The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of god'. Fomans 8.16
*123 I. 1. none who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God can doubt the importance of such a truth as this; - a truth revealed therein, not once only, not obscurely, not incidentally, but frequently and that in express terms, but solemnly and of set purpose, as denoting one of the peculiar privileges of the children of God.
2. and it is the more necessary to explain and defend this truth, because there is a danger on the right hand and on the left. if we deny it, there is a danger lest our religion degenerate into mere formality; lest, 'having a form of godliness', we neglect, if not 'deny, the power of it'. if we allow it, but do not understand what we allow, we are liable to run into all the wildness of enthusiasm. it is therefor needful, in the highest degree, to guard those who fear god from both these dangers
*124 by a scriptural and rational illustration and confirmation of this momentous truth.
3. it may seem, something of this kind is the more needful, because so little has been wrote on the subject with any clearness; unless some discourses on the wrong side of the question, which explain it quite away. and it cannot be doubted, but these were occasioned, at least in a great measure, by the crude, unscriptural, irrational explication of others , who 'knew not what they spake nor e=whereof they affirmed.
4. it more nearly concerns the Methodists, so called, clearly to understand, explain and defend this doctrine, because it is one grand part of the testimony which God has given them to bear to all mankind. it is by his peculiar blessing upon them in searching the Scriptures, confirmed by the experience of his children, that this great evangelical truth has been recovered, which had been for many years well nigh lost and forgotten.
II. 1. but what is the witness of the Spirit? the original word marturia, nay be rendered either (as it is in several places) The Witness or less ambiguously, the testimony or the record: so it is rendered in our translation, (I John 5.11) 'this is the record', the testimony, the sum of what god testifies in al the inspired writings, 'that God hath given unto us eternal life and this life is in His Son'. the testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to and with our spirit: He is the person testifying. what He testifies to us is, 'that we are the children of God'. the immediate result of his testimony is, 'the fruit of the Spirit', namely, 'love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness' and without these, the testimony itself cannot continue. for it si inevitably destroyed, not only by the commission of any outward sin or the omission of know duty, but by giving way to any inward sin in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy Spirit of God.
2. I observed many years ago, 'It is hard to find words in the language of men, to explain the deep things of God. indeed there are none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in His children. but perhaps one might say, (desiring any who are taught of God, to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression) by the testimony of the Spirit I mean, an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit, that i am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath love me and
*125 given Himself for me, that all my sins are blotted out and I, even I, am reconciled to God.
3. after 20 years' further consideration, I see no cause to retract any part of this. neither do I conceive how any of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will point out any other expressions, which are more clear or more agreeable to the word of God, i will readily lay these aside.
4 .meantime let it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although he may do this sometimes. neither do I suppose, that he always applies to the heart (though He often may) one or more texts of Scripture. but he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence and by a strong, though inexplicable operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside and there is a sweet calm; the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus , and the sinner being clearly satisfied that God is reconciled, that all his 'iniquities are forgiven and his sins covered'.
5. now what is the matter of dispute concerning this? not whether there be a witness or testimony of the spirit, not whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that we are the children of god none can deny this, without flatly contradicting the scriptures and charging a lie upon the God of truth . therefore, that there is a testimony of the spirit is acknowledged by all parties.
6. neither is it questioned, whether there is an Indirect witness or testimony, that we are the children of God. this is nearly, if not exactly, the same with the testimony of a good conscience towards God and is the result of reason or reflection on what we feel in our own souls. strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the word of God and partly from our won experience. the word of God says, every one who has the fruit of the spirit is a child of God,; experience or inward consciousness, tells me, that i have the fruit of the spirit and hence I rationally conclude, 'therefore I am a child of God'. this is likewise allowed on all hands and so is no matter of controversy.
7. now do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the spirit without the fruit of the Spirit. we assert, on the contrary, that they fruit of the spirit immediately springs from
*126 this testimony; not always indeed in the dame degree, even when the testimony is first given and much less afterwards. neither joy nor peace is always at one stay; no, nor love; as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and clear.
8. but the point in question is, whether there be any Direct testimony of the Spirit at all; whether there be any other testimony of the Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit.
III. 1. I believe there is; because that is the plain, natural meaning of the text, 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with or spirit, that we are the children of God'. it is manifest, here are 2 witnesses mentioned, who together testify the same thing; the Spirit of God and our won spirit. the late Bishop of London, in his sermon on this text, seems astonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very face of the words. now, 'The testimony of our own spirit' says the Bishop, 'is one, which is the consciousness of our won sincerity' or to express the same thing a little more clearly the consciousness of the fruit of the spirit. when our spirit is conscious of this, of love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers form these premises, that we are the children of God.
2. it is true, that great man supposes the other witness to be, 'The consciousness of our own good works'. this, he affirms , is the testimony of God's Spirit. but this is included in the testimony of our own spirit; year and in sincerity, even according to the common sense of the word. so the apostle, , 'our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity we have had our conversation in the world'. where it is plain, sincerity refers to our words and actions, at least as much as to our inward dispositions. so that this is not another witness, but the very same that he mentioned before; the consciousness of our sincerity. consequently here is only one witness still. if therefore the text speaks of 2 witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our good works, neither of our sincerity; all this being manifestly contained in the testimony of our spirit.
3. what then is the other witness? this might easily be learned, if the text itself were not sufficiently clear, form the verse immediately preceding: 'ye have received, not the
*127 spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father'. it follows, 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God'.
4. this is farther explained by the parallel text, (Gal. 4.6) 'because ye are sons, god hath sent forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father'. is not this something immediate and direct , not the result of reflection or argumentation? does not this spirit cry, 'Abba, Father', in our hearts the moment it is given, antecedently to any reflection upon our sincerity; yea, to any reasoning whatsoever? and is not this the plain natural sense of the words, which strikes any one as soon as he hears them? all these texts then, in their most obvious meaning, describe a direct testimony of the Spirit.
5.that the testimony of the Spirit of God must, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration: we must be holy in hear and life before we can be conscious that we are so. but we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being the root of all holiness. now we cannot love god, till we know He loves us: 'we love Him, because he firs loved us ' and we cannot know His love to us, till his spirit witnesses it to our Spirit. till then we cannot believe it; we cannot say, 'the life which i now live, I live by faith in the son of God, who love me and gave Himself for me'.
then, only then we feel
our interest in His blood
and cry, with joy unspeakable,
thou art my Lord, my God!
since, therefore, the testimony of His spirit must precede the love of God and all holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness hereof.
6. and here properly comes in, to confirm this scriptural doctrine, the experience of the children of God; the experience not of 2 or 3, not of a few, but of a great multitude which no man can number. it has been confirmed, both in this and in all ages, by 'a cloud' of living and dying 'witnesses'. it is confirmed by Your Experience and Mine. the Spirit itself bore witness to my spirit that i was a child of God, gave me an evidence hereof and I immediately cried, 'Abba, Father!' and this I did , (and so did you) before I reflected on or was conscious of, any fruit of the spirit. it was from this testimony
*128 received, that love, joy, peace and the whole fruit of the Spirit flowed. first, I heard,
Thy sins are forgiven! Accepted thou art!-
I listen'd and heaven sprung up in my heart.
7. but this is confirmed, not only by the experience of the children of God; -thousands of whom can declare that they never did know themselves to be in the favour of God till it was directly witnessed to them by His Spirit; - but by all those who are convinced of sin, who feel the wrath of god abiding on them. these cannot e satisfied with any thing less than a direct testimony from His spirit, that he is 'merciful to their unrighteousness and remembers their sins and iniquities no more'. tell any of these, 'you are to know you are a child by reflection on what he has wrought in you , on your love joy, and peace' and will he not immediately reply, 'By all this i know i am a child of the devil. I have no more love to God than the devil has; my carnal mind is enmity against God. I have no joy in the Holy Ghost; my soul is sorrowful even unto death. i have no peace; my heart is a troubled sea; I am all storm and tempest'. and which way can these souls possibly be comforted, but by a divine testimony (not that they are good, or sincere, or conformable to the Scripture in heart and life, but) that God Justifieth The Ungodly? - him that, till the moment he is justified, is all ungodly, void of all true holiness; ''him that worketh not', that worketh nothing that is truly good, till he is conscious that he is accepted, not for any 'works of righteousness which he hath done', but by the mere, free mercy of God; wholly and solely for what the son of God hath done and suffered for him. and can it be any otherwise, if 'a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law'? if so, what inward or outward goodness can he be conscious of, antecedent to this justification? nay, is not the having nothing to pay, that is, the being conscious that 'there dwelleth in us no good thing', neither inward nor outward goodness, essentially, indispensably necessary, before we can be 'justified freely, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ' was ever any man justified since his coming into the world or can any man ever be justified, till he is bought to that point, -
I gave up every plea beside, -
Lord, i am damn'd; but Thou hast died
*129 8. every one, therefore, who denies the existence of such a testimony, does in effect deny justification by faith. it follows, that either he never experienced this, either he never was justified, or that he has forgotten, as St. peter speaks, ...the purification from his former sins, the experience he then had himself; the manner wherein god wrought in his own soul, when his former sins were blotted out.
9. and the experience even of the children of the world here confirms that of the children of God. many of these have a desire to please God: some of them take much pains to please Him, but do they not, one and all, count it the highest absurdity for any to talk of Knowing his sins are forgiven? which of them even pretends to any such thing? and yet many of them are conscious of their own sincerity. many of them undoubtedly have, in a degree, the testimony of their own spirit, a consciousness of their own uprightness. but this brings them no consciousness that they are forgiven; no knowledge that they are the children of God. yea, the more sincere they are, the more uneasy they generally are, for want of knowing it, plainly showing that this cannot be known, in a satisfactory manner, by the bare testimony of our won spirit, without God's directly testifying that we are his children.
IV. but abundance of objections have been made to this; the chief of which it may be well to consider.
1. it is objected, first, 'Experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine which is not founded on Scripture'. this is undoubtedly true and it is an important truth, but it does not affect the present question; for it has been shown, that this doctrine is founded on Scripture; therefore experience is properly alleged to confirm it.
2. but madmen, French prophets and enthusiasts of every kind, have imagined they experienced this witness;. they have so and perhaps not a few of them did, although they did not retain it long, but if they did not, this is no proof at all that others have not experienced it; as a madman's imagining himself a king, does no prove that there are no real kings.
nay, many who pleaded strongly for this, have utterly decried the Bible'. perhaps So; but this was no necessary consequence: thousands plead for it who have the highest esteem for the Bible.
yea, but many have fatally deceived themselves hereby, and got above all conviction.
*130 and yet a scriptural doctrine is no worse though men abuse it to their own destruction.
3. 'but i lay it down as an undoubted truth, the fruit of the Spirit is the witness of the spirit'. not undoubted; thousands doubt of, yea, flatly deny it, but let that pass. 'if this witness be sufficient, there is no need of any other. but it is sufficient, unless in one of these cases, 1. the Total Absence of the fruit of the Spirit'. and this is the case, when the direct witness is first given. 2. the Not perceiving It. but to contend for it in this case, is to contend for being in the favour of god and not knowing it'. true; not knowing it at any time any otherwise than by the testimony which is given for that end. and this we do contend for; we contend that the direct witness may shine clear, even while the indirect one is under a cloud.
4. it is objected, Secondly, 'The design of the winess contended for is, to prove that the provession we make is genuine
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
8.14.2018 Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration by Edward J. Erler
IMPRIMIS (def- in the first place; above all); HILLSDALE.EDU ; July/Aug 2018
adapted from a speech delivered on April 11.2018, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Colorado Springs.
*1 President Trump's zero -tolerance policy for ILLEGAL (me) border crossers has provoked a hysterical reaction from Democrats, establishment Republicans, the progressive-liberal media, Hollywood radicals and the deep state. what particularly motivated the ire of these Trump-haters was the fact that the zero-tolerance policy would require the separation of parents and children at the border. the hysteria was, of course, completely insincere and fabricated, given that the policy of separating children and parents was nothing new - it had been a policy of the Obama and Bush administrations as well.
furthermore, where is the compassion for the thousands of American children who are separated from their parents every year as a result of arrests and convictions for non-violent crimes? many of those arrested are single mothers whose infants become wards of the government until their mothers complete their sentences. no hysteria or effusive compassion is elicited by these separations, confirming that the object of the hysteria surrounding illegal border crossers is to force open borders on the nation under the guise of compassion for children.
*2 President Trump's preferred solution for ending the influx of illegal immigrants and providing border security is a wall; (note - just read in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Israel had done the same exact thing in the past.) it is also the preferred solution of the American people. Zero tolerance is an interim policy that -if enforced-will help deter illegal crossers. the hysteria provoked by zero tolerance could have been predicted, but its magnitude and sheer insanity are almost breathtaking. some prominent constitutional scholars have gone so far as to argue that the government has no constitutional authority to control the border. and this, which seems almost beyond hysteria, from the elite intellectual class that should be most immune to hysteria!
in the meantime, a Federal District Court judge in Southern California has discovered a substantive due process right guaranteeing the right to 'family integrity' lurking in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and has ordered all children reunited with their illegal immigrant parents. obviously the judge expects the parents to be released from incarceration to join their children, but the Trump administration seems determined to keep parents and children together in detention centers until legal proceedings determine their fate.
more than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: 'I t is an accepted maxim of international law... and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within (the sovereign nation's) dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe'. this view was reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump's travel ban on foreign nationals from 8 countries, 6 of which have majority Muslim populations.
part of the complaint against the ban was that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because Trump had displayed 'animus' against Muslims in speeches before and after the 2016 election. the plaintiffs argued that the national security reasons for the ban were merely pretexts fro Trump's thinly disguised contempt for the Muslim religion. although the Court agreed that individual injury could be alleged under the Establishment Clause, the travel ban on its face was neutral with respect to religion and it was therefore possible to decide the issue on statutory rather than constitutional grounds.
the dissenting opinion in this case would have invalidated the ban on constitutional grounds, based on the idea that the President's campaign statements and those of his advisers proved that animus against Islam was the real and pervasive motivation for the travel ban. had this dissenting opinion prevailed, it would have created an anomaly in constitutional jurisprudence. conceding that the plain language of the travel ban was neutral and therefor constitutional, what rendered the travel ban unconstitutional was Trump's purported display of animus in his public speeches. if signed by any president other than Trump, there would therefore be no constitutional objections in other words, in the minds of
*3 the dissenters, psychoanalysis of Trump's motives held greater constitutional significance that the intent of the law expressed in its plain language.
WE ARE ASKED TO BELIEVE SOMETHING INCREDIBLE: THAT THE AMERICAN CHARACTER IS DEFINED ONLY BY ITS UNLIMITED ACCEPTANCE OF DIVERSITY. A DEFINED AMERICAN CHARACTER - DEVOTION TO REPUBLICAN
(def - REPUBLIC 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a COMMONWEALTH.( a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests)
3. a state in which the government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.)
in any case, the majority opinion held that 'by its plain language' the Immigration and Naturalization Act 'grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the U.S. the President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings...that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest'. few limits have ever been placed on the President's broad authority to act under the Immigration and Naturalization act, especially when national security and foreign relations are involved.
in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump appealed to the importance of citizens and borders. in other words, Trump took his stand on behalf of the nation-state and citizenship against the idea of a homogeneous world-state populated by 'universal persons'. in appealing directly to the people. Trump succeeded in defeating both political parties, the media, political professionals, pollsters, academics and the bureaucratic class. all these groups formed part of the bi-partisan cartel that had represented the entrenched interests of the Washington establishment for many years. although defeated in the election, the cartel (def - coalition of political or special interest groups having a common cause) has not given p. it is fighting a desperate battle to maintain its power.
historically, constitutional government has been found only in the nation-state, where the people share a common good and are dedicated to the same principles and purposes. the homogeneous world-state - the European union on a global scale - will not be a constitutional democracy; it will be the administration of 'universal personhood' without the inconvenience of having to relay on the consent of the governed, IT WILL BE GOVERNMENT BY UNELECTED AND UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRATS, much like the burgeoning administrative state that is today expanding its reach and magnifying its power in the United States. 'Universal persons' will not be citizens; they will be clients or subjects. rights will be superfluous because the collective welfare of the community - determined by the bureaucrats - will have superseded the rights of individuals.
progressive liberalism no longer views self-preservation as a rational goal of the nation-state. rather, it insists that self preservation and national security must be subordinate to openness and diversity. America's immigration policies, we are told, should demonstrate our commitment to diversity because an important part of the American character is openness and our commitment to diversity is an affirmation of 'who we are as Americans'. if this carries a risk to our security, it is a small price to pay. indeed, the willing assumption of risk adds authenticity to our commitment.
in support of all this, we are asked to believe something incredible: that the american character is defined only by its unlimited acceptance of diversity. a defined American character - devotion to republican principles, republican virtue, the habits and manners of free citizens, self-reliance - would in that case be impermissibly exclusive and thus impermissibly American. the homogeneous world-state recognizes only openness devotion to diversity and acceptance
*4 as virtues. it must therefore condemn exclusivity as its greatest vice. it is the nation-state that insists on exclusive citizenship and immigration policies that impose various kinds of restrictions.
our progressive politicians and opinion leaders proclaim their commitment to diversity almost daily, chanting the same refrain: 'Diversity is our strength'. this is the gospel according to political correctness. but how does diversity strengthen us? is it a force for unity and cohesiveness? or is ti a source of division and contention? does it promote the common good and the friendship that rests at the heart of citizenship? or does it promote racial and ethnic division and something resembling the tribalism that prevents most of the world from making constitutional government a success? when is the last time we heard anyone in Washington talk about the common good? we are used to hearing talk about the various stakeholders and group interests, but not much about what the nation has in common.
this should not be surprising. greater diversity means inevitably that we have less in common and the more we encourage diversity the less we honor the common good. any honest and clear-sighted observer should be able to see that diversity is a solvent that dissolves the unity and cohesiveness of a nation - and we should not be deceived into believing that its proponents do not understand the full impact of their advocacy!
diversity, of course, marches under the banner of tolerance, but is a bastion of intolerance. it enforces its ideological liberalism with an iron fist that is driven by political correctness, the most ingenious (and insidious) device for suppressing freedom of speech and political dissent ever invented.
*5 political correctness could have been stopped dead in its tracks over 3 decades ago, but Republicans refused to kill it when they had the opportunity. in the presidential election campaign of 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to end affirmative action with the stroke of a pen by rescinding the executive order, issued by Lyndon Johnson, that created it. this promise was warmly received by the electorate in that election. but President Reagan failed to deliver his promised repeal. too many Republicans had become convinced that they could use affirmative action to their advantage - that the largesse associated with racial class entitlements would attract minorities to the Republican party. by signing on to this regime of political correctness, Republicans were never able to mount an effective opposition to its seemingly irresistible advance.
today, any Republican charged or implicated with racism - however tendentious, (def - having or showing a definite tendency, bias or purpose.), outrageous, implausible, exaggerated or false the charge or implication may be - will quickly surrender, often preemptively. (def - to acquire or appropriate before someone else; take for oneself, arrogate (def --to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right or appropriate to oneself without right.) this applies equally to the other violations of political correctness: homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, sexism and a host of other so-called irrational prejudices. after all, there is no rational defense against an 'irrational fear', which presumably is what the 'phobias' are. Republicans have rendered themselves defenseless against political correctness and the establishment wing of the party doesn't seem overly concerned, as they frequently join the chorus of democrats in denouncing Trump's violations of political correctness. only President Trump seems undeterred by the tyrannous threat that rests at the core of political correctness.
in addition to the Affirmative Action Executive Order in 1965, there were other actions taken during the Great society that were meant to transform America. the Civil Rights act of 1964 was sound legislation, authorized by the 14th Amendment and designed to abolish racial discrimination in employment. but the administrative agencies, with the full cooperation of the courts, quickly transformed its laudable goals into mandates that required racial discrimination to achieve racial proportionality in hiring and promotion.
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 similarly sought to ban racial discrimination in voting it too was transmogrified (def - to change the appearance or form, especially strangely or grotesquely) into an act that required racial discrimination in order to achieve proportional results in elections. proportional results were touted by a palpable fiction as the only reliable evidence of free and fair elections.
the Immigration Act of 1965 was a kind of affirmative action plan to provide remedies for those races or ethnic groups that had been discriminated against in the past. Caucasian immigrants from European nations had been given preference in past years; now it was time to diversify the immigrant population by changing the focus to Third World nations, primarily nations in Latin America and Asia. the goal, as some scholars have slowly come to realize, was to diversify the demographic composition of the American population from majority white to a majority of people of color. there was Also some anticipation that those coming from these Third world countries weer more likely to need the ministrations of the welfare state and therefore more likely to be captured by the democratic party, the party promoting the welfare state.
white middle-class Americans in the 1960s and 70s were often referred to as selfish because their principal interests were improving their own lives, educating their own children and contributing to their own communities. they showed no inclination to support diversity and the kind of authentic commitment to the new openness that was being advocated by progressive-liberalism. they stood as a constant roadblock to the administrative state, stubbornly resisting higher taxes, increased immigration and expansion of the welfare state. once they were no longer A majority, they would be powerless to
*6 resist, demographers say that sometime around 2040 is the day of reckoning when whites will no longer be a majority and will sometime thereafter have to endure the fate they have inflicted on others for so many years. this radical demographic change will be due almost entirely to the immigration reform that was put into motion by the Immigration Act of 1965.
of course, it is entirely a fiction that the American political system has produced monolithic white majorities that rule at the expense of so-called 'discrete and insular (def - detached) minorities'. whites as a class have never constituted a majority faction in the nation and the Constitution was explicitly written to prevent such majorities form forming. the fact that, among a host of other considerations, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a supposed 'monolithic white majority' to promote the equal protection rights of minorities belies the idea that it was a majority faction ruling in its own racial class interest.
President George W. Bush, no less that President Obama, was an advocate of a 'borderless world'. a supporter of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, he frequently stated that 'family values don't stoop at the border' and embraced the idea that 'universal values' transcend a nations's sovereignty. he called himself a 'compassionate conservative', and said on several occasions that we should be more compassionate to our less fortunate neighbors to the south.
President Reagan used this same kind of rhetoric when he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which provided amnesty for 3 illegal aliens. this was touted by Reagan as a way of 'humanely' dealing with the issue of illegal immigration. in his signing statement, he said the Act 'is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. the Act was supposed to be a one-time-only amnesty in exchange for stronger border control, but only the most naive in Washington believed that the promise of border control would be honored. in fact, illegal immigration continued unabated. the Act also fueled expectations - even demands - for additional amnesties and delays in implementing new amnesties have been proffered as evidence by immigration activists (including Jeb Bush)that the American people lack compassion.
any clear-thinking observer, however, can see that compassion is not a sound basis either for foreign policy or immigration policy. compassion is mover likely to lead to contempt than gratitude in both policy areas. the failure of the 1986 amnesty should be a clear reminder of the useful Machiavellian adage that in the world of realpolitik IT IS BETTER TO BE FEARED THAN TO BE LOVED. fear is more likely to engender respect, whereas love or compassion is more likely to be regarded as a contemptible sign of weakness. in 1984 Reagan received 37 % of the Hispanic vote, but after the 1986 amnesty George H. W. Bush received a significantly lower 30%. granted, Bush was no Reagan, but such ingratitude seemed to puzzle Republicans.
Republicans and Democrats alike are reluctant to consider serious measures to control illegal immigration. Republicans want to continue the steady supply of cheap and exploitable labor, and Democrats want future voters. Republicans are thinking only in the short term - they are not thinking politically. democrats always think politically. President Trump wants to stop chain
*7 migration and the diversity lottery. those who win in the diversity lottery also begin chain migration, as do all legal immigrants. since 2005, more than 9,000,000 foreign nationals have arrived in the U. S. by chain migration and when they become voting citizens, in all likelihood, 2/3 of them will vote Democrat. Trump knows how to think politically!
birthright citizenship contributes to a borderless world. any woman who comes to the United States as a legal or illegal alien and gives birth confers the boon of American citizenship on her child. in these instances, America has no control over who becomes a citizen, Constitutional law experts say it is a settled issue that the Constitution adopted the English common law of birthright citizenship. William Blackstone is cited as the authority for this proposition, having written the authoritative Commentaries on the Laws of England - a work that was well known to our nation's Founders. what the proponents of birthright citizenship seem to ignore is that Blackstone always refers to 'birthright subjects' and 'birthright subjectship', never mentioning citizens or citizenship in his 4 volume work. under the common law, anyone born under the protection of the king owed 'perpetual allegiance' to the king in return. Blackstone freely admitted that birthright subjectship was an inheritance from the feudal system. which defined the relations of master and servant. under the english common law there were no citizens (def - 'city'; one who owes allegiance to the government...(not king) - only subjects.
the Declaration of Independence, however, proclaims that the American people 'are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown'. this it is clear that the American people rejected the common law as a basis for citizenship. what is substituted in place of 'perpetual allegiance' to the king is 'the consent of the governed', with the clear implication that no individual can be ruled without his consent. CONSENT - NOT THE ACCIDENT OF BIRTH - IS THE BASIS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution and later a member of the Supreme Court, perfectly expressed the matter when he wrote: 'in America there are citizens, but no subjects'. is it plausible - is it even remotely credible - that the founders, after fighting a revolutionary war to reject the feudal relic of 'perpetual allegiance', would have adopted that same feudal relic as the ground of citizenship for the new American regime?
the American people can, of course, consent to allow others to join the compact that created the American nation, but hey have the sovereign right to specify the terms and conditions for granting entry and the qualifications for citizenship. presumably the qualifications for entry and naturalization will be whether those who wish to enter demonstrate a capacity to adopt the habits, manners, independence and self-reliance of republican citizens and devotion to the principles that unite the American people furthermore, IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE NOT TO EXPECT THAT POTENTIAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD POSSESS USEFUL SKILLS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THEY WILL NOT BECOME VICTIMS OF THE WELFARE STATE.
immigration policies should serve the interests of the American people and of the nation - they should not be viewed as acts of charity to the world. putting America first is a rational goal. it is the essence of sovereignty. and the sovereign nation-state is the only home of citizenship - as it is the essence of sovereignty;. and the sovereign nation-state is the only home of citizenship - as it is the only home of constitutional government.
adapted from a speech delivered on April 11.2018, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Colorado Springs.
*1 President Trump's zero -tolerance policy for ILLEGAL (me) border crossers has provoked a hysterical reaction from Democrats, establishment Republicans, the progressive-liberal media, Hollywood radicals and the deep state. what particularly motivated the ire of these Trump-haters was the fact that the zero-tolerance policy would require the separation of parents and children at the border. the hysteria was, of course, completely insincere and fabricated, given that the policy of separating children and parents was nothing new - it had been a policy of the Obama and Bush administrations as well.
furthermore, where is the compassion for the thousands of American children who are separated from their parents every year as a result of arrests and convictions for non-violent crimes? many of those arrested are single mothers whose infants become wards of the government until their mothers complete their sentences. no hysteria or effusive compassion is elicited by these separations, confirming that the object of the hysteria surrounding illegal border crossers is to force open borders on the nation under the guise of compassion for children.
*2 President Trump's preferred solution for ending the influx of illegal immigrants and providing border security is a wall; (note - just read in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Israel had done the same exact thing in the past.) it is also the preferred solution of the American people. Zero tolerance is an interim policy that -if enforced-will help deter illegal crossers. the hysteria provoked by zero tolerance could have been predicted, but its magnitude and sheer insanity are almost breathtaking. some prominent constitutional scholars have gone so far as to argue that the government has no constitutional authority to control the border. and this, which seems almost beyond hysteria, from the elite intellectual class that should be most immune to hysteria!
in the meantime, a Federal District Court judge in Southern California has discovered a substantive due process right guaranteeing the right to 'family integrity' lurking in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and has ordered all children reunited with their illegal immigrant parents. obviously the judge expects the parents to be released from incarceration to join their children, but the Trump administration seems determined to keep parents and children together in detention centers until legal proceedings determine their fate.
more than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: 'I t is an accepted maxim of international law... and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within (the sovereign nation's) dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe'. this view was reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump's travel ban on foreign nationals from 8 countries, 6 of which have majority Muslim populations.
part of the complaint against the ban was that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because Trump had displayed 'animus' against Muslims in speeches before and after the 2016 election. the plaintiffs argued that the national security reasons for the ban were merely pretexts fro Trump's thinly disguised contempt for the Muslim religion. although the Court agreed that individual injury could be alleged under the Establishment Clause, the travel ban on its face was neutral with respect to religion and it was therefore possible to decide the issue on statutory rather than constitutional grounds.
the dissenting opinion in this case would have invalidated the ban on constitutional grounds, based on the idea that the President's campaign statements and those of his advisers proved that animus against Islam was the real and pervasive motivation for the travel ban. had this dissenting opinion prevailed, it would have created an anomaly in constitutional jurisprudence. conceding that the plain language of the travel ban was neutral and therefor constitutional, what rendered the travel ban unconstitutional was Trump's purported display of animus in his public speeches. if signed by any president other than Trump, there would therefore be no constitutional objections in other words, in the minds of
*3 the dissenters, psychoanalysis of Trump's motives held greater constitutional significance that the intent of the law expressed in its plain language.
WE ARE ASKED TO BELIEVE SOMETHING INCREDIBLE: THAT THE AMERICAN CHARACTER IS DEFINED ONLY BY ITS UNLIMITED ACCEPTANCE OF DIVERSITY. A DEFINED AMERICAN CHARACTER - DEVOTION TO REPUBLICAN
(def - REPUBLIC 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a COMMONWEALTH.( a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests)
3. a state in which the government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.)
in any case, the majority opinion held that 'by its plain language' the Immigration and Naturalization Act 'grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the U.S. the President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings...that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest'. few limits have ever been placed on the President's broad authority to act under the Immigration and Naturalization act, especially when national security and foreign relations are involved.
in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump appealed to the importance of citizens and borders. in other words, Trump took his stand on behalf of the nation-state and citizenship against the idea of a homogeneous world-state populated by 'universal persons'. in appealing directly to the people. Trump succeeded in defeating both political parties, the media, political professionals, pollsters, academics and the bureaucratic class. all these groups formed part of the bi-partisan cartel that had represented the entrenched interests of the Washington establishment for many years. although defeated in the election, the cartel (def - coalition of political or special interest groups having a common cause) has not given p. it is fighting a desperate battle to maintain its power.
historically, constitutional government has been found only in the nation-state, where the people share a common good and are dedicated to the same principles and purposes. the homogeneous world-state - the European union on a global scale - will not be a constitutional democracy; it will be the administration of 'universal personhood' without the inconvenience of having to relay on the consent of the governed, IT WILL BE GOVERNMENT BY UNELECTED AND UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRATS, much like the burgeoning administrative state that is today expanding its reach and magnifying its power in the United States. 'Universal persons' will not be citizens; they will be clients or subjects. rights will be superfluous because the collective welfare of the community - determined by the bureaucrats - will have superseded the rights of individuals.
progressive liberalism no longer views self-preservation as a rational goal of the nation-state. rather, it insists that self preservation and national security must be subordinate to openness and diversity. America's immigration policies, we are told, should demonstrate our commitment to diversity because an important part of the American character is openness and our commitment to diversity is an affirmation of 'who we are as Americans'. if this carries a risk to our security, it is a small price to pay. indeed, the willing assumption of risk adds authenticity to our commitment.
in support of all this, we are asked to believe something incredible: that the american character is defined only by its unlimited acceptance of diversity. a defined American character - devotion to republican principles, republican virtue, the habits and manners of free citizens, self-reliance - would in that case be impermissibly exclusive and thus impermissibly American. the homogeneous world-state recognizes only openness devotion to diversity and acceptance
*4 as virtues. it must therefore condemn exclusivity as its greatest vice. it is the nation-state that insists on exclusive citizenship and immigration policies that impose various kinds of restrictions.
our progressive politicians and opinion leaders proclaim their commitment to diversity almost daily, chanting the same refrain: 'Diversity is our strength'. this is the gospel according to political correctness. but how does diversity strengthen us? is it a force for unity and cohesiveness? or is ti a source of division and contention? does it promote the common good and the friendship that rests at the heart of citizenship? or does it promote racial and ethnic division and something resembling the tribalism that prevents most of the world from making constitutional government a success? when is the last time we heard anyone in Washington talk about the common good? we are used to hearing talk about the various stakeholders and group interests, but not much about what the nation has in common.
this should not be surprising. greater diversity means inevitably that we have less in common and the more we encourage diversity the less we honor the common good. any honest and clear-sighted observer should be able to see that diversity is a solvent that dissolves the unity and cohesiveness of a nation - and we should not be deceived into believing that its proponents do not understand the full impact of their advocacy!
diversity, of course, marches under the banner of tolerance, but is a bastion of intolerance. it enforces its ideological liberalism with an iron fist that is driven by political correctness, the most ingenious (and insidious) device for suppressing freedom of speech and political dissent ever invented.
*5 political correctness could have been stopped dead in its tracks over 3 decades ago, but Republicans refused to kill it when they had the opportunity. in the presidential election campaign of 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to end affirmative action with the stroke of a pen by rescinding the executive order, issued by Lyndon Johnson, that created it. this promise was warmly received by the electorate in that election. but President Reagan failed to deliver his promised repeal. too many Republicans had become convinced that they could use affirmative action to their advantage - that the largesse associated with racial class entitlements would attract minorities to the Republican party. by signing on to this regime of political correctness, Republicans were never able to mount an effective opposition to its seemingly irresistible advance.
today, any Republican charged or implicated with racism - however tendentious, (def - having or showing a definite tendency, bias or purpose.), outrageous, implausible, exaggerated or false the charge or implication may be - will quickly surrender, often preemptively. (def - to acquire or appropriate before someone else; take for oneself, arrogate (def --to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right or appropriate to oneself without right.) this applies equally to the other violations of political correctness: homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, sexism and a host of other so-called irrational prejudices. after all, there is no rational defense against an 'irrational fear', which presumably is what the 'phobias' are. Republicans have rendered themselves defenseless against political correctness and the establishment wing of the party doesn't seem overly concerned, as they frequently join the chorus of democrats in denouncing Trump's violations of political correctness. only President Trump seems undeterred by the tyrannous threat that rests at the core of political correctness.
in addition to the Affirmative Action Executive Order in 1965, there were other actions taken during the Great society that were meant to transform America. the Civil Rights act of 1964 was sound legislation, authorized by the 14th Amendment and designed to abolish racial discrimination in employment. but the administrative agencies, with the full cooperation of the courts, quickly transformed its laudable goals into mandates that required racial discrimination to achieve racial proportionality in hiring and promotion.
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 similarly sought to ban racial discrimination in voting it too was transmogrified (def - to change the appearance or form, especially strangely or grotesquely) into an act that required racial discrimination in order to achieve proportional results in elections. proportional results were touted by a palpable fiction as the only reliable evidence of free and fair elections.
the Immigration Act of 1965 was a kind of affirmative action plan to provide remedies for those races or ethnic groups that had been discriminated against in the past. Caucasian immigrants from European nations had been given preference in past years; now it was time to diversify the immigrant population by changing the focus to Third World nations, primarily nations in Latin America and Asia. the goal, as some scholars have slowly come to realize, was to diversify the demographic composition of the American population from majority white to a majority of people of color. there was Also some anticipation that those coming from these Third world countries weer more likely to need the ministrations of the welfare state and therefore more likely to be captured by the democratic party, the party promoting the welfare state.
white middle-class Americans in the 1960s and 70s were often referred to as selfish because their principal interests were improving their own lives, educating their own children and contributing to their own communities. they showed no inclination to support diversity and the kind of authentic commitment to the new openness that was being advocated by progressive-liberalism. they stood as a constant roadblock to the administrative state, stubbornly resisting higher taxes, increased immigration and expansion of the welfare state. once they were no longer A majority, they would be powerless to
*6 resist, demographers say that sometime around 2040 is the day of reckoning when whites will no longer be a majority and will sometime thereafter have to endure the fate they have inflicted on others for so many years. this radical demographic change will be due almost entirely to the immigration reform that was put into motion by the Immigration Act of 1965.
of course, it is entirely a fiction that the American political system has produced monolithic white majorities that rule at the expense of so-called 'discrete and insular (def - detached) minorities'. whites as a class have never constituted a majority faction in the nation and the Constitution was explicitly written to prevent such majorities form forming. the fact that, among a host of other considerations, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a supposed 'monolithic white majority' to promote the equal protection rights of minorities belies the idea that it was a majority faction ruling in its own racial class interest.
President George W. Bush, no less that President Obama, was an advocate of a 'borderless world'. a supporter of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, he frequently stated that 'family values don't stoop at the border' and embraced the idea that 'universal values' transcend a nations's sovereignty. he called himself a 'compassionate conservative', and said on several occasions that we should be more compassionate to our less fortunate neighbors to the south.
President Reagan used this same kind of rhetoric when he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which provided amnesty for 3 illegal aliens. this was touted by Reagan as a way of 'humanely' dealing with the issue of illegal immigration. in his signing statement, he said the Act 'is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. the Act was supposed to be a one-time-only amnesty in exchange for stronger border control, but only the most naive in Washington believed that the promise of border control would be honored. in fact, illegal immigration continued unabated. the Act also fueled expectations - even demands - for additional amnesties and delays in implementing new amnesties have been proffered as evidence by immigration activists (including Jeb Bush)that the American people lack compassion.
any clear-thinking observer, however, can see that compassion is not a sound basis either for foreign policy or immigration policy. compassion is mover likely to lead to contempt than gratitude in both policy areas. the failure of the 1986 amnesty should be a clear reminder of the useful Machiavellian adage that in the world of realpolitik IT IS BETTER TO BE FEARED THAN TO BE LOVED. fear is more likely to engender respect, whereas love or compassion is more likely to be regarded as a contemptible sign of weakness. in 1984 Reagan received 37 % of the Hispanic vote, but after the 1986 amnesty George H. W. Bush received a significantly lower 30%. granted, Bush was no Reagan, but such ingratitude seemed to puzzle Republicans.
Republicans and Democrats alike are reluctant to consider serious measures to control illegal immigration. Republicans want to continue the steady supply of cheap and exploitable labor, and Democrats want future voters. Republicans are thinking only in the short term - they are not thinking politically. democrats always think politically. President Trump wants to stop chain
*7 migration and the diversity lottery. those who win in the diversity lottery also begin chain migration, as do all legal immigrants. since 2005, more than 9,000,000 foreign nationals have arrived in the U. S. by chain migration and when they become voting citizens, in all likelihood, 2/3 of them will vote Democrat. Trump knows how to think politically!
birthright citizenship contributes to a borderless world. any woman who comes to the United States as a legal or illegal alien and gives birth confers the boon of American citizenship on her child. in these instances, America has no control over who becomes a citizen, Constitutional law experts say it is a settled issue that the Constitution adopted the English common law of birthright citizenship. William Blackstone is cited as the authority for this proposition, having written the authoritative Commentaries on the Laws of England - a work that was well known to our nation's Founders. what the proponents of birthright citizenship seem to ignore is that Blackstone always refers to 'birthright subjects' and 'birthright subjectship', never mentioning citizens or citizenship in his 4 volume work. under the common law, anyone born under the protection of the king owed 'perpetual allegiance' to the king in return. Blackstone freely admitted that birthright subjectship was an inheritance from the feudal system. which defined the relations of master and servant. under the english common law there were no citizens (def - 'city'; one who owes allegiance to the government...(not king) - only subjects.
the Declaration of Independence, however, proclaims that the American people 'are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown'. this it is clear that the American people rejected the common law as a basis for citizenship. what is substituted in place of 'perpetual allegiance' to the king is 'the consent of the governed', with the clear implication that no individual can be ruled without his consent. CONSENT - NOT THE ACCIDENT OF BIRTH - IS THE BASIS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution and later a member of the Supreme Court, perfectly expressed the matter when he wrote: 'in America there are citizens, but no subjects'. is it plausible - is it even remotely credible - that the founders, after fighting a revolutionary war to reject the feudal relic of 'perpetual allegiance', would have adopted that same feudal relic as the ground of citizenship for the new American regime?
the American people can, of course, consent to allow others to join the compact that created the American nation, but hey have the sovereign right to specify the terms and conditions for granting entry and the qualifications for citizenship. presumably the qualifications for entry and naturalization will be whether those who wish to enter demonstrate a capacity to adopt the habits, manners, independence and self-reliance of republican citizens and devotion to the principles that unite the American people furthermore, IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE NOT TO EXPECT THAT POTENTIAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD POSSESS USEFUL SKILLS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THEY WILL NOT BECOME VICTIMS OF THE WELFARE STATE.
immigration policies should serve the interests of the American people and of the nation - they should not be viewed as acts of charity to the world. putting America first is a rational goal. it is the essence of sovereignty. and the sovereign nation-state is the only home of citizenship - as it is the essence of sovereignty;. and the sovereign nation-state is the only home of citizenship - as it is the only home of constitutional government.
Monday, August 13, 2018
8.13.2018 AN EARNEST APPEAL TO MEN OF REASON AND RELIGION - Wesley's Works Vol.8 - ADDRESSES, ESSAYS, LETTERS
Written in 1744
*3 1.although it is with us a 'very small thing to be judged of you or of man's judgment' seeing we know god will 'make our innocency as clear as the light and our just dealing as the moo-day' ; yet are we ready to give any that are willing to hear a plain account, both to our principles and actions; as having 'renounced the hidden things of shame' and desiring nothing more, 'than by manifestation of the truth to commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God'.
2 we see (and who does not?) the numberless follies and miseries of our fellow-creatures. we see, on every side, either men of no religion at all, or men of a lifeless, formal religion. we are grieved at the sight and should greatly rejoice, if by any means we might convince some that there is a better religion to be attained, - a religion worthy of god that gave it. and this we conceive to be no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind; the loving God with all our heart and soul and strength, as having first loved Us, as the fountain of all the good we have received and of all we ever hope to enjoy and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth, as our own soul.
3. this love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. there is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
eternal sunshine of the spotless mind,
each prayer accepted and each wish resign'd,
desires composed, affections ever even,
tears that delight and sighs that waft to heaven.
4. this religion we long to see established in the world, a religion of love and joy and peace, having its seat in the
*4 inmost soul, but ever showing itself by its fruits, continually springing forth, not only in all innocence, (for love worketh no ill to his neighbour) but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue and happiness all around it.
5. this religion have we been following after for many years, as many know, if they would testify, but all this time seeking wisdom, we found it not; we were spending our strength in vain, and being now under full conviction of this we declare it to all mankind; for we desire not that others should wander out of the way as we have done before them, but rather that they may profit by our loss, that they may go (though we did not, having then no man to guide us) the straight way to the religion of love, even by faith.
6. now, faith (supposing the Scripture to be of God) is...'the demonstative evidence of things unseen', the supernatural evidence of things invisible, not perceivable by eyes of flesh, or by any of our natural senses or faculties. faith is that divine evidence whereby the spiritual man discerneth God and the things of God. it is with regard to the spiritual world, what sense is with regard to the natural. it is the spiritual sensation of every soul that is born of God.
7. perhaps you have not considered it in this view. I will, then, explain it a little further.
faith, according to the scriptural account, is the eye of the new-born soul. hereby every true believer in God 'seeth Him who is invisible'. hereby (in a more particular manner since life and immortality have been brought to light by the gospel) he 'seeth the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' and 'beholdeth what manner of love it is which the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we,', who are born of the Spirit, 'should be called the sons of God'.
it is the ear of the soul, whereby a sinner 'hears the voice of the Son of God and lives'; even that voice which alone wakes the dead, 'Son, thy sins are forgiven thee'.
it is (if I may be allowed the expression) the palate of the soul, for hereby a believer 'tastes the good word and the powers of the world to come' and 'hereby he both tastes and sees that God is gracious', yea, 'and merciful to him a sinner'.
it is the feeling of the soul, whereby a believer perceives through the 'power of the Highest overshadowing him', both the existence and the presence of Him in whom 'he lives,
*5 moves and has his being' and indeed the whole invisible world, the entire system of things eternal. and hereby, in particular, he feels, 'the love of God shed abroad in his heart'.
8. if you ask, 'why then have not all men this faith? all, at least, who conceive it to be so happy a thing? why do they not believe immediately?'
we answer, (on the Scripture hypothesis) 'It is the gift of God'. no man is able to work it in himself. it is a work of omnipotence, it requires no less power thus to quicken a dead soul, that to raise a body that lies in the grave. it is a new creation and none can create a soul anew, but he who at first created the heavens and the earth.
10. may not your own experience teach you this?
can you give yourself this faith?
is it now in your power to see or hear or taste or feel God?
have you already or can you raise in yourself, any perception of God, or of an invisible world?
you will not charge it in poor old Hesiod to Christian prejudiced of education, whe he says, in those well-known words,
'Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth
unseen, whether we wake or if we sleep'.
now, is there any power in your soul whereby you discern either these or him that created them?
or, can all your wisdom and strength open an intercourse between yourself and the world of spirits?
is it in your power to burst the veil that is on your heart and let in the light of eternity?
*6 you know it is not. you not only do not, but cannot, by your own strength, thus believe.
the more you labour so to do, the more you will be convinced 'it is the gift of God'.
11. it is the free gift of God, which He bestows,
not on those who are worthy of His favour,
not on such as are previously holy and so fit to be crowned with all the blessings of his goodness,
but on the ungodly and unholy;
on those who till that hour were fit only for everlasting destruction;
those in whom was no good thing and whose only plea was, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner!
no merit, no goodness in man precedes the forgiving love of God.
His pardoning mercy supposes nothing in us but a sense of mere sin and misery,
and to all who see and feel and own their wants and their utter inability to remove them,
God freely gives faith, for the sake of Him in whom He is always 'well pleased'.
12. this a a short, rude sketch of the doctrine we teach.
these are our fundamental principles
and we spend our lives in confirming others herein and in a behaviour suitable to them.
now, if you are a reasonable man, although you do not believe the Christian system to be of God, lay your hand upon your breast and calmly consider what it is that you can here condemn?
what evil have We done to You, that you should join the common cry against us?
why should You day, 'away with such fellows from the earth; it is not fit that they should live?
13. it is true, your judgment does not fall in with ours. we believe the Scripture to be of God. this you do not believe. and how do you defend yourselves against them who urge you with the guilt of unbelief? do you not say, 'Every man Must judge according to the light he has', and that 'if he be true to this, he ought not to be condemned? keep then to this and turn the tables. Must no We also judge according to the light we have? you can in nowise condemn us without involving yourselves in the same condemnation. according to the light We have, we cannot but believe the Scripture is of God and while we believe this, we dare not turn aside from it, to the right hand or to the left.
14. let us consider this point a little farther.
you yourself believe there is a God.
you have the witness of this in your own breast. perhaps sometimes you tremble before Him.
you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong;
that there is a difference between moral good and evil.
*7 of consequence you must allow, there is such a thing as conscience:
I mean that every person, capable of reflection, is conscious to himself, when he looks back on anything he has done, whether it be good or evil.
you must likewise allow, that every man is to be guided by his own conscience, not another's.
thus far, doubtless, you may go, without any danger of being a volunteer in faith.
15. now then, be consistent with yourself.
if there be a God, who, being just and good, attributes inseparable from the very idea of God)
is 'a regarder of them that diligently seek Him,
ought we not to do whatever we believe will be acceptable to so good a Master?
Observe: if we believe, if we are fully persuaded of this in our mind,
ought we not thus to seek Him and that with all diligence?
Else, how should we expect any reward at His hands?
16. again: ought we not to do what we believe is morally good
and to abstain from what we judge is evil?
by good I mean, conducive to the good of mankind,
tending to advance peace and good-will among men,
promotive of the happiness of our fellow-creatures
and by evil, what is contrary thereto.
then surely you cannot condemn our endeavouring, after our power, to make mankind happy;
(I now speak only with regard to the present world)
our striving , as we can, to lessen their sorrows and to teach them, in whatsoever state they are, therewith to be content.
17..yet again: are we to be guided by our own conscience, or by that of other men?
you surely will not say that any man's conscience can preclude mine.
you, at least, will not plead for robbing us of what you so strongly claim for yourselves:
I mean, the right of private judgment, which is indeed unalienable form rational creatures.
you well know, that, unless we faithfully follow the dictates of our own mind,
we cannot have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.
18. upon your own principles, therefore, you must allow us to be, at least, innocent.
do you find any difficulty in this?
you speak much of prepossession and prejudice; beware you are not entangled therein yourselves!
are you not prejudiced against us, because we believe and strenuously defend that system
of doctrines you oppose?
are you not enemies to us, because you take it for granted we are so to you?
*8 Nay, God forbid!
I once saw one, who, from a plentiful fortune, was reduced to the owest extremity. he was lying on a sick bed, in violent pain, without even convenient food or one friend to comfort him: so that when his merciful landlord, to complete all, sent one to take his bed from under him, I was not surpriesed at his attempt to put and end to so miserable a life. now, when I saw that poor man weltering in his blood, could I be angry at him?
surely, no. no more can I at you.
I can no more hate than I can envy you.
I can only lift up my heart to God for you, (as I did then for him)
and with silent tears, beseech the Father of Mercies,
that He would look on you in your blood and say unto you, 'Live'.
19. 'Sir, said that unhappy man, at my first interview with him,
'I scorn to deceive you or any man.
you must not tell me of your Bible for I do not believe one word of it.
I know there is a God and believe He is all in all, the Anima mundi (foot- the soul of the world.)
...but farther than this I believe not:
All is dark; my thought is lost.
but I hear', added he, you preach to a great number of people evey night and morning.
pray, what would you do with them?
whither would you lead them?
what religion do you preach?
what is it good for?
I replied, 'I do preach to as many as desire to hear, every night and morning.
You ask, what I would do with them.
I would make them virtuous and happy,
easy in themselves and
useful to others.
Whither would I lead them?
To heaven; to God the Judge, the lover of all and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant.
what religion do I preach?
the religion of love; the law of kindness brought to light by the gospel.
what is this good for?
to make all who receive it enjoy God and themselves:
to make them like God; lovers of all; contented in their lives and
crying out at their death, in calm assurance,
'O grave, where is thy victory!
Thanks be unto God, who giveth me the victory through my Lord Jesus Christ.
20. will you object to such a religion as this, that it is not reasonable?
is it not reasonable then to love God?
hath He not given you life and breath and all things?
does He not continued His love to you, filling your heart with food and gladness?
*9 what have you which you have not received of Him?
and does not love demand a return of love?
whether, therefore, you do love God or no, you cannot but own it is reasonable so to do;
nay, seeing He is the Parent of all good, to love Him with all your heart.
21. Is it not reasonable also to love our neighbour, every man whom God hath made?
are we not brethren, the children of one Father?
ought we not, then, to love one another?
and should we only love them that love us? is that acting like our Father which is in heaven?
He causeth His sun to shine on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust
and can there be a more equitable rule than this: Thou shalt love they neighbour as theyself?
you will plead for the reasonableness of this, as also for that golden rule,(the only adequate measure of brotherly lovee, in all our words and actions)
'whatever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them?'
22. is it not reasonable, then, that, as we have opportunity, we should do good unto all men;
not only friends, but enemies;
not only to the deserving, but likewise to the evil and unthankful?
is it not right that all our life should be one continued labour of love?
if a day passes without doing good, may one not well say, with Titus, ( My friends, I have lost a day.)
and is it enough
to feed the hungry,
to clothe the naked,
to visit those who are sick or in prison?
should we have no pity for those
'Who sign beneath guilt's horrid stain,
the worst confinement and the heaviest chain?
should we shut up our compassion toward those who are of all men most miserable,
because they are miserable, because they are miserable by their own fault?
if we have found a medicine to heal even that sickness,
should we not,
as we have freely received it,
freely give?
should we not pluck them as brands out of the fire?
the fire of lust, anger, malice, revenge?
Your inmost soul answers, 'It should be done; it is reasonable in the highest degree'.
well this is the sum of our preaching and of our lives, our enemies themselves being the judges.
if therefore you allow, that it is reasonable to love God, to love mankind and to do good to all men,
you cannot but allow that religion which we preach and live to be agreeable to the highest reason.
*10 23. perhaps, all this you can bear. it is tolerable enough; and if we spoke only of being saved by love, you should have no great objection,
but you do not comprehend what we say of being saved by faith.
I know you do not.
you do not in any degree comprehend what we mean by that expression:
have patience then and I will tell you yet again.
by those words, 'We are saved by faith', we mean...
the moment a man receives that faith which is above described,
he is saved from doubt and fear and sorrow of heart,
by the peace that passes all understanding;
from the heaviness of a wounded spirit,
by joy unspeakable
and from his sins, of whatsoever kind they were,
from his vicious desires, as well as words and actions,
by the love of God and of all mankind, then shed abroad in his heart.
24. we grant, nothing is more unreasonable, than to imagine that such mighty effects as these can be wrought by that poor, empty, insignificant thing, which the world calls faith and you among them.
but supposing there be such a faith on the earth as that which the Apostle speaks of, such an intercourse between God and the soul,
what is too hard for such a faith?
You yourselves may conceive that 'all things are possible to him that' thus 'walks with God',
that is now a citizen of heaven,
an inhabitant of eternity.
if therefore you will contend with us, you must change the ground of your attack.
you must flatly deny there is any faith upon earth,
but perhaps this you might think too large a step.
you cannot do this without a secret condemnation in your own breast.
O that you would at length cry to God for that heavenly gift!
whereby alone this truly reasonable religion,
this beneficent love of God and man,
can be planted in your heart.
25. if you say, 'But those that profess this faith are the most unreasonable of all men;
I ask,
who are those that profess this faith?
*3 1.although it is with us a 'very small thing to be judged of you or of man's judgment' seeing we know god will 'make our innocency as clear as the light and our just dealing as the moo-day' ; yet are we ready to give any that are willing to hear a plain account, both to our principles and actions; as having 'renounced the hidden things of shame' and desiring nothing more, 'than by manifestation of the truth to commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God'.
2 we see (and who does not?) the numberless follies and miseries of our fellow-creatures. we see, on every side, either men of no religion at all, or men of a lifeless, formal religion. we are grieved at the sight and should greatly rejoice, if by any means we might convince some that there is a better religion to be attained, - a religion worthy of god that gave it. and this we conceive to be no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind; the loving God with all our heart and soul and strength, as having first loved Us, as the fountain of all the good we have received and of all we ever hope to enjoy and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth, as our own soul.
3. this love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. there is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
eternal sunshine of the spotless mind,
each prayer accepted and each wish resign'd,
desires composed, affections ever even,
tears that delight and sighs that waft to heaven.
4. this religion we long to see established in the world, a religion of love and joy and peace, having its seat in the
*4 inmost soul, but ever showing itself by its fruits, continually springing forth, not only in all innocence, (for love worketh no ill to his neighbour) but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue and happiness all around it.
5. this religion have we been following after for many years, as many know, if they would testify, but all this time seeking wisdom, we found it not; we were spending our strength in vain, and being now under full conviction of this we declare it to all mankind; for we desire not that others should wander out of the way as we have done before them, but rather that they may profit by our loss, that they may go (though we did not, having then no man to guide us) the straight way to the religion of love, even by faith.
6. now, faith (supposing the Scripture to be of God) is...'the demonstative evidence of things unseen', the supernatural evidence of things invisible, not perceivable by eyes of flesh, or by any of our natural senses or faculties. faith is that divine evidence whereby the spiritual man discerneth God and the things of God. it is with regard to the spiritual world, what sense is with regard to the natural. it is the spiritual sensation of every soul that is born of God.
7. perhaps you have not considered it in this view. I will, then, explain it a little further.
faith, according to the scriptural account, is the eye of the new-born soul. hereby every true believer in God 'seeth Him who is invisible'. hereby (in a more particular manner since life and immortality have been brought to light by the gospel) he 'seeth the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' and 'beholdeth what manner of love it is which the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we,', who are born of the Spirit, 'should be called the sons of God'.
it is the ear of the soul, whereby a sinner 'hears the voice of the Son of God and lives'; even that voice which alone wakes the dead, 'Son, thy sins are forgiven thee'.
it is (if I may be allowed the expression) the palate of the soul, for hereby a believer 'tastes the good word and the powers of the world to come' and 'hereby he both tastes and sees that God is gracious', yea, 'and merciful to him a sinner'.
it is the feeling of the soul, whereby a believer perceives through the 'power of the Highest overshadowing him', both the existence and the presence of Him in whom 'he lives,
*5 moves and has his being' and indeed the whole invisible world, the entire system of things eternal. and hereby, in particular, he feels, 'the love of God shed abroad in his heart'.
8. if you ask, 'why then have not all men this faith? all, at least, who conceive it to be so happy a thing? why do they not believe immediately?'
we answer, (on the Scripture hypothesis) 'It is the gift of God'. no man is able to work it in himself. it is a work of omnipotence, it requires no less power thus to quicken a dead soul, that to raise a body that lies in the grave. it is a new creation and none can create a soul anew, but he who at first created the heavens and the earth.
10. may not your own experience teach you this?
can you give yourself this faith?
is it now in your power to see or hear or taste or feel God?
have you already or can you raise in yourself, any perception of God, or of an invisible world?
you will not charge it in poor old Hesiod to Christian prejudiced of education, whe he says, in those well-known words,
'Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth
unseen, whether we wake or if we sleep'.
now, is there any power in your soul whereby you discern either these or him that created them?
or, can all your wisdom and strength open an intercourse between yourself and the world of spirits?
is it in your power to burst the veil that is on your heart and let in the light of eternity?
*6 you know it is not. you not only do not, but cannot, by your own strength, thus believe.
the more you labour so to do, the more you will be convinced 'it is the gift of God'.
11. it is the free gift of God, which He bestows,
not on those who are worthy of His favour,
not on such as are previously holy and so fit to be crowned with all the blessings of his goodness,
but on the ungodly and unholy;
on those who till that hour were fit only for everlasting destruction;
those in whom was no good thing and whose only plea was, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner!
no merit, no goodness in man precedes the forgiving love of God.
His pardoning mercy supposes nothing in us but a sense of mere sin and misery,
and to all who see and feel and own their wants and their utter inability to remove them,
God freely gives faith, for the sake of Him in whom He is always 'well pleased'.
12. this a a short, rude sketch of the doctrine we teach.
these are our fundamental principles
and we spend our lives in confirming others herein and in a behaviour suitable to them.
now, if you are a reasonable man, although you do not believe the Christian system to be of God, lay your hand upon your breast and calmly consider what it is that you can here condemn?
what evil have We done to You, that you should join the common cry against us?
why should You day, 'away with such fellows from the earth; it is not fit that they should live?
13. it is true, your judgment does not fall in with ours. we believe the Scripture to be of God. this you do not believe. and how do you defend yourselves against them who urge you with the guilt of unbelief? do you not say, 'Every man Must judge according to the light he has', and that 'if he be true to this, he ought not to be condemned? keep then to this and turn the tables. Must no We also judge according to the light we have? you can in nowise condemn us without involving yourselves in the same condemnation. according to the light We have, we cannot but believe the Scripture is of God and while we believe this, we dare not turn aside from it, to the right hand or to the left.
14. let us consider this point a little farther.
you yourself believe there is a God.
you have the witness of this in your own breast. perhaps sometimes you tremble before Him.
you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong;
that there is a difference between moral good and evil.
*7 of consequence you must allow, there is such a thing as conscience:
I mean that every person, capable of reflection, is conscious to himself, when he looks back on anything he has done, whether it be good or evil.
you must likewise allow, that every man is to be guided by his own conscience, not another's.
thus far, doubtless, you may go, without any danger of being a volunteer in faith.
15. now then, be consistent with yourself.
if there be a God, who, being just and good, attributes inseparable from the very idea of God)
is 'a regarder of them that diligently seek Him,
ought we not to do whatever we believe will be acceptable to so good a Master?
Observe: if we believe, if we are fully persuaded of this in our mind,
ought we not thus to seek Him and that with all diligence?
Else, how should we expect any reward at His hands?
16. again: ought we not to do what we believe is morally good
and to abstain from what we judge is evil?
by good I mean, conducive to the good of mankind,
tending to advance peace and good-will among men,
promotive of the happiness of our fellow-creatures
and by evil, what is contrary thereto.
then surely you cannot condemn our endeavouring, after our power, to make mankind happy;
(I now speak only with regard to the present world)
our striving , as we can, to lessen their sorrows and to teach them, in whatsoever state they are, therewith to be content.
17..yet again: are we to be guided by our own conscience, or by that of other men?
you surely will not say that any man's conscience can preclude mine.
you, at least, will not plead for robbing us of what you so strongly claim for yourselves:
I mean, the right of private judgment, which is indeed unalienable form rational creatures.
you well know, that, unless we faithfully follow the dictates of our own mind,
we cannot have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.
18. upon your own principles, therefore, you must allow us to be, at least, innocent.
do you find any difficulty in this?
you speak much of prepossession and prejudice; beware you are not entangled therein yourselves!
are you not prejudiced against us, because we believe and strenuously defend that system
of doctrines you oppose?
are you not enemies to us, because you take it for granted we are so to you?
*8 Nay, God forbid!
I once saw one, who, from a plentiful fortune, was reduced to the owest extremity. he was lying on a sick bed, in violent pain, without even convenient food or one friend to comfort him: so that when his merciful landlord, to complete all, sent one to take his bed from under him, I was not surpriesed at his attempt to put and end to so miserable a life. now, when I saw that poor man weltering in his blood, could I be angry at him?
surely, no. no more can I at you.
I can no more hate than I can envy you.
I can only lift up my heart to God for you, (as I did then for him)
and with silent tears, beseech the Father of Mercies,
that He would look on you in your blood and say unto you, 'Live'.
19. 'Sir, said that unhappy man, at my first interview with him,
'I scorn to deceive you or any man.
you must not tell me of your Bible for I do not believe one word of it.
I know there is a God and believe He is all in all, the Anima mundi (foot- the soul of the world.)
...but farther than this I believe not:
All is dark; my thought is lost.
but I hear', added he, you preach to a great number of people evey night and morning.
pray, what would you do with them?
whither would you lead them?
what religion do you preach?
what is it good for?
I replied, 'I do preach to as many as desire to hear, every night and morning.
You ask, what I would do with them.
I would make them virtuous and happy,
easy in themselves and
useful to others.
Whither would I lead them?
To heaven; to God the Judge, the lover of all and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant.
what religion do I preach?
the religion of love; the law of kindness brought to light by the gospel.
what is this good for?
to make all who receive it enjoy God and themselves:
to make them like God; lovers of all; contented in their lives and
crying out at their death, in calm assurance,
'O grave, where is thy victory!
Thanks be unto God, who giveth me the victory through my Lord Jesus Christ.
20. will you object to such a religion as this, that it is not reasonable?
is it not reasonable then to love God?
hath He not given you life and breath and all things?
does He not continued His love to you, filling your heart with food and gladness?
*9 what have you which you have not received of Him?
and does not love demand a return of love?
whether, therefore, you do love God or no, you cannot but own it is reasonable so to do;
nay, seeing He is the Parent of all good, to love Him with all your heart.
21. Is it not reasonable also to love our neighbour, every man whom God hath made?
are we not brethren, the children of one Father?
ought we not, then, to love one another?
and should we only love them that love us? is that acting like our Father which is in heaven?
He causeth His sun to shine on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust
and can there be a more equitable rule than this: Thou shalt love they neighbour as theyself?
you will plead for the reasonableness of this, as also for that golden rule,(the only adequate measure of brotherly lovee, in all our words and actions)
'whatever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them?'
22. is it not reasonable, then, that, as we have opportunity, we should do good unto all men;
not only friends, but enemies;
not only to the deserving, but likewise to the evil and unthankful?
is it not right that all our life should be one continued labour of love?
if a day passes without doing good, may one not well say, with Titus, ( My friends, I have lost a day.)
and is it enough
to feed the hungry,
to clothe the naked,
to visit those who are sick or in prison?
should we have no pity for those
'Who sign beneath guilt's horrid stain,
the worst confinement and the heaviest chain?
should we shut up our compassion toward those who are of all men most miserable,
because they are miserable, because they are miserable by their own fault?
if we have found a medicine to heal even that sickness,
should we not,
as we have freely received it,
freely give?
should we not pluck them as brands out of the fire?
the fire of lust, anger, malice, revenge?
Your inmost soul answers, 'It should be done; it is reasonable in the highest degree'.
well this is the sum of our preaching and of our lives, our enemies themselves being the judges.
if therefore you allow, that it is reasonable to love God, to love mankind and to do good to all men,
you cannot but allow that religion which we preach and live to be agreeable to the highest reason.
*10 23. perhaps, all this you can bear. it is tolerable enough; and if we spoke only of being saved by love, you should have no great objection,
but you do not comprehend what we say of being saved by faith.
I know you do not.
you do not in any degree comprehend what we mean by that expression:
have patience then and I will tell you yet again.
by those words, 'We are saved by faith', we mean...
the moment a man receives that faith which is above described,
he is saved from doubt and fear and sorrow of heart,
by the peace that passes all understanding;
from the heaviness of a wounded spirit,
by joy unspeakable
and from his sins, of whatsoever kind they were,
from his vicious desires, as well as words and actions,
by the love of God and of all mankind, then shed abroad in his heart.
24. we grant, nothing is more unreasonable, than to imagine that such mighty effects as these can be wrought by that poor, empty, insignificant thing, which the world calls faith and you among them.
but supposing there be such a faith on the earth as that which the Apostle speaks of, such an intercourse between God and the soul,
what is too hard for such a faith?
You yourselves may conceive that 'all things are possible to him that' thus 'walks with God',
that is now a citizen of heaven,
an inhabitant of eternity.
if therefore you will contend with us, you must change the ground of your attack.
you must flatly deny there is any faith upon earth,
but perhaps this you might think too large a step.
you cannot do this without a secret condemnation in your own breast.
O that you would at length cry to God for that heavenly gift!
whereby alone this truly reasonable religion,
this beneficent love of God and man,
can be planted in your heart.
25. if you say, 'But those that profess this faith are the most unreasonable of all men;
I ask,
who are those that profess this faith?
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
8.1.2018 CONFESS YOUR FAULTS TO ONE ANOTHER - Comment by Matthew Henry
*999 ...Christians are directed to confess their faults (note - 'sin' is the actual Greek word used here) one to another and so to join in their prayers with and for one another, v.16. some expositors connect this with v14. as if when sick people send for ministers to pray over them they should then confess their faults to them. indeed, where any are conscious that their sickness is a vindictive punishment of some particular sin and they cannot look for the removal of their sickness without particular applications to God for the
*1000 pardon of such a sin, there it may be proper to acknowledge and tell his case, that those who pray over him may know how to plead rightly for him. but the confession here required is that of Christians to one another, and not, as the papists would have it, to a priest. where persons have injured one another, acts of injustice must be confessed to those against whom they have been committed. where persons have tempted one another to sin or have consented in the same evil actions, there they ought mutually to blame themselves and excite each other to repentance. where crimes are of a public nature and have done any public mischief, there they ought to be more publicly confessed, so as may best reach to all who are concerned. and sometimes it may be well to confess our faults to some prudent minister or praying friend, that he may help us to plead with God for mercy and pardon. but then we are not to think that James puts us upon telling every thing that we are conscious is amiss in ourselves or in one another; but so far as confession is necessary to our reconciliation with such as are at variance with us, or for reparation of wrongs done to any, or for gaining information in any point of conscience and making our own spirits quiet and easy, so far we should be ready to confess our faults. and sometimes also it may be of good use to christians to disclose their peculiar weaknesses and infirmities to one another, where there are great intimacies and friendships and where they may help each other by their prayers to obtain pardon of their sins and power against them. those who make confession of their faults one to another should thereupon pry with and for one another. the 13th verse directs persons to pray for themselves: Is any afflicted let him pay; the 14th directs to seek for the prayers of ministers and the 16th directs private Christians to pay one for another; so that here we have all sorts of prayer (ministerial, social and secret) recommended.
*1000 pardon of such a sin, there it may be proper to acknowledge and tell his case, that those who pray over him may know how to plead rightly for him. but the confession here required is that of Christians to one another, and not, as the papists would have it, to a priest. where persons have injured one another, acts of injustice must be confessed to those against whom they have been committed. where persons have tempted one another to sin or have consented in the same evil actions, there they ought mutually to blame themselves and excite each other to repentance. where crimes are of a public nature and have done any public mischief, there they ought to be more publicly confessed, so as may best reach to all who are concerned. and sometimes it may be well to confess our faults to some prudent minister or praying friend, that he may help us to plead with God for mercy and pardon. but then we are not to think that James puts us upon telling every thing that we are conscious is amiss in ourselves or in one another; but so far as confession is necessary to our reconciliation with such as are at variance with us, or for reparation of wrongs done to any, or for gaining information in any point of conscience and making our own spirits quiet and easy, so far we should be ready to confess our faults. and sometimes also it may be of good use to christians to disclose their peculiar weaknesses and infirmities to one another, where there are great intimacies and friendships and where they may help each other by their prayers to obtain pardon of their sins and power against them. those who make confession of their faults one to another should thereupon pry with and for one another. the 13th verse directs persons to pray for themselves: Is any afflicted let him pay; the 14th directs to seek for the prayers of ministers and the 16th directs private Christians to pay one for another; so that here we have all sorts of prayer (ministerial, social and secret) recommended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)