The Foundations of American Government Part 2 Compact Government

Part 2 Compact Government: Rejecting Kingcraft and Priestcraft
We should re-declare our allegiance to a compact form of government. This is not difficult to understand and is best explained by demonstrating the difference between covenant and compact.

Generally, a covenant is an agreement between man and God. God makes His promises, challenges men to live certain standards, and then promises His blessings on that man that keeps the covenant. It is an agreement between men and their God.

A compact is simply an agreement between men. Men gather together and decide a certain course and pledge to live according to the agreement. The compact is a human agreement that is used to protect human beings from the covetousness of each other. The principle of compact is evident in contracts or any other human agreement. It is an agreement between men. Let us build on this for a moment.

In Nimrod, it is vital to see the corruption of two somethings called kingcraft and priestcraft. These are words hardly used in our generation, but they were in common use at the time of the creation of the United States. Kings have ruled and still rule throughout the world, whether they be absolute monarchies, dictatorships or oligarchies. Priests have and still rule by “Christian” theocracies, Muslim “republics,” or any other religious-based government. Nimrod used both control grids in that he reigned by right as a king and by spiritual power by making himself a god. Thus began an awful pattern of human government repeated throughout history. It was a pattern that needed to be overthrown to secure the basic rights of liberty for individuals in society.

For the record, the nation of Israel before Saul, David, and Solomon, had the only national government created directly by God. It was comprised of a system of local judges who settled disputes and punished evil-doers. It was government under Jehovah’s direct revelation through the prophets and the Ten Commandments. It was a theocracy in the truest sense of the word. Later the nation of Israel rejected this original divine design and chose kingcraft under Saul, David, Solomon and etc. They suffered the consequences for choosing that kind of government.

Kingcraft began sometime before the call of Abraham. By Genesis 14, there are at least 10 kings battling for power in that portion of the Middle East. The kings had to fight to maintain their power and jurisdiction. From this illustration in history we see clearly that kings only reign over parcels of land their military force can control.

In comparison, it was priestcraft that controlled Egypt. This foundation eventually gave rise to the Roman Empire. Priestcraft is more corrupt than mere kingcraft because it evokes a deity to maintain control. The deity or deities would reign in a theocracy. For the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, and Germans (before Christianity) the deity or deities in question were pagan. In Rome (after Constantine), France, Germany, England, Ireland, Scotland, Russia and New England (under the Puritans) the deity was Jehovah God. For the Islamic states, priestcraft is settled under a God named Allah.

That kingcraft and priestcraft are tyrannical is evident, for both create a government which forces the people to believe something which their consciences may not necessarily believe. This creates a violation of conscience. This is vital. Do not ever forget it.

The founders of the American republic rejected both kingcraft and priestcraft. They chose instead to follow a civil agreement based upon protection of life, liberty and property and not the consience, or beliefs of the citizens. An agreement thus established is called a compact. This explains why the first two pieces of civil law protecting liberty in America were the Mayflower Compact and the Providence Compact.

Though there is some disbelief on the part of certain religious historians, compact indeed was the foundation of the American Republic. Even though oft-quoted religious historians such as Peter Marshall, David Manuel and David Barton cannot seem to articulate this all-important truth, it is a fact of real history. Compact is our fundamental source of government and that compact is the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“I have much confidence that we shall proceed successfully for ages to come, and that, contrary to the principle of Montesquieu, it will be seen that the larger the extent of country, the more firm its republican structure, if founded not on conquest, but in principles of compact and equality.” Thomas Jefferson to Francois de Marbois, 1817. ME 15:130

And James Madison concurred:

“All power in just and free governments is derived from compact.” James Madison, “Sovereignty,” The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 9, P. 569.

Our compact is the Constitution, which means the founders and framers rejected kingcraft and priestcraft.
james beller