United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Common Sense
Source:
buckeroo
URL Source: http://here@LF.com
Published: Feb 18, 1776
Author: Thomas Paine
Post Date: 2018-02-24 16:31:59 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 4234
Comments: 93
Common Sense Addressed to the Inhabitants of America Man knows no Master save creating HEAVEN, Or those whom Choice and common Good ordain. THOMSON. February 14, 1776 PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own Right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either. In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion. The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the AUTHOR P.S. The Publication of this new Edition hath been delayed, with a View of taking notice (had it been necessary) of any Attempt to refute the Doctrine of Independence: As no Answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will, the Time needful for getting such a Performance ready for the Public being considerably past. Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle. Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776. COMMON SENSE. OF THE ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. WITH CONCISE REMARKS ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die. Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue. Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed. Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right. I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated. Absolute governments (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine. I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials. First.- The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly.- The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly.- The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England. The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state. To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions. To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things. First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown. But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity! There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless. Some writers have explained the English constitution thus; the king, say they, is one, the people another; the peers are an house in behalf of the king; the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of some thing which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind, for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist. But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time. That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident, wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key. The prejudice of Englishmen, in favor of their own government by king, lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will of the king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle -- not more just. Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey. An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one. OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind. In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty. Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust! As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's” is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans. Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven. Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro’ the divine interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth be compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven. About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i.e., the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i.e., not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall sent thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVEL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government. To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion. Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say, "We choose you for our head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, "that your children and your children's children shall reign over ours for ever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest. This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their first rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or preeminence in subtility obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations, over-awed the quiet and defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free and unrestrained principles they professed to live by. Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditionary history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right. England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. --It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion. Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile. As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into. But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked; and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions. Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy. The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on. The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side. This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united. Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489. In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it. If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in some countries they have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business civil and military, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea "that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business. The nearer any government approaches to a republic, the less business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing a house of commons from out of their own body-- and it is easy to see that when the republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons? In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived. THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS. IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day. Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge. It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who tho' an able minister was not without his faults) that on his being attacked in the house of commons, on the score, that his measures were only of a temporary kind, replied, "they will last my time." Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future generations with detestation. The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent-- of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters. By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All plans, proposals, &c. prior to the nineteenth of April, i.e. to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of the last year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now. Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the question then, terminated in one and the same point, viz. a union with Great-Britain; the only difference between the parties was the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first hath failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence. As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were, it is but right, that we should examine the contrary side of the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being connected with, and dependant on Great-Britain. To examine that connexion and dependance, on the principles of nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependant. I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe. But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion. Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great-Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependance, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war, ought to warn us against connexions. It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great-Britain. But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still. In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every European christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment. It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the name of neighbour; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of townsman; if he travels out of the county, and meet him in any other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls him countryman; i.e., county-man; but if in their foreign excursions they should associate in France or any other part of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of Englishmen. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are countrymen; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous. But admitting that we were all of English descent, what does it amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes every other name and title: And to say that reconciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England, of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman, and half the peers of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by France. Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe. Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because, it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders. I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation, to show, a single advantage that this continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will. But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that connection, are without number; and our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instruct us to renounce the alliance: Because, any submission to, or dependance on Great-Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels; and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom, we have neither anger nor complaint. As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do, while by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight in the scale of British politics. Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain. The next war may not turn out like the last, and should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now will be wishing for separation then, because, neutrality in that case, would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every thing that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, ‘TIS TIME TO PART. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America, is a strong and natural proof, that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven. The time likewise at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled encreases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety. The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls "the present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight. Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three. It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for a few moments to Boston, that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom we can have no trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now, no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg. Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would be exposed to the fury of both armies. Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind. Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath you property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant. This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful. It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things to all examples from the former ages, to suppose, that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is now a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connexion, and Art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep." Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning -- and nothing hath contributed more than that very measure to make the Kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child. To say, they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary, we thought so at the repeal of the stamp act, yet a year or two undeceived us; as well may we suppose that nations, which have been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel. As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness -- There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease. Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself. I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity, -- that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time, when, a little more, a little farther, would have rendered this continent the glory of the earth. As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to. The object, contended for, ought always to bear some just proportion to the expence. The removal of North, or the whole detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have expended. A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for; for in a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land. As I have always considered the independency of this continent, as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth the while to have disputed a matter, which time would have finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it is like wasting an estate of a suit at law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775 (Massacre at Lexington), but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul. But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several reasons. First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power; is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, "You shall make no laws but what I please." And is there any inhabitant in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to; and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose. We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are made up (as it is called) can there be any doubt, but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. -- We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independent, for independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us, "there shall be now laws but such as I like." But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that England being the King's residence, and America not so, makes quite another case. The king's negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed. America is only a secondary object in the system of British politics, England consults the good of this country, no farther than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore, her own interest leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interfere with it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the king at this time, to repeal the acts for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; in order, that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTILTY, IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT ONE. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related. Secondly. That as even the best terms, which we can expect to obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and who is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the present inhabitant would lay hold of the interval, to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent. But the most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independence, i.e. a continental form of government, can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as it is more than probable, that it will be followed by a revolt somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more fatal than all the malice of Britain. Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity; (thousands more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they now possess is liberty, what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission. Besides, the general temper of the colonies, towards a British government, will be like that of a youth, who is nearly out of his time; they will care very little about her. And a government which cannot preserve the peace, is no government at all, and in that case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation? I have heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking, that they dreaded independence, fearing that it would produce civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct, and that is the case here; for there are ten times more to dread from a patched up connexion than from independence. I make the sufferers case my own, and I protest, that were I driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances ruined, that as man, sensible of injuries, I could never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself bound thereby. The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can assign the least pretence for his fears, on any other grounds, than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz. that one colony will be striving for superiority over another. Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority, perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Switzerland are without wars, foreign or domestic: Monarchical governments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation to enterprising ruffians at home; and that degree of pride and insolence ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a rupture with foreign powers, in instances, where a republican government, by being formed on more natural principles, would negotiate the mistake. If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out -- Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the struggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter. Let the assemblies be annual, with a President only. The representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and subject to the authority of a Continental Congress. Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be at least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority. -- He, that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would join Lucifer in his revolt. But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most agreeable and consistent that it should come from some intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is, between the Congress and the people, let a CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE be held, in the following manner, and for the following purpose. A committee of twenty-six members of Congress, viz. two for each colony. Two members from each House of Assembly, or Provincial Convention; and five representatives of the people at large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for, and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this conference, thus assembled, will be united, the two grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the people, will have a truly legal authority. The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (Always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial:) Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said Conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen conformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent for the time being: Whose peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen. Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some similar purpose, I offer them the following extracts from that wise observer on governments Dragonetti. "The science" says he, "of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense. Dragonetti on Virtue and Rewards." But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello* may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what a relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them. (*Thomas Anello, otherwise Massanello, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppression of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day become king.) To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have faith, and our affections wounded through a thousand pores instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relationship expires, the affection will increase, or that we shall agree better, when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than ever? Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot forgive; she should cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and justice be extirpated from the earth, or have only a casual existence were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. -- Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLECTIONS I have never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries, would take place one time or other: And there is no instance, in which we have shown less judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what we call the ripeness or fitness of the Continent for independence. As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavor, if possible, to find out the very time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for, the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious union of all things prove the fact. It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. The Continent hath, at this time, the largest body of armed and disciplined men of any power under Heaven; and is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which, no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accomplish the fact, and either more, or, less than this, might be fatal in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval affairs, we cannot be insensible, that Britain would never suffer an American man of war to be built, while the continent remained in her hands. Wherefore, we should be no forwarder an hundred years hence in that branch, than we are now; but the truth is, we should be less so, because the timber of this country is every day diminishing, and that, which will remain at last, will be far off and difficult to procure. Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more sea port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned to our wants, that no man need be idle. The diminution of trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a new trade. Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vial acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which, they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician. The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard if the work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a debt of upwards of one hundred and forty millions sterling, for which she pays upwards of four millions interest. And as a compensation for her debt, she has a large navy; America is without a debt, and without a navy; yet for the twentieth part of the English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The navy of England is not worth, at this time, more than three millions and an half sterling. The first and second editions of this pamphlet were published without the following calculations, which are now given as a proof that the above estimation of the navy is a just one. See Entic's naval history, intro. page 56. The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing her with masts, yards, sails and rigging, together with a proportion of eight months boatswain's and carpenter's sea-stores, as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the navy. £. For a ship of 100 guns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,553 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,638 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,785 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,197 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,606 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,558 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,846 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,710 And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather, of the whole British navy, which in the year 1757, when it was at its greatest glory consisted of the following ships and guns. Ships Guns Cost of one. Cost of all. 6 . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . 35,533 l. . . . . . . . . . .213,318 l. 12 . . . . . . . . . . . 90 . . . . . . . . . . . 29,886 . . . . . . . . . . . 358,632 12 . . . . . . . . . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . . . 23,638 . . . . . . . . . . . 283,656 43 . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . . . . . . . . . . . 17,785 . . . . . . . . . . . 746,755 35 . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . . . 4,197 . . . . . . . . . . . . 496,895 40 . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . . . 10,606 . . . . . . . . . . . 424,240 45 . . . . . . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . . . . . . 7,758 . . . . . . . . . . . . 344,110 58 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . 3,710 . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,180 85 Sloops, bombs, and fireships, one with another, at 2,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,000 Remains for guns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229,214 3,500,000 No country on the globe is so happily situated, so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money we can lay out. A navy when finished is worth more than it cost. And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not, we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver. In point of manning a fleet, people in general run into great errors; it is not necessary that one-fourth part should be sailors. The Terrible privateer, Captain Death, stood the hottest engagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board, though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A few able and social sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number of active landmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore, we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war, of seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New-England, and why not the same now? Ship-building is America's greatest pride, and in which, she will in time excel the whole world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her. Africa is in a state of barbarism; and no power in Europe, hath either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of materials. Where nature hath given the one, she has withheld the other; to America only hath she been liberal of both. The vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea; wherefore, her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only articles of commerce. In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet? We are not the little people now, which we were sixty years ago; at that time we might have trusted our property in the streets, or fields rather; and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence, ought to improve with our increase of property. A common pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware, and laid the city of Philadelphia under instant contribution, for what sum he pleased; and the same might have happened to other places. Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns, might have robbed the whole Continent, and carried off half a million of money. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection. Some, perhaps, will say, that after we have made it up with Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean, that she shall keep a navy in our harbours for that purpose? Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted into our harbours, I would ask, how is she to protect us? A navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on sudden emergencies, none at all. Wherefore, if we must hereafter protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another? The English list of ships of war, is long and formidable, but not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service, numbers of them not in being; yet their names are pompously continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship: and not a fifth part, of such as are fit for service, can be spared on any one station at one time. The East, and West Indies, Mediterranean, Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim, make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of prejudice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting the navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the whole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason, supposed, that we must have one as large; which not being instantly practicable, have been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from truth than this; for if America had only a twentieth part of the naval force of Britain, she would be by far an over match for her; because, as we neither have, nor claim any foreign dominion, our whole force would be employed on our own coast, where we should, in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had three or four thousand miles to sail over, before they could attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and recruit. And although Britain by her fleet, hath a check over our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the West-Indies, which, by laying in the neighborhood of the Continent, is entirely at its mercy. Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service, ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guard ships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of commerce and defence is sound policy; for when our strength and our riches, play into each other's hand, we need fear no external enemy. In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters. Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others, is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet unoccupied, which instead of being lavished by the king on his worthless dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this. The infant state of the Colonies, as it is called, so far from being against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united. It is a matter worthy of observation, that the more a country is peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers, the ancients far exceeded the moderns: and the reason is evident, for trade being the consequence of population, men become too much absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a nation. With the increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel. Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the Continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests, occasioned by an increase of trade and population, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other's assistance: and while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise would lament, that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which is formed in misfortune, are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters: we are young, and we have been distressed; but our concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable era for posterity to glory in. The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity --To begin government at the right end. When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent, that the seat of government in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our property? As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called, their Christian names. [Earlier in this work], I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of re-mentioning the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends. In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. As an instance of this, I mention the following; when the Associators petition was before the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania; twenty-eight members only were present, all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it, and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch likewise, which that house made in their last sitting, to gain an undue authority over the Delegates of that province, ought to warn the people at large, how they trust power out of their own hands. A set of instructions for the Delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonored a schoolboy, and after being approved by a few, a very few without doors, were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of the whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know, with what ill-will that House hath entered on some necessary public measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them unworthy of such a trust. Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things. When the calamities of America required a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of Assembly for that purpose; and the wisdom with which they have proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is more than probable that we shall never be without a CONGRESS, every well wisher to good order, must own, that the mode for choosing members of that body, deserves consideration. And I put it as a question to those, who make a study of mankind, whether representation and election is not too great a power for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not hereditary. It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxims, and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr. Cornwall (one of the Lords of the Treasury) treated the petition of the New-York Assembly with contempt, because that House, he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling number, he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole. We thank him for his involuntary honesty.* *Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation is to a state, should read Burgh's political Disquisitions. TO CONCLUDE, however strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given, to show, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence. Some of which are, First. -- It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for some other powers, not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace: but while America calls herself the Subject of Great-Britain, no power, however well disposed she may be, can offer her mediation. Wherefore, in our present state we may quarrel on for ever. Secondly. -- It is unreasonable to suppose, that France or Spain will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only, to make use of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and strengthening the connection between Britain and America; because, those powers would be sufferers by the consequences. Thirdly. -- While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain, we must, in the eye of foreign nations, be considered as rebels. The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to be in arms under the name of subjects; we, on the spot, can solve the paradox: but to unite resistance and subjection, requires an idea much too refined for common understanding. Fourthly. -- Were a manifesto to be published, and despatched to foreign courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured, and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress; declaring, at the same time, that not being able, any longer, to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connection with her; at the same time, assuring all such courts of our peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering into trade with them: Such a memorial would produce more good effects to this Continent, than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain. Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can neither be received nor heard abroad: The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations. These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult; but, like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and, until an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity. APPENDIX SINCE the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or rather, on the same day on which it came out, the King's Speech made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought it forth, at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time. The bloody mindedness of the one, show the necessity of pursuing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge. And the Speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the manly principles of independence. Ceremony, and even, silence, from whatever motive they may arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of countenance to base and wicked performances; wherefore, if this maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the King's Speech, as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves, a general execration both by the Congress and the people. Yet, as the domestic tranquility of a nation, depends greatly, on the chastity of what may properly be called NATIONAL MANNERS, it is often better, to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to make use of such new methods of dislike, as might introduce the least innovation, on that guardian of our peace and safety. And, perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the King's Speech, hath not before now, suffered a public execution. The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this general massacre of mankind, is one of the privileges, and the certain consequences of Kings; for as nature knows them not, they know not her, and although they are beings of our own creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their creators. The Speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is not calculated to deceive, neither can we, even if we would, be deceived by it. Brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it. It leaves us at no loss: And every line convinces, even in the moment of reading, that He, who hunts the woods for prey, the naked and untutored Indian, is less a Savage than the King of Britain. Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining jesuitical piece, fallaciously called, “The Address of the people of ENGLAND to the inhabitants of AMERICA,” hath, perhaps from a vain supposition, that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp and description of a king, given, (though very unwisely on his part) the real character of the present one: "But," says this writer, "if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration, which we do not complain of," (meaning the Marquis of Rockingham's at the repeal of the Stamp Act) "it is very unfair in you to withhold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do any thing." This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality -- an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered -- as one, who hath not only given up the proper dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm. However, it matters very little now, what the king of England either says or does; he hath wickedly broken through every moral and human obligation, trampled nature and conscience beneath his feet; and by a steady and constitutional spirit of insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an universal hatred. It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty to take care of, than to be granting away her property, to support a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and christians -- YE, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as ye, who, are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty, if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation -But leaving the moral part to private reflection, I shall chiefly confine my farther remarks to the following heads. First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from Britain. Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, RECONCILIATION or INDEPENDENCE? with some occasional remarks. In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on this continent; and whose sentiments, on that head, are not yet publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position: For no nation in a state of foreign dependance, limited in its commerce, and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but childhood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at had she, as she ought to have, the legislative powers in her own hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the Continent hesitating on a matter, which will be her final ruin if neglected. It is the commerce and not the conquest of America, by which England is to be benefited, and that would in a great measure continue, were the countries as independent of each other as France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a better market. But it is the independence of this country of Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object worthy of contention, and which, like all other truths discovered by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day. First. Because it will come to that one time or other. Secondly. Because, the longer it is delayed the harder it will be to accomplish. I have frequently amused myself both in public and private companies, with silently remarking, the specious errors of those who speak without reflecting. And among the many which I have heard, the following seems the most general, viz. that had this rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the Continent would have been more able to have shaken off the dependance. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which in forty or fifty years time, would have been totally extinct. The Continent, would not, by that time, have had a General, or even a military officer left; and we, or those who may succeed us, would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient Indians: And this single position, closely attended to, will unanswerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others. The argument turns thus -- at the conclusion of the last war, we had experience, but wanted numbers; and forty or fifty years hence, we should have numbers, without experience; wherefore, the proper point of time, must be some particular point between the two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a proper increase of the latter is obtained: And that point of time is the present time. The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly come under the head I first set out with, and to which I again return by the following position, viz. Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain the governing and sovereign power of America, (which, as matters are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely) we shall deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have or may contract. The value of the back lands which some of the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust extension of the limits of Canada, valued only at five pounds sterling per hundred acres, amount to upwards of twenty-five millions, Pennsylvania currency; and the quit-rents at one penny sterling per acre, to two millions yearly. It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk, without burthen to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon, will always lessen, and in time, will wholly support the yearly expense of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying, so that the lands when sold be applied to the discharge of it, and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being, will be the continental trustees. I proceed now to the second head, viz. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan, RECONCILIATION or INDEPENDENCE? with some occasional remarks. He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground, I answer generally -- That INDEPENDENCE being a SINGLE SIMPLE LINE, contained within ourselves; and reconciliation, a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which, a treacherous capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt. The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflexion. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which, is nevertheless subject to change, and which, every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeling no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not to have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head. Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions. The Continental Belt is too losely buckled. And if something is not done in time, it will be too late to do any thing, and we shall fall into a state, in which, neither Reconciliation nor Independence will be practicable. The king and his worthless adherents are got at their old game of dividing the Continent, and there are not wanting among us, Printers, who will be busy spreading specious falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letter which appeared a few months ago in two of the New-York papers, and likewise in two others, is an evidence that there are men who want either judgment or honesty. It is easy getting into holes and corners and talking of reconciliation: But do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the Continent divide thereon. Do they take within their view, all the various orders of men whose situation and circumstances, as well as their own, are to be considered therein. Do they put themselves in the place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier, who hath quitted all for the defence of his country. If their ill judged moderation be suited to their own private situations only, regardless of others, the event will convince them, that "they are reckoning without their Host." Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three: To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of Britain to comply with, neither will she propose it; but if it were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question, By what means is such a corrupt and faithless court to be kept to its engagements? Another parliament, nay even the present, may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence, of its being violently obtained, or unwisely granted; and in that case, Where is our redress? -- No going to law with nations; cannon are the barristers of Crowns; and the sword, not of justice, but of war, decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not sufficient, that the laws only be put on the same state, but, that our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state; Our burnt and destroyed towns repaired or built up, our private losses made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged; otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that enviable period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year ago, would have won the heart and soul of the Continent -- but now it is too late, "The Rubicon is passed." Besides the taking up arms, merely to enforce the repeal of a pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce obedience thereto. The object, on either side, doth not justify the means; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons; the destruction of our property by an armed force; the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms: And the instant, in which such a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to have ceased; and the independency of America, should have been considered, as dating its era from, and published by, the first musket that was fired against her. This line is a line of consistency; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition; but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were not the authors. I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways, by which an independency may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflexion is awful -- and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavellings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world. Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period, and an Independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather, whose narrow and prejudiced souls, are habitually opposing the measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons to be given in support of Independence, which men should rather privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but, anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis, and uneasy rather that it is not yet began upon. Every day convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first, protected them from popular rage, so, a wise and well established form of government, will be the only certain means of continuing it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be WHIGS, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for Independence. In short, Independence is the only BOND that can tye and keep us together. We shall then see our object, and our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well, as a cruel enemy. We shall then too, be on a proper footing, to treat with Britain; for there is reason to conclude, that the pride of that court, will be less hurt by treating with the American states for terms of peace, than with those, whom she denominates, "rebellious subjects," for terms of accommodation. It is our delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, without any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative, by independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England, will be still with us; because, peace with trade, is preferable to war without it. And if this offer be not accepted, other courts may be applied to. On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof, that either the doctrine cannot be refuted, or, that the party in favor of it are too numerous to be opposed. WHEREFORE, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA. To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing a late piece, entitled "THE ANCIENT TESTIMONY AND PRINCIPLES of the People called QUAKERS renewed, with Respect to the KING and GOVERNMENT, and touching the COMMOTIONS now prevailing in these and other parts of AMERICA addressed to the PEOPLE IN GENERAL." THE Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonors religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the professed Quietude of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with. As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those, who, approve the very writings and principles, against which, your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen this singular situation, in order that you might discover in him that presumption of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you can have any claim or title to Political Representation. When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust. The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well as the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an Independent Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burthens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a connection which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries. We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, not ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter -- Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the Bigot in the place of the Christian. O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear ARMS. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James's, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under HIM whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay* ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers. *"Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity: thou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be over-ruled as well as to rule, and set upon the throne; and being oppressed thou hast reason to know now hateful the oppressor is both to God and man: If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation. -- Against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will be, to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience, and which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins." --Barclay's Address to Charles II. Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death. The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him"; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways (whom ye are so desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace. I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz. "It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings and governments, is God's peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men: That we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set over us." -- If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God's Work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what it contains: And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practise what ye believe. The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God's peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his work. OLIVER CROMWELL thanks you. CHARLES, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present Proud Imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless you can produce divine authority, to prove that the Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unless I say, ye can show this, how can ye, on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him." What a slap of the face is here! the men, who in the very paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now, recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part thereof. Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; "That the setting up and putting down of kings," most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore, your testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published. First, Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes. Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers thereof. Thirdly, Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to us all. And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of AMERICA.
90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,886
Cost 3,266,786
I have a few formatting errors to HTML that is acceptable for the requirements of presentation. Lets see if the post can meet size restrictions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-52) not displayed.
.
.
.
#53. To: Liberator (#30)
Thanks!
Throw in there nihilism and I will award you the quinella. :)
Yep.
The greatest accomplishment of Trump is his unmasking of the libturd media. Most of us have known this for decades but it was important for everyone to see them embarrassed and exposed. The entertaining part has been watching the libturd media try to out troll Trump.
No kidding. Increase in accuracy is only ONE reason why dedicated shooters buy all that expensive reloading equipment. Back when I was shooting a lot,I used to keep a cardboard box with 500 empty cases in it sitting next to the chair while I watched tv. I would clean,deburr,and seat primers by hand while watching tv. When they were all primed,I'd move them into the bedroom with the loading bench to finish the process. I pretty much had a number of just fired brass in one box,cleaned and primed brass in another box,and a couple of trays of primered brass on the table with the press all the time. I still have a unknown number of 200gr 45 ACP wadcutters loaded up in plastic boxes today In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You must have shot a lot. I know some gun nut types and some of them don't seem to shoot all that much. They seem to collect guns and ammos just to have them, not to go out and shoot them regularly. Of course, practice bullets aren't free. I think you and G.I. are the only serious reloaders here at LF.
I used to reload quite a lot.. 10 gauge for duck/geese, 30-40 krag for my Ruger SS deer rifle and .38 for my Smith... Haven't for quite a while.. Don't shoot much because of a bum right sholder, but I'm still serious.. ;-)
I am a little concerned about recoil in a way I wasn't 10 years ago. I'm considering the tradeoffs of muzzle brakes even if they are noisy.
I've shot weapons that have brakes and the same types that don't, --- never noticed that much difference in recoil.. Buttstock pads have improved a lot, but my shoulder is long beyond help, it's nearly locked, and I have to take oxycodone for the pain. --- Should have had the operation, long ago.. Too late now..
Not too many years back, my mom took a bad fall and it aggravated an old persistent shoulder injury she had from a car accident. She was 78 or 79 then. She'd had pain and lymphodema and reduced use of that arm for a decade or so. Anyway the surgeon said she could let it heal it and hope for the best but that she would have regular pain and reduced use if they didn't do a shoulder replacement. This was one of those reverse shoulder replacements, maybe you know someone. Well, she was reticent but the longer we talked about it, the more it seemed the right thing to do. A few months later, she was very pleased. She got more relief from that and more general improvement in mobility and physical confidence than most anything they had done for her in years. And she no longer got lymphodema and pain from that old injury. The only point I'm pursuing here is that maybe there is still something that could be done for your shoulder. Shoulder replacements really are no major thing any more. Other than wearing a sling for a while, she healed up pretty fast. Not as immobilizing as a hip or knee replacement is.
I get bored with bullseye shooting handguns,but I love moving while making snap shots at small targets that jump when you hit them. And once you buy the equipment it doesn't take long to save enough on ammo that's it paid for itself. After that it's all gravy,and when you buy your powders by the canister your primers by the brick,and your lead bullets by the thousand,the expenses are not that bad. The main advantage of course is that you are shooting ammunition tailored specifically to be accurate and work flawlessly in YOUR particular weapon. I think you and G.I. are the only serious reloaders here at LF. Maybe,maybe not. It's not something all that exciting to talk about with anyone other than other reloaders. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Is there some reason you can't shoot from the other side? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I could make space for storing materials and having the limited bench space needed. I really haven't done any calculations on what you could expect to save by reloading instead of buying 500 or 1000 manufactured rounds at a time. I know people who bought in really large lots when surplus ammo was cheap, like 5K or 10K. And I always thought a fair number of those got buried in caches. You just don't see those great ammo sales the way you once did.
The economics change if you are talking about buying surplus military ammo. I used to buy it by the case,and could buy a whole case in sealed battle packs for less than the unprimed brass would have cost new. Where you save the most is if you are a handgun or shotgun shooter and shoot up a lot of rounds you can't buy surplus. Most varmit hunters and other accuracy at long range freaks do some experimenting with different cases,primers,powder,powder charges,and bullets of the same and different profiles from all the manufacturers to discover "THE" load their rifle likes best for certain uses/ranges,and then only load that People that shoot skeet and trap tend to do the same with their shotshell loads. Also,consider we are talking about some of the most anal people on Earth,and people who reload tend to shoot a LOT. They don't buy 100 primers at a time. They buy 1,000 or more at a time. When you buy in bulk,your prices drop. At any given time I would have a minimum of 500 rounds loaded and ready to shoot in my 1911,and another 1,000 somewhere in the process of being put together. Some would be tumbling,some would be having primer pockets cleaned and squared,some would be getting trimmed and reamed,and some would actually be getting assembled. I am not going to tell you or anyone else what loads I was using other than I was shooting 200 grain SWC bullets,but if were to shoot them in a stock 1911,you could HEAR and feel the slide go "clank" when it hit battery. I had my 1911 built up to the point where full-powered 230 grain GI surplus ball ammo wouldn't even cycle the slide far enough to jam. My 200 grain hollow points would expand to 72 caliber in sand,and the gun and the load were so "balanced" that I could empty a 7 shot magazine and the first case would still be in the air when the slide locked into battery. No,that wasn't bullseye shooting,but I could put all 7 in a 8 or 10 inch circle at 15 feet shooting that fast. Ironically enough,it was also a very accurate load if I wanted to take my time and put it in a bullseye. I have actually shot running snakes with it multiple times and hit them the first shot. It's not as hard to do as you might think. The "secret" is finding a combination of gun,load,and bullet that work together. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I should investigate bulk ammo prices more. I haven't kept up with current prices. I hear they're a little lower overall because of the "Trump gun slump". Trump just doesn't scare them like Obama or Hillary. Not even when he's talking bumpstock ban when even Obama and his ATF didn't try for that. So gun sales have declined a bit and ammo supplies are better. I read somewhere that a few ammo manufacturers had laid off some workers that they had hired when demand was so high. You put a lot of work, practice and testing into finding your favorite match for gun and custom loads for it.
Being I'm 81, the VA hasn't really said it, but they're not recommending it either. Too many other major medical problems, mainly the threat of blood clots...
I've tried, but changing my spots at this point? I learned how to hammer left- handed a bit, but that was over 60 years ago... I'm just too awkward, I guess..
A great man of substantial reason not requiring pathos to persuade others.
All are excellent attributes and are a credit to Christianity. Glad you appreciate them. They are indeed a credit...to whomever abides in those attributes, regardless of faith. But they happen to be attributes required by Jesus Christ as a matter of "being" like Him, a "Christ-tian." His Sermon on the Mounts is a good reference and reminder as you likely know. We all realize ALL of us come up a bit short, though some of us try more than others. There is no need for God to "invoke" fear. There is justice, but there is no need for fear to be invoked by God, and I don't believe that happens. Q: Do you obey all laws because you're a "good person," or because you fear the repercussions? When I was younger, my parents used to warn me about my behavior, "DON'T EMBARRASS US." That expressed a moral warning. In the model I subscribe to, we are compelled to moral living out of a desired to progress and grow spiritually. Those who do not do so do not progress. It's a matter of pure, 100% positive reinforcement, and 0% negative reinforcement, which the doctrine of eternal fire and brimestone obviously embodies. Commonly there is a lot of confusion and or misunderstandings about this context of "fear of the Lord." Perhaps we both can agree that man's behavior is normally motivated either by reward or fear. Sometimes it's both. The "fear" of the Lord is both of a potential loss of Eternal Reward AND of facing His justice. God's "justice" is usually construed as "fire and brimstone." One question that must be asked is: "IS IT TRUE THAT THERE IS A HELL"? Another is, "ON WHOSE AUTHORITY IS THERE SUCH A PLACE?" Yet another related question: WHY MUST THERE BE SUCH A PLACE?" I believe you already know a Christian's position on all three questions. I sense that you take the model for your value system very seriously. I'd also venture to say that you even largely abide in the aforementioned "Christian" attributes. With respect to fundamentals in understanding the "model" or moral system you subscribe to for living in this mortal world: I can understand a compulsion to "live morally" in and of itself -- but what actual force beyond the self is driving this desire to "progress and grow spiritually", external of man's nature, his fleshly pursuits? In your "model" or belief system, is it another stronger external "force" or entity counted on to help to assist/inspire you? As well as keep you focused and morally in line? Is there an arbiter of "progress" or any member/authority who quantifies it? Let's assume one is constantly growing in morality and self-control of one's nature; To what end is your model's "Final Reward"? And by whom will said Reward be bestowed? With respect to your model (or doctrine) of, "100% Positive Reinforcement/0% Negative Reinforcement" -- am I correct in presuming that no chastisement for bad/evil behavior is allowable? In the Next Life -- stepping out of our "Bio-shell," into our Spirit, where would the Soul stand? Is there no "Judgment Day" or Final Verdict for the way one has lived his/her mortal life? (But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here.) If not, then other than failure to "grow spiritually," and degree of "disgrace," what would be the worst-case consequence of living as an immoral or evil person? (in your model, or "religion" for lack of a better word) I hope I'm not throwing too much at you at one time or being confusing... Any moral model/system requires an Authority, a progenitor of its Law and Message. Q: Who or whom would that Authority? And progenitor(s) ? And from when and where did the original Messenger(s) receive his authority? The purpose of life is to grow and it's a free will choice whether or not to do so. I can certainly agree that one purpose of life is to grow spiritually and grow in wisdom with humility -- but I must again ask -- according to Who or Whom? Those who spend a life harming others will, upon death, severely regret it solely out of empathy that is not strongly felt while on earth. They often voluntarily choose future lives that are destined to suffer the same harm they have disposed, but not for the purpose of retribution. It's instead for the purpose of edification. Experiencing harm that you once dispensed is the best teacher of compassion. Am I wrong in construing this "penalty" as a form of Karmic justice? I am construing "retribution" to be in the context of a Judeo-Christian God's Justice. Did it occur to you that through our Free Will, man indicts himself of Sin and is himself responsible for sin and "crimes" against his own Soul, the Soul of others, and finally and most importantly, for disobeying and flouting the Laws of God -- by his own volition? But then "sin" or "wrongs" are universally committed by every single human being, so "sin" is a moot point. Unless in the Christian model, one repents and the sin is "paid for" and Sinner redeemed. Is there a a need for "redemption" in your model for having "committed wrongs" in the mortal world? Surely even the most devout of your faith are running a "tab". I'm afraid I will be repeating an occurring theme of asking by Whose Authority are your model's Mortal/post-Mortal Morality, Purpose, and Justice given? In the Christian model, the opportunity to grow ends with physical death. In the model I subscribe to, the opportunity exists beyond that, reflecting more majesty and all the eternal patience that even Christianity teaches is an attribute of God. In the Christian Model the opportunity to have saved one's soul for all Eternity does indeed have an expiration date; and that is right up to 11:59:59PM. Any extent of patience of God or personal "growth" devoted or dedicated to the Truth (and with it, the admission that one cannot write his/her own ticket to Eternal Life without the sacrifice of God-in-the-Flesh, Jesus Christ) ends at 11:59:59 PM. The Thief crucified on a cross right next to Christ served as an example of His patience and Word. God is not "eternally patient" or else our Decision, His Judgment Day and His Kingdom would never Come. How is there any "Majesty" without Judgment? How is there "Majesty" without the Grace of a God who promises to forgive the sins of man then invites that man to dine and live with Him Forever? Based on his own record and volition and free will, man is incapable of living sinlessly. OR having the authority or "goodness" to become his own "Savior" and self-erase every single sin and have them forgotten, wiped off the slate. Man simply cannot become his own God, his own Redeemer. No, physical death does not mean one goes on to eternal rest, and I submit that anyone dying "in faith" might be somewhat disappointed when after death, they realize that the road they are walking on is 1000 times longer than they thought a single full lifetime was for them on earth. Ping, your model is not only reaching for something that isn't "there," but you are creating an alternate skyway and exit off an "Eternity Ramp" that just doesn't exist. I am loath to even say this, but it was Adam and Eve who had presumed their own truth and what they were told then thought was "knowledge"; knowledge that they hoped would turn them into "god and goddess" who would no longer need God. Though you admired the "Christian" way and its pure attributes, you are being deceived. Each life is just one chapter of a very long book that is the story of a single soul's progression. While in human form, that eternal knowledge is largely buried into the subconscious by the overwhelming distractions and activity of the physical brain. We are caught up in this earthly life, not unlike how we are caught up in dreams while sleeping at night, believing those dreams to be real until after we awake. So it is on earth. We believe these lives are "real" only to see otherwise when we "awaken" after physical death. So no, death is only like "falling asleep" from the perspective of those left behind. For the person who dies, dying is just the opposite. It's waking up from a dream that was a whole lifetime. This is an interesting theory, a profound process. But Who or What Entity has sanctioned this entire model's processes, semi-conclusion and spiritual continuation of your model's moral coil? Our "Spirits" progress and evolve. They evolve either toward the Light or toward Darkness. Our Soul is our ship, our being. The spiritual battle between The Light and Darkness, between God and Satan, is over the destination of our Soul. Remember -- once you've passed on to your first Death, there is a potential second and Eternal Life or Death; That is God's promise. That is one "Woe to...!" for which there is no Mulligan, no second chance. We know from astronomical mathematical calculations (or from hitting even one single wrong key) that just the slightest miscalculation will send a plane or spaceship or your programming way off course. Man has ZERO room for error when it comes to our Salvation. And no excuse. As the Holy Scriptures attest to, I agree that in all cases we shall sleep...then be awakened; but not to your scenario. What each of us "awakens" to shall be either our Eternal Reward or terribly terrifying Judgment Day, for which any individual with change of heart will immediately know will far too late. Even for so-called "Believers." Tell me what is not to like in such a model? The "Authority" of such a model for one count. God has already revealed His law, the penalty for disobedience, the conditions for Salvation, His "Model." It is the Model of Models. You perhaps would admit you already know that for people struggling with vices such as anger, jealousy, selfishness and so on, one lifetime is usually hardly enough to overcome them. Why then, would God not give us all the time we need? How much time would you consider "enough time" to overcome our vices and sins? before the Days of Noah, before the Great Flood the Bible records the average age of the descendants of Adam; AVERAGE AGE: @900 years old. (Was that the average age of mankind at that time? The Bible seems to indicate it, but that's another discussion.) Yet even with the additional lifespan, man became so evil that God destroyed all but Noah and his family. Yes, of course I realize people are struggling indeed with their vices, their sins. And doing so repeatedly while hurting others. Many are battling demons literally. We all struggle. But God has also given us all free will, remember? He could have made us all obedient bots. People choose to sin. And they also choose not to while growing in His Word and toward the light. Even if folks embrace your model and motivation to "grow in spirit," there's a big problem: Their sin-full nature takes over without spiritual help from God. So despite good intentions.... One lifetime is all we get in this mortal coil to straighten ourselves out and get right, Ping. Many "good people", and "Christians" veer off course. If you're indirectly posing the question as to those who have not gotten the chance to hear The Almighty's Plan for Salvation (for whatever reason), who could be a fairer Judge than our Father in Heaven who created us for His Purpose (and yes, who loves us)?
That is true. Franklin was afraid for Paine's life within deeply held Puritan and Calvinistic religious cultures. Paine could have been hung by the neck contrary to redleghunter's citation of Christianity being based on "hope."
Thanks for the in-depth and thoughtful response. I'm unsure if your context is laws of man or laws of God. I guess I would answer that obeying any laws because we fear repercussions from the authority for being bad, then it's the wrong reason to obey them. Laws should exist because they serve to protect one person from another person, and I would say doing anything to intentionally harm another unjustly would be immoral by itself, independent of whether one would get spanked for doing it and regardless of whether there was a law prohibiting a specific act. Well, the second & third questions presupposes the answer to the first is "yes". I'll skip ahead a bit and respond with this: Is it reasonable to think that God would design a spiritual system which would result in most of His children ending up in a lake of fire for all eternity, as the Christian model states exists? Would you say that God had any choice in this system's design, or would you say that God was somehow constrained by laws that bind even Him? Further, I point out that even human parents lament and love children who make a horrible mess of their lives and end up getting killed because of their own choices, and would even then do something to save them if there was any way to do so. Is it reasonable to suggest that God, whom Christianity teaches is all powerful, is somehow not powerful enough, or less loving than mere human parents, to remedy a situation where the majority of His children end up in an eternal lake of fire? In short, did God not Himself have a choice in how things were to work? And if so, why would He have chosen the system Christianity says exists, given it means most perish? We may or may not have encouragement and assistance from the spirit world. Some Christians speak of "guardian angels" that are there for us, normally in the context of protecting us from physical harm. In my model of things which I will refer to as the "Newton model" these may exist in the form of souls or soulmates or spiritual guides that are currently disembodied. But they may or may not encourage us to maintain a moral focus. All such relationships are special and unique. A good question. In Newton's work he writes of a tribunal of sorts that we appear before after each life which consists of much more advanced souls before whom our lives are reviewed. Younger (i.e. less experienced) souls have very little to review as early lives are generally akin to playschool, but more advance souls are reviewed much more in depth. In our culture, and perhaps many others, such a judging of one's life after death is not uncommon, including the Christian culture. It may be that this multi-cultural notion stems from this reality. I'm sure you would say it may stem instead from the Christian teaching of a judgment after death. However, according to Newton, in no case is this tribunal in any way condemning of failure. It's instead completely constructive in nature, even as failures are brought forth. The more advanced the soul the more members of this tribunal there are. Your question also asks who "quantifies" progress. I don't think "quantification" is the right word. The methods of measuring progress are probably more sophisticated than our minds and language are capable of grasping. According to the Newton model, eventually, when we reach a certain development point, further incarnations into human form on earth are of so minimal value for the purposes of progression, that we stop doing so, and remain in the spirit world. We eventually become guides to less experienced souls, but even then, there is much progress that can be made, but beyond that, Newton's information is limited as the only souls he can gain information from are those that are still incarnating and who saw him for hypnotic regression. Basically, any soul that incarnates into human form is relatively young in the whole scheme of things, and is therefore limited as an information source. But it does seem the ultimate goal, if it even is the "ultimate" step, is to rejoin what is frequently termed in his books "the Source" which would be an alias for God. The "Source" is where we as souls are born from would one day return. At this point I'll say my answers I give are according to my own understanding and perception based both on my reading of Newton's books as well as my own inferences and deductions based on them and my own experiences and observations. The word that stands out in your question is "allowable". That's a bad word as it really implies an environment of rigidity of permissions and such. Free will is pervasive at every turn and every stage. That said, however, I suspect chastisement, which I take in the context to mean a negative reenforcement, is not something that anyone does in the spirit world. There's simply no cause for it. It's not that it can't be done. There's no reason for it to be done. Perhaps it's much like asking if anyone can run from point A to point B when walking is so much more pleasurable. Is there a "Final Verdict" (with capital letters) when a soul has finished it's exam, so to speak? No, it seems there is not. As long as a soul has room to grow and improve, work is not complete. But in Newton's second book he goes into more details of the spirit world, one of which discusses a "halfway house" of sorts. Souls can have "bad energy" which can arise when a soul makes bad decisions and, it seems, falls into serious despair and need serious help. Some advanced souls try to assist these souls, but again, free will is on the table for all. Souls can only be helped if they wish to be helped, and for some, even wanting help can be a lofty goal. I'm sure you sometimes hear the expression "there's a special place in hell" for someone who has committed something particularly evil or who has made it a frequent practice to harm others in a serious way. We might think of Paddock, the Vegas shooter. I dare say that in the Christian model, accepting and even welcoming a fate of hell for all eternity for that crime seems "just". However, in the Newton model, there is yet room for redemption for someone doing something even as evil as what Paddock committed. Under the Newton model, I can hold hope that even for Paddock there is yet a possibility that he will grow into a wonderful and charitable soul. How many Christians can do that, or would do that? Not at all. Other than to say "God" or "The Source", I don't know the answer to this under either the Christian or Newton model. That may be correct, but perhaps defining Karmic justice is in order. If it means justly suffering in a way that one unjustly made others suffer, then I suppose that would be correct. It's not unlike the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" laws in the Old Testament. Sure, but again, it's for the purpose of edification, not justice in the sense of granting a victim the satisfaction of revenge. Newton makes it very clear that souls that have harm others unjustly in one life will freely choose to live a future life in which they are destined to suffer what they had inflicted. Such destinies are known to souls prior to choosing a given future life. It could include a life of enslavement, deprivation, rape, even a life ending in murder. Yes. Though the doctrine of sin is one point where Christianity and Newton's model's diverge. Under Christianity, sin is a blemish that can only be cleaned through punishment which can either be through the blood of Jesus or by being cast eternally into the lake of fire. If you try to apply principles of the Newton model into a spirit world where the doctrine sin and need for salvation exists, you'll most certainly fail. I see the doctrine of sin and need for salvation as the principle obstructions to accepting reincarnation, as reincarnation means no time limit for redemption, and therefore, no lake of fire into which one would be cast. And without that, perhaps no need for Jesus to die on the cross. As mentioned, as long as you maintain the doctrine of sin, then the Newton model won't work for you. But to me, the doctrine of sin is "messy". You mentioned quantifcation above, but how is sin quantified? I've raised this point before. A 3 year old is told by his mommy not to eat cookies, but takes a cookie out of a cookie jar and eats it. Soon after, he dies. Has he sinned and, having no understanding of Jesus, then be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity? How is the judgment made as to whether this boy actually sinned or not? How are the brainwaves analyzed into a binary indication of sin or no sin? Would you disagree that one's cognizance of right and wrong is not a binary on/off switch but rather one that can vary? At times we are fully alert to our surroundings and the ramifications of our actions. At other times we are less so, due to sleepiness, illness or distraction, or in the example above, sheer cognizance due to the degree of brain development. To me, that makes the doctrine of sin very "messy" in that it is simply not quantifiable. And yet Christianity teaches that sin is something of a blemish that, like pregnancy, you either have or have not. There's no in-between. I see that as a doctrinal problem with the Christian model. Obviously, however, it is a necessary doctrine for the model to have as without it, there is no point in spreading the message of Jesus dying on the cross. And without that, the religion itself dies out. There is no need for "redemption" in the sense of saving from an eternal lake of fire. However there is a need for redemption in terms of being enlightened as to the harm one has done. Yes there can be a tab of sorts. I think Newton writes of one soul who spent one life as a Chinese empress living to great excess at the expense of her subjects. The soul spent the next 500 years living a series of lives recuperating from that single royal life of excess just to get back to "normal" again. But under this model, that is the whole purpose of life. We experience the challenges and difficulties of life in this world, and it helps us to grow. Under the Christian model, what is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of tragedy? Under the Newton model, no hardship or difficulty goes to waste. I think I can objectively say that the Christian model does not have as good a set of answers as the Newton model. God? The "Source"? Perhaps I would respond by asking why the identity of this entity is important to you. Both models allow for the existence of a supreme being, and yet at the same time, neither gives any explanation for how or why this supreme being exists. I don't know where God came from. I can't answer that. That is beyond me. Yes. If one believes in the teaching about a Judgment day and a coming Kingdom, one pretty much cannot believe God is eternally patient. In which case, one must decide which of the two is correct and which is not. And perhaps the difference between us, Liberator, is our choice there. You have chosen to believe ancient writings from a certain culture are God's divine word, and have accepted and formulated a whole theology around it. I have questioned those writings that state in part that God gets angry, can be jealous and, well, is not eternally patient and found those claim incompatible with the simultaneous claim that God is infinitely wise, powerful and loving. Furthermore, I find Newton's model to embody all of the positive attributes Christianity describes of God, with none of the negative attributes. If you believe in sin as a blemish that must be wash away, then yes, you also must believe in atonement and judgment. But Majesty is there nonetheless. I find the Newton model of God to be quite awesome. As your subsequent questions depend on the existence of sin, so I'll pass on them. It was the best model out there prior to Newton's writings which make complete sense. If I am indeed deceived and Christianity is "the way", then I must believe that the key to eternal life lies in having academic knowledge of Jesus, or more accurately, a man who's English name is spelled that way and pronounced likewise, even though in reality, the English language did not exist 2000 years ago and his name was likely pronounced quite differently (in Spanish, Jesus is pronounced "Hey-SUS"), yet that somehow, those inaccuracies in believing this person was the Son of God don't matter. I have to believe that people who die without hearing the Gospel burn for all eternity, even if they didn't hear it because a Christian failed to do his duty and tell them while they still lived, and that that is somehow divinely allowed for, because God isn't particularly patient. I have to believe that because I made a decision to be honest about what I see and understand, because it is contrary to what was written in ancient books, I will burn forever, because it's better to go along with ancient writings against my better judgment than to use the noodle that God gave me to see and discern fact from fiction. I have to believe that academic head knowledge counts more to God than the state of one's heart in determining one's eternal fate. I have to believe that God will not welcome people into his Kingdom if they dared to be honest about what they believe, if that honesty told them that some ancient writings were not true. In short, I have to believe God is rather shallow and petty. Well, I happen to think, without apology, that God is better than that. And under the Newton model, God **is** much better than that. The remainder of your post mostly claims Christianity is factual to which no response is really proper. Can He really judge fairly if He get's angry, wrathful and jealous? There are a lot of criticisms that Atheists level against Christianity. I think mostly they are about fairness, and I think they are legitimate, especially in light of the Newton model, which fields all those concerns perfectly, far better than Christianity does. From prince to pauper, no matter what the living circumstance, life is always fair because each life is always a choice that each soul has chosen to live.
Thank you an incredibly refreshing, honest and insightful opinion and overview and defense of your belief system -- as well as critique of Christianity. I appreciate it. (took us a couple of years, but FINALLY we get to it, right?) The exercise was riveting, fascinating, even emotional. Reminded me of hanging out back in the day, pondering and discussing the meaning life and similar discussions over a toke or two ;-) We shall continue our convo. There is quite a bit to digest on both our ends.
I suppose you are suggesting the Judaeo/Christian concept of revealing God's law for the discernment of "right or wrong" as attempt to construct morality. Have you read the "Book of Job" from the Old Testament? How do you describe your "fear AND hope" concept within the context of the "Book of Job?" Please consider carefully before replying.
Has it been a couple years since we started conversing? Doesn't seem that long to me. I appreciate very much being challenged and the opportunity to challenge others, and look forward to more when the inclination is upon us. Best to you...
Buck, I've relied on the Book of Job and his experiences many a time. The lesson there is that God allows human suffering for His own purposes. Do I particularly LIKE being the subject? NO. All men "fear" suffering. But then not all men "hope". That comes with faith. The constant suffering caused even Job doubt as he strongly questioned why God would allow him -- a very holy faithful man -- to suffer, and to his acute degree. That said, he never cursed God for it. (The Lord read him the riot act.) But here's what I had to understand, and this is the lesson of Job; Trouble and bad things that happen to me (or others) aren't necessarily a sign of "punishment" for sin in my life. Turns out the tough times were what wound up drawing me closer to God. EXAMPLE: If during your entire life its been nothing but peaches and cream till the day you died, maybe you never had to call out in the Name of God for help, or strengthen your faith. Remember, according the Jesus, the "lukewarm" are "spit out." He will tell them -- "I never knew you." So...I consider whatever tough stuff that's happened to me to be...a blessing in that context. Now granted -- Job is a much better, stronger person than I, obviously. Basically the vast majority of us. He took everything this world and the Devil's word threw at him. And became a better man, a more faithful man. And was rewarded for it. Our reward may or may not be earthly riches (as in the case of Job), but Eternal Salvation and being in the Kingdom of God in the next world -- which is the best reward possible. I suppose you are suggesting the Judaeo/Christian concept of revealing God's law for the discernment of "right or wrong" as attempt to construct morality. What then are the Ten Commandments about? Jesus Sermon on the Mount? (and with that the greatest "commandment" -- "Love On Another.") Even Proverbs and Romans. Still, that doesn't mean we aren't subject to chastisement.
Yeah, I believe it has. May not seem long because I keep on dragging it out ;-) I appreciate very much being challenged and the opportunity to challenge others, and look forward to more when the inclination is upon us. Best to you... Same here, Brutha...
Paine could have been hung by the neck contrary to redleghunter's citation of Christianity being based on "hope." All those presumptions. Yes, Paine *could* have been hung by an irate "Christian" mob. He could have been shot. He could have had his kneecaps broken. But NONE of that happened. NOTE: And yet Paine lived and died of natural causes, didn't he? Again -- HERE are Franklin's own words and warning to Paine: "Burn it [The Age of Reason]....You will save yourself a great deal of...regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion [Christianity], what would they be if without it." "Deist" Franklin KNEW beyond any doubt that pure Christianity that the best of man was seen (as in the American Republic.) So... how did things turn out on Paine's death bed? "I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! Stay with me!" ~ THOMAS PAINE (hoping for and pleading for the presence of Jesus Christ. It sure sounds as if Paine had a change of heart on his death bed, doesn't it? Franklin knew Paine was losing perspective in his 'Age of Reason', was being deceived, looking for invisible scapegoats in a Christian Nation that Franklin KNEW was THE ONLY reason for the Republic.
That's the impression I get too. Paine died a Christian in good standing IMO. I agree. Paine was a Christian after all. His words were his testimony. Thomas Paine provides a great cautionary tale but also one of redemption. Even on our death bed.
Just a quick heads up... Been watching Michael Newton, reading up on his Institute, studying his foundation for and exploration of past life regression/life between life theory (as well as his theories on this physical life); And of course, the effects/ramification of thousands of hypnotized subjects (of whom he bases his "Model" of an "Afterlife" on.) He's apparently passed on just months ago... As you might expect, I'm finding it a mixed bag, but that's ok. I'm trying to be as impartial as possible.
Here he addresses all the major questions:
Yes Michael Newton died within the past year or so. That's more than I expected you to do. I appreciate your doing that and informing me. There may be an on-line version of his book "Journey of Souls" somewhere that you could refer to without need of purchasing. Though it's not really a reference book. Unless you would be inclined to read it from start to finish, there may not be much point in getting it. There are numerous interviews that are on youtube that are available, some better than others. If you have any questions of any sort about Newton or his work feel free to ask me. It may be about Newton's credibility independent of the subject matter, or some aspect about what he claimed to have learned from his clients/patients.
This is a very good interview of Newton. I've heard it a few times in the past. One of the things that comes off to me about Newton is his attitude and objective presentation about his work, and you can see that in this interview, and others. For example, in his answer about whether there is a hell, he does not categorically say it does not exist. He instead answers that he has never had anyone under hypnosis give him any indication that it exists, and because of that, he is of the opinion that it does not exist. His entire demeanor is one of scientific objectivity, as opposed to someone who announces that he has spoken to God and thus and thus is the absolute truth. In my mind, in order to argue that Newton is full of crap, one must take the position that he's either a blatant liar & scammer, or that he means well but is somehow mistaken. If he were the former, I would expect a web search of "Michael Newton scammer" to turn up numerous hits. But there are about none, in spite of him writing at least 4 books on the subject, three of which discuss numerous case studies. For him to be honestly mistaken would pretty much mean a conspiracy of demons has deluded him throughout the many years of his work and research. I supposed that can't be objectively ruled out, but it would be done in spite of the help many have received from him and others from his institute via hypnosis. Lots could be discussed about the merits of his work. I do see evidence in support with numerous claims of "past life regression" by people having nothing to do with Newton. Many youtube vids can be found of people supposedly regressing. And of course I've argued many virtues of the "Newton model" are superior to the Christian model, such as unlimited patience from God, death not being a door we pass through never to return, and a pragmatic purpose for our life on earth. And then there's the one that says that everyone you've ever loved who has died is still alive, and always will be. I appreciate your giving this angle a listen on my account. It's quite kind of you to do so, as it obviously goes against your own belief system.
You're welcome. No prob at all, Ping. I enjoy an honest challenge, an honest exchange of ideas and thoughts (not everything has to be a "debate", right?) I had no idea that there might be this type of "Faith" (again, for lack of a pure definition) that people are considering...
I found an online version of Newton's "Journey of Souls" book.
Thanks brutha... Though I'm not sure I'll be able to read the entire book...I promise to absorb and compile enough of it (as well as other sources and principles/doctrinal info) to keep our thread of exchanged thoughts and ideas going. It's subject matter that can probably branch off into thousands of tangents. (All we need it time...forever MIGHT do ;-)
As I said before, I don't expect you to read it, at least in it's entirety. But I did find it online and so thought I'd pass it on as an FYI. But you might find the intro a good short read as a summary. It's your call though, of course.
There's plenty for us to bang with, even without reading the entire book. Yup, there are summaries and other synopses. One quick observation -- As with Newton's 29 subjects who recalled their experiences between physical deaths, there seem to be several similar versions of virtually the same phenomena from many other sources. I've been reading up on those case, comparing and contrasting notes and similarities. Ostensibly, a "Table of Contents" From Michael Newton's Journey of Souls: ·How it feels to die The very first question: ("HOW IT FEELS TO DIE") begs the answer: How can they possibly know? The subjects never actually "died." If we take the hypnotic trance and "visit" at face-value, the question is FROM WHO or what metaphysical source did the subjects receive that "feeling-of death"? Could the actual "sting" of death (as projected) be validated? The second assertion on what is "seen and felt right after death -- again, wouldn't their respective "first-hand" reports be a simulation or invalid testimony given none of the subject never really "died"? Many of those same kinds of experiences from other sources who purportedly "died" (only to return) also do not mention any "judgment" or "sting" of death. (Example, the book, 'Life After Life', which I'd read years ago.) The other bullet-points from Michael Newton's book listed above ("Table of Contents") seems to create many more questions than answers. And the questions and answers happen to be all over the place (as will my rifin ;-) Another observational aside -- his model of an "Afterlife" seems to be very structured. As if it had undertones of a military school. Between some reading and Newton's interview I was getting a definite "Student/Officer-in-Training" vibe. For him to be honestly mistaken would pretty much mean a conspiracy of demons has deluded him throughout the many years of his work and research. I supposed that can't be objectively ruled out, but it would be done in spite of the help many have received from him and others from his institute via hypnosis. I really should be more organized in my responses. Sorry... With respect to the above, I agree; "a conspiracy of demons" can not be ruled out. The only way for people to be hypnotized is with one's own will's "permission" (other means are via drugs, sleep deprivation, or weakened "will" via other psychological/coercive methods.) Once someone lets down or surrenders the "firewall" to their mind and gives permission and access to the hypnotist to bypass their will, with that "firewall" down other spiritual entities (not of this world or dimension) can also have access to it. As well as to the hypnotist himself. It is ten possible for BOTH parties to be manipulated. Yeah, the whole process is kinda heavy if (as we both do) believe in spiritual forces beyond this material/physical world.
The book and title here is geared toward a person who's concept of death is an event of finality. So in that context, I see no problem with the verbiage. Taken in context, the title "How it feels to die" is referring only to a physical death, and physical death is of course very real. I may not quite understand the question. If you are challenging the source of the feeling of death then I'd say it's an extension of the source of a feeling of pain, which is the human body. The subject did die physically. I would say you are unfairly nitpicking over words here. Physical death is real, and observations related to that event, both before and after, are (allegedly) from the perspective of the soul. I am unfamiliar with that book so cannot comment about it. I will say that in this book of Newton's, what he lays out is a *mosaic* of what a typical journey a soul might take between the time of death in one life to rebirth in another. My understanding is that he has never had a single subject/client give him a full accounting of this journey. Instead, he has had thousands of subjects/clients give pieces of their experiences in the spirit world and he has essentially pieced together a series of recollections into what might be a typical journey. I'll also say that Newton has stated in interviews that he intentionally did not turn to any contemporary information sources related to reincarnation or past lives. He did not read any books or attend conferences to hear what others had to say about it. He intentionally kept to himself and relied completely on his subject/clients for all information so as to not be influenced by any other source. This scientific aspect of his approach is one of the things that impresses me about him. And a few of the things in his book do strike me as strange or silly, such as a point where he draws out a building structure where classrooms of sorts are arranged. Another thing he reports is that souls have the ability to temporarily divide itself and even live 2 lives concurrently. It may seem silly but on the other hand, what I see is Newton unapologetically relating what he has found in his work which is what an objective scientist would and should do. I understand the reason for the difficulty in obtaining a single account of all events from a single person is that the spirit world is not of this universe and it's structure is likely a form that the human mind, being a product of this universe, is woefully inadequate to comprehend, much less accurately relate. The level of hypnosis required to recollect events in the spirit world is also very deep, and unlike recalling past lives, there is no context in our human experience that can relate to our experiences in the spirit world. Finally, as for other authors/sources on the subject, I have read a number of books by Dr Brian Weiss, who also claims to have discovered past lives in his subjects in a way similar to Newton. Like Newton, he eventually wrote books of his findings and though neither he nor Newton refer to each other's work, I have found only a single contradiction between them (and I look for them), which I think was a claim by Wiess that souls have existed eternally. That's it. The two are near 100% contradiction free in all they report. (Weiss, however, is not the scientist that Newton was). I would say this is not an unfair analogy, though of course, there is nothing militant about the spirit world. I agree this cannot be objectively ruled out. But I would submit the same is ultimately true for every religion in the world, including Christianity. It comes down to: How would we ultimately know we have not been deceived with all we see and hear, including with information from the Bible? If believing in Jesus required "faith" then wouldn't that, on its face, open the door to being deceived? I.e. Doesn't the Bible say, in effect: "Trust me that I'm telling you the truth"? This possibility is contingent upon both what is possible spiritually, and the true nature of hypnosis. You are alleging the spiritual possibility based on your own understanding of the spiritual forces which I think is safe to say is in conflict with what Newton has found. Or perhaps more accurately, Newton has stated he has found no evidence of. Secondly, though I'm no expert in hypnosis, the notion that a hypnotist can overtly undermine the will of the subject is one I think most would dispute. I have read of cases where people have been manipulated into giving cash and valuables to smooth talking scammer/thieves who likely do employ hypnosis as part of their persuasion, but I think in those cases, they are arguably exploiting the good nature of their victims to overcome their lessor sense of self protection, and in those cases, the victims know what's going on even while they are being exploited. It's really little different than those times when we do things that we know are not good for us, but we do them anyway because we don't feel like doing what's really good for ourselves. We're just not in the mood. It's like that but on a more substantial scale. Another comparison: Have you ever done a routine drive to/from work and after arriving at your destination realize you have almost no memory of the drive itself? Perhaps you were thinking of something else, such as a work project or some personal relationship that needed some stronger consideration on the way? The routine of driving fell away to some lessor part of your mind as you contemplated something else, and the next thing you know, you are stepping out of your parked car. To me, that is a mild form of self hypnosis. But we don't consider *that* to be opening any doors to demons. I understand hypnosis is essentially a calming of mental activity, and does not in any way involve an opening of access or "firewall" to external spiritual forces. But of course, that's an opinion, and opinions vary. I do know some Christian circles condemn it for being what you say. I didn't mean for this to be such an exhaustive response. Perhaps a different venue would be in order.
The book and title here is geared toward a person who's concept of death is an event of finality. So in that context, I see no problem with the verbiage. Taken in context, the title "How it feels to die" is referring only to a physical death, and physical death is of course very real... ...The subject did die physically. I would say you are unfairly nitpicking over words here. Physical death is real, and observations related to that event, both before and after, are (allegedly) from the perspective of the soul. Of course "physical death" is quite real. A monumentally large component of what Newton claims as you've noted are "observations related to that event," i.e, THE very moment our spirit leaves our body/Bio-shell. But first -- on the subject or rather sensation of physical death -- how could it conceptually be possible to know "How it feels to die"? The only true way anyone would "know" would be in the case of resurrection. But I realize these "moments" are the crux, the meat of Newton's research and/or "discoveries." Newton presents them (via hypnoses) as revelations of the immediate state of the spirit and soul based on the testimony of thousands of his subjects. I will say that in this book of Newton's, what he lays out is a *mosaic* of what a typical journey a soul might take between the time of death in one life to rebirth in another. My understanding is that he has never had a single subject/client give him a full accounting of this journey. Instead, he has had thousands of subjects/clients give pieces of their experiences in the spirit world and he has essentially pieced together a series of recollections into what might be a typical journey. Right -- Newton appears to be "mapping" out a sorta itinerary of an intra-Karmac journey. From those many subjects he's cobbled trends, "places" and a "system" -- a "Model" as it were. Newton's has taken the jig-saw pieces and basically more or less created his "Model" of the Moment of Death, including "Lives Between Lives," presumed system of "lessons" led/instructed by teachers and Guides...until the Soul is ready to give it another go back to life in the Physical Realm. But there necessarily *must* be many presumptions accepted. Obviously, all the knowledge and data harvested from what was previously embedded "hidden memories" is unlocked and revealed from clients via hypnosis; it must be presumed to be valid and authentic information. And the source(s) must be assumed to be THE truth and not delusions (on the part of clients), delusions based on the Power of Suggestion targeting Michael Newton himself. We are to accept Michael Newton's testimony that only through the Hypnosis (but ONLY his through *his* Swiss Army Knife/Key) is discovered THE reality of the Spiritual World and Mystery of Death accessed. (Other means of accessing the "Spirit World" or transcending the our normal consciousness have traditionally been via meditation techniques, drugs, incantations, etc.) Newton's role is obviously as Facilitator, Arbiter, Guru, and Administrator. It does seem odd that though it wasn't his "mission," what he's seemed to stumbling into, then "cobble" together could be considered a treasure-chest of sorts -- previously unlocked, untapped sources that open the "secrets" of Death, The Interim World, "Redemption-Lesson" instruction period, then, return back to Earth -- only wiser, but not terribly penalized or hurt (or rewarded) in the process. I'll also say that Newton has stated in interviews that he intentionally did not turn to any contemporary information sources related to reincarnation or past lives. He did not read any books or attend conferences to hear what others had to say about it. He intentionally kept to himself and relied completely on his subject/clients for all information so as to not be influenced by any other source. This scientific aspect of his approach is one of the things that impresses me about him. And a few of the things in his book do strike me as strange or silly, such as a point where he draws out a building structure where classrooms of sorts are arranged. Another thing he reports is that souls have the ability to temporarily divide itself and even live 2 lives concurrently. It may seem silly but on the other hand, what I see is Newton unapologetically relating what he has found in his work which is what an objective scientist would and should do. "Science" confers physical study and proof (Or does it?). Newton's realm is the non-physical. There seems to be a clash of worlds there. I understand -- Newton's research was stand-alone; He didn't conflate any of his findings or past scholarship with his own project. But can we know for sure that none of his past readings and research didn't subconsciously seep into his hypnosis project? I find it incongruous that Michael Newton had never read any thing about reincarnation -- especially given his profession. As you point out, Newton reports that "two souls have the ability to temporarily divide itself and even live 2 lives concurrently." Think about this for a moment. IF true (and I CAN believe it), might this not be considered to be "Soul-Possession"? The process is eerie enough. But by what authority or force would one soul be be divided as a life-divided? Does Newton's report in such a case include analysis of the individual being at peace or in turmoil? (or does he say?) I understand the reason for the difficulty in obtaining a single account of all events from a single person is that the spirit world is not of this universe and it's structure is likely a form that the human mind, being a product of this universe, is woefully inadequate to comprehend, much less accurately relate. The level of hypnosis required to recollect events in the spirit world is also very deep, and unlike recalling past lives, there is no context in our human experience that can relate to our experiences in the spirit world. So much to take in from the above... Newton manages to find the door to the depths of very souls of thousand of subjects and again, only he is able to harvest memories and experiences that not even the subjects have access to. Q: Newton says that they are what HE "finds". That may be true. But how do we know that these "memories" aren't coming from external sources? How do we know that Newton isn't merely a carrier of deception? Moreover, The mind is being clearly and dangerously exposed to the spiritual realms during this hypnotic technique. And mustn't one surrender their "will" in the process?) I mentioned a "firewall" that must be breached (or allowed to be breached.) Any spiritual being (i.e. demon) with intelligence can have a field day implanting any memories, even providing related healing benefits. OR....develop and create themes which construct a spiritual world that conveniently testifies that "death" does NOT exist. My theory: These outside forces had only to remain close to Michael Newton to know when to communicate intricate info. But yes -- demons and even ancient magicians were and are capable of trickery and manipulating natural law. As well as invoking TRUE facts, about TRUE people, TRUE events. (But I can go on and on about this subject. Sorry for the tangent...) One also MUST define, "spirit world"; As well as the properties and identities of those who exist there, external of our physical world. Many different civilizations and societies have always spoken of this metaphysical, spirit realm. For some it is a verboten, an un-authorized realm. For others a real world, with real powers to wield here in the physical world. According to ancient writings (and well as Judeo-Christian texts) there are only those two forces in this UniverseAs already referred to, in the context of Judeo-Christianity, there are only Demons (represented by Satan) and Angels (represented by God, as well as God and His Trinity). Another comparison: Have you ever done a routine drive to/from work and after arriving at your destination realize you have almost no memory of the drive itself? Perhaps you were thinking of something else, such as a work project or some personal relationship that needed some stronger consideration on the way? The routine of driving fell away to some lessor part of your mind as you contemplated something else, and the next thing you know, you are stepping out of your parked car. To me, that is a mild form of self hypnosis. But we don't consider *that* to be opening any doors to demons. Yes, of course I can relate to self-immersion. "Self-hypnosis" or merely on "auto-pilot"? We are still in complete control of both our consciousness as well as consciousness. There is no Third-Party (OR Fourth Party for that matter) directing and rummaging through mind or subconscious, implanting or hardwiring false memories or new feelings. I believe the human mind and spirit is a very fragile instrument, quite susceptible to the power of suggestion....OR "Psyops". Whether from Media, Gummint, or from external hostile sources from the spirit world. I understand hypnosis is essentially a calming of mental activity, and does not in any way involve an opening of access or "firewall" to external spiritual forces. But of course, that's an opinion, and opinions vary. I do know some Christian circles condemn it for being what you say. I reckon forms of counseling or even attending faith services can be considered a form of "hypnosis." Depending again on how we define "hypnosis." And of course, how deeply the sessions go, and to what extent the subject matter. Dig lightly and we merely turn over the soil for better veggies and flowers; Dig deeply and we're hitting oil/water. I don't mean to demonize all forms of hypnosis (though perhaps that's what I've done.) People have used it to stop smoking as well as affect via the power of suggestion negative behaviors. Yup, these are my opinions. You have your opinions...as well as we all should without an animus. On this subject it's impossible to be any thing other than "exhaustive." .
Perhaps what you are getting at is that the "feel" of dying would be limited to the physical feelings of the body, and therefore, after death the feeling would be forgotten? If that is your point, then I would point out that according to Newton, the soul is capable of remembering such things. Often times, in fact, phobias people have are related to past life trauma. People who are afraid of heights, closed spaces, or spiders (a friend of mine is terrified of them no matter how small) could all relate to past life experiences of death related to things such as fallings, earthquake fatalities and places in the world where deadly spiders are a abundant. And of course in the case of regression, the soul will recall physical sensations experienced while tied to a human body. Souls have the ability to remember things independent of the human mind's ability to remember. It's like having some photos on your cell phone and other photos on your flash drive, and one must look in the right place for the right photos or memories. Prior to reading Newton's work, I assumed like everyone else that the majority of our identity is the human body and mind, with the soul being a permanent "afterglow" that remains after the human body dies. However, Newton makes it clear that our primary identity -- the vast majority of what defines us -- is at the soul level. The human body only defines a minor part of our identity. I liken it to how we dress each day. We can choose to wear a suit OR wear cut-off jeans & an old ripped t-shirt. We will be received and regarded differently in public depending on that choice. However, what won't change is who we truly are under those closes. So it is with souls that wear different bodies. The primary identity does not change, but the "clothing" in the form of the human body the soul wears will define that minor part of the identity in terms of race, culture & gender, but the vast majority of what we are is *soul* (which is why we are loved more than animals). Normally, hypnosis is required, though small children sometimes can access these memories straightaway as their brains have not yet fully developed to the point where it overwhelms the subconscious/soul memories. No, not necessarily. Newton does make reference to something called "conscious interference" which is when one's conscious mind can cast an otherwise accurate memory in an incorrect light. Again, I'm no expert, but I understand that to mean that someone might for example have died in a boating accident in a prior life but recall it as dying in an ocean based plane accident, perhaps because they had a friend in their current life die in a plane accident. It's generally correct but still subject to inaccuracy. Brian Weiss gives a more subtle example of someone recalling graduating from a school in a certain year in the 1930's when records show someone with a matching name graduating a couple years after the cited year. Such inaccuracies are possible. I'm not sure how you would suggest Newton being the target of the power of suggestion unless you are suggesting that demons would do so. First, no, we are not required to blindly accept Newton's word on things, and I would certainly claim that I do NOT do so. What I have done is weighed his findings with my own lifelong observations and experiences, and I see very strong correlation & validation. I also compare the virtues of this model he has produced and weigh it against the Christian model, and ask myself which one would God choose, if he had a choice, and in my honest judgment, Newton's model comes out on top as there is no condemnation, complete free will, yet complete accountability and unlimited patience. I think I can objectively state that the standard Christian model does not score as high in these and other areas as Newton's model does. And as an aside, in my view, if Newton simply invented the model he came up with using his imagination, he's a freakin' genius to have come up with a model that works so very beautifully in every way. Absolutely there is, Anything dealing with the mind (or soul) is very difficult to either qualify OR quantify. When I say he took a scientific approach, I mean he did the best he could given the subject matter. Brian Weiss, also a doctor and author in this same field, does not do that at all. His main focus is in how people have been helped by this type of therapy (and Weiss does not dwell so much on what happens between lives). I think most practitioners and doctors in this field focus on the helping aspect and not so much the understanding aspect. Newton focused on understanding, but of course also helped a great many people through that understanding. As stated, we can't "know for sure". I would suppose at this point you are comparing the degree of certainty that you believe you have with reading the Bible with degree of certainty that I have of Newton's findings. For those who believe the Bible is the "Word of God", it's easy to take secure comfort when reading Biblical passages because they are fully convinced that it is a gift from God and that every word is infallible. It gives you a firm foundation for what you believe. If you are looking for that same degree of security with Newton's work, you won't find it. Anyone who sees merit to Newton's work as I do much must be content with the understanding that there is no perfect source of information. On the other hand, it's not so critically important that we have perfect understanding, as that is not what life on earth is about. It's about developing virtues of love, patience understanding and so on, which again, makes sense to me, as why WOULD God care about our academic head knowledge? It makes no sense to me that he would. Why would he NOT care more about our moral choices to love, forgive, aid and otherwise be a positive influence on all around us, and btw not so much for the benefit of those around us but for the benefit of ourselves? Direct academic knowledge about the nature of God and how life works is not so important, though it can help us indirectly by giving us hope through understanding that there is more to life and us than our human bodies. Again, I'll state that Christianity is a great faith in that it harps on the importance of these virtues which are in line with the Newton model. It only differs on the doctrine of sin, salvation and reincarnation. I don't want to dwell too much on this concept as he reports it's rarely done, and often against recommendations of guides (after which souls understand why and don't do it again, but hey it's free will at every turn so no one's going to stop a determined soul) but I did bring it up so I'm obligated to answer in full. Newton says that all souls, when they incarnate, leave a portion of their energy in the spirit world, and he has never heard of a case where any transfer of this energy between the spirit world and earth occurred during a human life. After we die, we are reunited with that energy which is very empowering as one might expect, only to divide again prior to the following life. I think if any soul incarnated with full energy, our human minds would be adversely overwhelmed. The amount of energy left behind varies from case to case. Generally, as souls become more experienced and mature, it also becomes more powerful, so more experienced souls leave a greater portion of their energy behind, while less experienced souls take most of that energy with them. Newton does describe one client who complained of having little motivation and drive to do the things he wanted to do in life. Under hypnosis, Newton says this person, presumably inexperienced as a soul, revealed he intentionally left a large portion of his energy behind as part of his current life's lesson to live a calmer life, which was something that the person simply needed this time around. Since the purpose of life is to grow spiritually, some souls are tempted to use some of that remaining energy to live a dual, concurrent life to speed up the growing process. They are impatient. But it's also spiritually exhausting which is why it's usually (at least) not recommended. Newton says that in rare cases he's found, the dual lives are vastly different. One life may be a high rolling stock trader in New York while the other life is a African tribesman living a hunting/gathering lifestyle. (Don't ask me if the universe would collapse in on itself in Star Trek fashion if these two persons ever met -- it's never discussed and I don't know! In seriousness though I would say any possibility of such an occurrence would be foreseen from the spirit world and arranged or not as per individual needs :^) Now back to your question: Every case of a soul inhabiting a body is "soul possession" by definition. All humans are possessed, but they/we are possessed by souls. In truth, yes, we are all hybrid creatures. We are souls and we are human. Our human bodies are indeed possessed by unnatural "foreign" entities, those being souls. It must be possible, in theory for a human body to not have any soul in it, but I would doubt that any single human body would go to waste in such a way. All human lives have value in being an instrument of spiritual lessons, and my own opinion is that no human life would be wasted. Things we are not familiar with or do not understand can indeed strike us as eerie. It's done by the authority of our own free will. We simply choose to do it. Under the Newton model, we have complete free will at all times, even whether to incarnate into a particular human life or not. As an aside, that is why life is fair for all of us, even for those born with severe physical & lifelong handicap. It's simply done out of a lack of patience to grow spiritually. Going one life at a time might be viewed as too slow for some. Perhaps they had a set back in prior lives they want to make up for. Perhaps their soulmates are progressing faster than they are. No, there's no mention that I recall in Newton's discussion of this that relates to any distress of a soul beyond mere impatience. I want to clarify that subjects DO have access to them, as these are the memories of the subjects themselves. We all remember events of past lives and our times between lives, but they are deeply buried under the weight of our current human mind and life. All a hypnotist does is help calm the mind and set it aside enough for those deep memories to be accessed. And no, it's not only Newton who has done this, but many hypnotists both with and without Newton's brand of schooling on the subject. Ultimately we don't just as, I would submit to you, we don't ultimately know that the Bible is the "Word of God". We must all look at the evidence and pass judgment on whether sources of alleged truth are sound or not. What proof do you have that the Bible is the "Word of God"? What proof do I have that the Newton model is the true model of spiritual life? I don't think either of us can prove our cases scientifically, but.... at least I have alleged cases of past life recall easily found on youtube. In your judgment, there is danger with hypnosis. But that concern is not shared by non-Christians or even by many Christians. My understanding is that one's will is not surrendered. I remember one person here mentioned a college class demonstration where selected students were simultaneously hypnotized, and at one point they were told to take off their clothes. Only one woman started to do so, and it turned out she was moonlighting as a stripper so she was acclimated to the act. The other students did not follow the undress instruction. What I understand is that hypnotism cannot be used to make someone do something that they would not ordinarily do. The will is intact. Now perhaps it could be argued that this stripper would never have voluntarily undressed in class out of hypnosis so some amount of will is mitigated. I have heard of people being persuaded to give valuables away to fraudsters who employ the art. From that I think those are case where people are encouraged to do things they are already reasonably comfortable doing while not hypnotized (in the case of fraud, exploiting the good nature of their victims). That is your theory and I respect it as such, but it is not the Newton theory. Though as for manipulating natural law, I do think advanced souls have the ability to do this. In fact, simply making a decision to carry out a moral act via interaction with one's human body is, ultimately, an example of souls manipulating natural law. But I do think advanced souls can exert their native supernatural forces on this universe to cause things to happen that are beyond the explanation of physical sciences. This would include the ability to heal a human body and ultimately (I like that word today) on the other end of the extreme, cause a universe-creating big bang. It will be very difficult to impossible to define the spirit world in our earthly terms (the only terms we have to work with). Keep in mind (so to speak) that our human brains are products of this earth and this physical universe. As such, these brains are designed to work ONLY with this earth and universe. But the spiritual realm is, I contend, a place outside of this universe where the laws of physics we know do not apply. For example, immortal souls violate the laws of conservation of energy. In our universe, no life form can actively exist forever without a supply of energy. It would eventually run out of energy and die. Souls violate this law but that's okay because (I contend) souls being from outside this universe means that the law of conservation of energy do not apply to them. My point being that the entire spirit world is a place and dimension where our physical laws do not apply, and for that reason, our human, earthly, physical minds are not capable of understanding or "defining" it. We completely lack that capability, so I believe any attempt to identify it's properties in human terms (the only terms we have) will fail. I suspect demons are/were a personification of the despair we humans experience. The ancients did not have the information access we do today. They had the sun rising and setting, and food that was sometimes abundant and sometimes scarce. They had families, life, war with neighboring tribes, and death. I theorize the knew at the soul level that they were special, but that their human minds could not comprehend how. Their minds struggled to find an explanation for how they were different from the animals that were all around them and one of the results of that mental struggle is the story that is now Genesis in the Bible. For the purpose of ascribing meaning and purpose to life, that story serves a good purpose even if it may not be (in the Newton context) scientifically accurate. I suggest that demons were "created" in a similar way by the ancients which satisfied the human minds need to describe causes for bad events. A demon is like a person but lacking physical form and hates us. But otherwise, yes it has a will like we do and is evil and all that. (I'm using belittling terms only to express my view, not to disparage your view). Now Newton does say that souls can suffer by getting twisted somehow and start emanating bad energy. This makes sense to me for those times when we may see someone walk in the door and an immediate glace gives bad "vibes". We at the soul level can detect that sort of thing. Souls that are very bad off do radiate this negative energy, and when they die they may not want to go back to the spirit world. They may hang around, and perceptions of such souls could also be construed as demons. That can't be ruled out under the Newton model and in fact, Newton cites one mild case of this using all but the term "ghost" to describe the role of one client in a past life who was a woman waiting endlessly, beyond death, for her love to return home which ended up being a somewhat comical story as the relationship continued into her current life. As for angels, I say we are all angels, and what are commonly described as angels are simply souls that are not currently incarnated. They can help us and may try from time to time. But being short of full wisdom can still make mistakes just like we can. *WE* are angels who are temporarily incarnated into human form. I definitely agree that the human mind is very susceptible to duping, confusion and distraction. A look at our current world makes that abundantly clear. It's not an exact science for sure, and yes, the degree a mind could be hypnotized varies. It could even be argued that we are always under hypnosis as we are always focused on *something*. At least most of us are... hehe. That is definitely an application of hypnosis that would be hard to incriminate. Agreed. But I am enjoying it. I've never had this deep a discussion on this topic with anyone before, so for that, I very much thank you!
This example is merely one of many that demonstrate how Benjamin Franklin, America's so-called "nonreligious" founder, was a defender of historic Christianity and believed its values necessary for a stable and prosperous society. I pray that those today, who would destroy America's Christian foundations, will heed the warning of America's nonreligious founder. *SOURCE: https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/50213-benjamin-franklin-issued-this-prophetic-warning-to-thomas-paine
#54. To: Liberator (#33)
In the year 2018 AD, a world steeped in toxic atheistic-militancy and occultism, moral relativism lacking any moral or ethical moorings; cultures and government leaders run amok in rampant narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths in which "Evil = Good," "Down = Up," and "Queer = Normal".
#55. To: Liberator (#35)
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." ~ Proverbs 1:7 KJV
#56. To: Liberator, TooConservative (#38)
Donald Trump just happens to be savvy enough to recognize the need during these contemporary times of social/mainstream media zombies, vampires, and assassins to give the impression he's drifting with the flow a bit in order to diffuse certain situations and pacify those who need pacifying.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#51)
Which is why so few hardcore gunowners care much about owning one or having them available.
#58. To: sneakypete, GrandIsland (#57)
Back when I was shooting a lot,I used to keep a cardboard box with 500 empty cases in it sitting next to the chair while I watched tv. I would clean,deburr,and seat primers by hand while watching tv. When they were all primed,I'd move them into the bedroom with the loading bench to finish the process.
#59. To: Tooconservative (#58)
I think you and G.I. are the only serious reloaders here at LF.
#60. To: tpaine (#59)
Haven't for quite a while.. Don't shoot much because of a bum right sholder, but I'm still serious.. ;-)
#61. To: Tooconservative (#60)
I am a little concerned about recoil in a way I wasn't 10 years ago. I'm considering the tradeoffs of muzzle brakes even if they are noisy.
#62. To: tpaine (#61)
but my shoulder is long beyond help, it's nearly locked, and I have to take oxycodone for the pain.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#58)
You must have shot a lot. I know some gun nut types and some of them don't seem to shoot all that much. They seem to collect guns and ammos just to have them, not to go out and shoot them regularly. Of course, practice bullets aren't free.
#64. To: tpaine (#61)
Buttstock pads have improved a lot, but my shoulder is long beyond help, it's nearly locked, and I have to take oxycodone for the pain. --- Should have had the operation, long ago.. Too late now..
#65. To: sneakypete (#63)
And once you buy the equipment it doesn't take long to save enough on ammo that's it paid for itself.
#66. To: Tooconservative (#65)
I really haven't done any calculations on what you could expect to save by reloading instead of buying 500 or 1000 manufactured rounds at a time.
#67. To: sneakypete (#66)
(Edited)
The economics change if you are talking about buying surplus military ammo. I used to buy it by the case,and could buy a whole case in sealed battle packs for less than the unprimed brass would have cost new.
#68. To: Tooconservative (#62)
The only point I'm pursuing here is that maybe there is still something that could be done for your shoulder. Shoulder replacements really are no major thing any more.
#69. To: sneakypete (#64)
Is there some reason you can't shoot from the other side?
#70. To: A K A Stone (#10)
What would Patrick Henry say about Thomas Paine?
#71. To: Pinguinite (#50)
Love, Justice, Repentance, Forgiveness, and... Grace.
By the way -- Why shouldn't God evoke both "fear" AND "hope"? If there is no Eternal Justice, there is neither "fear" NOR "hope" for the Next World.
#72. To: Liberator (#30)
*Interestingly, Benjamin Franklin warned Paine of such pain and regret if he persisted in attacking historic Christianity. This warning by Franklin was prompted by Paine sending him a manuscript copy of 'The Age of Reason,' or one of similar content.
#73. To: Liberator (#71)
Q: Do you obey all laws because you're a "good person," or because you fear the repercussions? When I was younger, my parents used to warn me about my behavior, "DON'T EMBARRASS US." That expressed a moral warning.
The "fear" of the Lord is both of a potential loss of Eternal Reward AND of facing His justice. God's "justice" is usually construed as "fire and brimstone." One question that must be asked is: "IS IT TRUE THAT THERE IS A HELL"? Another is, "ON WHOSE AUTHORITY IS THERE SUCH A PLACE?" Yet another related question: WHY MUST THERE BE SUCH A PLACE?"
I believe you already know a Christian's position on all three questions.
I can understand a compulsion to "live morally" in and of itself -- but what actual force beyond the self is driving this desire to "progress and grow spiritually", external of man's nature, his fleshly pursuits? In your "model" or belief system, is it another stronger external "force" or entity counted on to help to assist/inspire you? As well as keep you focused and morally in line?
Is there an arbiter of "progress" or any member/authority who quantifies it?
Let's assume one is constantly growing in morality and self-control of one's nature; To what end is your model's "Final Reward"? And by whom will said Reward be bestowed?
With respect to your model (or doctrine) of, "100% Positive Reinforcement/0% Negative Reinforcement" -- am I correct in presuming that no chastisement for bad/evil behavior is allowable?
In the Next Life -- stepping out of our "Bio-shell," into our Spirit, where would the Soul stand? Is there no "Judgment Day" or Final Verdict for the way one has lived his/her mortal life? (But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here.) If not, then other than failure to "grow spiritually," and degree of "disgrace," what would be the worst-case consequence of living as an immoral or evil person? (in your model, or "religion" for lack of a better word)
I hope I'm not throwing too much at you at one time or being confusing...
Any moral model/system requires an Authority, a progenitor of its Law and Message. Q: Who or whom would that Authority? And progenitor(s) ? And from when and where did the original Messenger(s) receive his authority?
Am I wrong in construing this "penalty" as a form of Karmic justice?
I am construing "retribution" to be in the context of a Judeo-Christian God's Justice.
Did it occur to you that through our Free Will, man indicts himself of Sin and is himself responsible for sin and "crimes" against his own Soul, the Soul of others, and finally and most importantly, for disobeying and flouting the Laws of God -- by his own volition?
But then "sin" or "wrongs" are universally committed by every single human being, so "sin" is a moot point. Unless in the Christian model, one repents and the sin is "paid for" and Sinner redeemed.
Is there a a need for "redemption" in your model for having "committed wrongs" in the mortal world? Surely even the most devout of your faith are running a "tab".
I'm afraid I will be repeating an occurring theme of asking by Whose Authority are your model's Mortal/post-Mortal Morality, Purpose, and Justice given?
God is not "eternally patient" or else our Decision, His Judgment Day and His Kingdom would never Come.
How is there any "Majesty" without Judgment? How is there "Majesty" without the Grace of a God who promises to forgive the sins of man then invites that man to dine and live with Him Forever?
Though you admired the "Christian" way and its pure attributes, you are being deceived.
If you're indirectly posing the question as to those who have not gotten the chance to hear The Almighty's Plan for Salvation (for whatever reason), who could be a fairer Judge than our Father in Heaven who created us for His Purpose (and yes, who loves us)?
#74. To: Pinguinite (#73)
#75. To: Liberator (#43)
By the way -- Why shouldn't God evoke both "fear" AND "hope"?
#76. To: Liberator (#74)
Thank you an incredibly refreshing, honest and insightful opinion and overview and defense of your belief system -- as well as critique of Christianity. I appreciate it. (took us a couple of years, but FINALLY we get to it, right?)
We shall continue our convo. There is quite a bit to digest on both our ends.
#77. To: buckeroo (#75)
Have you read the "Book of Job" from the Old Testament? How do you describe your "fear AND hope" concept within the context of the "Book of Job?" Please consider carefully before replying.
#78. To: Pinguinite (#76)
Has it been a couple years since we started conversing? Doesn't seem that long to me.
#79. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#72)
Franklin was afraid for Paine's life within deeply held Puritan and Calvinistic religious cultures.
#80. To: Liberator (#79)
~ THOMAS PAINE (hoping for and pleading for the presence of Jesus Christ. It sure sounds as if Paine had a change of heart on his death bed, doesn't it?
#81. To: hondo68 (#80)
#82. To: Pinguinite (#76)
(Edited)
#83. To: Pinguinite (#82)
#84. To: Liberator (#82)
Been watching Michael Newton, reading up on his Institute, studying his foundation for and exploration of past life regression/life between life theory (as well as his theories on this physical life); And of course, the effects/ramification of thousands of hypnotized subjects (of whom he bases his "Model" of an "Afterlife" on.)
#85. To: Liberator (#83)
#86. To: Pinguinite (#84)
That's more than I expected you to do. I appreciate your doing that and informing me. There may be an on-line version of his book "Journey of Souls" somewhere that you could refer to without need of purchasing. Though it's not really a reference book. Unless you would be inclined to read it from start to finish, there may not be much point in getting it.
#87. To: Liberator (#86)
#88. To: Pinguinite (#87)
(Edited)
#89. To: Liberator (#88)
#90. To: Pinguinite (#89)
·What you see and feel right after death
·The truth about “spiritual guides
” ·What happens to “disturbed” souls
·Why you are assigned to certain soul groups in the spirit world and what you do there
· How you choose another body to return to Earth
·The different levels of souls: beginning, intermediate, and advanced
·When and where you first learn to recognize soulmates on Earth
·The purpose of life
#91. To: Liberator (#90)
The very first question: ("HOW IT FEELS TO DIE") begs the answer: How can they possibly know? The subjects never actually "died."
If we take the hypnotic trance and "visit" at face-value, the question is FROM WHO or what metaphysical source did the subjects receive that "feeling-of death"? Could the actual "sting" of death (as projected) be validated?
The second assertion on what is "seen and felt right after death -- again, wouldn't their respective "first-hand" reports be a simulation or invalid testimony given none of the subject never really "died"?
Many of those same kinds of experiences from other sources who purportedly "died" (only to return) also do not mention any "judgment" or "sting" of death. (Example, the book, 'Life After Life', which I'd read years ago.)
Another observational aside -- his model of an "Afterlife" seems to be very structured. As if it had undertones of a military school. Between some reading and Newton's interview I was getting a definite "Student/Officer-in-Training" vibe.
With respect to the above, I agree; "a conspiracy of demons" can not be ruled out.
The only way for people to be hypnotized is with one's own will's "permission" (other means are via drugs, sleep deprivation, or weakened "will" via other psychological/coercive methods.) Once someone lets down or surrenders the "firewall" to their mind and gives permission and access to the hypnotist to bypass their will, with that "firewall" down other spiritual entities (not of this world or dimension) can also have access to it. As well as to the hypnotist himself. It is ten possible for BOTH parties to be manipulated.
#92. To: Pinguinite (#91)
The very first question: ("HOW IT FEELS TO DIE") begs the answer: How can they possibly know? The subjects never actually "died."
#93. To: Liberator (#92)
But first -- on the subject or rather sensation of physical death -- how could it conceptually be possible to know "How it feels to die"? The only true way anyone would "know" would be in the case of resurrection. But I realize these "moments" are the crux, the meat of Newton's research and/or "discoveries."
But there necessarily *must* be many presumptions accepted. Obviously, all the knowledge and data harvested from what was previously embedded "hidden memories" is unlocked and revealed from clients via hypnosis;
it must be presumed to be valid and authentic information.
And the source(s) must be assumed to be THE truth and not delusions (on the part of clients), delusions based on the Power of Suggestion targeting Michael Newton himself.
We are to accept Michael Newton's testimony that only through the Hypnosis (but ONLY his through *his* Swiss Army Knife/Key) is discovered THE reality of the Spiritual World and Mystery of Death accessed. (Other means of accessing the "Spirit World" or transcending the our normal consciousness have traditionally been via meditation techniques, drugs, incantations, etc.)
"Science" confers physical study and proof (Or does it?). Newton's realm is the non-physical. There seems to be a clash of worlds there.
I understand -- Newton's research was stand-alone; He didn't conflate any of his findings or past scholarship with his own project. But can we know for sure that none of his past readings and research didn't subconsciously seep into his hypnosis project? I find it incongruous that Michael Newton had never read any thing about reincarnation -- especially given his profession.
As you point out, Newton reports that "two souls have the ability to temporarily divide itself and even live 2 lives concurrently."
IF true (and I CAN believe it), might this not be considered to be "Soul-Possession"? The process is eerie enough. But by what authority or force would one soul be be divided as a life-divided? Does Newton's report in such a case include analysis of the individual being at peace or in turmoil? (or does he say?)
might this not be considered to be "Soul-Possession"?
The process is eerie enough.
But by what authority or force would one soul be be divided as a life-divided?
Does Newton's report in such a case include analysis of the individual being at peace or in turmoil? (or does he say?)
Newton manages to find the door to the depths of very souls of thousand of subjects and again, only he is able to harvest memories and experiences that not even the subjects have access to.
Q: Newton says that they are what HE "finds". That may be true. But how do we know that these "memories" aren't coming from external sources? How do we know that Newton isn't merely a carrier of deception?
Moreover, The mind is being clearly and dangerously exposed to the spiritual realms during this hypnotic technique. And mustn't one surrender their "will" in the process?)
I mentioned a "firewall" that must be breached (or allowed to be breached.) Any spiritual being (i.e. demon) with intelligence can have a field day implanting any memories, even providing related healing benefits. OR....develop and create themes which construct a spiritual world that conveniently testifies that "death" does NOT exist.
My theory: These outside forces had only to remain close to Michael Newton to know when to communicate intricate info. But yes -- demons and even ancient magicians were and are capable of trickery and manipulating natural law. As well as invoking TRUE facts, about TRUE people, TRUE events. (But I can go on and on about this subject. Sorry for the tangent...)
One also MUST define, "spirit world"; As well as the properties and identities of those who exist there, external of our physical world. Many different civilizations and societies have always spoken of this metaphysical, spirit realm. For some it is a verboten, an un-authorized realm. For others a real world, with real powers to wield here in the physical world.
According to ancient writings (and well as Judeo-Christian texts) there are only those two forces in this UniverseAs already referred to, in the context of Judeo-Christianity, there are only Demons (represented by Satan) and Angels (represented by God, as well as God and His Trinity).
I believe the human mind and spirit is a very fragile instrument, quite susceptible to the power of suggestion....OR "Psyops". Whether from Media, Gummint, or from external hostile sources from the spirit world.
I reckon forms of counseling or even attending faith services can be considered a form of "hypnosis." Depending again on how we define "hypnosis." And of course, how deeply the sessions go, and to what extent the subject matter. Dig lightly and we merely turn over the soil for better veggies and flowers; Dig deeply and we're hitting oil/water.
I don't mean to demonize all forms of hypnosis (though perhaps that's what I've done.) People have used it to stop smoking as well as affect via the power of suggestion negative behaviors.
On this subject it's impossible to be any thing other than "exhaustive."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]