A brief look into the subjects of posts to come...
Joseph of Arimathea was the Virgin Mary's uncle. Joseph, in the tin trade, made a lot of trips to Britain, where being a rich merchant made close contact with British Royalty; namely Kings Beli, Lud, Llyr and Arviragus, who gave Joseph and his companions some 2000 acres of land, tax free. On these trips to Britain, Joseph took Jesus, as shown through many geographical, historical and traditional references. The details of this study are taken mainly from "The Drama of the Lost Disciples", by George F. Jowett.
Historians William of Malmesbury, Maelgwyn of Llandaff and Polydore Vergil all place Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury. Even the four Church councils of Pisa 1409, Constance 1417, Sienna 1424 and Basle 1434, mention that "the Churches of France and Spain must yield in points of antiquity and precedence to that of Britain as the latter Church was founded by Joseph of Arimathea immediately after the passion of Christ."
God works in the long term. He often takes centuries to set up certain events or circumstances. A neat little study is listing God's Trustees or Protectorates throughout the last four thousand years. First came Joseph, the eleventh son of Jacob. God sent him to Egypt twenty-one years before Jacob came with his family from famine ravaged Canaan. Twenty-one years!
Jeremiah was given Trusteeship of the Throne and the bloodline of David. He brought King Zedekiah's daughter Tea Tephi to Ireland in order to join the two lines of Judah, the Pharez line in Tea and the Zarah line in Eochaidh, high king of Ireland. This happened in 583 BC and was part of God's preparation of the land to which the House of Israel would migrate. The Davidic bloodline would be woven through all the kings and queens of northwest Europe as a result of the marriage of those two. But five hundred years earlier, God had already placed Brutus in England. He founded New Troy (London) about 1100 BC.
We could also talk of Tobit, and especially Queen Esther, whom God placed in Persia to protect the captive Jews. As well as, the English kings Arviragus and Caradoc. Arviragus would become God's "Protectorate" for the Cradle of Christianity, Glastonbury. It was Arviragus who gifted Joseph and his companions twelve 160 acre parcels of land, tax free forever. And as reported in parts 1 & 2, Caradoc, Pendragon of England, would become God's "Protectorate" of the fledgling Roman Christian Church; the church Paul wrote to. Caradoc spent seven years "house arrest" before returning to Britain. It was his children who were the core of the Roman church.
There are volumes to be said about the pioneering of the Tribe of Dan, as they (the Phoenicians) established trade routes from China to South America, and reconnoitered the migration route of the Lost Tribes west across Europe. Look at all the "Dn" names on the rivers. There's the Danube, the Dneiper, the Don, and on. Why there are three Don rivers in the British Isles! Those Danite\Phoenicians tacked up their name everywhere they went. Just like they did in the Bible when they conquered a town and changed the name to Mahanedan (Judges 18:12)
Lastly, let me point to Daniel. God set up Daniel to run the Babylonian government during the time of the Exile.
God sticks to a winning plan. He set up a Trustee for Christianity as well. Joseph of Arimathea has been called one of the richest men in the world. He inherited that tin trade from his fellow Israelites; the Phoenicians. They had been bringing ore from England for centuries. Joseph was well educated, a member of the ruling political body of the whole country. He was well placed as "Noblis Decurio", a minister of mines for the Roman empire, with direct access to Pilate himself. How better to protect Jesus, after Joseph the carpenter died, and insure the seeding and growth of the Gospel in England; the place to which the scattered House of Israel would continue to migrate for the next eleven centuries! The prophecies of this migration are in just about all the prophetic books of the Old Testament. But read the book of Hosea if you want to see the history of the Celts and Scythians/House of Israel/Lost Tribes.
The average person is so well inoculated with the belief that Christianity was first established by the Roman Catholic Church at Rome, and that Britain first received the faith through St. Augustine, AD 597, that they take it for granted. Wasn't the Roman Catholic Church established in the fourth century, well after the death of Constantine? Between Christ's death and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church lay centuries. Was Christianity waiting around for Constantine to Christianize the Roman Empire and then die? Surely the missionary work begun by the Apostles continued. But where? The history of the Roman Catholic Church itself testifies that England preceded itself in the establishment of Christianity.
The basic story of Joseph's trip to England varies in some details from account to account. But the bare facts are that Joseph, with many disciples traveled from the holy land by boat and landed at Marseilles, in the Vienoise province of the Gauls (France). From there he went on to England established seminaries, sent out missionaries, and helped in the conversion of the Royal family.
In his "Ecclesiastical Annals", Cardinal Baronius, Curator of the Vatican library, gives this account. "In that year the party mentioned was exposed to the sea in a vessel without sails or oars. The vessel drifted finally to Marseilles and they were saved. From Marseilles Joseph and his company passed into Britain and after preaching the Gospel there, died." The reason for the boat having been set adrift, was that the Jews wanted to get rid of these Christians, but couldn't get away with murder.
How many of the disciples were with Joseph of Arimathea during his short stay in Gaul, before going on to England, is hard to say. Various existing records agree in part with the Cardinal Baronius record, naming among the occupants of the castaway boat Mary Magdalene, Martha, the hand-maiden Marcella, Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead, and Maximin the man whose sight Jesus restored. Other records state that Philip and James accompanied Joseph. Others report that Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were also in the boat. Here's Baronius' complete list of passengers:
Mary, wife of Cleophas
Martha
Lazarus
Eutropius
Salome
Cleon
Saturninus
Mary Magdalene
Marcella, the Bethany sisters' maid
Maximin
Martial
Trophimus
Sidonius (Restitutus)
Joseph of Arimathea
And true to God's way, Philip was waiting for the travelers in France. There is a wealth of uncontroversial testimony asserting his commission in Gaul, all of which alike state that he received and consecrated Joseph, preparatory to his embarkation and appointment as the Apostle to Britain.
Although there are some who would argue for France being first, most records agree that Britain, at Glastonbury was the Root of the Christian movement. One would expect that history would show that the missionary activities would flow out of the well-spring of Christianity. And well does history record this. The Gaelic records state that for centuries the Archbishops of Treves and Rheims were all Britons supplied by the mother church at Glastonbury-Avalon. St. Cadval, a famed British missionary, going out from Glastonbury, founded the church of Tarentum, Italy, A.D. 170. Notice this was four hundred years before St. Augustine. And, this date was at least fourteen years after King Lucius Christianized all of Britain in A.D. 156.
Converts literally flooded into Glastonbury for conversion, baptism, instruction and missionary assignment. Philip sent, from Gaul alone, one hundred sixty disciples to assist Joseph and his team with the crowds. And it is surely known that helpers were sent from other places beside France.
One of the first to go out from Glastonbury was Mary and Martha's brother Lazarus. He headed straight back to Marseilles where he held the Bishopric for seven years. But that was only natural. France was a Family Thing for the Bethany household. Mary and Martha both lived out their lives, preaching and teaching in the south of France. "The Coming of The Saints," by Taylor is a good book on the subject.
Many famous names are recorded as having been associated with Glastonbury-Avalon. Sidonius, Saturninus, and Cleon taught and supported other missionaries in Gaul, then returned to Britain. Martial's parents, Marcellus and Elizabeth were there along with St Zacchaeus. Many faithful Judeans moved to Britain. Parmena, disciple of Joseph, was appointed the first Bishop of Avignon. Drennalus, helped Joseph found the church at Morlaix. He was then appointed to Treguier as it's first Bishop. Beatus founded the church in Helvetia, after receiving his baptism and education at Avalon. Beatus was baptized by St. Barnabas, the brother of Aristobulus, sent in advance by St. Paul to Britain. He is referred to in scripture as Joses, the Levite. Mansuetus was consecrated the first Bishop of the Lotharingians A.D. 49, with his See at Toul. He also founded the church at Lorraine.
Historical note:
Mansuetus was a constant visitor at the Palace of the British at Rome after Claudia had married Pudens. He was a friend of Linus, the first Bishop of Rome, and brother of Claudia. After the death of Clement, Mansuetus became the third official Bishop of the British Church at Rome. Thus we have three disciples of Avalon, instructed by St. Joseph, to become, in succession, Bishops of Rome.
Iltigius, in "De Patribus Apostolicis", quotes St. Peter as saying; "Concerning the Bishops who have been ordained in our lifetime, we make known to you that they are these. Of Antioch, Eudoius, ordained by me, Peter. Of the Church of Rome, Linus, son of Claudia, was first ordained by Paul, and after Linus's death, Clemens the second, ordained by me, Peter."
There are some very good superficial reasons why all this took place in England. Because of Joseph's merchant business it was a known location, where Royal friends could help, and far from persecution. The deeper levels of meaning require broader levels of perspective.
Without going into detail at this time, suffice it to say, the Lost Tribes were headquartered in Britain. Ephraim and Judah, were already running the country. These folks, and their cousins that would come in later, are the very ones who God drafted to take His message to the world. We're looking at a plan that God set up to run almost four thousand years ago.
He called Abraham to father the nation that would supply the stock and the wealth for the Zarah line to precede the Israelites into Europe, from there they would take the Message of Christ to the rest of the world. Please remember when reading the following Bible references that the House of Israel is distinct from the House of Judah. All are Israelites (descendents of Israel/Jacob), but only the Tribe of Judah are the Jews.
Although many of the Jews were scattered, Jeremiah, in 50:17 is talking about the House of Israel. We know from the context, in which he clearly separates "the children Israel", from the "children of Judah." (v.4,20) Hosea echoes the scattering in chapter 1 verse 4. First Peter is addressed to the "scattered expatriates." The places he names are just the locations of Israelite groups of the northeast Mediterranean.
An astounding prophecy is made by the High Priest Caiaphas in John 11:51-52. Jesus would die for the Jewish nation AND the ones scattered abroad . Jesus says he has other sheep "not of this (geographical Israel) fold." John 10:16 Jesus says that he is sent, and he sends his apostles to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel." Why not just say Israel? Jesus was specifying a particular group of Israelites.
Looking up the word gentiles in Strong's reveals the definition, "a tribe; specifically a foreign(non-Jewish) one." The Jews of Jesus' time called the Celts and Scythians Gentiles, along with all the other folks that didn't worship God.
Paul writes to the Roman Church. The church that was headed up by the Royal British family, a few of which were related to him by law. He says in, Romans 15:8-12, that Jesus, as well as minister to "the circumcision", but also came that the Gentiles might Glorify God.
Is it just an impossible piece of history… The Roman Emperor who decrees death to all Christians, becomes the wing under which the Church at Rome flourishes? He gives his daughter in marriage to the former British King, then adopts the daughter of his fiercest enemy, the British king Caradoc… and all this in the midst of the bloody war with Britain.
continued
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Promises To Keep - part two
Towards the end of the campaign in the autumn of AD 52, the battle which terminated the career of Caradoc in the field was fought close to the confines of the Teme and the Clune in Shropshire. The Roman victory was complete. The wife of Caradoc and his daughter Gladys fell into the hands of the conquerors, and were conveyed to the castra at Urechean (Uriconiun, Wrekin). Caradoc himself took refuge at her repeated solicitations, at Caer Evroc (York), with Aregwedd, or Aricia, the Cartismandua of Tacitus, queen of the Brigantes, and grand-niece of the infamous traitor in the Julian war, Mandubratius, or Avarwy. Here by her orders, with hereditary treachery, he was seized while asleep in her palace, loaded with fetters, and delivered to Ostorius Scapula.
We learn from the contemporary Roman reporters that Caractacus was the first captive kingly enemy not cast into the terrible Tarpeian dungeons. Why? The Roman conquerors were never noted for their clemency. They delighted in humiliating their adversaries, satiating their bestial nature in the most fiendish forms of torture. The greater the renown of their unfortunate victim the less chance he had of escaping the horrors and incarceration of the Tarpeian. Neither Caradoc nor any member of the British royal family was subject in the least to any physical indignities.
On the day of Caradoc's trial Tacitus tells us that his daughter Gladys refused to be separated from her father, though it was against the Roman law for a woman to enter the Senate. Voluntarily she walked by the side of Caractacus, up the marble steps into the Senate, as brave and as composed as her father.
The report continues, the Pendragon stood before the Emperor full chest, a noble figure, fearless, calmly defiant, unconquered in spirit. The Senate was crowded to capacity and here again we note another breach of Roman law in the presence of another woman. History tells us that the great Queen Agrippira sat on her throne, on the far corner of the Dais, a fascinated witness to the most famous trial in Roman history.
This man who should have been the most hated as the leader of the Christian army drew admiration from all sides as he stood poised before his sworn enemy, the Emperor Claudius.
Such was the fame of the gallant Christian Briton Caractacus.
As the trial proceeded he spoke in a clear voice, trenchant with the passion of righteous vigor, as he vindicated the rights of a free man. He replied to his prosecutors with words that have lived down through the ages. Probably it is the only episode in this great Christian warrior's life that is remembered by posterity. Free men the world over may read his epic address with blood-warming pride as the pen of Tacitus worded it.
In the words of Tacitus, Caractacus addressed the Senate:
'Had my government in Britain been directed solely with a view to the preservation of my hereditary domains, or the aggrandizement of my own family, I might long since have entered this city an ally, not a prisoner: nor would you have I disdained for a friend a king descended from illustrious ancestors, and the dictator of many nations. My present condition, stripped of its former majesty, is as adverse to myself as it is a cause of triumph to you. What then? I was lord of men, horses, arms, wealth; what wonder if at your dictation I refused to resign them? Does it follow, that because the Romans aspire to universal domination, every nation is to accept the vassalage they would impose? I am now in your power - betrayed, not conquered. Had I, like others, yielded without resistance, where would have been the name of Caradoc? Where your glory? Oblivion would have buried both in the same tomb. Bid me live. I shall survive for ever in history one example at least of Roman clemency.'
The preservation of Caradoc does form a solitary exception in the long catalog of victims to this dastardly and nefarious policy; nor can it be accounted for, considering the inflexibility of Roman military usage, in any other way than by an immediate and supernatural intervention of Providence.
The life of Caradoc was spared, on condition of his never bearing arms against Rome again. A residence of seven years in free custody at Rome was imposed upon him. His father Bran was accepted as one of the hostages, and he was allowed the full enjoyment of the revenues of the royal Silurian domains, forwarded to him by his subjects and council.
Nearly twenty years after the Crucifixion, the trial and pardon of the British royal captives took place, in the year AD 52.
Supposedly, Peter first went to Rome twelve years after the death of Jesus, in the year AD 44, eight years after Joseph and his Bethany companions arrived in Britain and two years after the Claudian campaign of persecution began against Christian Britain. Paul did not arrive at Rome until AD 56. This is the date given by St. Jerome, and considered the most authentic. This does not mean that there were not Christians in Rome before the two Apostles arrived, or even before the British Silurians came as captives. There were a number of them present and they are scripturally referred to as 'the Church'. This must not be taken too literally. It did not refer to a material institution; it was a spiritual body in Christ. The number of Christians then at Rome were unorganized, treading in fear. They met secretly in small groups at the homes of various converts to worship, though most of them went underground. The Tiberian and Claudian ban that inflicted death on all who professed the faith was still in effect.
Following the pardon of Caractacus, a close relationship developed between the two former enemies and their households evolving into a startling climax. Claudius greatly admired the character and extraordinary beauty of Gladys, the daughter of Caractacus. It grew into a deep paternal affection with the result that Emperor Claudius adopted Gladys as his own daughter, a girl who was an exceptionally devout Christian.
The Emperor was well aware of the strong Christian convictions of Gladys, and what strikes one forcibly is the fact that the record states that the terms of her adoption did not require her to recant from her faith.
Gladys was not to remain long under the royal roof. The year after her adoption was to see a beautiful romance destined to culminate later in heartbreaking tragedy. In her teens, Claudia was betrothed and married. In the year AD 53, she became the wife of Rufus Pudens Prudentius, an epochal event history could well make as momentous.
Pudens, as he is most commonly referred to, was a Roman Senator and former personal aide-de-camp to Aulus Plautius. Pudens went to Britain with the Commander-in-Chief at the commencement of the Claudian campaign AD 42.
What could be a stranger circumstance than that of the British Pendragon Caractacus permitting his favorite daughter to become adopted by the remorseless enemy who had brought about his defeat at Clune and see his sister and daughter married to Plautius and Pudens, the leaders he had opposed in battle for nine long years?
Claudia was seventeen years of age when she married Rufus Pudens. The nuptials did not take place at the Imperial Palace of her adopted father, as one might expect, but at the palace of her natural father, the Plautium Britannicum, a Christian household. It was a Christian marriage performed by the Christian Pastor, Hermas, which proves that Pudens was already a Christian convert. It is interesting to note that they continued to live at the Plautium Britannicum; interesting because Pudens was an extremely wealthy man, owning vast estates in Umbria, but he chose to live at the Place of the British, where their four illustrious children were born.
The first Christian Church at Rome, known first as the "Titulus," is now called St. Prudentiana. Here the nuptials of Claudia and Rufus Pudens Prudentinus were celebrated AD 53. Four children were the issue of this marriage-- St Timotheus, St. Novatus, St. Prudentiana, St. Praxedes. Of the sons of Caradoc, Cyllinus and Cynon returned to Britain, the former succeeding on his death to the Silurian throne. The second, Lleyn, or Linus, remained with his father, and was subsequently, consecrated by St. Paul first bishop of the Roman Church.
We now see residing at the Plautium Britannicum the High Priest Bran, King Caractacus and the Queen, his wife; his daughter, the Princess Eurgain and her husband, Salog, lord of Salisbury; her brother, the immortal Prince Linus, now a Christian priest; The Emperor's adopted daughter, Claudius, and her husband the Senator Pudens; his mother, Priscilla; Pastor Hermas, kinsman of Pudens. Cyllinus and Cynon, the eldest and youngest sons of Caractacus had already returned to Britain. There were other members of the Pudens' Christian household dedicated to the faith but those mentioned are the important figures to remember. The talented sister of Caractacus, the ex-Princess Pomponia Graecina, and her influential husband Aulus Plautius, resided nearby. All were spiritually confirmed Christians except Caractacus and Bran, who were soon to experience the laying on of hands by St. Paul, climaxing their confirmation in the faith in the same manner as is performed by the Priesthood today in the Church of the Anglican Communion.
The palace, indeed, of the British King formed a focus and rendezvous, and perhaps the safest they could frequent, for the poets and authors of Rome. Nor did it cease to be so on return to his native country; it continued to be the residence of Pudens and Claudia and their children. Some conception may be formed of its size and magnificence from the number of servants who constituted its ordinary establishment. These, as we learn from the Roman Martyrology, were two hundred males and the same number of females, all born on the hereditary estates of Pudens, in Umbria.
St. Jerome places Paul's arrival in Rome at AD 56. He writes, "St. Paul went to Rome in the second year of Nero." Nero succeeded Claudius as Emperor. AD 56 being the preferred date, it allows eight years of contact with Rome in which St. Paul did not reside in his personal home. This fact supports the statements of the contemporary writers who state that St. Paul had his abode with the Pudens. There is a special and particular reason as to why he would prefer to reside with the Pudens at the British Palace, apart from its Christian environment.
Startling as if may be to the reader, facts will prove that living with the Pudens family was the mother of St. Paul and that Claudia Britannica was the sister-in-law of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
St. Paul, writing in his Epistles to those of Rome prior to his coming, says, 'Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.'
Some have sought to suggest that the woman was St. Paul's spiritual mother. This is entirely out ruled by the facts. A spiritual mother, or father, was one who had converted another. As we all know, Christ had converted Paul on the road to Damascus, and Paul had not been to Rome since before the Judean persecution of Christ's followers, AD 33.
Were Rufus and Paul half-brothers--the latter, the elder, by a Hebrew, the former, the younger, by a second marriage with a Gentile, a proselyte Roman? This mother was a Christian living with Rufus, and is termed also his mother by St. Paul. When at Rome, Paul spent most of his time in the palace of Rufus, though he had also his own hired house. The children of Claudia and Pudens, as we learn from the Roman Martyrologies, were brought up on Paul's knees, and we find in the last scene of his life preceding his martyrdom, the only salutations sent by him to Timothy to be those of Eubulus, Claudia, Linus, and Pudens--the same family evidently ministering and attending to him to the last.
Pudens was converted before St. Paul came to Rome, and by some other Christian than Paul. Hermas Pastor appears at this very early date to have been the pastor at the Titulus, which constituted the place of meeting for the Gentile Church, or church of the uncircumcision. The Hebrew Church, or Church of the circumcision, met at the House of Aquila and Priscilla.
Thus twenty-five years had elapsed before his arrival at Rome, an Apostle of Christ. By deduction, Pudens must have been in his late twenties when he married the seventeen-year-old British Princess, and at the time of St. Paul's salutation he must have been near his mid-thirties, which shows a long separation between 'his mother and mine'.
From all this we realize that St. Paul and Rufus Pudens Pudentius were half-brothers, each having the same mother. In turn, this made the British Princess Gladys, the Emperor Claudius' adopted daughter, now known as Claudia Britannica Rufina Pudens Pudentius, sister-in-law to the Apostle of the Gentiles. And lastly, through Gladys' adoption, St. Paul is the half-brother-son-in-law (if there can be such a thing) to the Emperor Claudius.
Christianity was first introduced into Britain by Joseph of Arimathea, AD 36-39; followed by Simon Zelotes, the apostle; then by Aristobulus, the first bishop of the Britons; then by St. Paul. Its first converts were members of the royal family of Siluria--that is, Gladys, the sister of Caradoc, Gladys (Claudia) and Eurgen his daughters, Linus his son, converted in Britain before they were carried into captivity to Rome; then Caradoc, Bran, and the rest of the family, converted at Rome. The two cradles of Christianity in Britain were Ynys Wydrin, 'the Crystal Isle,' translated by the Saxons Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, where Joseph settled and taught, and Siluria, where the earliest churches and schools, next to Ynys Wydrin, were founded by the Silurian dynasty. Ynys Wydrin was also commonly known as Ynys Avalon, and in Latin "Domus Dei," "Secretum Dei."
God always has a backup plan. All these unusual events accomplished one very important over-riding goal. The advancement, preservation of Christianity; which translates into bringing God's message of His coming Kingdom to the world. The Christians are the ones who are doing that. And that should be no surprise. The Christian nations of the world are the Israelites, the Lost Tribes. Those folks have always worked for God, getting out His Word.
The whole purpose of starting up a world population group with Abraham was to send the message around the world. You need a lot of kids to do a job as big as that.
Well, when it comes to His word, God makes sure that all the bases are covered. So He sets up Protectorates ahead of time, to make sure His plan comes out the other side of any adversity. He sent Joseph to Egypt to get a place ready for the family when they fled the famine. He set up Esther so she would have the King's ear and be able to save her people from old Haman's Holocaust. He sent Daniel to rule Babylon to make it easier for the captive Jews. On a wider scale, He sent the tribe of Dan, as the Phoenicians, all across Europe to scout out the route to be taken when the Lost Tribes made their migrations to northwest Europe and the British Isles, centuries later. Why not set up a Protection Zone at Rome?
Maybe you noticed that those were pretty rough times in Rome. Life was held very cheaply in the heart of Satan's dominion. If Christianity was to survive, it would only be accomplished by efforts of kingly proportions.
- continued -
We learn from the contemporary Roman reporters that Caractacus was the first captive kingly enemy not cast into the terrible Tarpeian dungeons. Why? The Roman conquerors were never noted for their clemency. They delighted in humiliating their adversaries, satiating their bestial nature in the most fiendish forms of torture. The greater the renown of their unfortunate victim the less chance he had of escaping the horrors and incarceration of the Tarpeian. Neither Caradoc nor any member of the British royal family was subject in the least to any physical indignities.
On the day of Caradoc's trial Tacitus tells us that his daughter Gladys refused to be separated from her father, though it was against the Roman law for a woman to enter the Senate. Voluntarily she walked by the side of Caractacus, up the marble steps into the Senate, as brave and as composed as her father.
The report continues, the Pendragon stood before the Emperor full chest, a noble figure, fearless, calmly defiant, unconquered in spirit. The Senate was crowded to capacity and here again we note another breach of Roman law in the presence of another woman. History tells us that the great Queen Agrippira sat on her throne, on the far corner of the Dais, a fascinated witness to the most famous trial in Roman history.
This man who should have been the most hated as the leader of the Christian army drew admiration from all sides as he stood poised before his sworn enemy, the Emperor Claudius.
Such was the fame of the gallant Christian Briton Caractacus.
As the trial proceeded he spoke in a clear voice, trenchant with the passion of righteous vigor, as he vindicated the rights of a free man. He replied to his prosecutors with words that have lived down through the ages. Probably it is the only episode in this great Christian warrior's life that is remembered by posterity. Free men the world over may read his epic address with blood-warming pride as the pen of Tacitus worded it.
In the words of Tacitus, Caractacus addressed the Senate:
'Had my government in Britain been directed solely with a view to the preservation of my hereditary domains, or the aggrandizement of my own family, I might long since have entered this city an ally, not a prisoner: nor would you have I disdained for a friend a king descended from illustrious ancestors, and the dictator of many nations. My present condition, stripped of its former majesty, is as adverse to myself as it is a cause of triumph to you. What then? I was lord of men, horses, arms, wealth; what wonder if at your dictation I refused to resign them? Does it follow, that because the Romans aspire to universal domination, every nation is to accept the vassalage they would impose? I am now in your power - betrayed, not conquered. Had I, like others, yielded without resistance, where would have been the name of Caradoc? Where your glory? Oblivion would have buried both in the same tomb. Bid me live. I shall survive for ever in history one example at least of Roman clemency.'
The preservation of Caradoc does form a solitary exception in the long catalog of victims to this dastardly and nefarious policy; nor can it be accounted for, considering the inflexibility of Roman military usage, in any other way than by an immediate and supernatural intervention of Providence.
The life of Caradoc was spared, on condition of his never bearing arms against Rome again. A residence of seven years in free custody at Rome was imposed upon him. His father Bran was accepted as one of the hostages, and he was allowed the full enjoyment of the revenues of the royal Silurian domains, forwarded to him by his subjects and council.
Nearly twenty years after the Crucifixion, the trial and pardon of the British royal captives took place, in the year AD 52.
Supposedly, Peter first went to Rome twelve years after the death of Jesus, in the year AD 44, eight years after Joseph and his Bethany companions arrived in Britain and two years after the Claudian campaign of persecution began against Christian Britain. Paul did not arrive at Rome until AD 56. This is the date given by St. Jerome, and considered the most authentic. This does not mean that there were not Christians in Rome before the two Apostles arrived, or even before the British Silurians came as captives. There were a number of them present and they are scripturally referred to as 'the Church'. This must not be taken too literally. It did not refer to a material institution; it was a spiritual body in Christ. The number of Christians then at Rome were unorganized, treading in fear. They met secretly in small groups at the homes of various converts to worship, though most of them went underground. The Tiberian and Claudian ban that inflicted death on all who professed the faith was still in effect.
Following the pardon of Caractacus, a close relationship developed between the two former enemies and their households evolving into a startling climax. Claudius greatly admired the character and extraordinary beauty of Gladys, the daughter of Caractacus. It grew into a deep paternal affection with the result that Emperor Claudius adopted Gladys as his own daughter, a girl who was an exceptionally devout Christian.
The Emperor was well aware of the strong Christian convictions of Gladys, and what strikes one forcibly is the fact that the record states that the terms of her adoption did not require her to recant from her faith.
Gladys was not to remain long under the royal roof. The year after her adoption was to see a beautiful romance destined to culminate later in heartbreaking tragedy. In her teens, Claudia was betrothed and married. In the year AD 53, she became the wife of Rufus Pudens Prudentius, an epochal event history could well make as momentous.
Pudens, as he is most commonly referred to, was a Roman Senator and former personal aide-de-camp to Aulus Plautius. Pudens went to Britain with the Commander-in-Chief at the commencement of the Claudian campaign AD 42.
What could be a stranger circumstance than that of the British Pendragon Caractacus permitting his favorite daughter to become adopted by the remorseless enemy who had brought about his defeat at Clune and see his sister and daughter married to Plautius and Pudens, the leaders he had opposed in battle for nine long years?
Claudia was seventeen years of age when she married Rufus Pudens. The nuptials did not take place at the Imperial Palace of her adopted father, as one might expect, but at the palace of her natural father, the Plautium Britannicum, a Christian household. It was a Christian marriage performed by the Christian Pastor, Hermas, which proves that Pudens was already a Christian convert. It is interesting to note that they continued to live at the Plautium Britannicum; interesting because Pudens was an extremely wealthy man, owning vast estates in Umbria, but he chose to live at the Place of the British, where their four illustrious children were born.
The first Christian Church at Rome, known first as the "Titulus," is now called St. Prudentiana. Here the nuptials of Claudia and Rufus Pudens Prudentinus were celebrated AD 53. Four children were the issue of this marriage-- St Timotheus, St. Novatus, St. Prudentiana, St. Praxedes. Of the sons of Caradoc, Cyllinus and Cynon returned to Britain, the former succeeding on his death to the Silurian throne. The second, Lleyn, or Linus, remained with his father, and was subsequently, consecrated by St. Paul first bishop of the Roman Church.
We now see residing at the Plautium Britannicum the High Priest Bran, King Caractacus and the Queen, his wife; his daughter, the Princess Eurgain and her husband, Salog, lord of Salisbury; her brother, the immortal Prince Linus, now a Christian priest; The Emperor's adopted daughter, Claudius, and her husband the Senator Pudens; his mother, Priscilla; Pastor Hermas, kinsman of Pudens. Cyllinus and Cynon, the eldest and youngest sons of Caractacus had already returned to Britain. There were other members of the Pudens' Christian household dedicated to the faith but those mentioned are the important figures to remember. The talented sister of Caractacus, the ex-Princess Pomponia Graecina, and her influential husband Aulus Plautius, resided nearby. All were spiritually confirmed Christians except Caractacus and Bran, who were soon to experience the laying on of hands by St. Paul, climaxing their confirmation in the faith in the same manner as is performed by the Priesthood today in the Church of the Anglican Communion.
The palace, indeed, of the British King formed a focus and rendezvous, and perhaps the safest they could frequent, for the poets and authors of Rome. Nor did it cease to be so on return to his native country; it continued to be the residence of Pudens and Claudia and their children. Some conception may be formed of its size and magnificence from the number of servants who constituted its ordinary establishment. These, as we learn from the Roman Martyrology, were two hundred males and the same number of females, all born on the hereditary estates of Pudens, in Umbria.
St. Jerome places Paul's arrival in Rome at AD 56. He writes, "St. Paul went to Rome in the second year of Nero." Nero succeeded Claudius as Emperor. AD 56 being the preferred date, it allows eight years of contact with Rome in which St. Paul did not reside in his personal home. This fact supports the statements of the contemporary writers who state that St. Paul had his abode with the Pudens. There is a special and particular reason as to why he would prefer to reside with the Pudens at the British Palace, apart from its Christian environment.
Startling as if may be to the reader, facts will prove that living with the Pudens family was the mother of St. Paul and that Claudia Britannica was the sister-in-law of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
St. Paul, writing in his Epistles to those of Rome prior to his coming, says, 'Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.'
Some have sought to suggest that the woman was St. Paul's spiritual mother. This is entirely out ruled by the facts. A spiritual mother, or father, was one who had converted another. As we all know, Christ had converted Paul on the road to Damascus, and Paul had not been to Rome since before the Judean persecution of Christ's followers, AD 33.
Were Rufus and Paul half-brothers--the latter, the elder, by a Hebrew, the former, the younger, by a second marriage with a Gentile, a proselyte Roman? This mother was a Christian living with Rufus, and is termed also his mother by St. Paul. When at Rome, Paul spent most of his time in the palace of Rufus, though he had also his own hired house. The children of Claudia and Pudens, as we learn from the Roman Martyrologies, were brought up on Paul's knees, and we find in the last scene of his life preceding his martyrdom, the only salutations sent by him to Timothy to be those of Eubulus, Claudia, Linus, and Pudens--the same family evidently ministering and attending to him to the last.
Pudens was converted before St. Paul came to Rome, and by some other Christian than Paul. Hermas Pastor appears at this very early date to have been the pastor at the Titulus, which constituted the place of meeting for the Gentile Church, or church of the uncircumcision. The Hebrew Church, or Church of the circumcision, met at the House of Aquila and Priscilla.
Thus twenty-five years had elapsed before his arrival at Rome, an Apostle of Christ. By deduction, Pudens must have been in his late twenties when he married the seventeen-year-old British Princess, and at the time of St. Paul's salutation he must have been near his mid-thirties, which shows a long separation between 'his mother and mine'.
From all this we realize that St. Paul and Rufus Pudens Pudentius were half-brothers, each having the same mother. In turn, this made the British Princess Gladys, the Emperor Claudius' adopted daughter, now known as Claudia Britannica Rufina Pudens Pudentius, sister-in-law to the Apostle of the Gentiles. And lastly, through Gladys' adoption, St. Paul is the half-brother-son-in-law (if there can be such a thing) to the Emperor Claudius.
Christianity was first introduced into Britain by Joseph of Arimathea, AD 36-39; followed by Simon Zelotes, the apostle; then by Aristobulus, the first bishop of the Britons; then by St. Paul. Its first converts were members of the royal family of Siluria--that is, Gladys, the sister of Caradoc, Gladys (Claudia) and Eurgen his daughters, Linus his son, converted in Britain before they were carried into captivity to Rome; then Caradoc, Bran, and the rest of the family, converted at Rome. The two cradles of Christianity in Britain were Ynys Wydrin, 'the Crystal Isle,' translated by the Saxons Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, where Joseph settled and taught, and Siluria, where the earliest churches and schools, next to Ynys Wydrin, were founded by the Silurian dynasty. Ynys Wydrin was also commonly known as Ynys Avalon, and in Latin "Domus Dei," "Secretum Dei."
God always has a backup plan. All these unusual events accomplished one very important over-riding goal. The advancement, preservation of Christianity; which translates into bringing God's message of His coming Kingdom to the world. The Christians are the ones who are doing that. And that should be no surprise. The Christian nations of the world are the Israelites, the Lost Tribes. Those folks have always worked for God, getting out His Word.
The whole purpose of starting up a world population group with Abraham was to send the message around the world. You need a lot of kids to do a job as big as that.
Well, when it comes to His word, God makes sure that all the bases are covered. So He sets up Protectorates ahead of time, to make sure His plan comes out the other side of any adversity. He sent Joseph to Egypt to get a place ready for the family when they fled the famine. He set up Esther so she would have the King's ear and be able to save her people from old Haman's Holocaust. He sent Daniel to rule Babylon to make it easier for the captive Jews. On a wider scale, He sent the tribe of Dan, as the Phoenicians, all across Europe to scout out the route to be taken when the Lost Tribes made their migrations to northwest Europe and the British Isles, centuries later. Why not set up a Protection Zone at Rome?
Maybe you noticed that those were pretty rough times in Rome. Life was held very cheaply in the heart of Satan's dominion. If Christianity was to survive, it would only be accomplished by efforts of kingly proportions.
- continued -
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Promises To Keep
"Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire. Of such is wisdom." --William Butler Yeats
It’s been months since my last post. Not that I have not been online and reading the blogs others are updating on a regular basis. It hasn't been a deliberate negligence either... I've just busied myself with researching things other than the world of day-to-day politics and the mental masturbation referred to as news media. And, since my blogs theme is politics and the bulk of my extra time has been spent on the early history of the Christian church I simply didn't have anything to share, until now.
It’s probably best to start in the middle of the story, in order to keep the interest of most. But, if you like soap operas or a good mystery novel on occasion you might find what follows well worth your time. One final preface then I’ll get to it. Sometimes politics and religion are one and the same. There’s one constant that everyone can count on… that is that GOD will keep all of His promises.
"It was not for societies or states, that Christ died, but for men. ... I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." --C.S. Lewis
Part 1
For ninety-seven years no Roman again ventured to set foot on the island, and when the eagle of Romulus once more expanded its pinions to the stormy winds of ocean it was when no other enemy, unconquered, confronted its gaze from the Euphrates to Gibraltar, and the forces of the whole empire were ready to follow its leading against the solitary free nationality of the West
Augustus sent ambassadors to Britain demanding the restoration of the three Reguli of the Coritani, or Coraniaid, Dumno, Belaunus, and Jernian, to their estates, confiscated for treason. Tenuantius, the son of Caswallon, a mild, pacific monarch, had sent his two sons, Cynvelin and Llyr (Lear), to be educated at Rome, where they were brought up with his nephews in his palace by Augustus himself, who made a rule, as Suetonius informs us, of teaching the younger branches of his family in person. Cynvelin subsequently served in the German campaigns under Germanicus. He had now succeeded his father, and received the Roman ambassadors with courtesy, but peremptorily rejected the interference of a foreign potentate in the affairs of the island. Augustus moved half the disposable forces of the empire to the Gallic harbors on the Channel, but he never entertained serious intentions of an invasion.
A conference with the imperial friend and tutor of his youth was solicited. The result was the triumph of British diplomacy, a less frequent success than that of British arms. Not only did the emperor abandon his demands, but the heavy duties previously levied on British goods were reduced to a very light tariff. Friendly relations were restored, British nobles again took up their residence at Rome, and were to be seen dedicating their offerings at the shrines of the Capitol.
The future emperor, Claudius, from birth through young manhood lived under the strictest state of surveillance. He was regarded just one notch above an idiot. "He is as imbecilic as my son Claudius" was an ordinary phrase in his mother Livia's mouth when she wished to imply an extraordinary degree of stupidity. His appearance did not belie his character. Tall and full in person, and possessed, when seated, of the external show of dignity, in motion his knees shook, his head perpetually trembled, his tongue stuttered, his laughter was outrageously violent, and his anger marked by profuse foaming at the mouth. Indeed cruel and bloodthirsty by nature, as every Roman was, he insisted on being present whenever any criminal was put to the torture. He never failed to give the sign of "no quarter" against disabled gladiators, and delighted with a horrible voracity to gloat over the dying expression of their faces. He sat from morning to night, neglecting the ordinary hours of refreshment, at the bestiaria or combats of wild beasts, and yet personally was the rankest and most contemptible of cowards.
Whatever the deficiencies of the Emperor himself might be, at no time were the great offices of state filled by men of higher administrative capacity, or better able to wield the vast military resources of the empire. Aulus Plautius a general, who emulated the Scipios in the rigor of his discipline and the rapidity of his marches, was appointed to the command of the army of invasion.
Early in the war, a battle was fought in which King Guiderius fell. His brother Arviragus succeeded him on the throne, but the national emergency requiring the establishment of the pendragonate, or a military dictatorship, Caradoc was unanimously elected to that high office, Arviragus giving his vote first in his favor and consenting to act under him.
It tells well for the abilities of Caradoc that in this first battle as Pendragon he was able to hold his ground for two days of incessant fighting against three such generals as Plautius, Vespasian, and Geta. Undismayed, he collected his forces again, and Plautius, on attempting to follow him, was so roughly handled that messages were sent to Rome for instructions and reinforcements. Claudius himself immediately quitted Rome, and passing through Gaul landed at Richborough, with the second and fourteenth legions, their auxiliaries, and a cohors of elephants brought over for the express purpose of neutralizing the British chariot charges.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, writing of the Claudian campaign that lasted for nine years, except for one brief six months' pause, dismally wrote that, although Rome hurled at the British the greatest army in her history, it failed to prevail against the military genius of Caractacus (Caradoc) and the reckless fierceness of the British warrior. Many battles were fought and the famous Legions of Rome frequently suffered defeat with terrible slaughter. On occasions when the British suffered severe reverses Tacitus said, "The fierce ardor of the British increased."
After two years of ceaseless warfare Claudius, recognizing the futility of the struggle and the terrible drainage on his finest Legions, took advantage of a reverse against Caractacus, at Brando Camp, AD 45, to seek peace through an armistice. A six-month truce was declared in which Caractacus and Arviragus were invited to Rome do discuss the possibilities for peace. The facts that followed prove that Claudius went to great lengths to come to satisfactory terms with the obstinate British leaders.
Hoping to clinch the peace the Emperor Claudius offered to Arviragus, in marriage, his daughter, Venus Julia. And, amazing as it appears, they were married in Rome during the truce period, AD 45.
Here we have the strange instance of a Christian British king becoming the son-in-law of the pagan Roman Emperor Claudius, who had sworn to exterminate Christianity and Britain.
Surely the wife of a “crude barbarian,” just for the sake of peace, justifies one in asking would the Emperor of a nation, then the most powerful in the world, high in culture and intellectual pursuits, have sacrificed his natural daughter in marriage too? Impossible.
During the six months' truce while Caractacus and Arviragus were at Rome discussing peace terms and the latter was getting married, Aulus Plautius, the Roman Commander, remained in Britain maintaining the truce on behalf of Rome. During this interval another strange alliance took place in Britain. Gladys (Celtic for Princess), the sister of the British war lord Caractacus, was united in marriage to the Roman Commander-in-Chief, Aulus Plautius! Again we witness the amazing spectacle of a member of the Silurian royal family, a Christian, married to a Roman pagan.
Joseph of Arimathea had personally converted Gladys, together with her niece, Eurgain, Guiderius, Arviragus and other members of the British aristocracy. Like her father, the ex-King and present Arch Druid, she was devoutly religious, completing her religious instruction at Avalon and in association with the Bethany women. Considering all this, one is immediately intrigued by this unusual situation. It is made more exciting as we realize that her brother and husband were wartime opponents.
The marriage of Gladys and Plautius is brought into the Roman limelight by Tacitus in his Annals, wherein he relates with humor the peculiar circumstances and results of a Roman trial in which Gladys, the wife of Plautius, is accused of being Christian. On her marriage Gladys took the name of Pomponia, according to Roman custom, which was the name of the Plautium clan. Later the name Graecina was added, so that she is thereafter known as Pomponia Graecina Plautius. The added name was a distinctive academic honor conferred upon her in recognition of her extraordinary scholarship in Greek.
Continued to the next posting.
It’s been months since my last post. Not that I have not been online and reading the blogs others are updating on a regular basis. It hasn't been a deliberate negligence either... I've just busied myself with researching things other than the world of day-to-day politics and the mental masturbation referred to as news media. And, since my blogs theme is politics and the bulk of my extra time has been spent on the early history of the Christian church I simply didn't have anything to share, until now.
It’s probably best to start in the middle of the story, in order to keep the interest of most. But, if you like soap operas or a good mystery novel on occasion you might find what follows well worth your time. One final preface then I’ll get to it. Sometimes politics and religion are one and the same. There’s one constant that everyone can count on… that is that GOD will keep all of His promises.
"It was not for societies or states, that Christ died, but for men. ... I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." --C.S. Lewis
Part 1
For ninety-seven years no Roman again ventured to set foot on the island, and when the eagle of Romulus once more expanded its pinions to the stormy winds of ocean it was when no other enemy, unconquered, confronted its gaze from the Euphrates to Gibraltar, and the forces of the whole empire were ready to follow its leading against the solitary free nationality of the West
Augustus sent ambassadors to Britain demanding the restoration of the three Reguli of the Coritani, or Coraniaid, Dumno, Belaunus, and Jernian, to their estates, confiscated for treason. Tenuantius, the son of Caswallon, a mild, pacific monarch, had sent his two sons, Cynvelin and Llyr (Lear), to be educated at Rome, where they were brought up with his nephews in his palace by Augustus himself, who made a rule, as Suetonius informs us, of teaching the younger branches of his family in person. Cynvelin subsequently served in the German campaigns under Germanicus. He had now succeeded his father, and received the Roman ambassadors with courtesy, but peremptorily rejected the interference of a foreign potentate in the affairs of the island. Augustus moved half the disposable forces of the empire to the Gallic harbors on the Channel, but he never entertained serious intentions of an invasion.
A conference with the imperial friend and tutor of his youth was solicited. The result was the triumph of British diplomacy, a less frequent success than that of British arms. Not only did the emperor abandon his demands, but the heavy duties previously levied on British goods were reduced to a very light tariff. Friendly relations were restored, British nobles again took up their residence at Rome, and were to be seen dedicating their offerings at the shrines of the Capitol.
The future emperor, Claudius, from birth through young manhood lived under the strictest state of surveillance. He was regarded just one notch above an idiot. "He is as imbecilic as my son Claudius" was an ordinary phrase in his mother Livia's mouth when she wished to imply an extraordinary degree of stupidity. His appearance did not belie his character. Tall and full in person, and possessed, when seated, of the external show of dignity, in motion his knees shook, his head perpetually trembled, his tongue stuttered, his laughter was outrageously violent, and his anger marked by profuse foaming at the mouth. Indeed cruel and bloodthirsty by nature, as every Roman was, he insisted on being present whenever any criminal was put to the torture. He never failed to give the sign of "no quarter" against disabled gladiators, and delighted with a horrible voracity to gloat over the dying expression of their faces. He sat from morning to night, neglecting the ordinary hours of refreshment, at the bestiaria or combats of wild beasts, and yet personally was the rankest and most contemptible of cowards.
Whatever the deficiencies of the Emperor himself might be, at no time were the great offices of state filled by men of higher administrative capacity, or better able to wield the vast military resources of the empire. Aulus Plautius a general, who emulated the Scipios in the rigor of his discipline and the rapidity of his marches, was appointed to the command of the army of invasion.
Early in the war, a battle was fought in which King Guiderius fell. His brother Arviragus succeeded him on the throne, but the national emergency requiring the establishment of the pendragonate, or a military dictatorship, Caradoc was unanimously elected to that high office, Arviragus giving his vote first in his favor and consenting to act under him.
It tells well for the abilities of Caradoc that in this first battle as Pendragon he was able to hold his ground for two days of incessant fighting against three such generals as Plautius, Vespasian, and Geta. Undismayed, he collected his forces again, and Plautius, on attempting to follow him, was so roughly handled that messages were sent to Rome for instructions and reinforcements. Claudius himself immediately quitted Rome, and passing through Gaul landed at Richborough, with the second and fourteenth legions, their auxiliaries, and a cohors of elephants brought over for the express purpose of neutralizing the British chariot charges.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, writing of the Claudian campaign that lasted for nine years, except for one brief six months' pause, dismally wrote that, although Rome hurled at the British the greatest army in her history, it failed to prevail against the military genius of Caractacus (Caradoc) and the reckless fierceness of the British warrior. Many battles were fought and the famous Legions of Rome frequently suffered defeat with terrible slaughter. On occasions when the British suffered severe reverses Tacitus said, "The fierce ardor of the British increased."
After two years of ceaseless warfare Claudius, recognizing the futility of the struggle and the terrible drainage on his finest Legions, took advantage of a reverse against Caractacus, at Brando Camp, AD 45, to seek peace through an armistice. A six-month truce was declared in which Caractacus and Arviragus were invited to Rome do discuss the possibilities for peace. The facts that followed prove that Claudius went to great lengths to come to satisfactory terms with the obstinate British leaders.
Hoping to clinch the peace the Emperor Claudius offered to Arviragus, in marriage, his daughter, Venus Julia. And, amazing as it appears, they were married in Rome during the truce period, AD 45.
Here we have the strange instance of a Christian British king becoming the son-in-law of the pagan Roman Emperor Claudius, who had sworn to exterminate Christianity and Britain.
Surely the wife of a “crude barbarian,” just for the sake of peace, justifies one in asking would the Emperor of a nation, then the most powerful in the world, high in culture and intellectual pursuits, have sacrificed his natural daughter in marriage too? Impossible.
During the six months' truce while Caractacus and Arviragus were at Rome discussing peace terms and the latter was getting married, Aulus Plautius, the Roman Commander, remained in Britain maintaining the truce on behalf of Rome. During this interval another strange alliance took place in Britain. Gladys (Celtic for Princess), the sister of the British war lord Caractacus, was united in marriage to the Roman Commander-in-Chief, Aulus Plautius! Again we witness the amazing spectacle of a member of the Silurian royal family, a Christian, married to a Roman pagan.
Joseph of Arimathea had personally converted Gladys, together with her niece, Eurgain, Guiderius, Arviragus and other members of the British aristocracy. Like her father, the ex-King and present Arch Druid, she was devoutly religious, completing her religious instruction at Avalon and in association with the Bethany women. Considering all this, one is immediately intrigued by this unusual situation. It is made more exciting as we realize that her brother and husband were wartime opponents.
The marriage of Gladys and Plautius is brought into the Roman limelight by Tacitus in his Annals, wherein he relates with humor the peculiar circumstances and results of a Roman trial in which Gladys, the wife of Plautius, is accused of being Christian. On her marriage Gladys took the name of Pomponia, according to Roman custom, which was the name of the Plautium clan. Later the name Graecina was added, so that she is thereafter known as Pomponia Graecina Plautius. The added name was a distinctive academic honor conferred upon her in recognition of her extraordinary scholarship in Greek.
Continued to the next posting.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A Time for Choosing
I sincerely hope all who visit this blog will stop long enough to read this post. It is a stump speech, given on a memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign.
"I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan
"I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan
Saturday, February 9, 2008
A Citizen Advocating Constitutional Governance
"Judge not, lest ye be judged." It's notable that this text from the Bible has replaced John 3:16 as Americans' favorite scriptural quotation -- but what does it actually mean? Is this ageless admonition really a call to unmitigated tolerance over discernment between right and wrong? Is it really a biblical nod of the head to the virtues of postmodern morality and multicultural society?
Of course not. As Christ's imperative against judgment appears in the Gospel accounts, a different picture emerges. With the Pharisees clearly in view, in the Sermon on the Mount account of Matthew 7, and again in Luke 6, "judge not" appears in the context of the proverbial man who perceives the speck that is in his brother's eye, but not the log that is in his own. The context, then, suggests a warning against hypocrisy, not moral discernment. Indeed, the full imperative of the passage encourages righteous judgment: "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Then, in John 7:24, taking aim at the Pharisees once again, Jesus makes another extraordinary statement: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." So, does Jesus really call his followers to "judge not"? Not really. In the vocabulary of theologians, this practice of isolating and thereby misinterpreting a phrase or passage from its context is called eisegesis.
Other common examples of eisegesis -- which I'll leave to your own exegesis -- include the imperative "care for orphans and widows" (James 1) to sanction a social, and thereby governmental, responsibility; "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (I Corinthians 11) as an affirmation of male chauvinism; and "Love keeps no record of wrongs" (I Corinthians 13) as a get-out-of-jail-free card for habitual sin.
But what, you ask, does this Bible lesson have to do with the Constitution? In truth, the same fallacies that affect biblical interpretation also affect our interpretation of the Constitution.
The belief in a Constitution subject to the evolving interpretation of the judiciary has as its origin the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." All well and good if the courts would continue to interpret the law exegetically, but as history would soon show, constitutional eisegesis was lurking just around the corner.
In fact, by the early 20th century the eisegetical interpretation of the Constitution had been given a name, courtesy of Howard McBain's 1927 book, The Living Constitution. In the decades that followed, this notion of a "living" Constitution, one subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, took hold in the federal courts. Judicial activists, who legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, or at the behest of like-minded special-interest constituencies, were nominated for the federal bench and confirmed in droves.
This degradation of law was codified by the Warren Court, under the influence of Justice William Brennan, Jr., in Trop v. Dulles (1958). In that ruling, the High Court noted that the Constitution should comport with "evolving standards...that mark the progress of a maturing society." In other words, it had now become a fully pliable document -- one that Jefferson had warned us would be a "mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
By 1987, living constitutionalism had become such the norm that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted to the age in which it existed, given prevailing political, moral and cultural norms.
More recently, "living" jurist Anthony Kennedy and court jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens cited "national consensus" as a factor in the Roper v. Simmons ruling, a few years ago. In doing so, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy -- and took us one step closer toward what every serious thinker since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.
Just as the problem of biblical and constitutional eisegesis is essentially the same, so too is the solution. For centuries, a fundamental guiding principle has directed proper scriptural exegesis: Scripture interprets Scripture. That is to say, the primary lens for understanding a text is the text elsewhere in the Bible -- thus, we interpret the Bible through what the Bible says.
With the Constitution, the concept is easily applied. The Separation Clause certainly calls Marbury into question, and the Tenth Amendment contradicts the Roper decision, not to mention Roe v. Wade and the illusory constitutional "right to privacy." Further, the constitutional basis for Kelo v. New London is simply absent, as are our First Amendment rights under McCain-Feingold. And let's not forget the myriad laws that infringe upon our rights guaranteed by the Second.
Just as the Bible's New Testament may be said to interpret its Old Testament, so too is the Constitution accompanied by a binding interpretation, the Federalist Papers. Authored by Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution's original intent, clearly define original intent in regard to constitutional interpretation. In Federalist No. 78 Hamilton writes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." In Federalist No. 81 Hamilton notes, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...."
Today, more than two centuries later, Justice Antonin Scalia warns of such judicial activism: "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
By contrast, the heart of the Constitution, and hence the heart of constitutional constructionism, is this: The federal government should be sovereign and strong in its constitutionally delimited competencies; in matters where the Constitution is silent, however, the states and the people, not the national government, are sovereign. This understanding transforms the debate between strong governance (the liberal position) and weak governance (the libertarian position) to one of constitutional governance (the conservative, constructionist position). In this way, the text itself -- not its judicial caretakers -- interprets the text. This is exegetical governance. Indeed, this is constitutional governance.
Of course not. As Christ's imperative against judgment appears in the Gospel accounts, a different picture emerges. With the Pharisees clearly in view, in the Sermon on the Mount account of Matthew 7, and again in Luke 6, "judge not" appears in the context of the proverbial man who perceives the speck that is in his brother's eye, but not the log that is in his own. The context, then, suggests a warning against hypocrisy, not moral discernment. Indeed, the full imperative of the passage encourages righteous judgment: "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Then, in John 7:24, taking aim at the Pharisees once again, Jesus makes another extraordinary statement: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." So, does Jesus really call his followers to "judge not"? Not really. In the vocabulary of theologians, this practice of isolating and thereby misinterpreting a phrase or passage from its context is called eisegesis.
Other common examples of eisegesis -- which I'll leave to your own exegesis -- include the imperative "care for orphans and widows" (James 1) to sanction a social, and thereby governmental, responsibility; "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (I Corinthians 11) as an affirmation of male chauvinism; and "Love keeps no record of wrongs" (I Corinthians 13) as a get-out-of-jail-free card for habitual sin.
But what, you ask, does this Bible lesson have to do with the Constitution? In truth, the same fallacies that affect biblical interpretation also affect our interpretation of the Constitution.
The belief in a Constitution subject to the evolving interpretation of the judiciary has as its origin the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." All well and good if the courts would continue to interpret the law exegetically, but as history would soon show, constitutional eisegesis was lurking just around the corner.
In fact, by the early 20th century the eisegetical interpretation of the Constitution had been given a name, courtesy of Howard McBain's 1927 book, The Living Constitution. In the decades that followed, this notion of a "living" Constitution, one subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, took hold in the federal courts. Judicial activists, who legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, or at the behest of like-minded special-interest constituencies, were nominated for the federal bench and confirmed in droves.
This degradation of law was codified by the Warren Court, under the influence of Justice William Brennan, Jr., in Trop v. Dulles (1958). In that ruling, the High Court noted that the Constitution should comport with "evolving standards...that mark the progress of a maturing society." In other words, it had now become a fully pliable document -- one that Jefferson had warned us would be a "mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
By 1987, living constitutionalism had become such the norm that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted to the age in which it existed, given prevailing political, moral and cultural norms.
More recently, "living" jurist Anthony Kennedy and court jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens cited "national consensus" as a factor in the Roper v. Simmons ruling, a few years ago. In doing so, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy -- and took us one step closer toward what every serious thinker since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.
Just as the problem of biblical and constitutional eisegesis is essentially the same, so too is the solution. For centuries, a fundamental guiding principle has directed proper scriptural exegesis: Scripture interprets Scripture. That is to say, the primary lens for understanding a text is the text elsewhere in the Bible -- thus, we interpret the Bible through what the Bible says.
With the Constitution, the concept is easily applied. The Separation Clause certainly calls Marbury into question, and the Tenth Amendment contradicts the Roper decision, not to mention Roe v. Wade and the illusory constitutional "right to privacy." Further, the constitutional basis for Kelo v. New London is simply absent, as are our First Amendment rights under McCain-Feingold. And let's not forget the myriad laws that infringe upon our rights guaranteed by the Second.
Just as the Bible's New Testament may be said to interpret its Old Testament, so too is the Constitution accompanied by a binding interpretation, the Federalist Papers. Authored by Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution's original intent, clearly define original intent in regard to constitutional interpretation. In Federalist No. 78 Hamilton writes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." In Federalist No. 81 Hamilton notes, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...."
Today, more than two centuries later, Justice Antonin Scalia warns of such judicial activism: "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
By contrast, the heart of the Constitution, and hence the heart of constitutional constructionism, is this: The federal government should be sovereign and strong in its constitutionally delimited competencies; in matters where the Constitution is silent, however, the states and the people, not the national government, are sovereign. This understanding transforms the debate between strong governance (the liberal position) and weak governance (the libertarian position) to one of constitutional governance (the conservative, constructionist position). In this way, the text itself -- not its judicial caretakers -- interprets the text. This is exegetical governance. Indeed, this is constitutional governance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
