As the events of House Divided unfolded, one thing immediately came to mind: this is precisely the kind of book that would give Arizona State School Superintendent Tom Horne a massive heart attack. And you know what? This in itself is a good reason to read the book.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez’s House Divided takes place in the not-too-distant future where Class H citizens–”those who were Hispanic, married to a Hispanic, or had at least one grandparent of Hispanic origin”–are forced to live in large Quarantine Zones around the United States. Rebels within the camps, led by “Mano” Suarez, try to fight for their freedom. Knowing the importance of public opinion, the Hispanic Republic of North America, as they call themselves, tries to stick to strategic attacks on the U.S. military. Meanwhile, an impatient extremist group called the Latino Liberation Front emerges in response to harsh government crackdowns, and Mano is horrified when his teenage son joins.

This is not the type of book I usually read (my attention usually strays at the first sign of military jargon), so I was surprised how quickly I became absorbed into the story; I could not put the book down. Ramos y Sanchez deftly handles the subject matter by writing about it from different points of view. The chapters are told from different perspectives, such as the rebels, the extremists, and  various government officials. While the fight for human rights at the center of the plot, the subject of family bonds is also explored in detail.

It’s also important to note the book’s relevance, given the current political climate regarding immigration and the Latin@ stereotypes perpetuated in the mainstream media. The book directly touches on this a few times. For instance, when asked why “most people picture a swarthy guy with a serape and a sombrero when they hear the word Hispanic,” a soldier in charge of patrolling one of the Quarantine Zones responds by saying that the proximity of the Mexican border influences people’s perceptions; he goes on to note the diversity of Latin America.

I have not yet read America Libre, the precursor to House Divided, but had no problem at all jumping right into the story. House Divided was truly a pleasure to read. I love books with dystopian elements, and reading one that centered on Latin@s was a particularly enjoyable experience.

House Divided was released on January 28, 2011.

Publisher/Year: Grand Central Publishing, 2011
Source: Publisher advance review copy
Format: Print

Hachette Book Group is providing a copy of America Libre and House Divided to one lucky reader! To enter the giveaway, fill out [this] form Contest closes February 13, 2011 at 5 p.m. Central time.  The winner will be randomly selected on Valentine’s Day and contacted by email. Sorry no P.O. boxes, and this is open to U.S. and Canada only.

Good luck!

check out these awesome flags at http://www.footballfanatics.com

Well, it’s that time of year. The time when my house divides. I am a Duck fan along with the rest of them, except for one day a year.  The day when they play the Beavers. You see, I am a Beaver myself. Yikes. I know what you are thinking. But I know I share this predicament with many of you. Husband from Florida and wife from Georgia. Husband from Michigan and wife from Ohio State. It happens, right?

So here we are – on the brink of CIVIL WAR and the bantaring has started. This year though, has huge impact.  We might be able to keep the Ducks out of the National Championship.  The Beavers have been known to cause a few significant upsets for the Ducks. (yes, that was a little heckle).  It’s a very conflicting day.  I want the Beavers to win – what a game that would be!  Incredible.  But then I think about the 366th day – the day when my Duck Husband wakes up and realizes that the Beaver win has potentially kept the Ducks out of the National Championship.  That is not a happy Duck.  I’m conflicted.  Do I root for the Beavers, or do I root for a happy house?

Even our poor children, our platypus kids (Half Beaver / Half Duck) are torn. My daughter wears her Duck cheerleader outfit but waves the Beaver pom pom. And my poor little guy wears his Duck shorts while coordinating perfectly with his Orange Beaver shirt.

A house divided – let’s see what happens on Saturday. Go Beavs!

A special one-night only offer of $6 tickets for college students in the Upstate will give students a great opportunity to save on tickets. All that is needed to get the discount is a valid college ID when you purchase your tickets at the BI-LO Center Box Office. For exact details regarding this offer please contact the BI-LO Center Box Office by calling 864-241-3800. The Road Warriors are also offering $6 group tickets to groups of 10 or more who come from an Upstate university or college. Fraternities, sororities, student governments groups, clubs, and even faculty members are encouraged to contact the Road Warriors to take advantage of the special group discount.

The $6 ticket deal is twice as nice because the ticket will actually get you admission to two hockey games instead of one. Following the Road Warriors and Gladiators game the Clemson and University of South Carolina hockey teams will be playing a game at the BI-LO Center. All fans who attend the Road Warriors’ game can stay for free and watch Clemson and South Carolina battle it out. Both teams play in the American Collegiate Hockey Association and are off to strong starts this season. Clemson is 5-2-0 after seven games while the Gamecocks are 4-3-0 and have won three consecutive games.

Don’t forget that Friday’s game will feature the popular Friday Family Four-Pack. The Four-Pack features four tickets, four hot dogs, four pretzels, four bags of chips, and four sodas for just $48. Family Four-Packs are available at all Friday home games this season and can be purchased through the BI-LO Center Box Office. Group tickets are also available for Friday night’s game. You and your group of 10 or more can save on tickets, get preferred seating based on availability, and more by calling 864-674-PUCK to speak to a Road Warriors group sales representative. Visit www.greenvilleroadwarriors.com for all of your ticket information.

Mormon Sponsored Propaganda: NOM

Now there’s proof that the truth is actually quite different. That proof is in the form of a new book being released on Nov. 2 by Doubleday. In “Beyond a House Divided: The Moral Consensus Ignored by Washington, Wall Street and the Media,” the leader of the Knights of Columbus, Carl Anderson, shows how recent polling conclusively reveals that the culture wars are being won by those with traditional values.

via IBD Commentary: Americans finding consensus on key issues | NOM Blog.

What Would Dorothy Do?

Mr. Krugman shares his thoughts on America’s future after the mid-terms.

“Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?

“Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?

“No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.”

Read the rest here.

Tired of those monotonous meetings, those chattering conversations, the cacophony of the city?  Mask it all with SimplyNoise– a “flat sound” generator– and choose among white, pink or brown/red noise…

As we seek auditory Zen, we might open our ears selectively in the memory that it was on this date in 1858 that Abraham Lincoln gave his “House Divided” speech in Springfield, Illinois.  Playing off of a quote from the Bible (Matthew 12:25, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”), then Senatorial candidate Lincoln prophesied that

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

During the War of 1812, Abigail Adams had written a similar line in a letter from  to Mercy Otis Warren– a variation that in its way is as timely today as Lincoln’s:

…A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us.

Candidate Lincoln

We have a problem. A really big one. Today, we as a country are about as divided as any time in recent history. Not ever, because, you know, there was that whole “great war of yankee aggression” thing. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as one of our greatest Presidents once said, and I believe that to be true even now, some 150 years later.

It’s hard to lay the blame for this at the feet of any one institution. The Democratic party would blame the Republicans, and vis versa. Media outlets would blame other media outlets. And while political parties and the media are certainly part of the problem, I believe the responsibility ultimately falls on the people themselves. The governed, as opposed to the governing. The consumers of media, not the distributors.

Most people don’t follow politics day-to-day. Many people don’t follow it at all until it’s time for another election. Yet many of these same people will show up at the ballots on voting day, which is our right as Americans. But that doesn’t make it right.

Understandably, politics doesn’t interest everyone. But the issues our politicians deal with effect everyone in some way, be it directly or indirectly, now or in the future. And those issues are often times very complex. If they weren’t, they’d probably be fixed already, instead of dragging on for decades or being put on the backburner. We just saw that with healthcare reform, which had been tried by both the Clinton administration and Nixon administration. We’ll be seeing it again soon with immigration, an issue Reagan tackled in his second term.

In my opinion, it’s the complexity of these issues that needs a greater focus from the American people. A little blurb in the paper or a campaign commercial on TV or a few articles on the web isn’t enough. To really understand this stuff takes time and commitment. And that’s where people quit, once it requires them to spend time and effort.

To me, however, it is this lack of understanding of issues that allows the two parties to distort their messages, that allows the media to sensationalize the trivial and ignore the important. They wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t work. And the only way to stop it from working is, basically, for us as a country to wise up, and learn about the big issues our elected officials tackle. If not, the cycle will only continue, and eventually our house will stand no more.

Publius

In a full/hyper-preterist Ning social group, Sovereign Grace Preterism (SGP), they have a sub-Group dedicated to the book “House Divided”.  One comment caught my eye because it further proves that David Green has misrepresented Dr. Hill in his chapter in his book. 

Comment by XXXXXXX on August 13, 2009 at 6:31am

Hill says all the NT writers were using terms in a “highly distinctive”, “highly technical”, and yes he dared say a “cryptic” way. Furthermore, that Paul was “deceptive” in his use of the “bare” term resurrection. Can you think of a nicer way to say they were liers? And that, (lying) to the very people they were sent to give the truth to. Next I guess Paul just did it to save his skin? He didn’t realy love his kinsmen after all. Wouldn’t realy suffer separation from Christ to see them saved!

Sorry, but now I know I have no need to read WSTTB. Thats just plain nonsense. There is only a little exageration in my thoughts about this.

SOURCE

This writer has been mislead by Green.  The only thing this writer has gleaned by reading Green’s chapter in “House Divided” is, he now attributes to Dr. Hill some things which Max King wrote and Dr. Hill was dealing with.   And to dig the knive in even deeper, based on Green’s misrepresentations he is now convinced he has “no need to read WSTTB?”.

If this doesn’t prove my point….

or

 The Green House on Straw Hill

 “House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology” was written as a response to the book “When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism” (WSTTB?)  As a Hyper-Preterist (HP), when “House Divided” was first released, I wrote a glowing review of the book and posted it on Amazon.com. I’ve since renounced HP, removed the review from Amazon and have begun reading the two books with the “new” eyes of an Ex-Hyper-Preterist. As I began to compare one of Mr. Green’s chapter’s in “House Divided”, “If Preterism is True”, against Dr. Hill’s chapter in “WSTTB?”, “Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall”, I did not get far before I discovered some issues in Mr. Green’s chapter worthy of comment.

On page 34 of Mr. Green’s chapter in “House Divided” he presents a section subtitled “Hill’s Premise”, (i.e. “if [hyper] preterism is true, futurism constitutes a false gospel”p.33) and proceeds to quote Dr. Hill as follows:  

“None of the earliest Christians … took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology … We ought to pause and reflect on what this argument is saying … [The] charge entails the abandonment of … the “sum and substance” of the apostolic gospel (104) … If “fulfilled eschatology” is true, then … there is no light in [the early church] (106) … If [“hyper-preterism”] claims to be the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), we have to conclude that the delivery was never quite made.  Somebody – no, everybody – fumbled the faith away. (119; cf. 65)”

My first step was to cross-check the quotations Mr. Green offers as proof of Dr. Hill’s “premise”, against Dr. Hill’s own words. I soon learned I would have to unpack these strung-together quotes by breaking them down into smaller pieces in order to properly review them in their original context. 

First Quote:

Mr. Green quotes Dr. Hill: “None of the earliest Christians … took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology …”       

Dr. Hill’s comment in its immediate context reads as follows:

“What is more significant in King’s statements, though, is his readiness, his eagerness, to entertain a very low assessment of the early church’s capacity for understanding Paul and the Apostles.  This is in an effort, I suppose, to guard the hyper-preterist position from the objection from early church history.  None of the earliest Christians, from everything we know of them, took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology.  Therefore, they must have been deficient in mental or spiritual apprehension.”

Looking at the first sentence of this paragraph, what becomes apparent is Mr. Green has taken this quote of Dr. Hill’s from the middle of an ongoing discourse, failing to give due credit to its immediate and proper context. For an accurate understanding of the context, I would ask, “What “statement” of Mr. King is Dr. Hill referring to and how does it affect the original intent of Dr. Hill’s words?” To answer this question, I thought it best to back up and provide a summary of the chapter, up to the section in which Mr. Green pulled most of the quotes we are dealing with in this paper. There is a lot of ink put down on the pages between the beginning of Dr. Hill’s chapter and the area Mr. Green chose to quote from, which is rather curious in itself. One would think an author’s premise would be made clear long before the 41^st page of a chapter that is 56 pages in length!           

Interlude

On pages 63 through 87 in “WSTTB?”, Dr. Hill provides an impressive survey of early Christian writings, confining the survey to within approximately one generation from the fall of Jerusalem (AD140). He summarizes this historical survey on pages 88 through 91 in a subsection entitled, “The Consistency of the Early Church’s Testimony”. Finding only contrary historical evidence of the HP view, he writes:

“Christian documents written after that [the destruction of Jerusalem] should not really have a cosmic eschatology anymore; they should look back, with joy and with the clarity of vision that only a perfection of salvation can bestow, upon the stupendous, age-ending events of the Jewish war against Rome.”  and “We ought to find them triumphantly proclaiming that the old age has fully passed away, that the era of waiting and longing is over, that the new heavens and new earth so long expected have definitively arrived.  How then is the hyper-preterist to deal with the contrary evidence from the early church?”  (pg 92) (underlining mine – sn) 

Dr. Hill begins to glean the answer to this question in the next subsection of his chapter, “Hyper-Preterist Approaches to Early Christianity”, starting with J.S. Russell’s “brilliant” yet “bizarre” approach to this unique HP dilemma in which Russell proposes a literal, bodily rapture. This rapture supposedly swept away all “the remaining apostles” and “all watchful Christians” in or around AD70. This therefore accounts for a supposed historical “blank” during that period of time and an answer to why the HP message was lost so soon after its proposed, age-ending events at the fall of Jerusalem. I would agree, this is truly a “bizarre” approach to the HP dilemma and find it hard to take seriously, which even the HP community attests to since this view seems to be relegated to the fringes of the movement. 

On page 94, Dr. Hill begins to investigate how Max R. King addresses the issue of a lack of historical records to support his (the HP) view, and continues this quest through page 109. It is within this context we will find the majority of quotes Mr. Green chose to segregate out and string together on page 34 of his chapter in “House Divided”.

As we move forward, it is important to stress Dr. Hill is reviewing Mr. King’s answer’s to the question of how the HP deals with the overwhelming evidence that HP is nowhere found in the writings of the early church within a generation of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Ironically though, Mr. Green titles his subsection on page 34, “Hill’s Premise” which is clearly not the case and shall be examined further as we go. 

Dr. Hill relates to his reader that Max King is “altogether negative” in addressing the issue of the non-existent evidence to support hyper-preterism from the known early Christian writings.  “According to King, there were three related factors: Hellinization of the gospels, an abandonment of Scripture in favor of tradition, and a lack of spiritual apprehension in the early church” (pg. 95). Although all three of these factors which Dr. Hill investigates are worthy of familiarizing oneself with, it is the third charge by Mr. King, “lack of spiritual apprehension” we are particularly interested in giving our consideration at this time.

Dr. Hill provides several quotes of Mr. King’s to elucidate King’s reasoning that the early church had a “lack of spiritual apprehension.” In the fourth quote of King which Dr. Hill provides on page 103, King questions “the faith of the primitive church” asking “who can say what the early Christians believed, or more properly, what they understood?” Mr. King also writes, “There is a difference between an inspired revelation of truth and the comprehension of that truth by uninspired men” and he cites the Corinthians as an example of this lack of comprehension. Dr. Hill astutely points out though, King appears to be guilty of equivocation with his usage of the terms “understanding and comprehension.” Whether Mr. King intends this equivocation or not is not ours to answer. The fact remains, King is not hesitant to claim the 1^st century Christians, within a generation of the supposed age-ending event of the destruction of Jerusalem, were ignorant of what it was they should have otherwise understood! According to the HP, AD70 was the hope of Israel, yet according to the history we have available not one Christian “understood” or “comprehended” AD70 was this hoped for event! 

It is interesting, because if this argument is carried to its logical conclusion, then why should we believe that uninspired men today (King or Green for instance) can do any better than the early church on this matter? Rather, the further away from the 70 AD event would lead to historical blunders and misrepresentations. Multiple eyewitness accounts are surely better than historic speculation. 

This short review of Dr. Hill’s chapter helps reveal the meaning of the more immediate context from which Dr. Hill’s words were gathered by Mr. Green. Let’s read the First Quote again:

Mr. Green quotes Dr. Hill:  “None of the earliest Christians … took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology …”      

Dr. Hill’s comments in full context states: “What is more significant in King’s statements, though, is his (KING’s) readiness, his (KING’s) eagerness, to entertain a very low assessment of the early church’s capacity for understanding Paul and the Apostles. This is in an effort, I suppose, to guard the hyper-preterist position from the objection from early church history. None of the earliest Christians, from everything we know of them, took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology. Therefore, they must have been deficient in mental or spiritual apprehension.”

As we have seen by reviewing the chapter to this point, the quote Mr. Green uses here is taken from the context of Dr. Hill evaluating King’s reasons why “none of the earliest Christians [post AD70] … took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology.”  It is King’s premise (NOT Dr. Hill’s premise) the early church “lacked spiritual apprehension.”  Nowhere in context can I find the supposed “premise” of Dr. Hill to be that “futurism constitutes another gospel” as Mr. Green asserts.

Second Quote

In the next part Mr. Green quotes Dr. Hill as follows:  “We ought to pause and reflect on what this argument is saying… the charge entails the abandonment of … the “sum and substance” of the apostolic gospel (104)”

However, Dr. Hill’s comment’s in their immediate context (which follows the above paragraph quotation of Dr. Hill) is: 

“We ought to pause and reflect on what this argument is saying.  This is not a charge of missing the minor points of interpretation, the fine turns in the argument of a given passage, what Peter calls, “some things hard to understand” in Paul’s letters. Rather, the charge entails the abandonment of the basic concepts of Biblical eschatology and therefore the “sum and substance” of the apostolic gospel.”

What exactly is Dr. Hill suggesting the reader “pause and reflect” on?  Mr. King’s argument that, ”[the early post AD70 Christians] must have been deficient in mental or spiritual apprehension” Dr. Hill is not agreeing with Mr. King in any way, shape or form. Contrary to the twisting of words Mr. Green is attempting to pass off as Dr. Hill’s “premise”, Dr. Hill is calling for the reader to “pause and reflect” on just what it is Mr. King is saying in the sense of how utterly odd and unbelievable Mr. King’s argument really is. So for Mr. Green to use Dr. Hill’s words in this manner shows he is completely off the beaten path and frankly, makes no sense.

Notice also the phrase “sum and substance.” Why is this in quotation marks?  Because Dr. Hill is quoting someone else and that someone else is Max King. Continuing the paragraph above, Dr. Hill writes, “As King himself puts it:” and follows with five quotes by King. King says, “it is impressively clear” that the two covenants are directly related to the “two modes of life [i.e. of flesh and spirit]” and this is the “very core” of the “redemptive-historical framework of Scripture.”  King asserts, “If this framework is abandoned” then the “unity and harmony of the two Testaments with respect to the promise and fulfillment are shattered.”  Following is a full quote by Max King from which Dr. Hill borrows the term “sum and substance”:

“For Paul, Israel’s future consummation was the sum and substance of the gospel, for what is the gospel except God’s fulfillment of His promise to Israel through Christ?  If, however, Israel and the future consummation are abandoned, the gospel is stripped of its historical foundation” (pg. 105).

As we have seen so far, Mr. Green is not being completely transparent with Dr. Hill’s comments.  It is King who wants us to believe the “sum and substance” of the gospel was “stripped of its historical foundation” and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, and that because King has no problem attributing a “lack of spiritual apprehension” to those early Christian, unlike Dr. Hill who conveys a sense of unbelief at King’s proposal.

Third Quote

Moving along to find the context of the next quote Mr. Green chose to use, we remember we are still within Dr. Hill’s subsection of “Hyper-Preterist Approaches to Early Christianity”, and still in the section dealing with Max King’s reasoning on the subject.  Under the sub-heading of “Lack of Apprehension”, on page 102, Dr. Hill, taking the lead from Max King’s writings on the subject, asks a few questions:

1. “Could the church have missed the eschaton?”  (pg. 105)
2. “Could the church have so completely misunderstood the nature of the eschaton?” (pg 106)
3. “Can so little be made of the great change affected by the eschaton?”  (pg 107)

Dr. Hill is dealing with these questions based on an evaluation of Max King’s arguments.  It is King who is attempting to (somehow) explain just how it is all Christians could have been so dull as to totally and completely miss the eschaton. Wrapping up his first paragraph on page 106, under the second question listed above, is where we find the words of Dr. Hill and which Mr. Green chose to quote next:

 “If “fulfilled eschatology” is true, then … there is no light in [the early church] (106)”

Dr. Hill’s quote in its immediate and correct context states:

“If “fulfilled eschatology” is true, then indeed King’s judgment on the early church is more than justified – truly, “there is no light in them.” The early church then failed to comprehend even the first principles of the apostles’ teaching on all the great essentials of eschatology; they failed to grasp the very terms of discourse.”

Note carefully that Mr.  Green did not include the quotation marks around the phrase “there is no light in them” when he quoted Dr. Hill.  If you look on page 103, you will find Dr. Hill is quoting Max King, who is quoting Isa. 8:20. The full quote by Max King is: “The modern day slogan “Back to the Bible”, says it well, but it is unthinkable that the way to the truth of Scripture is through the writing of the “early church fathers.”  In the words of an Old Testament prophet, “To the law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to the word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa. 8:20)” Once again we see, it is Mr. King who is claiming the reason there is no historical writings teaching the HP view is because apparently those poor, ignorant Christians had, “no light in them.” 

Even more alarming is what Mr. Green leaves out of the quote. Dr. Hill specifically states he is commenting on King’s “judgment on the early church” and not, as Mr. Green tries to make it appear, that this is a “premise” of Dr. Hill’s.  It is King’s “premise” that the early Christians had “no light in them.” Once again we see it is Mr. King who is casting aspersions on the mental capabilities of those early Christians, not Dr. Hill. 

Fourth Quote

In wrapping up this chapter, Hill shows how King has painted himself into a corner. On page 113 we read:

“The severe judgment on the understanding of the early church entertained by some hyper-preterists actually undermines the argument that the New Testament teaches realized eschatology [i.e. hyper-preterism].”

And on page 114, we read:

“But here is the dilemma: the clearer and more self-evident the new Christian vocabulary is held to be for the early Christians, the deeper the historical hole becomes for “realized eschatology.” [i.e. hyper-preterism] The clearer more familiar, more self-evident these new meanings were to Christians, the greater the problem is to account for how they could have so completely vanished from Christianity so astonishingly soon.”

Thus, setting the stage for Mr. Green’s fourth quote of Dr. Hill’s from page 119.

Green quotes Hill: “If [hyper-preterism] claims to be the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), we have to conclude that the delivery was never quite made. Somebody – no, everybody, fumbled the faith away (119, cf. 65)”

Hill’s quote in complete context states:  “The hyper-preterist may try to make peace with the discomfiting anomalies of history by viewing them as an indication of the abysmally low level of Spiritual apprehension in the subapostolic age.  But then this conclusion will belie his other contention that his view would have been the same one preached universally by the apostles and received by the congregations they founded.  If this claims to be the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), we have to conclude that the delivery was never quite made.  Somebody, – no, everybody – fumbled the faith away.  In addition, the hyper-preterist will then have the troubling paradox that the generation which experienced God’s final perfecting of his saints is the very generation which let the faith slip through its hands.”

Once again, Mr. Green is not presenting Dr. Hill in a forthright manner. Why, for instance, does Mr. Green remove the word “this” and insert “hyper-preterism” into Dr. Hill’s quote? This does not do full justice to Dr. Hill’s original context whatsoever. The word “this” encompasses not only the general view of hyper-preterism eschatology, but in context also includes the contradiction Max King sets up for himself by claiming, on the one hand how clear and self-evident the new Christian vocabulary was for the 1^st century Christians, and on the other hand how the Christians “lacked spiritual apprehension” to the point there is no historical record of the HP view to be found in a survey of early Christian literature!  It is very clear from reading Dr. Hill’s quotes in context that he nowhere is claiming as his premise that “if hyper-preterism is true, then futurism is a false gospel.” Rather, just the opposite is true.  Is it any wonder that Pre-mills, Post-mills, and A-mills, refuse to interact with the hyper-preterists when they are willing to misquote and twist their statements? Or is the problem more “spiritual” and “dishonest scholarship?” It is clear that Mr. Green is ‘tweaking’ Dr. Hill’s statements, just like he ‘tweaks’ the Reformed doctrine of Justification. This is dishonest scholarship in the worst way!”

Further Evidence

Not to belabor the point, but rather to confirm the misleading nature of Mr. Green’s quoting methods, we now turn to page 35 in “House Divided” and read the following quote:

“Hill is incorrect when he says that if [hyper] preterism is true then futurists missed “the sum and substance,” “the first principles,” “the core,” and “the great essentials of eschatology.” (106-107)”

Again, if one reads pages 106 and 107, one will see that Dr. Hill is arguing based on the reasoning of Max King. Dr. Hill’s premise is NOT, as Mr. Green has so cleverly twisted the argument, that if hyper-preterism is true, then “futurism constitutes another gospel.” (page 33)  Dr. Hill is not arguing from that premise, which makes Mr. Green’s statement on page 34 meaningless at best and dishonest scholarship at worst:

 “Hill never explains why it is that he believes that futurism constitutes another gospel if [hyper] preterism is true.  He argues from this premise without attempting to prove it.”

Why would Dr. Hill explain something he is not arguing? Mr. Green seems to have either missed the method of argumentation Dr. Hill employs, has avoided the main purpose of Hill’s chapter, or deliberately twisted the argument on its head in what appears to be a makeshift springboard so he can promote his view rather than deal honestly with the dilemma the HP faces in regards to early Christian historical records. 

Perhaps even more revealing of Mr. Green’s motives is that Dr. Hill quite plainly and openly reveals his purpose and premise early in his chapter in the introductory pages. On page 63, Dr. Hill explains that as he “became acquainted with hyper-preterist views, one question that interested [him] was how such views might fare when placed in the larger theological context of the first and second centuries.”  Further, on page 64 he writes in regards to which historical records he will present:

“I will only consider views that can be dated with relative certainty to within a full generation of the fall of Jerusalem, here interpreted to be the life span of someone who might have survived that catastrophe, that is, up to about A.D. 140.  When we have done this, we shall then go on to ask whether these results have any implications for the debate on hyper-preterism or “realized eschatology.”

And so, Dr. Hill proceeds to do just as he states here.  After finding no witness to the HP view in these writings, he then goes on to investigate how Dr. King, along with a few other HP’s, deal with this problem.  The reader must admit, nary is there a hint throughout Dr. Hill’s chapter that his “premise” is a Mr. Green claims. 

It is well to point out, on the first page of Dr. Hill’s chapter in “WSTTB?”, one will find a footnote, which reads as follows: “An earlier version of this paper was given at the Covenant Eschatology Symposium, January 19-22, 1993, at Mr. Dora, Florida.  The speakers at that symposium were invited to consider the work of Max R. King.”  (pg 63)  After each lecture, a discussion period was held.  During Dr. Hill’s discussion period, he clarifies further the purpose of his paper, which was to put the HP debate in its historical context.  What did the Christians who lived through the events of AD70 have to say about those events?  If AD70 was such an important marker in history, shouldn’t we find some straightforward evidence preserved in the historical writings by the early Christians? What I find so interesting about this is, one major “tenet” of the HP view is to put the NT in its historical context in an attempt to understand how the original audience would have understood it.  Yet, when it comes to putting the HP view in ITS historical context, Mr. King cried foul!  Ironies of ironies!  

Conclusion

Contrary to Mr. Green’s assertions that Dr. Hill’s “premise” is “futurism constitutes another gospel if [hyper] preterism is true”, we have seen the true context of the words of Dr. Hill and how Mr. Green chose to string them together, which results in highly misleading his readers.  Dr. Hill is dealing directly with the reasoning of Max King and in no way has approached the subject from the angle Mr. Green is trying to pin on him, that “futurism constitutes another gospel if [hyper] preterism is true.”  Rather, Mr. Green “cleverly” turns the tables and approaches the issue of the early church historical records from a rather disconnected stance, in what could be perceived to be a desperate attempt to avoid the real issues Dr. Hill has dealt with in his chapter. 

Further, the HP view of eschatology is outside of the historic Christian faith and it falls to them to prove they are not heretical in their doctrine. It is the HP who is the “new kid on the block” and it is their responsibility to offer valid answers to established Christian history. It is not up to Dr. Hill to prove his accepted position. There is no question scripture is the final word and authority for any Christian, but the history of Christianity is also important and not to be lightly cast aside or ignored. Christian history should be given more serious attention by the HP and not responded to by misrepresenting those who maintain it. Until Mr. Green realizes this, the eschatological illusion of HP will likely continue to fog his perception, placing him on the dangerous path of possibly perverting the very basics of the gospel itself.

[The above paragraph was edited from the original paragraph because of a controversy I had with my former hyper-preterist friends about whether or not I should still consider them my "brothers in Christ" or not.  Although I have no excuse for my waffling on this issue, I now understand why I did so.  The more time that has gone by since I first left the cult of hyper-preterism, the more I realize what I originally wrote is correct.  This is not to say I make judgement against them whether they are or aren't one of the elect.  That issue is strictly up to God and my duty is to pray for those caught up in the view.   I formally repent of ever editing the original paragraph to the way it reads above.  In the spirit of full disclosure, here is the original paragraph the way it read and to which I now completely stand behind: 

Further, it does not fall to Dr. Hill to prove his point of interpretation and doctrine, but rather Mr. Green. Mr. Green and the HP’s are on the outside of the historic Christian faith and it falls to them to “prove” they are not heretical in their eschatological doctrine.  It is not up to Dr. Hill to prove his accepted position. Until Mr. Green and the HP’s realize this, their delusion will only continue to fog their perception and lead them down a path to a false view of the gospel resulting from “tweaking” the historic Reformed teachings. Mr. Green has exposed himself publically. He should be arrested for indecent scholarship.]

Let me point out that Mr. Green has committed a logical fallacy. By misrepresenting Dr. Hill’s position, he has created the fallacy of “extension,” that is, taking the true argument of Dr. Hill and extending it to an argument that is no longer Dr. Hill’s, that is he has created a “straw man” of Dr. Hill’s argument which he then precedes to criticize. Mr. Green does not attempt to deal with Dr. Hill’s argument, but the “replacement argument” of Dave Green’s own making. 

Finally, as I believe has been brought to light, what we have actually witnessed is that Mr. Green is essentially arguing against Mr. King rather than Dr. Hill!  Perhaps the HP’s should spend more time getting their story straight within their own movement before attempting to “answer” to the Reformed community?

This concludes my initial survey of Mr. Green’s chapter in “House Divided, an “answer” to Dr. Hill’s chapter in “WSTTB?” As the reader will note, I have only covered a mere two and a half pages of Mr. Green’s chapter so it would hardly be fair to say my review is complete at this stage. But if Mr. Green is setting the stage of his chapter by beginning with a straw man argument, I have to wonder if any more effort should be extended to this endeavor.

I posted this book review at Amazon.com on July 26, 2009. After renouncing full/hyper-preterism I left the book review posted at Amazon until December 2009, when I removed it because I did not want my review to in any way be responsible for the sales of a book which promotes a view I disagree with. At this time, I was informed by a friend that my complete book review was posted, without my permission, at one of the authors websites, that of Mike Sullivan. Source:
http://treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=39%3Aopen-and-public-letters-&id=158%3Amike-sullivan-&option=com_content&Itemid=75

On Dec. 10, I wrote to Dave Green, another author of “House Divided” about something else and asked him if he would ask Mr. Sullivan to remove my review from his site, to which Sullivan declined. To Mr. Green’s credit, he did attempt to offer a compromise both myself and Sullivan would agree to, but nothing was resolved. I then contacted Sullivan directly. When I did not hear from him within a few days, I sent him another email on 12/16/09:

I am asking you to remove my review of “House Divided” from your website since I no longer hold to FP and in good conscience do not feel right about having my words used to help sell the book. When I first left FP, I left the review posted at Amazon.com, but recently removed it because it was bothering me to leave it there.

I then was told you had copied my review of the book from Amazon and placed it on your website. I think it important to note; this was done without obtaining my prior permission.

I am asking you, as one Christian to another, to please remove my review of “House Divided” from your website.

The same day Sullivan replied, saying unless there was a legal issue, he would keep it at his site. He wrote again, saying he had looked into it and there was nothing illegal or immoral “from one Christian to another” to keep it on his site, that my moral issue was in forsaking the authority of Scripture for church tradition. He then offered, “to be fair”, that if I answered a set of questions he had asked Roderick Edwards when he renounced full/hyper-preterism (several years ago), and if I wrote a paragraph by paragraph explanation refuting my book review he would post them at his site and go through them and compare them to Scripture.
On the 18th of December I emailed Mike the following:

[T]here is a difference between quoting portions of someone’s work in an article, which falls within fair use laws and copy and pasting someone’s complete work. That is something completely different and depending on circumstances, falls under copyright infringement laws. In this case, I believe you are infringing on my copyright status.

As far as giving Scriptural refutation, I have given reasons for my change of position. I disagree with 1) any kind of progressive justification, and 2) have posted articles and commented about the New Perspective on Paul being an influence on the FP paradigm/framework and I see issue with that approach.

And no, I will not give a paragraph by paragraph response to the review at this time. I believe my request to remove my article, based on my change of positions, is not unreasonable. Your request is not reasonable. I do not believe you are in a position to be setting the terms in this disagreement.

Amazon has copyright rules in regards to book reviews, which you might not be aware of. You did not ask my permission to post my review on your site. I am asking you, as one Christian to another Christian (and I don’t know why you put that in quotation marks in your reply to me.), to remove my book review from your site – not based on copyright laws Mike – but on an appeal to your integrity to remove it based on the fact that it is something which I do not desire to be out there in regards to promoting your book. If you do not want to comply, then not only am I very disappointed, but why don’t you just say so rather than setting all these terms?

So I am asking, once more, for you to please remove my book review from your website. I appreciate your contemplation on this matter.

Sullivan responded on the 19th, telling me integrity was the issue and that he didn’t see any coming from me on my change of positions (renounced full/hyper-preterism) or for not giving a paragraph by paragraph refutation of my book review. That the ONLY reason he would remove the review is if it was illegal for it to be posted. He also said if my ego was still an issue, or I thought his legal advice was incorrect, I could continue to pursue this “petty” issue.
On the 19th, I replied back as follows:

I take this as your final answer.

BTW, I said nothing about my “ego”. This is not about my “ego”. It is about my words being used to promote your book. That is what doesn’t sit right with me. You call this a “petty issue” but I do not see it as a “petty issue” at all.

Sullivan wrote back, agreeing it was his final answer. He also mentioned that several times at Dave Greens Yahoo list (PretCosmos) and on Facebook, he had asked for positive reviews to be posted at his website. I replied:

As for you asking for reviews to post on your website over at PretCosmos, I do not recall reading anything about that. As far as Facebook, I was not a member of Facebook back then so I would not have seen anything there. Please provide me a link to the posts at PretCosmos that you asked for reviews.

In reply, on Dec 21, Sullivan told me I could look through the PretCosmos archives myself, but that he was “pretty positive” that he had asked for reviews of the book. Again adding that he believed he was not violating any copyright laws.
As of this writing, Sullivan has not provided proof of his claim. This was the end of our personal discussion on the subject.
On January 28thh, 2010, I posted a paper on my site TheologyExplained.ning.com entitled, “The Greening of Eschatology” (source:
http://theologyexplained.ning.com/group/memberpresentation/forum/topics/the-greening-of-eschatology
). There was a discussion about this at PretCosmos and on the 30th, Sullivan wrote the following:

To all,

This is what Sharon wrote of Dave’s first two chapters before she decided to revere “Reformed” Mother Church over the Word of God. In light of Dave’s response to Sharon’s article, I would recommend that Sharon “read,” “read them again,” “read them once more” “absorb them,” and listen to the “compelling arguments” instead of misrepresenting them or perpetually having to re-write her straw-man “responses”/articles.

I have requested that Sharon answer the Biblical questions I asked Roderick (which he promised to answer and never did), but she has declined. This ties into the other posts which deal with – what do they now believe after leaving FP. They don’t know what to do with the texts that support FP and that demonstrate that PP and Amillennialism inevitably leads to and teaches FP:

Following this, Sullivan posted the first five paragraphs of my book review. (see above)

Since Sullivan mentioned his “request” for me to answer the questions he had asked Roderick, I wrote the following, also on the 30th:

As you know, I’ve asked you to remove my review from your website and you refused. I stated you never had my permission to post it on your website to begin with, but you stated you would not remove it anyway. I am asking you again to please remove my previous review of “House Divided” from your website.

Adding just a few minutes later:

BTW, Mike, why don’t you tell everyone the situation surrounding this “request” of yours? Why don’t you enlighten everyone and tell them that your “request” was actually a condition you issued to me so that you would remove my review from your website

In response, again on the 30th, Sullivan wrote the following:

Sharon,

“As you know…”:

1) There was never a problem (and you never would have had a problem) with me posting your review on my site until you wanted to embrace reformed creedalism.
2) Per Ed Hassertt (one trained in these kind of legal matters), there is nothing illegal in having your review on my site (contrary to your insinuations in private emails).
3) I have no problem sharing with the list my proposal to you and am thankful for your introduction:

a) If Sharon answers my Biblical questions posed to ECKwards and…
b) gives a paragraph by paragraph response to her own review and explains logically and biblically why her initial comments were wrong, then…
c) I would post everything she wrote on the subject on my site and respond and likewise give other FP responses (such as Dave’s thus far).
d) This was a Biblical and fair approach.

4) Sharon, one of my exegetical and Biblical questions given to ECKwards (and now you) centered around Matthew 24. AGAIN which verses are addressing an AD 70 coming of Jesus (AD 70 fulfillments) and which ones are addressing an alleged future coming (future fulfillments) – and why? Then begin dealing with my “charts” on Matthew 24-25 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 which you praised in your review.
5) You are now embarrassed that you are unable to deal with Dave’s “compelling arguments” and my “charts” which prove REFORMED THEOLOGY….: 1) PP (the time texts “demand” that Christ returned in AD 70) and 2) Classic Amillennialism (the NT teaches only ONE coming of Jesus) form 3) Full Preterism (“Semper Reformanda” – The ONE second coming of Jesus happened in AD 70).

Mike S.

To which I replied:

There IS a problem because I NEVER gave you permission to post my review on your website. I did not even know it was there until shortly before I emailed you about it back in December. And it really doesn’t matter if you think I wouldn’t have had a problem or not. The fact is, you did not, nor do you now, have permission to post my review at your website.

And let’s be real Mike. The reason I declined to answer any of your questions is because it was a demand you issued to me, which, if I complied, you would “consider” removing my review from your website.

And this has nothing to do with being embarrassed. I do NOT want to be a part of promoting the sales of the book!

I am again requesting you remove my review from your website.

To which Sullivan replies:

You are mistaken – the reason you and ECKwards never answered my Biblical questions is because you obviously are unable to do so.

My answer remains the same.

Following this was a discussion between Ed Hassert, Sullivan’s legal counsel, and me. On the 30th Hassert posted:

Legally, any book review published to a public site or published in a public paper grants the rights to the author or publisher of the reviewed work to reuse and republish as desired as long as the review is reproduced in full and the original author is cited.

Your dishonesty and lack of character in abusing those you once called friends does not change the law, or that the review is public domain. Check copyright law!”

Sullivan reads this, quotes it in a post and adds: “Therefore, let me quote Sharon “in full”:” and follows this by posting my full book review on PretCosmos! (Which, btw, is another copyright infringement.)

In regards to what Ed Hassert wrote I asked him, “If you would kindly provide proof of this exception to the copyright law, I would appreciate it. He said it was not an exception to copyright law. From here we had an ongoing discussion about copyright laws, which included the Terms and Conditions posted at Amazon.com. It was asserted that Sullivan, as a Seller on Amazon, has the right to publish my book review without explicit permission by me. I challenged that assertion. In order for this to be true, Sullivan would have to be an “Affiliate/Associate” or “Sublicensee” of Amazon, not just under the standard “Participant” Agreement. I stated this issue could be put to bed very easily. Simply provide me a copy of the agreement showing the relationship Sullivan has with Amazon. His agreement should clearly state what rights he has been given by Amazon. In the ongoing discussion I posted the following on Jan. 31st:

You say I posted the wrong section. I know what section you posted your information from. What I posted is the link to the section for those who want to sell something through Amazon. It is the “Participation Agreement”. I was ASKING if this was the agreement you have with Amazon to sell your book. In this section it distinguishes between “Affiliates” of Amazon and “Participatants”, i.e. those who are selling something at Amazon.

Now, did you sign up with Amazon through the Participation Agreement? Or some other way?

I still have not been presented with his agreement, or any other proof which disproves his copyright infringement of my book review.
To his credit, on Feb 27th Ed Hassert offered a compromise. He wrote: Often people are quoted with their old views and new views to show contrasts and contradictions. If Mike posted both your old review and your new review, would you see that as a reasonable compromise?

I replied: I wouldn’t have a problem if at Mike’s site, under my name and before the book review itself, a note was placed stating I am no longer a full-preterist. But rather than posting my whole paper, if after the old book review, he would place a link to my paper at Theology Explained, I would be agreeable to that.

Agreed?

But, Sullivan did not agree. So this is where it stands right now. It would be easy enough to prove me wrong by providing me a copy of his Seller agreement with Amazon. But this has not been provided to me. Why not?

From my research, and the advice of three different lawyers, I own the copyright to my book review. The assertion above that a book review automatically becomes freely usable by the author of the book being reviewed makes no sense to me, considering there are people who write book reviews for a profession.

At one point, it was stated that by Fair use Laws, Sullivan has the right to publish my book review but this contradicts other assertions which were made, that my book review was not covered by Copyright Laws. Fair Use Laws ONLY applies to copyright material. If, as was claimed, my book review is not considered copyrightable, then how can Fair Use Laws apply?

Mr. Sullivan, the burden of proof is on you. Provide to me solid proof you are not infringing on my copyright or remove my book review from your website.

Links:
PretCosmo:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/messages

Theology Explained:
http://theologyexplained.ning.com/

Sharon’s original review can be accessed at the link below;

Review of House Divided 07

In light of the fact Mr. Green and others aren’t allowed to comment at the site hosting the article, I’m going to allow those of you who aren’t members to respond here at Theology Today. Please be advised that I’m under no obligation to publish your comments nor is Ms. Nichols under any obligation to respond to your comments.

However the news this morning is that Obama’s approval rating is the lowest ever recorded for a president at this point in their term. That I would say is proof of the presidents utter failure to unite us.

This brings me to an even more troubled time in our nations past when a great American faced a similar problem of a “house divided”.

“Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends-those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work-who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. – Abraham Lincoln, 1858

Jack, getting ready for the big Bedlam game- OU vs. OSU. in-state rivals-
Mommy is an OSU grad, Daddy has OU season tickets…Jack is torn.

If you were born in Oklahoma, have lived in Oklahoma or anywhere in Big 12 country, you know that Bedlam Weekend is quite a big deal!  That is the weekend of Thanksgiving, which those of you who are paying attention realize is now (if you didn’t know that you should come out of the panic room you have been hiding in).  Today is the day that determines the bragging rights for the rest of the year (or if we are really being honest until the next big Bedlam game during basketball season).

This year’s game will feature a completely beat up Oklahoma Sooners team vs. an Oklahoma State Cowboys team fighting to hang on to their bid for a big BCS game.  The Sooners are 64 – 2 or something like that at home since 1999 and one of those two teams is the Cowboys.  The Sooners have looked like crap on the road this year, but have still killed teams at home.  The Cowboys are having their best season in a really long time and are looking to give the Sooners their third home loss in 10 years.  But, either way, it is always a good game and will be fun to watch (and yell at the TV).

Because of the preggo we have decided not to go to the game.  I’m sure standing for 4 hours wouldn’t be super fun with a belly and on top of that if there is any sitting it’s not like she can stand up quick enough to see what happened on the play anyway.  So we are going to be in Norman and watching the game with my brother before we meet up with my sister and brother-in-law and Lee & Wes Jackson for some dinner.  So, if you are looking for some good football tomorrow, turn on the Bedlam game at 9:30 AM PT and root for the Sooners!

My review of the of the controversial book House Divided, can be heard here

 Editors note: In 2011 co- authors Samuel Frost and Edward Hassertt renounced the heresy of Hyper or Full Preterism.

11/10/2011 Ed Hassertt returns once again to the heresy of Hyper or Full Preterism.

MARK_3.20_A_HOUSE_DIVIDED_CANNOT_STAND_.mp3 (635 KB)

MARK 3.20 “A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND”
recorded for your spiritual enrichment by vanderKOK

Jno. L. Scripps, Esq                        Springfield,
My dear Sir                                      June 23, 1858

Your kind note of yesterday is duly received. I am much flattered by the estimate you place on my late speech; and yet I am much mortified that any part of it should be construed so differently from any thing intended by me. The language, “place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction,” I used deliberately, not dreaming then, nor believing now, that it asserts, or intimates, any power or purpose, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists. But, to not cavil about language, I declare that whether the clause used by me, will bear such construction or not, I never so intended it. I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists. I believe that whenever the effort to spread slavery into the new teritories, by whatever means, and into the free states themselves, by Supreme court decisions, shall be fairly headed off, the institution will then be in course of ultimate extinction; and by the language used I meant only this.

I do not intend this for publication; but still you may show it to any one you think fit. I think I shall, as you suggest, take some early occasion to publicly repeat the declaration I have already so often made as before stated.

Yours very truly

A. LINCOLN

June 16, 1858

The Speech, immediately succeeding, was delivered, June 16, 1858 at Springfield Illinois, at the close of the Republican State convention held at that time and place; and by which convention Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for U. S. Senator.

Senator Douglas was not present.

Mr. PRESIDENT and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination—piece of machinery so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the beginning.

But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition.

Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition.

This opened all the national territory to slavery; and was the first point gained.

This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” otherwise called “sacred right of self government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.

That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: “It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty,” and “Sacred right of self government.”

“But,” said opposition members, “let us be more specific—let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through congress, a law case, involving the question of a negroe’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negroe’s name was “Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally made in the case.

Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers, “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.

The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement.

The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument.

The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be.

Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capitol indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it.

The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained.

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind—the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end.

And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding—like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand—helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas’ “care not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained.

The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.

This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that—

“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

Secondly, that “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory.

This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master.

This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.

This shows exactly where we now are; and partially also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterwards come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it, would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.

Why was the court decision held up? Why, even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the “perfectly free” argument upon which the election was to be carried.

Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision?

These things look like the cautious patting and petting a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall.

And why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others?

We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen—Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance—and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few—not omitting even scaffolding—or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in—in such a case, we find it impossible to not believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as Territory, were to be left “perfectly free” “subject only to the Constitution.”

Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?

While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.

Possibly, this was a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill—I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other.

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.”

In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up,” shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.

Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.

We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.

That is what we have to do.

But how can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object to be effected. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed.

They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the “public heart” to care nothing about it.

A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas’ superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.

Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade—how can he refuse that trade in that “property” shall be “perfectly free”—unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday—that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong.

But, can we for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?

Now, as ever, I wish to not misrepresent Judge Douglas’ position, question his motives, or do ought that can be personally offensive to him.

Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.

But clearly, he is not now with us—he does not pretend to be—he does not promise to ever be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends—those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work—who do care for the result.

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong.

We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us.

Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.

Did we brave all then, to falter now?—now—when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent?

The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail—if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise councils may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later the victory is sure to come.