD’S KINGDOM?
But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they
believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ
as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord
the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and
camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They
expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human
authority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves
will undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His
kingdom. The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews
desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had
He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what
they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors
of His will and the agents of His authority. But He said, "My kingdom
is not of this world." John 18:36. He would not accept the earthly
throne. DA 510

Words for his followers
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." John
15:19. And to His Father He said of His disciples forever, "They are not of the
world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:16. Every Christian in this
world, then, must be in the world as Christ was in the world. "As He is, so
are we in this world." I John 4:17. "It is enough for the disciple that he be as
his Master." Matt. 10:25. The Master was always, and in all things, and by
fixed design, completely separated from all affairs of politics and the
State. And it is forever enough "that the disciple be as his Master."
The conduct of Christ, the Example, was totally separate in all
things from politics and the affairs of the State. Christianity,
therefore, is the total separation of the believer in Christ from
politics and all the affairs of the State, the total separation of
religion and the State in the individual believer

From the time that the bible ended (about A.D 96) until
Martin Luther nailed his theses to church door in 1517,-
there was no single person that so changed the course of
Christian history as did Constantine the great.
Recognizing that the empire was gradually weakening,
when he became emperor in the early part of the fourth
century A.D., Constantine decided the key way to unite
the Roman Empire would be to unite it into a single
religion. The old emperor worship had long since died
out and two powerful, rival religions were competing for
supremacy: Mithraism and Christianity. Mithraism was
the worship of Mithra, the Persian sun god. Its adherents
worshipped the sun at sunrise on the first day of each
week. Indeed, they had changed its name to Sunday, in
honor of their god. In contrast, Christians believed in
Jesus Christ and worshipped on the Sabbath, the seventh
day of the week, the only weekly sacred rest day
commanded by God in the Bible.
Constantine Shrewdly tried to combine the two religions –and
succeeded. in 321 A.D, he issued the first Sunday law in history.
As a result, within a few decades, Mithraism had disappeared.
But the effect on Christianity was devastating.

He did this with his national Sunday law on March 7,
321, and with full backing of the religious authority
of the roman bishop (the pope). Pagans throughout
the empire immediately flooded into the Christian
church. Doing so was the best way to ensure
receiving government jobs and other benefits. In his
Sunday law decree Constantine called it the
venerable day of the sun (venerabili die solis). This
was the mystical name for the day of the sun god. At
that time Constantine was still the Pontifix Maximus
which in Latin meant supreme pagan priest. But
immediately after issuing the decree he called for a
great Christian council which could settle doctrinal
controversies and strengthen Christianity throughout
the empire. In every case which historians can locate
the few men back then who were advocating Sunday
keeping by Christians were the very ones who were
demanding that Christians churches, distant from
Alexandria and Rome, begin observing their various
pagan religious customs. …

"Christianity…developed an institution which in
part was a rival of the state. It created a society
within the empire which….threatened the very
existence of the latter. The conflict was very
marked in the century or more before Constantine.
. . . When Constantine made his peace with the
faith, however, it long looked as though the conflict
had been resolved by the control of the church by
the state. Yet, even in the days of the seeming
subordination of the church to the government,
ecclesiastics sought to influence the policies of the
latter." (Latourette, 1938, p. 273)

Floyd History of Protestantism 67
GOD’S KINGDOM?
 The falsity of this theory of the bishops of the fourth century
has been clearly seen by but one of the church historians:
that one is Neander. And this, as well as the scheme which
the bishops had in mind, has been better described by him
than by all the others put together. He says: “There had in
fact arisen in the church ... a false theocratical theory,
originating not in the essence of the gospel, but in the
confusion of the religious constitutions of the Old and New
Testaments, which ... brought along with it an unchristian
opposition of the spiritual to the secular power, and which
might easily result in the formation of a sacerdotal State,
subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward
way.” “This theocratical theory was already the prevailing
one in the time of Constantine; and ... the bishops voluntarily
made themselves dependent on him by their disputes, and
by their determination to make use of the power of the State
for the furtherance of their aims.”—Neander. 2 {1898 ATJ,GEP 475.2}

Floyd History of Protestantism 68
GOD’SKINGDOM?
 That which they had in mind when they joined their
interests to Constantine’s, was to use the power which
through him they would thus secure, to carry into effect in
the State and by governmental authority their theocratical
project. The State was not only to be subordinate to the
church, but was to be the servant of the church to assist in
bringing all the world into the new kingdom of God. The
bishops were the channel through which the will of God
was to be made known to the State. Therefore the views of
the bishops were to be to the government the expression of
the will of God, and whatever laws the bishopric might
deem necessary to make the principles of their theocracy
effective, it was their purpose to secure. {1898 ATJ, GEP 475.3}

THE PAPACY,PONTIFIX MAXIMUS.
(Dan 7:8 [KJV])
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little
horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the
roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth
speaking great things.
(2Thess 2:4 [KJV])
Who opposeth and exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that
is worshipped; so that he as God
sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.

3. Its nature. The power symbolized by the little horn is of course a kingdom,
like all the other ten; but it is not merely this. It is "diverse," or different from
all the other ruling dynasties with which it is associated. It is a horn of the wild
beast, but it has human eyes and a human voice, denoting its pretensions to be
a seer, or prophet, and a teacher. It takes the oversight of all the ten, it is an
overseer or bishop, and it has "a mouthspeaking great things." Its paramount
influence depends, not on its mere material power, for it is small as a kingdom,
a "little horn," but on its religious pretensions. Does not this exactly portray
the Papacy? Was it not diverse or different from all the Gothic kingdoms amid
which it existed? Was it a mere kingdom? Nay, but a spiritual reign over the
hearts and minds as well as the bodies of men a reign established by means,
not of material weapons, but of spiritual pretensions. It was founded not on
force, but on falsehood and fraud, and the superstitious fears of the half-
civilized and ignorant Gothic kingdoms. ROMANISM AND
PROTESTANTISM 13

The popedom has always been eager to proclaim its own diversity from all other
kingdoms. It claims "a princedom more perfect than every human princedom,"
surpassing them "as far as the light of the sun exceeds that of the moon." It
arrogates to itself a character as superior to secular kingdoms as man to the
irrational beasts. Its laws are made not with the best human wisdom; but
auctoritate, scientia, ac plenitudine, with fullness of Divine knowledge and the
fullness of apostolic power. Is not the Papacy sufficiently diverse from all the rest of
the kingdoms of western Europe to identify it as the little horn?What other ruling
monarch of Christendom ever pretended to apostolic authority, or ruled men in the
name of God? Does the pope dress in royal robes? Nay, but in priestly garments.
Does he wear a crown? Nay, but a triple tiara, to show that he reigns in heaven,
earth, and hell? Does he wield a scepter? Nay, but a crosier or crook, to show that he
is the good shepherd of the Church. Do his subjects kiss his hand? Nay, but his toe!
Verily this power is "diverse" from the rest, both in great things and little. It is small
in size, gigantic in its pretensions. It is, or was for centuries, one among many
temporal kingdoms in Europe. It is the only one which claims a spiritual authority
and universal dominion…{Romanism and the Reformation - H. Grattan Guinness 13}

In fact, the more the imperial power faded, and the nearer the empire
approached its fall, the more rapidly and the stronger grew the papal
assumptions. Thus the very calamities which rapidly wrought the ruin of the
empire, and which were hastened by the union of Church and State, were
turned to the advantage of the bishopric of Rome. During the whole period
of barbarian invasions from 400 to 476, the Catholic hierarchy everywhere
adapted itself to the situation, and reaped power and influence from the
calamities that were visited everywhere. {1901 ATJ, ECE 184.3}
At the fall of the empire, the bishopric of Rome was the head and center of a strong and
compactly organized power. And by deftly insinuating itself into the place of mediator
between the barbarian invaders and the perishing imperial authority, it had attained a
position where it was recognized by the invaders as the power which, though it claimed to
be not temporal but spiritual was none the less real, had succeeded to the place of the
vanished imperial authority of Rome. And in view of the history of the time, it is impossible
to escape the conviction that in the bishopric of Rome there was at this time formed the
determination to plant itself in the temporal dominion of Rome and Italy. So long had the
emperors been absent from Rome, that the bishop of Rome had assumed their place there;
and we have seen how the Church had usurped the place of the civil authority. The bishop
of Rome was the head of the Church; and now, as the empire was perishing, he would exalt
his throne upon its ruins, and out of the anarchy of the times would secure a place and a
name among the powers and dominions of the earth. {1901 ATJ, ECE 186.2}

THE PAPACY BEARS THE MARK OF POLITICAL AND
RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY PASSED DOWN THE AGES
FROM THE SONS OF CAIN.
“The mark of Cain is stamped upon our foreheads. Across the centuries, our brother Abel has
lain in blood which we drew, and shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy love.” —Pope John X
X I I I , A Prayer (1960),cited in VICARS OF CHRIST

Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Freemason,
Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and
Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry,
page 292
“ The vestments of the priests
of Horus were covered with
these Crosses.”
• The ‘Priests of Horus’ are still covered with these crosses.
These crosses originated in Babylon and were then spread
to other areas, including Egypt. They are a sun symbol.

The sitting Horus, displayed in this Egyptian relief,
represents Pharaoh. The reigning Pharaoh was not
just the king, but also considered the sun-god
incarnate (Horus).

SUCCESSER OF THE MARK
“ The Pope is not only the
representative of Jesus
Christ, but he is Jesus
Christ himself, hidden
under the veil of flesh. ”
The Catholic National, July, 1895

Compare the two. 1) Triple-crown 2) Tassels down the back 3)
Sun disks 4) Solar blaze on wrist.
Relief of Babylonian Sun-
King;
From the British Museum
of History.
These kings were thought
to be the Sun god in
human form. In this
instance, the fleshly
representation of Shamesh
or Nimrod.

AVRO MANNHATTAN
Of all the religious and political institutions that exist today,
the Vatican is by far the most ancient. It is the seat of a
sovereign, independent, and free State; of the Government of
the Catholic Church; and of the most astute diplomatic-political
power in the world; and each of these three aspects is an
integral part of the Catholic Church. Although in its quality of
a diplomatic centre it is one of the most important in the
world, as an independent State it is one of the newest and, as
far as the extent of its territory is concerned, the smallest
sovereign State in existence, having under its absolute rule
only one hundred-odd acres and about 600 regular
inhabitants. Yet, it directs .and governs one of the greatest, if
not the greatest, and most united mass of human beings in
the world--- 4.00,000,000 Catholics, covering the territories of

The master-mind directing the moves of these various Catholic
organizations and parties in the fields of regional, national, and
international social and political struggle naturally resides in the centre
of Catholicism-namely, the Vatican. The better to exert its double activity
(religious and political), the Catholic Church has two facets: first, the religious
institution, the Catholic Church itself; secondly, the political power, the Vatican.
Although they deal separately, whenever convenient, with problems affecting
religion and politics, the two are in reality one. At the head of both stands the Pope,
who is the supreme religious leader of the Catholic Church as a purely spiritual
power, as well as the supreme head of the Vatican in its quality of a world-wide
diplomatic-political centre and an independent sovereign State.
According to circumstances, the Pope, to further the power of the
Catholic Church,approaches a problem either as a purely religious
leader or as the head of a diplomaticpolitical centre, or both. The role of
the Catholic Church as a political power becomes prominent when the
Pope has to deal with social and political movements or with States
with whom he wants to bargain or to strike an alliance in order to fight
a common enemy….{VATICAN IN WORLD POLITICS P.18}

Although the outward machinery of Vatican diplomacy
does not differ very much from that of any secular Power,
fundamentally obey differ because of two main
characteristics-namely, the aims and the means at the disposal of
Papal representatives.{Ibid}
The Papal representative must strive to further not only the diplomatic and
political interests of the Vatican, but, above all, the spiritual interests of the
Catholic Church as a religious institution, and his mission therefore assumes a
dual character.
In other words, the Papal diplomatic
representative will have at his disposal the entire hierarchy of a given
country-from cardinals, archbishops, and bishops down to the most
humble village priest. Moreover, the Catholic organizations of a social,
cultural, or political character, headed by the Catholic parties, would
obey his instructions. The result is that a nuncio can exercise formidable
pressure upon .a Government-pressure of a religious-political nature
that is denied to any lay diplomatist.

Because every priest is de facto an agent of the Vatican and can collect
reliable information about the local conditions of his parish - or, if he is a
bishop, of his dioceseor, if he is a primate, of his nation-the Vatican, to
which all these data .are sent, is one of the best centres of information of an
economic, social, and political character in the world.
When to this is added the influence that the Vatican can exercise
on the various Catholic parties and Catholic Governments, and
on national and international assemblies, it becomes evident
that the power of this great diplomatic-political centre is felt
throughout the world. This is recognized by most nations,
including non-Catholic countries, such as Protestant United
States of America and Great Britain, and non-Christian countries
like Japan.

The importance of the Vatican as a diplomatic centre is enhanced in war-time.
For during hostilities, when diplomatic contact between belligerent countries is
cut off, the warring nations can get in touch with each other through the
Vatican. The services rendered and the knowledge thus gathered
from both sides give the Vatican enormous prestige in the eyes of
lay Powers. For these and other reasons, during the First World War
countries hastened to send their representatives to the Vatican:
Germany, Switzerland, Greece, Protestant Great Britain, France,
and even Russia. By the end of the war thirty-four nations had
permanent diplomatic representatives accredited to the Pope.[ibid]

But the diplomatic machinery of the Vatican would be of little value if
the Pope had to rely upon it alone. What gives the Vatican its
tremendous power is not its diplomacy as such, but the fact that
behind its diplomacy stands the Church, with all its manifold world-
embracing activities. The Vatican as a diplomatic centre is but one
aspect of the Catholic Church. Vatican diplomacy is so influential and
can exert such great power in the diplomatic-political field because it
has at its disposal the tremendous machinery of a spiritual organization
with ramifications in every country of the planet. In other words, the
Vatican, as a political power, employs the Catholic Church as a religious
institution to assist the attainment of its goals. These goals in turn, are
sought mainly to further the spiritual interests of the Catholic Church.
The double role of the members of the Catholic Hierarchy
automatically reacts upon those innumerable religious,
cultural, social, and finally political, organizations
connected with the Catholic Church, which, although tied to
the Church primarily on religious grounds, can at given
moments be made either directly or indirectly to serve
political ends.

The Roman Catholic Church, with all its ramifications throughout the world,
forms one vast organization under the control, and designed to serve the
interests, of the papal see. Its millions of communicants, in every country
on the globe, are instructed to hold themselves as bound in allegiance to
the pope. Whatever their nationality or their government, they are to
regard the authority of the church as above all other. Though they may
take the oath pledging their loyalty to the state, yet back of this lies the
vow of obedience to Rome, absolving them from every pledge inimical to
her interests. {GC 580.2}
History testifies of her artful and persistent efforts to
insinuate herself into the affairs of nations; and having
gained a foothold, to further her own aims, even at the ruin of
princes and people. In the year 1204, Pope Innocent III
extracted from Peter II, king of Arragon, the following
extraordinary oath: "I, Peter, king of Arragonians, profess and
promise to be ever faithful and obedient to my lord, Pope
Innocent, to his Catholic successors, and the Roman Church,
and faithfully to preserve my kingdom in his obedience,
defending the Catholic faith, and persecuting heretical
pravity." --John Dowling, The History of Romanism, b. 5, ch. 6, sec.

When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the
gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of
God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought
the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that
controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends,
especially for the punishment of "heresy." In order for the United States to form an
image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that
the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her
own ends
It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil
government, and this prepared the way for the development of the
papacy--the beast.
Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it
to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have
followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers
have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience. GC
443

1260 DAYS OF FORCE
Force is the last resort of every false religion. At first it tries attraction, as the king of
Babylon tried the power of music and outward show. If these attractions, invented
by men inspired by Satan, failed to make men worship the image, the hungry flames
of the furnace were ready to consume them. So it will be now. The papacy has
exercised her power to compel men to obey her, and she will continue to do so. We
need the same spirit that was manifested by God's servants in the conflict with
(Dan 7:25 [KJV])
And he shall speak great words
against the most High, and shall wear
out the saints of the most High, and
think to change times and laws: and
they shall be given into his hand until
a time and times and the dividing of
time.

AMERICA,A BEAST WITH TWO HORNS
(Rev 13:11 [KJV])
And I beheld another beast coming up out
of the earth; and he had two horns like a
lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
(Dan 8:20 [KJV])
The ram which
thou sawest
having two
horns are the
kings of Media
and Persia.

TWO HORNS LIKE A LAMB
Why does John say that he has "two horns like a lamb"? Why not simply "two
horns"? It must be because these horns possess peculiarities which indicate the
character of the power to which they belong. The horns of a lamb indicate, first,
youthfulness, and secondly, innocence and gentleness. As a power which has but
recently arisen,the United States answers to the symbol admirably in respect to
age; while no other power, as has already abundantly been proved, can be
found to do this. And considered as an index of power and character, it can be
decided what constitutes the two horns of the government, if it can be
ascertained what is the secret of its strength and power, and what reveals its
apparent character, or constitutes its outward profession. The Hon. J.A. Bingham
gives us the clue to the whole matter when he states that the object of those
who first sought these shores was to found "what the world had not seen for
ages; viz., a Church without a pope, and a State without a king." Expressed in
other words, this would be a government in which the church should be free
from the civil power, and civil and religious liberty reign supreme.

"And he had two horns like a lamb." The lamblike horns indicate
youth, innocence, and gentleness, fitly representing the
character of the United States when presented to the prophet as
"coming up" in 1798. Among the Christian exiles who first fled to
America and sought an asylum from royal oppression and
priestly intolerance were many who determined to establish a
government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious
liberty. Their views found place in the Declaration of
Independence, which sets forth the great truth that "all men are
created equal" and endowed with the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." And the Constitution guarantees to the people the right
of self-government, providing that representatives elected by the popular
vote shall enact and administer the laws. Freedom of religious faith was also
granted, every man being permitted to worship God according to the dictates
of his conscience. Republicanism and Protestantism became the
fundamental principles of the nation. These principles are the
secret of its power and prosperity. The oppressed and
downtrodden throughout Christendom have turned to this land
with interest and hope. Millions have sought its shores, and the

The First In History
"In the earliest States known to history, government and religion were one and
indivisible. Each State had its special deity, and often these protectors, one after
another, might be overthrown in battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian
War grew out of a strife about an oracle. Rome, as it sometimes adopted into
citizenship those whom it vanquished, introduced, in like manner, and with good
logic for that day, the worship of their gods.
58. "No one thought of vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual, till a
Voice in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity, by
establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all mankind, enjoined to
render to Caesar only that which is Caesar's. The rule was upheld during the
infancy of the gospel for all men

No sooner was this religion adopted by the chief of the Roman Empire, than it was shorn of its
character of universality, and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy State; and
so it continued till the new nation, -- the least defiled with the barren scoffings of the
eighteenth century, the most general believer in Christianity of any people of that age, the
chief heir of the Reformation in its purest forms, -- when it came to establish a government for
the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be regulated by a corporate body, or
having a headship in a monarch or a State.
59. "Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new
nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely
ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power;
but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld
from the Federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of
conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of
eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power." – Bancroft historian of
american constitution

THE FIRST IN HISTORY
EVERYBODY knows that the Government of the United States was founded upon
the Declaration of human rights. And though it is equally true, yet not everybody
knows that this Declaration of human rights upon which the Government of the
United States was founded, was deduced directly from Christianity. The
principles of this Declaration were intentionally adopted from Christianity, by
those who framed the Declaration, and were laid down as the basis of the
Government of the United States, upon which this Government was to stand
forever. {March 2, 1899 ATJ, AMS 130.1}
The two vital principles of that Declaration are, that "All men are created equal,
and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and that "to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed." Thus this nation presented to the world every man first
of all subject to the Creator and by the Creator endowed with inalienable rights.
The founders of this nation, when discussing this before the people, said that
these were the principles upon which the gospel was first propagated, and upon
which the Reformation was carried on. They said that the Almighty God, being
Lord of the human mind, and Lord only of the conscience, and having all power,
chose not to propagate his religion by impositions of power upon the bodies or
minds of people as was in his almighty power to do, but that he created the
mind free, and that he left it free. {March 2, 1899 ATJ, AMS 130.2}

Thus and here for the first and only time in history the Christian
principles of civil and religious liberty were intentionally chosen and
established as the foundation of a nation. And thus from its beginning
this nation has been the beacon light of liberty, civil and religious, "the
classical land of religious liberty," to all the world. Through these
principles alone, in quietness and peaceful isolation, this nation has most
powerfully influenced all other nations in the world and drawn them
away from their former selves toward enlightenment and liberty. This
was the wisdom and this the power of this nation in the eyes of all the
other nations, who were compelled to say "Surely this is a wise and
understanding people." {March 2, 1899 ATJ, AMS 130.3}

THE theory of separation of church and state, the theory of true religious liberty, is
accepted almost universally, but the principle is very little held. There is a vast
difference between the theory and the principle. And until men get the principle in
its purity, they cannot be prepared for the application of it. {December 16, 1895 ATJ,
BEST 387.1}
Now to illustrate what I mean by the statement that the principle of the separation
of church and state is not largely accepted and held by men, while the theory of it
is as a matter of fact almost universally accepted: men will say that they do no
believe in the union of church and state . . . over and over positions are taken and
things are done by them which are as directly a union of church and state as
anything any Papist or Puritan ever did. {December 16, 1895 ATJ, BEST 387.2}
Why, do you not know that it is the literal truth that you cannot find a churchman
anywhere, and scarcely a Catholic even, who will not tell you that he does not
believe in "a union of church and state"? Even the pope does not believe (?) in the
union of church and state. He has said so in his encyclical. Yet religio-political
reformers and Catholics, up to the pope, in every position that they take and in
everything they do, directly involve and carry into effect the union of church and
state. these all have a theory of separation of church and state; but not one of
them has any idea of the principle. In saying they "do not believe in union of
church and state," they do not know what they are talking about. It is a universal
truth that every man who has only the theory of a thing—whether it be this or any
other matter—will constantly violate the principle, however loudly he may profess
and proclaim the theory. Nothing but the essential principles of things will ever
hold a man straight, and these will do it. {December 16, 1895 ATJ, BEST 387.3}

THE PRINCIPLES THEY MADE.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is right of the people to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such
principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and happiness." {ECE 804.4}
Declaration of Rights
Declaration of
Independence and
the Constitution

14. "The first principle and great end of government being to
provide for the best good of all the people, this can be done only
by a supreme legislative and executive, ultimately in the people,
or whole community, where God has placed it; but the difficulties
attending a universal congress, gave rise to a right of
representation. Such a transfer of the power of the whole to a few
was necessary; but to bring the powers of all into the hands of
one or some few, and to make them hereditary, is the interested
work of the weak and the wicked. Nothing but life and liberty are
actually hereditable. The grand political problem is to invent the best
combination of the powers of legislation and execution! They must exist in
the State, just as in the revolution of the planets; one power would fix them
to a center, and another carry them off indefinitely; but the first and simple
principle is, EQUALITY and THE POWER OF THE WHOLE. .

RELIGION NOT THE WORK OF GOVERNMENT
"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only be
reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and
therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise
of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."
"We would also humbly represent that the only proper objects of civil government are the
happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life,
liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and encourage the virtuous
by wholesome laws, equally extending to every individual; but that the duty which we owe
to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason and
conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the universal Judge

"Neither can it be made to appear that the gospel needs any such civil aid. We rather conceive
that when our blessed Saviour declares His Kingdom is not of this world, He renounces all
dependence upon State power, and as His weapons are spiritual, and were only designed to have
influence on the judgment and heart of man, we are persuaded that if mankind were left in quiet
possession of their inalienable religious privileges, Christianity, as in the days of the apostles,
would continue to prevail and flourish in the greatest purity by its own native excellence, and
under the all-disposing providence of God.
"Therefore we ask no ecclesiastical establishments of ourselves; neither can we approve of them when
granted to others. This, indeed, would be giving exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges to one set
of men without any special public services, to the common reproach and injury of every other
denomination. And for the reason recited, we are induced earnestly to entreat that all laws now in force
in this commonwealth which countenance religious domination may be speedily repealed; that all of
every religious sect may be protected in the full exercise of their several modes of worship; exempted
from all taxes for the support of any Church whatsoever, farther than what may be agreeable to their own
private choice or voluntary obligation. This being done, all partial and invidious distinction will be
abolished, to the great honor and interest of the State, and every one be left to stand or fall according to
his merit, which can never be the case so long as any one denomination is established in preference to
the others. {190ECE 815.2}

"To illustrate and confirm these assertions, we beg leave to observe that to judge
for ourselves, and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeably to the dictates of
our own consciences, is an unalienable right, which, upon the principles on which
the gospel was first propagated and the Reformation from popery carried on, can
never be transferred to another. Neither does the Church of Christ stand in need
of a general assessment for its support; and most certain we are that it would be
of no advantage but an injury to the society to which we belong; and as every
good Christian believes that Christ has ordained a complete system of laws for
the government of His kingdom, so we are persuaded that by His providence He
will support it to its final consummation. In the fixed belief of this principle, that
the kingdom of Christ and the concerns of religion are beyond the limits of civil
control, we should act a dishonest, inconsistent part were we to receive any
emoluments from human establishments for the support of the gospel.
"These things being considered, we hope that we shall be excused for remonstrating against
a general assessment for any religious purpose. As the maxims have long been approved,
that every servant is to obey his master, and that the hireling is accountable for his conduct to
him from whom he receives his wages, in like manner, if the Legislature has any rightful
authority over the ministers of the gospel in the exercise of their sacred office, and if it is their
duty to levy a maintenance for them as such, then it will follow that they may revive the old
establishment in its former extent, or ordain a new one for any sect they may think proper;
they are invested with a power not only to determine, but it is incumbent on them to declare,
who shall preach, what they shall preach, to whom, when, and in what places they shall
preach; or to impose any regulations and restrictions upon religious societies that they may
judge expedient. These consequences are so plain as not to be denied, and they are so
entirely subversive of religious liberty that if they should take place in Virginia, we should be
reduced to the melancholy necessity of saying with the apostles in like cases, 'Judge ye
whether it is best to obey God or men,' and also of acting as they acted.

"In this enlightened age, and in a land where all of every denomination are
united in the most strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect that our
representatives will cheerfully concur in removing every species of religious as
well as civil bondage. Certain it is that every argument for civil liberty gains
additional strength when applied to liberty in the concerns of religion; and there
is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but may be pleaded
with equal propriety for establishing the tenets of Mohammed by those who
believe the Alcoran; or, if this be not true, it is at least impossible for the
magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that
profess the Christian faith WITHOUT ERECTING A CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY,
WHICH WOULD LEAD US BACK TO THE CHURCH OF ROME.
"7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining
the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen
centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? --
More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the
laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Inquire of the teachers of Christianity for
the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect point to the ages prior
to its incorporation with civil polity. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its
teachers depend on the voluntary regard of their flocks -- many of them predict its downfall.
On which side ought their testimony to have greatest weight -- when for, or when against,
their interest?

THE EVIL OF CHRISTIANIZING A NATION
Like causes produce like effects. As the result of the "Christianization" of the State by legal enactments
in Constantine's time, bishoprics were bought and sold just the same as secular offices were then and
are now. The richest and most influential men secured the office of bishop, and used that office to
increase their wealth and influence. Since religion was regulated by the civil law, the emperor was the
natural head of the church; and since He also was the dispenser of patronage, men professed
Christianity in order to secure office. The emperor continued to be head of the church until he
transferred that dignity to the powerful bishop of Rome, whose assistance he needed in civil matters.
Religion was then a matter of policy. And that is just what would happen in this country if religion were
upheld by legal enactment. We care not how pure the motives of some of the advocates of the Religious
Amendment may be; when the proposed Amendment is adopted, the results briefly indicated above will
follow just as surely as the night follows the day. And that is the state of things which these men in their
blindness imagine that Christ would sanction! {1886 EJW, WTYC 5.2}

During almost sixteen centuries has the legal establishment of "Christianity" been
on trial, under a number of different claims and phases. What have been its fruits?
More or less in all places pride, indolence, and insolence in the favored clergy;
ignorance and servility in the assenting laity; in both superstition, bigotry, and
persecution. Inquire of the teachers of Christianity, for the ages in which it
appeared in its greatest power and luster; those of every sect will point to the time
before its incorporation with the civil power, whether it be viewed in its first
propagation by the apostles, or in its revival in the great Reformation. {1893 ATJ,
AUSSC 72.1}
On the other hand, what influence, in fact, have established religions had or civil
society? In some instances they have been seen to erect spiritual tyranny on the
ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the
thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of
the liberties of the people. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate
public liberty, needs them not. Such a government will be best supported by
protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his religion, with the same equal hand
which protects his person and property—by neither invading the equal right of any
sect or individual, nor suffering any sect to invade those of another or of any
individual.

God. Caesar.
______________
Mind. Body.
Thought. Action.
Sin. Crime.
Moral. Civil.
Forgiveness. Penalty.
Love. Force.
Eternal. Temporal.

WOODROW WILSON 28th PRESIDENT OF USA
SAID
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views
confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the
United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,
are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know
that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so
watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that
they had better not speak above their breath when they
speak in condemnation of it
Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has
always come from the subjects of the government. The
history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of
liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power,
not the increase of it

AN IMAGE TO THE BEAST
"He exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth
the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose
deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he
maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those
miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to
them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the
beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live." Rev 13:12-14.
An image is a likeness of the thing to which it is made. An image
to or "of" the "beast" (Verse 15), which we have seen represents
Rome in its papal form, will be a likeness of the Papacy

Then to learn what the image is like, and how it is to be formed, we must
study the characteristics of the beast itself, —the papacy. When the early
church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel,
and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of
God; and in order to control the consciences of the people she sought the
support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that
controlled the power of the State, and employed it to further her own
ends, especially for the punishment of “heresy.” In order for the United
States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must
so control the civil government that the authority of the State
will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own
ends{GC 443}

THE USA EXERCISE THE POWER OF THE PAPACY
During the next seventy years, Superior Generals John Roothaan (1829-1853) and
Pieter Jean Beckx (1853-1883) would pump the Society up to its original greatness,
swelling the membership from a few hundred to more than thirteen thousand. In those
same seventy years, the Protestants who had fought for America’s independence would
vastly diminish in proportion to the influx of fresh Roman Catholic refugees from
European tyrannies. There is evidence these tyrannies were Jesuit-fed, for the express
purpose of populating America. Perhaps a new scholarship will investigate more
thoroughly than I have time or inclination for.) As America’s public became increasingly
Catholic, Generals Roothaan and Beckx were able to signify Washington’s debt to the
black papacy with much bolder iconographic and architectural symbols.
Persephone, Goddess of the U.S. Capitol Dome.Said by her priests to
have been immaculately conceived, she was renamed “Freedom”for
American consumption. Abducted by Hades, son of Saturn, she ruled
the dead and all else that is within the earth, namely metals and
precious stones. At daybreak of May 9, 1993, helicopters lowered the
Queen of the dead to ground level for her first cleaning in more than a
century. The author attended this historic event and snapped the above
photograph. Significantly, May 9, 1993 was...Mother’s Day.

Religious liberty and separation of church and state 1

Religious liberty and separation of church and state 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Religious liberty and separation of church and state 1

Similar to Religious liberty and separation of church and state 1 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

Religious liberty and separation of church and state 1