Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
12.11.2018 Wesley's Works, Vol. 8, The Character of a Methodist, p339f; complete
To The Reader
Not as though I had already attained.
*340 TO THE READER
1. since the name first came abroad into the world, many have been at a loss to know what a Methodist is; what are the principles and the practice of those who are commonly called by that name and what the distinguishing marks of this sect, 'which is everywhere spoken against'.
2. and it being generally believed, that i was able to give the clearest account of these things, (as having been one of the first to whom that name was given and the person by whom the rest were supposed to be directed) I have been called upon, in all manner of ways and with the utmost earnestness, so to do. I yield at last to the continued importunity both of friends and enemies and do now give the clearest account I can, in the presence of the Lord and Judge of heaven and earth, of the principles and practice whereby those who are called Methodist are distinguished from other men.
3. I say those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. it was first given to 3 or 4 young men at Oxford, by a student of Christ Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of Physicians so called, from their teaching, that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific Method of diet and exercise, or from their observing a more regular Method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station.
4 I should rejoice (so little ambitious am I to be at the head of any sect or party) if the very name might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion. but if that cannot be, at least let those who will use it, know the meaning of the word they use. let us not always be fighting in the dark. come, and let us look one another in the face. and perhaps some of you who hate what i am Called, may love what I Am by the grace of God; or rather, what 'I follow after, if that i may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus'.
*340 The Character of a Methodist
1. the distinguishing mars of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. his assenting to this or that scheme of religion, his embracing any particular set of notions, his espousing the judgment of one man or of another, are all quite wide of the point. whosoever, therefore, imagines that a Methodist is a man of such or such an opinion, is grossly ignorant of the whole affair; he mistakes the truth totally. we believe, indeed, that 'all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God' and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks and Infidels. we believe the written word of God to be he lonely and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish Church. we believe Christ to be the eternal, supreme God and herein we are distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. but as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think. So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong, they are no distinguishing marks of a Methodist.
2. Neither are words or phrases of any sort. we do not place our religion, or any part of it, in being attached to any peculiar mode of speaking, any quaint or uncommon set of expressions. the most obvious, easy, common words, wherein our meaning can be conveyed, we prefer before others,, both on ordinary occasions and when we speak of the things of God. we never, therefore, willingly or designedly, deviate from the most usual way of speaking; unless when we express scripture truths in scripture words, which, we presume, no Christian will condemn. neither do we affect to use any particular expressions of Scripture more frequently than others, unless they are such as are more frequently used by the inspired writers themselves. so that it is as gross an error, to place the marks of a Methodist in his words as in opinions of any sort.
*341 3. Nor do we desire to be distinguished by actions, customs, or usages, of an indifferent nature. our religion does not lie in doing what God has not enjoined or abstaining from what he hath not forbidden. it does not lie in the form of our apparel in the posture of our body or the covering or dour heads; nor yet in abstaining from marriage or from meats and drinks, which are all good if received with thanksgiving. therefore, neither will any man, who knows whereof he affirms, fix the mark of a Methodist here, - in any actions or customs purely indifferent, undetermined by the word of God.
4.nor, lastly, is he distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. if you say, 'Yes, he is; for he thinks 'we are all saved by faith alone'; I answer, You do not understand teh terms. by salvation he means holiness of heart and life. and this he affirms to spring from true faith alone. can even a nominal Christian deny it? is this placeing a part of religion for the whole? 'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law'. we do not place the whole of relgion (as too many do, god knoweth eithr in
Not as though I had already attained.
*340 TO THE READER
1. since the name first came abroad into the world, many have been at a loss to know what a Methodist is; what are the principles and the practice of those who are commonly called by that name and what the distinguishing marks of this sect, 'which is everywhere spoken against'.
2. and it being generally believed, that i was able to give the clearest account of these things, (as having been one of the first to whom that name was given and the person by whom the rest were supposed to be directed) I have been called upon, in all manner of ways and with the utmost earnestness, so to do. I yield at last to the continued importunity both of friends and enemies and do now give the clearest account I can, in the presence of the Lord and Judge of heaven and earth, of the principles and practice whereby those who are called Methodist are distinguished from other men.
3. I say those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. it was first given to 3 or 4 young men at Oxford, by a student of Christ Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of Physicians so called, from their teaching, that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific Method of diet and exercise, or from their observing a more regular Method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station.
4 I should rejoice (so little ambitious am I to be at the head of any sect or party) if the very name might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion. but if that cannot be, at least let those who will use it, know the meaning of the word they use. let us not always be fighting in the dark. come, and let us look one another in the face. and perhaps some of you who hate what i am Called, may love what I Am by the grace of God; or rather, what 'I follow after, if that i may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus'.
*340 The Character of a Methodist
1. the distinguishing mars of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. his assenting to this or that scheme of religion, his embracing any particular set of notions, his espousing the judgment of one man or of another, are all quite wide of the point. whosoever, therefore, imagines that a Methodist is a man of such or such an opinion, is grossly ignorant of the whole affair; he mistakes the truth totally. we believe, indeed, that 'all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God' and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks and Infidels. we believe the written word of God to be he lonely and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish Church. we believe Christ to be the eternal, supreme God and herein we are distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. but as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think. So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong, they are no distinguishing marks of a Methodist.
2. Neither are words or phrases of any sort. we do not place our religion, or any part of it, in being attached to any peculiar mode of speaking, any quaint or uncommon set of expressions. the most obvious, easy, common words, wherein our meaning can be conveyed, we prefer before others,, both on ordinary occasions and when we speak of the things of God. we never, therefore, willingly or designedly, deviate from the most usual way of speaking; unless when we express scripture truths in scripture words, which, we presume, no Christian will condemn. neither do we affect to use any particular expressions of Scripture more frequently than others, unless they are such as are more frequently used by the inspired writers themselves. so that it is as gross an error, to place the marks of a Methodist in his words as in opinions of any sort.
*341 3. Nor do we desire to be distinguished by actions, customs, or usages, of an indifferent nature. our religion does not lie in doing what God has not enjoined or abstaining from what he hath not forbidden. it does not lie in the form of our apparel in the posture of our body or the covering or dour heads; nor yet in abstaining from marriage or from meats and drinks, which are all good if received with thanksgiving. therefore, neither will any man, who knows whereof he affirms, fix the mark of a Methodist here, - in any actions or customs purely indifferent, undetermined by the word of God.
4.nor, lastly, is he distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. if you say, 'Yes, he is; for he thinks 'we are all saved by faith alone'; I answer, You do not understand teh terms. by salvation he means holiness of heart and life. and this he affirms to spring from true faith alone. can even a nominal Christian deny it? is this placeing a part of religion for the whole? 'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law'. we do not place the whole of relgion (as too many do, god knoweth eithr in
Saturday, December 8, 2018
12.8.2018 Wesley's Works, Vol. 11 THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF POWER pp 46-53
*46 1. By power, I here mean supreme power, the power over life and death and consequently over our liberty and property and all things of an inferior nature.
2. In many nations this power has in all ages been lodged in a single person. this has been the case in almost the whole eastern world. from the earliest antiquity; as in the celebrated empires of Assyria, of Babylon, of Media, Persia, and many others. and so it remains to this day, from Constantinople to the farthest India. the same form of government obtained very early in very many parts of Africa and remains in most of them still, as well as in the empires of Morocco and Abyssinia. the first adventurers to America found absolute monarchy established there also; the whole power being lodged in the Emperor of Mexico of the the Yucas of Peru. nay and many of the ancient nations of Europe were governed by single persons; as Spain, France, the Russias, and several other nations are at this day.
but in others, the power has been lodged in a few, chiefly the rich and noble. this kind of government, usually styled aristocracy, obtained in Greece and in Rome, after
*47 many struggles with the people, during the later ages of the republic. and this is the government which at present subsists in various parts of Europe. in Venice indeed, as well as in Genoa, the supreme power is nominally lodged in one, namely, the Doge; but in fact, he is only a royal shade; it is really lodged in a few of the nobles.
4. where the people have the supreme power, it is termed a democracy. this seems to have been the ancient form of government in several of the Grecian states. and so it was at Rome for some ages after the expulsion of the Kings. from the earliest authentic records, there is reason to believe it was for espousing the cause of the people and defending their rights against the illegal encroachments of the nobles, that Marcus Coriolanus was driven into banishment and Manlius Capitolinus, as well as Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, murdered. perhaps formerly the popular government subsisted in several states. but it is scarce now to be found, being everywhere swallowed up either in monarchy or aristocracy.
5. but the grand question is, not in whom this power is lodged, but from whom it is ultimately derived. what is the origin of power? what is its primary source? this has been long a subject of debate . and it has been debated with the utmost warmth, by a variety of disputants. but as earnest as they have been on each side of the question, they have seldom come to any good conclusion; but have left the point undecided still, to be a ball of contention to the next generation.
6. but is it impossible, in the nature of things, to throw any light on this obscure subject? set us make the experiment; let us (without pretending to dictate, but desiring every one to use his own judgment) try to find out some ground whereon to stand and go as far as we can toward answering the question. and let not any man be angry on the account, suppose we should not exactly agree. let every one enjoy his own opinion and give others the same liberty.
7. now, I cannot but acknowledge, I believe an old book, commonly called the Bible, to be true. therefore I believe, 'there is no power but from God: the powers that be are ordained of God''. Rom. 13.1 there is no subordinate power in any nation, but what is derived from the supreme power therein. so in England the King, in the United Provinces the States are the fountain of all power. and there
*48 is no supreme power, no power of the sword, of life and death, but what is derived from God, the Sovereign of all.
8. but have not the people, in every age and nation,the right of disposing of this power; of investing therewith whom they please, either one or more persons and that, in what proportion they see good and upon what conditions? consequently, if those conditions are not observed, have they not a right to take away the power they gave? and does not this imply, that they are the judges whether those conditions are observed or not? otherwise, if the receivers were judges of their own cause , this right would fall into nothing.
9. to prove this, that the people in every country are the source of power, it is argued thus: 'All men living upon earth are naturally equal; none is above another and all are naturally free, masters of their own actions. it manifestly follows, no man can have any power over another, unless by his won consent. the power therefore which the governors in any nation enjoy, must be originally derived from the people and presupposes an original compact between them and their first governors.
10. this seems to be the opinion which is now generally espoused by men of understanding and education and that (if I do not mistake) not in England alone, but almost in every civilized nation. and it is usually espoused with the fullest and strongest persuasion, as a truth little less than self-evident, as what is clear beyond all possibility of doubt, what commands the assent of all reasonable men. hence if any man affected to deny it, he would in most companies be rather hooted at than argued with; it being so absurd to oppose what is confirmed by the general suffrage of mankind.
2. In many nations this power has in all ages been lodged in a single person. this has been the case in almost the whole eastern world. from the earliest antiquity; as in the celebrated empires of Assyria, of Babylon, of Media, Persia, and many others. and so it remains to this day, from Constantinople to the farthest India. the same form of government obtained very early in very many parts of Africa and remains in most of them still, as well as in the empires of Morocco and Abyssinia. the first adventurers to America found absolute monarchy established there also; the whole power being lodged in the Emperor of Mexico of the the Yucas of Peru. nay and many of the ancient nations of Europe were governed by single persons; as Spain, France, the Russias, and several other nations are at this day.
but in others, the power has been lodged in a few, chiefly the rich and noble. this kind of government, usually styled aristocracy, obtained in Greece and in Rome, after
*47 many struggles with the people, during the later ages of the republic. and this is the government which at present subsists in various parts of Europe. in Venice indeed, as well as in Genoa, the supreme power is nominally lodged in one, namely, the Doge; but in fact, he is only a royal shade; it is really lodged in a few of the nobles.
4. where the people have the supreme power, it is termed a democracy. this seems to have been the ancient form of government in several of the Grecian states. and so it was at Rome for some ages after the expulsion of the Kings. from the earliest authentic records, there is reason to believe it was for espousing the cause of the people and defending their rights against the illegal encroachments of the nobles, that Marcus Coriolanus was driven into banishment and Manlius Capitolinus, as well as Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, murdered. perhaps formerly the popular government subsisted in several states. but it is scarce now to be found, being everywhere swallowed up either in monarchy or aristocracy.
5. but the grand question is, not in whom this power is lodged, but from whom it is ultimately derived. what is the origin of power? what is its primary source? this has been long a subject of debate . and it has been debated with the utmost warmth, by a variety of disputants. but as earnest as they have been on each side of the question, they have seldom come to any good conclusion; but have left the point undecided still, to be a ball of contention to the next generation.
6. but is it impossible, in the nature of things, to throw any light on this obscure subject? set us make the experiment; let us (without pretending to dictate, but desiring every one to use his own judgment) try to find out some ground whereon to stand and go as far as we can toward answering the question. and let not any man be angry on the account, suppose we should not exactly agree. let every one enjoy his own opinion and give others the same liberty.
7. now, I cannot but acknowledge, I believe an old book, commonly called the Bible, to be true. therefore I believe, 'there is no power but from God: the powers that be are ordained of God''. Rom. 13.1 there is no subordinate power in any nation, but what is derived from the supreme power therein. so in England the King, in the United Provinces the States are the fountain of all power. and there
*48 is no supreme power, no power of the sword, of life and death, but what is derived from God, the Sovereign of all.
8. but have not the people, in every age and nation,the right of disposing of this power; of investing therewith whom they please, either one or more persons and that, in what proportion they see good and upon what conditions? consequently, if those conditions are not observed, have they not a right to take away the power they gave? and does not this imply, that they are the judges whether those conditions are observed or not? otherwise, if the receivers were judges of their own cause , this right would fall into nothing.
9. to prove this, that the people in every country are the source of power, it is argued thus: 'All men living upon earth are naturally equal; none is above another and all are naturally free, masters of their own actions. it manifestly follows, no man can have any power over another, unless by his won consent. the power therefore which the governors in any nation enjoy, must be originally derived from the people and presupposes an original compact between them and their first governors.
10. this seems to be the opinion which is now generally espoused by men of understanding and education and that (if I do not mistake) not in England alone, but almost in every civilized nation. and it is usually espoused with the fullest and strongest persuasion, as a truth little less than self-evident, as what is clear beyond all possibility of doubt, what commands the assent of all reasonable men. hence if any man affected to deny it, he would in most companies be rather hooted at than argued with; it being so absurd to oppose what is confirmed by the general suffrage of mankind.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
12.5.2018 THE NAMES AND TITLES OF CHRIST
Willmington's Complete GUIDE to BIBLE KNOWLEDGE (The Life of Christ
Bible names often give keen insight into the lives of those who bear the titles. this is especially true concerning Christ. a wealth of information concerning His Person and work can be obtained from studying some of the names and titles ascribed to Him. not some of these:
1. Adam (I Cor. 15.45)
2. Advocate (I John 2.1)
3. Almighty (Rev. 1.8)
4. Alpha (Rev. 1.8; 21.6)
5. Amen (Rev. 3.14)
6. Angel of the Lord (Gen. 16. 9-14; Judges 6.11-24)
7. Anointed (Psa. 2.2)
8. Apostle (Heb. 3.1)
9. Author (Heb. 12.1)
10. Babe (Luke 2.16)
11. Beginning of creation (Rev. 3.14)
12. Begotten of the Father (John1.14)
13. Beloved (Eph. 1.6)
14. Beloved Son (Mark 1.11)
15. Bishop (I Pet. 2.25)
16. Blessed (I Tim. 6.15)
17. Branch (Zechariah 3.8)
18. Bread of Life (John 6.35)
19. Bridegroom
a. by Himself (Matt. 9.15; 25.1, 5-6, 10)
b. by John the Baptist (John 3.29)
20. Bright and morning star (Rev. 22.16)
21. Captain (Josh 5.14)
22. Carpenter (Mark 6.3)
23. Child (Isa. 9.6; Matt. 2.8-9)
24. Christ
a. By Herod (Matt. 2.4)
b. By Peter (Matt. 16.16; John 6.69)
c. By Himself ( Matt. 22.42; 23.8,10; 24.5, 23; Luke 24.26, 46; I John 20.31)
d. By Caiaphas (Matt. 26.63, 68)
e. By Pilate (Matt. 26.63, 68)
f. By the Chief priests (mark 15.32)
g. By the angels (Luke 2.11)
h. By a dying thief (Luke 23.39)
i. By Andrew (John 1.41)
j. By a Samaritan woman (John 4.25, 29)
k. By a crowd (John 11.27)
25. Commander (Isa. 55.4)
26. Consolation of Israel (Luke 2.25)
27. Cornerstone (Eph. 2.20)
28. counselor (Isa 9.6)
29. Dayspring from on high (Luke 1.78)
30. Day Star (2Pet. 1.19)
31. Deliverer (Rom. 11.26)
32. Desire of all nations (Hag. 2.7)
33. Door of the sheep ( John 5.20)
34. Emmanuel (Matt 1.23)
35. Eternal life (I John 5.20)
36. Everlasting Father (Isa. 9.6)
37. Express image of God (Heb. 1.3)
38. Faithful witness (Rev. 1.5;3.14)
39. Faithful and True ((Rev. 19.11)
40. First fruits (I Cor. 15.23)
41. Forerunner (Heb. 6.20)
42. Foundation (Zech. 13.1)
43. Fountain (Zech. 13.1)
44. Friend of sinners ( Matt. 11.19)
45. Gift of God (2 Cor. 9.15)
46. Glory of the Lord (Isa. 60.1)
47. God (John 1.1; Rom. 9.5; I Tim. 3.17)
48. Good master (Mark 10.17)
49. Governor (Matt. 2.6)
50. Guide (Psa. 48.14)
51. Head of the Church (Col. 1.18)
52. Heir of all things (Heb. 1.2)
53. High priest (Heb. 2.17; 3.1)
54. Holy Child (Acts 4.30)
55. Holy One of God (Mark 1.24)
56. Holy One of Israel (Isa 41.14)
57. Horn of Salvation (Psa. 18.2)
58. I Am - He calls Himself this name 7 times in John's Gospel
a. I am the Bread of Life (6.35)
b. I am the Light of the world (9.5)
c. I am the Good Shepherd (John 10.11).
d. I am the Door. (John 10.9)
e. I am the Resurrection (John 11.25)
f. I am the True Vine (John 15.1)
g. I am the Way (John 14.6)
59. Jehovah (Isa. 26.4)
60. Jesus
a. by Gabriel (Matt.1.21; Mark 16.6; Luke 1.31)
b. by Joseph (Matt. 1.25)
c. by demons (Matt. 8.29; Mark 1.24)
d. by a Jerusalem crowd (Matt. 21.11)
e. by Pilate (Matt. 27.17, 22, 37)
f. by 10 lepers (Luke 17.13)
g. by a cured blind man (John 9.11)
h. by some Greeks (John 12.21)
i. by some soldiers (John 18. 5,7)
61. Judge (Mic. 5.1; Act 10.42)
62. King (of the jews and of israel)
a. by the Wise Men (Matt. 2.2)
b. by Himself (Matt. 21.5; 25.34,40)
c. by Pilate (Matt. 27.11; 37; Mark 15.9;,12; John 18.39;
d. by some Roman soldiers (Matt. 27.29; John 19.3)
e. by the chief priest (Matt. 27.42)
f. by Nathanael (John 1.49)
63. Lamb of God (John 1.29, 36)
64. Lawgiver (Isa. 33.22)
65. Lily of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5.5)
66. Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5.5)
67. Living bread (John 6.51)
68. Lord
a. by the unsaved (Matt. 7.22; 25.11, 44)
b. by the leper (Matt. 8.2)
c. by the 12 (Matt. 8.25; 26.22; Luke 9.54; 11.1; 22.49; 24.34; John 11.12; 20.25
d. by Himself (Mt. 12.8;21.3;24.42; Luke 6.46; John 13.14
e. by Peter (Matt. 14.28, 30; 16.22; 17.4; 18:21; Luke 5.8; John 6.68; 13.6, 36; 21. 15-7, 21)
f. by the mother of a demoniac daughter (Matt.15.22)
g. by the father of a demoniac son (Matt. 17.15)
h. by 2 blind men (Matt. 20.30)
i. by the faithful (Matt. 25.20, 22, 37)
j. by the angel of the Lord (Luke 2.11)
k. by some would-be followers (Luke 9.57, 59,61)
l. by Mary and Martha (Luke 10.40; John 11.3, 21, 27, 32, 39)
m. by a dying thief (Luke 23.42)
n. by an immoral woman (John 8.11)
o. by a cured blind man (John 9.36, 38)
p. by John the apostle (John 13.25; 21.7)
q. by Thomas (John 14.5; 20.28)
r. by Philip (John 14.8)
s. by Mary Magdalene (John 20.2)
69. Lord of Lords (Rev. 19.16)
70. Man (Acts 17.31; I Tim. 2.5)
71. Master (Matt. 8.19)
a. by Himself (Matt. 10.24; 23.8)
b. by His enemies (Matt. 12.38; 22.16, 24,36; Mark 12.19; Luke 11.45; 19.39; John 8.4
c. by a rich young ruler (Matt. 19.16)
d. by Judas (Matt. 26.25, 49)
e. by the 12 (Mark 4.38; 13.1; John 4.31; 9.2;11.8)
f. by the father of a demoniac son (Mark 9.17)
g. by John the apostle (Mark 9.38; 10.3)
h. by Peter (Mark 11.21; Luke 5.5, 8.45, 9.33
i. by a sincere scribe (Mark 12.32)
j. by a carnal listener (Luke 12.13)
k. by Martha (John 11.28)
l. by Mary Magdalene (John 20.16)
72. Mediator (I Tim. 2.5)
73. Messiah (Dan. 9.25)
a. by Andrew (John 1.41)
b. by a Samaritan woman (John 4.25)
74. Mighty God (Isa. 9.6)
75. Minister (Heb. 8.2)
76. Nazarene (Matt. 2.23)
77. Only begotten Son (John 1.18)
78. Passover (I Cor. 5.7)
79. Physician (Matt. 9.12)
80. Potentate (I Tim. 6.15)
81. Power of God (I Cor. 1.24)
82. Priest (Heb. 4.14)
83. Prince (Acts 3.15;5.31)
84. Prince of Peace (Isa. 9.6)
85. Prophet (Acts 3.22)
a. by Himself (Matt. 13.57; John 4.44)
b. by the triumphal entry crowd (Matt. 21.11)
c. by the Pharisees (Matt. 21.46)
d. by the citizens of Nain (Lk. 7.16)
e. by Cleopas (Luke 24.19)
f. by a Samaritan woman (John 4.19)
g. by the 5,000 he fed (John 6.14)
h. by a Jerusalem crowd (John 7.40)
i. by a cured, blind man (John 9.17)
86.Propitiation (I John 2.2; 4.10)
87. Purifier (Mal. 3.3)
88. Rabbi - On 3 well-known occasions he was called by this name.
a. by Nicodemus (John 3.2)
b. by Judas ('Master' - Matt. 26.25)
c. by Mary Magdalene (John 20.16)
89. Ransom (I Tim. 2.6)
90. Redeemer (Isa.59.20; 60.16)
91. Refiner (Mal. 3.3)
92. Refuge (Isa. 25.4)
93. Righteousness (Jer. 23.6; 33.16)
94. Rock (Deut. 32.15)
95/ Rod (Isa. 11.1)
96. Root of David (Rev. 22.16)
97. Rose of Sharon (S. of Solomon 2.1)
98. Sacrifice (Eph. 5.2)
99. Savior
a. by His mother (Luke 1.47)
b. by the angels (Luke 2.11)
c. by the men of Samaria (John 4.42)
100. Second man (I Cor. 15.47)
101. Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.16, 19)
102. Seed of David (2 Tim. 2.8)
103. Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3.15)
104. servant (Isa. 42.1; 49;5-7)
105. Shepherd
a. the chief Shepherd (I Pet. 5.4)
b. the Good Shepherd (John 10.11, 14)
c. the great Shepherd (Heb. 13.20)
d.My Shepherd (Ps. 23.1)
106. Shiloh (Gen. 49.10)
107. Son of David
a. by 2 blind men in Capernaum (Matt. 9.27
b. by the Syro-phoenician woman (Matt. 15.22)
c. the great Shepherd (Heb. 13.20)
d. my shepherd (Ps. 23.1)
106. Shiloh (Gen. 49.10)
107. Son of David
a. by 2 blind men in Capernaum (Matt. 9.27)
b. by the Syro-phoenician woman (Matt. 15.22)
c. by the 2 blind men in Jericho (one named Bartimaeus; Matt. 20.30; Mark 10.46-7
d. the Palm Sunday crowd (Matt. 21.9)
108. Son of God -Christ referred to Himself by this name on only 2 occasions (John 9.35; 10.36), but many other people in the 'gospels also called Him by this name.
He was called the Son of God by:
a. Satan (Matt. 4.3,6)
b. Gabriel (Luke 1.35)
c. a demon (Matt. 8.29; Luke 4.41)
d. Disciples (Matt. 14.33)
e. Peter (Matt. 16.16)
f. Martha (John 11.27)
g. Nathanael (John 1.49)
h. a centurion (Matt. 27.54)
109. Son of man - His favorite name for himself. according to his own testimony the Son of man:
a. came not to be ministered unto (Matt. 20.28)
b. came to save that which was lost (Matt. 18.11)
c. can forgive sins (Matt. 9.6)
d. had nowhere to lay his head (Matt. 8.20)
e. Is Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6.5)
f. Would be betrayed (Matt. 17.12)
g. Would suffer (Matt. 9.6)
h. Would be lifted up (John 3.14)
i. Would be three days in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12.40)
j. Would be raised from the dead (Matt. 17.9)
k. Will come again in the glory of His Father (Matt. 16.27; 24.30)
l. Will send forth his angels (Matt. 13.41)
m. Shall sit upon the throne of His glory (Matt. 19.28)
110. Son of Mary (Mark 6.3)
111. Son of Abraham (Matt. 1.1)
112. Son of Joseph - Wrongly used by:
a. the Nazareth citizens (Luke 4.22)
b. Philip (John 1.45)
113. Son of the highest (Luke 1.32)
114. Stone (Matt. 21.42; Mark 12.10; Acts 4.11; Rom. 9. 32-3; Eph. 2.20; I Pet. 2.6-7;
e. by Peter (Matt. 14.28, 30; 16.22; 17.4; 18:21; Luke 5.8; John 6.68; 13.6, 36; 21. 15-7, 21)
f. by the mother of a demoniac daughter (Matt.15.22)
g. by the father of a demoniac son (Matt. 17.15)
h. by 2 blind men (Matt. 20.30)
i. by the faithful (Matt. 25.20, 22, 37)
j. by the angel of the Lord (Luke 2.11)
k. by some would-be followers (Luke 9.57, 59,61)
l. by Mary and Martha (Luke 10.40; John 11.3, 21, 27, 32, 39)
m. by a dying thief (Luke 23.42)
n. by an immoral woman (John 8.11)
o. by a cured blind man (John 9.36, 38)
p. by John the apostle (John 13.25; 21.7)
q. by Thomas (John 14.5; 20.28)
r. by Philip (John 14.8)
s. by Mary Magdalene (John 20.2)
69. Lord of Lords (Rev. 19.16)
70. Man (Acts 17.31; I Tim. 2.5)
71. Master (Matt. 8.19)
a. by Himself (Matt. 10.24; 23.8)
b. by His enemies (Matt. 12.38; 22.16, 24,36; Mark 12.19; Luke 11.45; 19.39; John 8.4
c. by a rich young ruler (Matt. 19.16)
d. by Judas (Matt. 26.25, 49)
e. by the 12 (Mark 4.38; 13.1; John 4.31; 9.2;11.8)
f. by the father of a demoniac son (Mark 9.17)
g. by John the apostle (Mark 9.38; 10.3)
h. by Peter (Mark 11.21; Luke 5.5, 8.45, 9.33
i. by a sincere scribe (Mark 12.32)
j. by a carnal listener (Luke 12.13)
k. by Martha (John 11.28)
l. by Mary Magdalene (John 20.16)
72. Mediator (I Tim. 2.5)
73. Messiah (Dan. 9.25)
a. by Andrew (John 1.41)
b. by a Samaritan woman (John 4.25)
74. Mighty God (Isa. 9.6)
75. Minister (Heb. 8.2)
76. Nazarene (Matt. 2.23)
77. Only begotten Son (John 1.18)
78. Passover (I Cor. 5.7)
79. Physician (Matt. 9.12)
80. Potentate (I Tim. 6.15)
81. Power of God (I Cor. 1.24)
82. Priest (Heb. 4.14)
83. Prince (Acts 3.15;5.31)
84. Prince of Peace (Isa. 9.6)
85. Prophet (Acts 3.22)
a. by Himself (Matt. 13.57; John 4.44)
b. by the triumphal entry crowd (Matt. 21.11)
c. by the Pharisees (Matt. 21.46)
d. by the citizens of Nain (Lk. 7.16)
e. by Cleopas (Luke 24.19)
f. by a Samaritan woman (John 4.19)
g. by the 5,000 he fed (John 6.14)
h. by a Jerusalem crowd (John 7.40)
i. by a cured, blind man (John 9.17)
86.Propitiation (I John 2.2; 4.10)
87. Purifier (Mal. 3.3)
88. Rabbi - On 3 well-known occasions he was called by this name.
a. by Nicodemus (John 3.2)
b. by Judas ('Master' - Matt. 26.25)
c. by Mary Magdalene (John 20.16)
89. Ransom (I Tim. 2.6)
90. Redeemer (Isa.59.20; 60.16)
91. Refiner (Mal. 3.3)
92. Refuge (Isa. 25.4)
93. Righteousness (Jer. 23.6; 33.16)
94. Rock (Deut. 32.15)
95/ Rod (Isa. 11.1)
96. Root of David (Rev. 22.16)
97. Rose of Sharon (S. of Solomon 2.1)
98. Sacrifice (Eph. 5.2)
99. Savior
a. by His mother (Luke 1.47)
b. by the angels (Luke 2.11)
c. by the men of Samaria (John 4.42)
100. Second man (I Cor. 15.47)
101. Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.16, 19)
102. Seed of David (2 Tim. 2.8)
103. Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3.15)
104. servant (Isa. 42.1; 49;5-7)
105. Shepherd
a. the chief Shepherd (I Pet. 5.4)
b. the Good Shepherd (John 10.11, 14)
c. the great Shepherd (Heb. 13.20)
d.My Shepherd (Ps. 23.1)
106. Shiloh (Gen. 49.10)
107. Son of David
a. by 2 blind men in Capernaum (Matt. 9.27
b. by the Syro-phoenician woman (Matt. 15.22)
c. the great Shepherd (Heb. 13.20)
d. my shepherd (Ps. 23.1)
106. Shiloh (Gen. 49.10)
107. Son of David
a. by 2 blind men in Capernaum (Matt. 9.27)
b. by the Syro-phoenician woman (Matt. 15.22)
c. by the 2 blind men in Jericho (one named Bartimaeus; Matt. 20.30; Mark 10.46-7
d. the Palm Sunday crowd (Matt. 21.9)
108. Son of God -Christ referred to Himself by this name on only 2 occasions (John 9.35; 10.36), but many other people in the 'gospels also called Him by this name.
He was called the Son of God by:
a. Satan (Matt. 4.3,6)
b. Gabriel (Luke 1.35)
c. a demon (Matt. 8.29; Luke 4.41)
d. Disciples (Matt. 14.33)
e. Peter (Matt. 16.16)
f. Martha (John 11.27)
g. Nathanael (John 1.49)
h. a centurion (Matt. 27.54)
109. Son of man - His favorite name for himself. according to his own testimony the Son of man:
a. came not to be ministered unto (Matt. 20.28)
b. came to save that which was lost (Matt. 18.11)
c. can forgive sins (Matt. 9.6)
d. had nowhere to lay his head (Matt. 8.20)
e. Is Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6.5)
f. Would be betrayed (Matt. 17.12)
g. Would suffer (Matt. 9.6)
h. Would be lifted up (John 3.14)
i. Would be three days in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12.40)
j. Would be raised from the dead (Matt. 17.9)
k. Will come again in the glory of His Father (Matt. 16.27; 24.30)
l. Will send forth his angels (Matt. 13.41)
m. Shall sit upon the throne of His glory (Matt. 19.28)
110. Son of Mary (Mark 6.3)
111. Son of Abraham (Matt. 1.1)
112. Son of Joseph - Wrongly used by:
a. the Nazareth citizens (Luke 4.22)
b. Philip (John 1.45)
113. Son of the highest (Luke 1.32)
114. Stone (Matt. 21.42; Mark 12.10; Acts 4.11; Rom. 9. 32-3; Eph. 2.20; I Pet. 2.6-7;
115. Sun of righteousness Mal. 4.2
116. Teacher (Master) (Matt. 26.18; John 11.28)
117. Wonderful (Isa. 9.6)
118. Word - The Apostle John's favorite name for Christ (John 1.1; I John 5.7; Rev. 19.13)
116. Teacher (Master) (Matt. 26.18; John 11.28)
117. Wonderful (Isa. 9.6)
118. Word - The Apostle John's favorite name for Christ (John 1.1; I John 5.7; Rev. 19.13)
Thursday, November 29, 2018
11.29.2018 Wesley's Works Vol. 11; Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, Letters; THOUGHTS UPON LIBERTY, pp 34-46
*34 I scorn to have my free-born toe
Dragoon'd into a wooden she. Prior
1. all men in the world desire liberty;
whoever breathes, breathes after this and that by a kind of natural instinct antecedent to art or education. yet at the same time all men of understanding acknowledge it as a rational instinct. for we feel this desire, not in opposition to, but in consequence of, our reason. therefore it is not found, or in a very low degree, in many species of brutes, which seem, even when they are left to their choice, to prefer servitude before liberty.
2/ the lobe of liberty is then the glory of rational beings; and it is the glory of Britons in particular. perhaps it would be difficult to find any nation under heaven, who are more tenacious of it; nay, , it may be doubted if any nation ever was; not the Spartans, not the Athenians; no, not the Romans themselves, who have been celebrated fro this very thing by the poets and historians of all ages.
3. was it not from this principle, that our British forefathers so violently opposed all foreign invaders; that Julius Caesar himself, with his victorious legions, could make so little impression upon them; that the Generals of the succeeding Emperors sustained so many losses from them and that, when at length they were overpowered, they rather chose to lose all they had than their liberty; to retire into the Cambrian (wales) or Caledonian (somewhere close by?) mountains, where, if they had nothing else, they might at least enjoy their native freedom?
4. hence arose the vehement struggles of the Cambro-Britons through so many generations against the yoke, which the Saxons first and afterwards the English, strove to impose upon them; hence the struggles of the English Barons against several of their Kings, lest they should lose the blessing they had received from their forefathers; yea, the Scottish nobles, as all their histories show, would no
*35 more bear to be enslaved than the Romans. all these therefore, however differing from each other in 1000 other respects, agreed in testifying the desirableness of liberty, as one of the greatest blessings under the sun.
5. such was the sense of all our ancestors, even from the earliest ages. and is it not also the general sense of the nation at this day? who can deny, that the whole kingdom is panting for liberty? is not the cry for it gone forth, not only through every part of our vast metropolis, - from the west end of the city to the east, from the north to the south, so that instead of no complaining in our streets, there is nothing but complaining, - but likewise into every corner of our land, borne by all the 4 winds of heaven? Liberty! Liberty! sounds through every county, every city, every town and every hamlet!
6. is it not for the sake of this, that the name of our great patriot (perhaps not so admirable in his private character as the man of Ross, or so great a lover of his country as Codrus or old Curtius) is more celebrated than that of any private man has been in England for these 1000 years; that his very picture is so joyfully received in every part of England and Ireland; that we stamp his (I had almost said, adored) name on our handkerchiefs, on the cheerful bowl, yea and on our vessels of various kinds, as well as upon our hearts? why is all this, but because of the inseparable connexion between Wilkes and liberty; liberty that came down, if not fell, from heaven; whom all England and the world worshippeth?
7. but mean time might it not be advisable to consider, (if we are yet at leisure to consider anything,) what is liberty? because it is well know the word is capable of various senses. and possibly it may not be equally desirable i every sense of the word.
8, there are many nations in America, those particularly that border on Georgia and Carolina, wherein if one disapproves of what another says, or perhaps dislikes his looks, he scorns to affront him to his face, neither dose he betray the least dissatisfaction. but as soon as opportunity serves he steps from behind a tree and shoots him. and none calls him that does it to an account. No; this is the liberty he derives from his forefathers.
9. for many ages the free natives of Ireland, as well as the Scottish Highlands, when it was convenient for them, made an
*36 excursion from their woods or fastnesses and carried off, for their own proper use, the sheep and oxen and corn of their neighbours. this was the liberty which the O'neals, the Campbells, and many other sects and clans of venerable antiquity, had received by immemorial tradition from their ancestors.
10. almost all the soldiers in the Christian world, as well as in the Mahmetan and Pagan , have claimed, more especially in time of war, another kind of liberty; that of borrowing the wives and daughters of the men that fell into their hands; sometimes, if they pleaded scruple of conscience or honour, using a little necessary forge, perhaps this may be termed the liberty of war. but I will not positively affirm, that it has never been used in this free country, even in the time of peace.
11. in some countries of Europe and indeed in England there have been instances of yet another sort of liberty, that of calling a Monarch to account and, if need were, taking off his head; that is, if he did not behave in a dutiful manner to our sovereign lords the people.
12. now, that we may not always be talking at random, but bring the matter to a determinate point, which of these sorts of liberty do you desire? is it the First sort; the liberty of knocking on the head, or cutting the throats, of those we are 'out of conceit' (def - displeased, dissatisfied with) with? Glorious liberty indeed! what would not king mob do to to be gratified with it but for a few weeks? but, I conceive, calm, sensible men do not desire to see them entrusted with it. they apprehend there might be some consequences which, upon the whole, would not redound to the prosperity of the nation.
13. is the Second more desirable; the liberty of taking , when we see best, the goods and chattels of our neighbours? undoubtedly, thousands in the good city of London (suppose we mad the experiment here first) would be above measure rejoiced threat, would leap as broke from chains. o how convenient would it be to have free access, without any let or hindrance, to the cellars, the pantries, the larders, yea and the coffers of their rich, overgrown landlords! but perhaps it would not give altogether so much joy to the Lord Mayor or Aldermen; no, nor even to those stanch friends of liberty, the Common Councilmen. not that they regard their own interest at all; bu, setting themselves out of the question, they are a little in doubt whether this liberty would be for the good of trade.
*37 14. is it then the Third kind of liberty we contend for; the liberty of taking our neighbours' wives and daughters? Ye pretty gentlemen, ye beaux esprits, will ye not, one and all, give your voices for this natural liberty? will ye not say, 'if we cry out against monopolies of other kinds, shall we tolerate the monopoly of women?' but hod. are there not some among you too, who have wives, if not daughters, of your own? and are you altogether willing to oblige the first comer with them? I say the first comer; for, observe, as you are to give the liberty you take, so you must not pick and choose your men; you know, by nature, all men are on a level. Liberty! Liberty! No restraint! we are freeborn Englishmen; down with the fences! lay all the inclosures open!' No; it will not do. even nature recoils. we are not yet Polished enough for this.
15. are we not ripe, however, for the Fourth kind of liberty, that of removing a disobedient King? would Mr. Wilkes, would Mr. Horne, would any free Briton, have any objection to this? provided only, that, as soon as our present Monarch is removed, we have a better to put in his place. but who is he? King John that will not sound well, even in the ears of his greatest admirers . and whoever calmly considers the characters and endowments of those other great men, who may think themselves much fitter for the office than His present Majesty, will hardly concur in their opinion; so that a difficulty lies in your way. what ever claim you man have to this liberty you must not use it yet, because you cannot tell where to find a better Prince.
16. but to speak seriously. these things being set aside, which the bawling mob dignify by that name; what is that liberty properly so called, which every wise and good man desires ? it is either religious or civil. religious liberty is a liberty to choose our own religion, to worship God according to our won conscience, according to the best light we have. every man living, as an, has a right to this, as he is a rational creature. the Creator gave him this right when he endowed him with understanding. and every man must judge for himself, because every man must give an account of himself to God. consequently, this is an indefeasible right; it is inseparable from humanity. and God did never give authority to any man or number of men, to deprive any child of man thereof, under any colour or
*38 pretence whatever. what an amazing thing is it, then, that the governing part of almost every nation under heaven should have taken upon them, in all ages, to rob all under their power of this liberty! yea, should take upon them, at this day, so to do; to force rational creatures into their own religion! would one think it possible, that the most sensible men in the world should say to their fellow-creatures, 'Either be on my religion, or i will take away your food, and you and your wife and children shall starve: if that will not convince you, I will fetter your hands and feet and throw you into a dungeon. ..and if still you will not see as i see, I will burn you alive?
17. it would not be altogether so astonishing,if this were the manner of American savages. but what shall we say, if numberless instances of it have occurred , in the politest nations of Europe? have no instances of the kind been seen in Britain? have not England and Scotland seen the horrid fires? have not the flames burning the flesh of heretics shone in London as well as in Paris and Lisbon? have we forgot the days of good Queen Mary? No; they will be had in everlasting remembrance,and although burning was out of fashion in Queen Elizabeth's days, yet hanging, even for religion, was not. it is true, her successor did not go quite so far. but did even King James allow liberty of conscience?by no means. during his whole reign, what liberty had the puritans? what liberty had they in the following reign? if they were not persecuted unto death; (although eventually,indeed,many of them were; for they died in their imprisonment) yet were they not continually harassed by prosecutions in the Bishops' Courts or Star-Chamber? by fines upon fines, frequently reducing them to the deepest poverty? and by imprisonment for months, yea, for years, together, till many of them, escaping with the skin of their teeth, left their country and friends, fled to seek their bread in the wilds of America? however, we may suppose all this was at an end under the merry Monarch, King Charles the Second'. was it indeed? where have they lived who suppose this? to wave a 1000 particular instances; what will you say to those 2 public monuments, the Act of Uniformity and the Act against Conventicles: in the former it is enacted, to the eternal honour of the King, Lords and Commons, at that memorable
*39 period: 'Every parson, Vicar or other Minister whatever, who has any benefice within these realms, shall, before the next twenty fourth of August, openly and publicly declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained in the Book of Common prayer or shall, ipso facto, be deprived of all his benefices! likewise, if any Dean, Prebendary, Master, Fellow, Chaplain or Tutor, of any College, hall, House of learning or hospital, any public professor or any other person in holy orders, any school-master or Teacher, or Tutor in any private family, do not subscribe hereto, he shall be, ipso facto,deprived of his place and shall be utterly disabled from continuing therein'.
property for ever! See how well English property was secured in those golden days!
so,by this glorious Act, thousands of men, guilty of no crime, nothing contrary either to justice, mercy or truth, were stripped of all they had, of their houses, lands, revenues and driven to seek where they could or beg, their bread. for what? because they did not dare to worship god according to other men's consciences? so they and their families were, at one stroke, turned out of house and home and reduced to little less than beggary, for no other fault, real or pretended, but because they could not assent and consent to that manner of worship which their worthy governors prescribed!
but this was not all . it was further enacted by the same merciful lawgivers: 'If any person act as a Teacher, Tutor, or Schoolmaster, in any private family, before he has subscribed hereto, he shall suffer 3 months' imprisonment, without bail or mainprize'.
Liberty for ever! here is security for your person, as well as your property.
by virtue of the Act against Conventicles, if any continued to worship God according to their own conscience, they were first robbed of their substance and, if they persisted, of their liberty; often of their lives also. for this crime, under this 'our most religious and gracious king', (what were they who publicly told God He was such Englishmen were not only spoiled of their goods, but denied even the use of the free air, yea, and the light of the sun, being thrust by 100s into dark and loathsome prisons!
18. were matters much better in the neighbouring kingdom? nay, they were inexpressibly worse. unheard of
*40 cruelties were practiced there, from soon after the Restoration till the Revolution. (footnote - see Wodrow's 'History of the Suffering of the Church of Scotland.) what fining, plundering, beating, maiming, imprisoning, with the most shocking circumstance! for a specimen, look at Dunotter Castle; where young and old, of both sexes, (sick and well, it was all one) were thrust together between bare walls and that in the heat of summer, without a possibility of either lying or sitting; yea, without any convenience of any kind; til many of them, through hunger, thirst, heat and stench, were set at liberty by death! considering this; considering how many others were hunted over their native mountains and shot whenever they were overtaken, with no more ceremony than beasts; considering the drowning, hanging, cutting off of limbs and various arts of torturing, which were practised by order of King Charles, and often in the presence of King James,who seemed to enjoy such spectacles; it would be no wonder if the very name of an Englishman was had in abomination from the Tweed to the Orkneys.
19.but is this the case at present with us?
are we abridged of our religious liberty?
his late Majesty was desired, about 390 years ago, to take a step of this kind, but his answer was worthy of a king, yea, the King of a free people: 'i tell you, while i sit on the English throne, no man shall be persecuted for conscience' sake'. and it is certain he made his promise good from the beginning of his reign to the end. but perhaps the case is altered now. does His present majesty tread in his steps? He does: he persecutes no man for conscience' sake. if he does, where is the man? i do not ask, Whom has he committed to the flames or caused to die by the common hangman? or, Whom has he caused to die many deaths, by hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness but, whom has he tortured or thrust into a dungeon, yea, or imprisoned at all, or fined, for worshipping God according to his own conscience, in the Presbyterian or any other way? O, compare king Charles, gracious Charles the second, the King George and you will know the value of the liberty you enjoy.
20. in the name of wonder, what religious liberty can you desire or even conceive, which you have not already? where is there a nation in Europe, in the habitable world, which
*41 enjoys such liberty of conscience as the English? I ill be bold to say there is nothing like it in Holland, in Germany (protestant or Popish) in either the Protestant of Popish cantons of Switzerland; no, nor in any country under the sun. have we not in England full liberty to choose any religion, yea, or no religion at all? to have no more religion than a Hottentot, shall i say? nay, no more than a bull or a swine? whoever therefore in England stretches his throat and bawls for more religious liberty, must be totally void of shame and can have no excuse by want of understanding.
21. but is not the ground of this vehement outcry, that we are deprived of our civil liberty? what is civil liberty? a liberty to enjoy our lives and fortunes in our own way; to use our property, whatever is legally our own, according to our own choice. and can you deny, 'that we are robbed of this liberty'? who are? certainly I am not. i pray, do not face me down that i am. do not argue me out of my senses. if the Great Turk or the King of France, wills that a man should die, with or without cause, die he must. and instances of the kind continually occur; but no such instances occur in England. i am in no more danger of death from king George, than from the Queen of Hungary. and if i study to be quiet and mid my own business, i am in no more danger of losing my liberty than my life. no, nor my property; i mean, by any act of the King. if this is in any degree invaded, it is not by the King or his parliament or army, but by the good patriots.
Hark! is hell or Bedlambroke loose? what roaring is that, loud as the waves of the sea? 'It is the patriot mob'.
what do they want with me?
why do they flock about me house?
'make haste! illuminate your windows in honour of Mr. Wilkes',
I cannot in conscience; i think it is encouraging vice
'then they will all be broken'.
that is, in plain English, Give them 29 shillings or they will rob you of 5 pounds.
here are champions for the laws of the land! for liberty and property! o vile horse-guards!
that dared, so grim and terrible, to advance
their miscreated front athwart the way!
True, they did nothing and said nothing. yet, in default of the civil powers, who did not concern themselves with the matter, they hindered the mob from finishing their work.
*42 22. why, then, these men, instead of anyway abridging it, plainly preserved my liberty and property. and by their benefit, not the care of those to whom it properly belonged, I still enjoy full civil liberty. i am free to live, in every respect, according to my own choice. my life, my person, my property , are safe. I am not murdered, maimed, tortured at any man's pleasure; I am not thrown into prison; i am not manacled; see, i have not one fetter, either on my hands or feet.
and are not you as free as I am?
are not you at liberty to enjoy the fruit of your labours?
who hinders you from doing it? does King George?
does Lord North?
do any of His Majesty's officers or soldiers? no, nor any man living. perhaps some would hinder you, if you acted contrary to law, but this is not liberty, it is licentiousness. deny the fact who can; am not i free to use my substance according to my own discretion?
and do not you enjoy the selfsame freedom. you cannot, you dare not, deny it.
at this hour I am at full liberty to use my property as i please.
and so are you;
you do, in fact, use your house, your goods, your land, as is right in your own eyes.
does any one take them from you?
No; nor does any one restrain you fro the full enjoyment of them. what then is the matter?
what is it you are making all this pother (def - commotion, uproar; heated discussion) about?
why are you thus wringing your hands, and screaming, to the terror of your quiet neighbours,
'Destruction! slavery! bondage! Help, countrymen!
Our liberty is destroyed! we are ruined, chained, fettered, undone!'
FETTERED! How?
where are the fetters, but in your won imagination?
there are none, either on your hands or mine:
neither you nor I can show to any man in his senses, that we have one chain upon us, even so big as a knitting needle.
23. I do not say, that the ministry are without fault; or that they have done all things well. but still I ask, What is the liberty which we want? it is not civil or religious liberty. these we have in such a degree as was never known before, not from the times of William the Conqueror. (foot- if the famous Middlesex election was an exception to this, yet observe, one swallow makes no summer.) but all this is nothing; this will never satisfy the bellua multorum capitum. (note -?) that 'many-headed beast', the people, roars for liberty of another kind. many want Indian liberty, the liberty of cutting throats or of driving a brace of balls
43 through the head of those ugly-looking fellows, whom they cannot abide the sight of. many more want the old Highland liberty, the convenient liberty of plundering. many others there are who want the liberty of war, of borrowing their neighbours' wives or daughters; and not a few. though they do not always avow it, the liberty of murdering their prince.
24. if you are a reasonable man, a man of real honour, and consequently want none of these, I beg to know what would you have? considering the thing calmly, what liberty can you reasonably desire which you do not already enjoy? what is the matter with you and with multitudes of the good people, both in England and Ireland, that they are crying and groaning as if they were chained to an oar, or barred up in the dungeons of the Inquisition? the plain melancholy truth is this: there is general infatuation, which spreads, like an overflowing stream, from one end of the land to this other and a man must have great wisdom and great strength, or he will be carried away by the torrent. but how can we account for this epidemic madness? for it deserves no better name. we must not dare to give the least intimation, that the devil has anything to do with it. No! this enlightened age is too wise to believe that there is any devil in being!
Satan,
avaunt! (def -'to the front'; away) hence we have driven thee back into the land of shadows; keep thou among thy own kindred:
with hydras, (def - water and marsh serpent with 9 heads each,if cut, grew 2)
gorgons, (three sister monsters with snakes for hair, wings, brazen claws and eyes that turned anyone who looked into them to stone) and
chimeras (mythological fire breathing monsters)
dire.
suppose it then to be a purely natural phenomenon; I ask again, How can we account for it? I apprehend if we could divest ourselves of prejudice, it might be done very easily and that without concerning ourselves with the hidden springs of action, the motives or intentions of men.letting these alone, is there not a visible, undeniable cause, which is quite adequate to the effect? the good people of England have, for some years past, been continually fed with poison. dose after does has been administered to them, for fear the first, or second or tenth, should not suffice, of a poison whose natural effect is to drive men out of their senses. Is 'the centaur not fabulous?' neither is Circe's cup. see how, in every county, city and village, it is now turning quiet, reasonable men, into wild bulls, bears, and tigers.
*44 but, to lay metaphor aside, how long have the public papers represented one of the est of Princes as if he had been one of the worst, as little better than Caligula, Nero or Domitian! these were followed by pamphlets of the same kind and aiming at the same point, - to make the King appear odious as well as contemptible in the eyes of his subjects. letters succeed,k wrote in fine language, and with exquisite art, but filled with the gall of bitterness. 'yes, but not against the King; Junius does not strike at him, but at the evil administration'. Thin pretence! does not every one see the blow is aimed at the King through the sides of his Ministers? all these are conveyed, week after week, through all London and all the nation. can any man wonder at the effect of this? what can be more natural? what can be expected, but that they who drink in these papers and letters with all greediness, will be throughly embittered and inflamed thereby? will first despise and then abhor the King? what can we expect, but that by the repeated doses of this poison they will be perfectly intoxicated and only wait for a convenient season to tear in pieces the royal monster, as they think him and all his
adherents?
25. at present there are hindrances in the way, so that they cannot use their teeth as they would. one is an untoward Parliament, who will not look upon the King with the same eyes that they do, but still think he has no more design or desire to enslave the nation, than to burn the city of London. a still greater hinderance is the army; even lions and bears do not choose to encounter them, so that these men of war do really at this time preserve the peace of the nation. what then can be done before the people cools, that this precious opportunity be not lost? what indeed, but to prevail upon the King to dissolve his parliament and disband his army? nay, let the parliament stay as it is, it will suffice to disband the army. if these red-coats were but out of the way, the mob would soon deal with the parliament. Probatum est (footnote - 'this has already been put to the proof.) nothing is more easy than to keep malignant members from the House. Remember Lord North not long ago: (footnote - rudely insulted by a turbulent mob, as he was going into the House) this was a taste, a specimen, of their activity. what then would they not do if they were masters of the field, if none were left to oppose them? would not the
*45 avenues of both Houses be so well guarded, that none but patriots would dare to approach?
26. but (as often as you have heard the contrary affirmed) King George has too much understanding, to throw himself into the hands of those men who have given full proof that they bear him no great good will. nor has he reason to believe that they are much more fond of his office than of his person. they are not vehemently fond of monarchy itself, whoever the Monarch be. therefore neither their good nor ill words will induce him, in haste, to leap into the fire with his eyes open.
27. but can anything be done to open the eyes, to restore the senses, of an infatuated (def- to inspire or possess with a foolish or unreasoning passion) nation? not unless the still renewed, still operating cause of that infatuation can be removed. but how is it possible to be removed, unless by restraining the licentiousness (def - unrestrained by law or general morality) of the press?
and is not this remedy worse than the disease
let us weigh this matter a little.
there was an ancient law in Scotland, which made leasing-making a capital crime. by leasing-making was meant, telling such willful lies as tended to breed dissension between the King and his subjects. what pity but there should be such a law enacted in the present session of parliament! by our present laws, a man is punishable for publishing even truth to the detriment of his neighbour.
this I would not wish.
but should he not be punished, who publishes palpable lies?
and such lies as manifestly tend to breed dissension between the King and his subjects?
such, with a 1000 more, was that bare-faced lie of the King's bursting out into laughter before the city Magistrates!
now does not the publisher of his lie deserve to lose his ears more than a common knight of the post?
and if he is liable to no punishment for a crime of so mischievous a nature, what a grievous defect is in our law!
and how loud does it call for a remedy!
28. to return to the point whence we set out you see whence arose this outcry for liberty and these dismal complaints that we are robbed of our liberty echoing through the land. it is plain to every unprejudiced man, they have not the least foundation. we enjoy at this day throughout these kingdoms such liberty, civil and religious, as no other kingdom or Commonwealth in Europe, or in the world, enjoys; and such as our ancestors never enjoyed from the Conquest to the Revolution. let us be thankful for it to God and the King! let us not, by our vile unthankfulness, yea, our
*46 denial that we enjoy it at all, provoke the King of kings to take it away. by one stroke, by taking to himself that Prince whom we know not how to value, He might change the scene and put an end to our civil as well as religious liberty. then would be seen who were patriots and who were not; who were real lovers of liberty and their country. the God of love remove that day far from us! deal not with us according to our deservings, but let us know, at least in this our day, the things which make for our peace.
Dragoon'd into a wooden she. Prior
1. all men in the world desire liberty;
whoever breathes, breathes after this and that by a kind of natural instinct antecedent to art or education. yet at the same time all men of understanding acknowledge it as a rational instinct. for we feel this desire, not in opposition to, but in consequence of, our reason. therefore it is not found, or in a very low degree, in many species of brutes, which seem, even when they are left to their choice, to prefer servitude before liberty.
2/ the lobe of liberty is then the glory of rational beings; and it is the glory of Britons in particular. perhaps it would be difficult to find any nation under heaven, who are more tenacious of it; nay, , it may be doubted if any nation ever was; not the Spartans, not the Athenians; no, not the Romans themselves, who have been celebrated fro this very thing by the poets and historians of all ages.
3. was it not from this principle, that our British forefathers so violently opposed all foreign invaders; that Julius Caesar himself, with his victorious legions, could make so little impression upon them; that the Generals of the succeeding Emperors sustained so many losses from them and that, when at length they were overpowered, they rather chose to lose all they had than their liberty; to retire into the Cambrian (wales) or Caledonian (somewhere close by?) mountains, where, if they had nothing else, they might at least enjoy their native freedom?
4. hence arose the vehement struggles of the Cambro-Britons through so many generations against the yoke, which the Saxons first and afterwards the English, strove to impose upon them; hence the struggles of the English Barons against several of their Kings, lest they should lose the blessing they had received from their forefathers; yea, the Scottish nobles, as all their histories show, would no
*35 more bear to be enslaved than the Romans. all these therefore, however differing from each other in 1000 other respects, agreed in testifying the desirableness of liberty, as one of the greatest blessings under the sun.
5. such was the sense of all our ancestors, even from the earliest ages. and is it not also the general sense of the nation at this day? who can deny, that the whole kingdom is panting for liberty? is not the cry for it gone forth, not only through every part of our vast metropolis, - from the west end of the city to the east, from the north to the south, so that instead of no complaining in our streets, there is nothing but complaining, - but likewise into every corner of our land, borne by all the 4 winds of heaven? Liberty! Liberty! sounds through every county, every city, every town and every hamlet!
6. is it not for the sake of this, that the name of our great patriot (perhaps not so admirable in his private character as the man of Ross, or so great a lover of his country as Codrus or old Curtius) is more celebrated than that of any private man has been in England for these 1000 years; that his very picture is so joyfully received in every part of England and Ireland; that we stamp his (I had almost said, adored) name on our handkerchiefs, on the cheerful bowl, yea and on our vessels of various kinds, as well as upon our hearts? why is all this, but because of the inseparable connexion between Wilkes and liberty; liberty that came down, if not fell, from heaven; whom all England and the world worshippeth?
7. but mean time might it not be advisable to consider, (if we are yet at leisure to consider anything,) what is liberty? because it is well know the word is capable of various senses. and possibly it may not be equally desirable i every sense of the word.
8, there are many nations in America, those particularly that border on Georgia and Carolina, wherein if one disapproves of what another says, or perhaps dislikes his looks, he scorns to affront him to his face, neither dose he betray the least dissatisfaction. but as soon as opportunity serves he steps from behind a tree and shoots him. and none calls him that does it to an account. No; this is the liberty he derives from his forefathers.
9. for many ages the free natives of Ireland, as well as the Scottish Highlands, when it was convenient for them, made an
*36 excursion from their woods or fastnesses and carried off, for their own proper use, the sheep and oxen and corn of their neighbours. this was the liberty which the O'neals, the Campbells, and many other sects and clans of venerable antiquity, had received by immemorial tradition from their ancestors.
10. almost all the soldiers in the Christian world, as well as in the Mahmetan and Pagan , have claimed, more especially in time of war, another kind of liberty; that of borrowing the wives and daughters of the men that fell into their hands; sometimes, if they pleaded scruple of conscience or honour, using a little necessary forge, perhaps this may be termed the liberty of war. but I will not positively affirm, that it has never been used in this free country, even in the time of peace.
11. in some countries of Europe and indeed in England there have been instances of yet another sort of liberty, that of calling a Monarch to account and, if need were, taking off his head; that is, if he did not behave in a dutiful manner to our sovereign lords the people.
12. now, that we may not always be talking at random, but bring the matter to a determinate point, which of these sorts of liberty do you desire? is it the First sort; the liberty of knocking on the head, or cutting the throats, of those we are 'out of conceit' (def - displeased, dissatisfied with) with? Glorious liberty indeed! what would not king mob do to to be gratified with it but for a few weeks? but, I conceive, calm, sensible men do not desire to see them entrusted with it. they apprehend there might be some consequences which, upon the whole, would not redound to the prosperity of the nation.
13. is the Second more desirable; the liberty of taking , when we see best, the goods and chattels of our neighbours? undoubtedly, thousands in the good city of London (suppose we mad the experiment here first) would be above measure rejoiced threat, would leap as broke from chains. o how convenient would it be to have free access, without any let or hindrance, to the cellars, the pantries, the larders, yea and the coffers of their rich, overgrown landlords! but perhaps it would not give altogether so much joy to the Lord Mayor or Aldermen; no, nor even to those stanch friends of liberty, the Common Councilmen. not that they regard their own interest at all; bu, setting themselves out of the question, they are a little in doubt whether this liberty would be for the good of trade.
*37 14. is it then the Third kind of liberty we contend for; the liberty of taking our neighbours' wives and daughters? Ye pretty gentlemen, ye beaux esprits, will ye not, one and all, give your voices for this natural liberty? will ye not say, 'if we cry out against monopolies of other kinds, shall we tolerate the monopoly of women?' but hod. are there not some among you too, who have wives, if not daughters, of your own? and are you altogether willing to oblige the first comer with them? I say the first comer; for, observe, as you are to give the liberty you take, so you must not pick and choose your men; you know, by nature, all men are on a level. Liberty! Liberty! No restraint! we are freeborn Englishmen; down with the fences! lay all the inclosures open!' No; it will not do. even nature recoils. we are not yet Polished enough for this.
15. are we not ripe, however, for the Fourth kind of liberty, that of removing a disobedient King? would Mr. Wilkes, would Mr. Horne, would any free Briton, have any objection to this? provided only, that, as soon as our present Monarch is removed, we have a better to put in his place. but who is he? King John that will not sound well, even in the ears of his greatest admirers . and whoever calmly considers the characters and endowments of those other great men, who may think themselves much fitter for the office than His present Majesty, will hardly concur in their opinion; so that a difficulty lies in your way. what ever claim you man have to this liberty you must not use it yet, because you cannot tell where to find a better Prince.
16. but to speak seriously. these things being set aside, which the bawling mob dignify by that name; what is that liberty properly so called, which every wise and good man desires ? it is either religious or civil. religious liberty is a liberty to choose our own religion, to worship God according to our won conscience, according to the best light we have. every man living, as an, has a right to this, as he is a rational creature. the Creator gave him this right when he endowed him with understanding. and every man must judge for himself, because every man must give an account of himself to God. consequently, this is an indefeasible right; it is inseparable from humanity. and God did never give authority to any man or number of men, to deprive any child of man thereof, under any colour or
*38 pretence whatever. what an amazing thing is it, then, that the governing part of almost every nation under heaven should have taken upon them, in all ages, to rob all under their power of this liberty! yea, should take upon them, at this day, so to do; to force rational creatures into their own religion! would one think it possible, that the most sensible men in the world should say to their fellow-creatures, 'Either be on my religion, or i will take away your food, and you and your wife and children shall starve: if that will not convince you, I will fetter your hands and feet and throw you into a dungeon. ..and if still you will not see as i see, I will burn you alive?
17. it would not be altogether so astonishing,if this were the manner of American savages. but what shall we say, if numberless instances of it have occurred , in the politest nations of Europe? have no instances of the kind been seen in Britain? have not England and Scotland seen the horrid fires? have not the flames burning the flesh of heretics shone in London as well as in Paris and Lisbon? have we forgot the days of good Queen Mary? No; they will be had in everlasting remembrance,and although burning was out of fashion in Queen Elizabeth's days, yet hanging, even for religion, was not. it is true, her successor did not go quite so far. but did even King James allow liberty of conscience?by no means. during his whole reign, what liberty had the puritans? what liberty had they in the following reign? if they were not persecuted unto death; (although eventually,indeed,many of them were; for they died in their imprisonment) yet were they not continually harassed by prosecutions in the Bishops' Courts or Star-Chamber? by fines upon fines, frequently reducing them to the deepest poverty? and by imprisonment for months, yea, for years, together, till many of them, escaping with the skin of their teeth, left their country and friends, fled to seek their bread in the wilds of America? however, we may suppose all this was at an end under the merry Monarch, King Charles the Second'. was it indeed? where have they lived who suppose this? to wave a 1000 particular instances; what will you say to those 2 public monuments, the Act of Uniformity and the Act against Conventicles: in the former it is enacted, to the eternal honour of the King, Lords and Commons, at that memorable
*39 period: 'Every parson, Vicar or other Minister whatever, who has any benefice within these realms, shall, before the next twenty fourth of August, openly and publicly declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained in the Book of Common prayer or shall, ipso facto, be deprived of all his benefices! likewise, if any Dean, Prebendary, Master, Fellow, Chaplain or Tutor, of any College, hall, House of learning or hospital, any public professor or any other person in holy orders, any school-master or Teacher, or Tutor in any private family, do not subscribe hereto, he shall be, ipso facto,deprived of his place and shall be utterly disabled from continuing therein'.
property for ever! See how well English property was secured in those golden days!
so,by this glorious Act, thousands of men, guilty of no crime, nothing contrary either to justice, mercy or truth, were stripped of all they had, of their houses, lands, revenues and driven to seek where they could or beg, their bread. for what? because they did not dare to worship god according to other men's consciences? so they and their families were, at one stroke, turned out of house and home and reduced to little less than beggary, for no other fault, real or pretended, but because they could not assent and consent to that manner of worship which their worthy governors prescribed!
but this was not all . it was further enacted by the same merciful lawgivers: 'If any person act as a Teacher, Tutor, or Schoolmaster, in any private family, before he has subscribed hereto, he shall suffer 3 months' imprisonment, without bail or mainprize'.
Liberty for ever! here is security for your person, as well as your property.
by virtue of the Act against Conventicles, if any continued to worship God according to their own conscience, they were first robbed of their substance and, if they persisted, of their liberty; often of their lives also. for this crime, under this 'our most religious and gracious king', (what were they who publicly told God He was such Englishmen were not only spoiled of their goods, but denied even the use of the free air, yea, and the light of the sun, being thrust by 100s into dark and loathsome prisons!
18. were matters much better in the neighbouring kingdom? nay, they were inexpressibly worse. unheard of
*40 cruelties were practiced there, from soon after the Restoration till the Revolution. (footnote - see Wodrow's 'History of the Suffering of the Church of Scotland.) what fining, plundering, beating, maiming, imprisoning, with the most shocking circumstance! for a specimen, look at Dunotter Castle; where young and old, of both sexes, (sick and well, it was all one) were thrust together between bare walls and that in the heat of summer, without a possibility of either lying or sitting; yea, without any convenience of any kind; til many of them, through hunger, thirst, heat and stench, were set at liberty by death! considering this; considering how many others were hunted over their native mountains and shot whenever they were overtaken, with no more ceremony than beasts; considering the drowning, hanging, cutting off of limbs and various arts of torturing, which were practised by order of King Charles, and often in the presence of King James,who seemed to enjoy such spectacles; it would be no wonder if the very name of an Englishman was had in abomination from the Tweed to the Orkneys.
19.but is this the case at present with us?
are we abridged of our religious liberty?
his late Majesty was desired, about 390 years ago, to take a step of this kind, but his answer was worthy of a king, yea, the King of a free people: 'i tell you, while i sit on the English throne, no man shall be persecuted for conscience' sake'. and it is certain he made his promise good from the beginning of his reign to the end. but perhaps the case is altered now. does His present majesty tread in his steps? He does: he persecutes no man for conscience' sake. if he does, where is the man? i do not ask, Whom has he committed to the flames or caused to die by the common hangman? or, Whom has he caused to die many deaths, by hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness but, whom has he tortured or thrust into a dungeon, yea, or imprisoned at all, or fined, for worshipping God according to his own conscience, in the Presbyterian or any other way? O, compare king Charles, gracious Charles the second, the King George and you will know the value of the liberty you enjoy.
20. in the name of wonder, what religious liberty can you desire or even conceive, which you have not already? where is there a nation in Europe, in the habitable world, which
*41 enjoys such liberty of conscience as the English? I ill be bold to say there is nothing like it in Holland, in Germany (protestant or Popish) in either the Protestant of Popish cantons of Switzerland; no, nor in any country under the sun. have we not in England full liberty to choose any religion, yea, or no religion at all? to have no more religion than a Hottentot, shall i say? nay, no more than a bull or a swine? whoever therefore in England stretches his throat and bawls for more religious liberty, must be totally void of shame and can have no excuse by want of understanding.
21. but is not the ground of this vehement outcry, that we are deprived of our civil liberty? what is civil liberty? a liberty to enjoy our lives and fortunes in our own way; to use our property, whatever is legally our own, according to our own choice. and can you deny, 'that we are robbed of this liberty'? who are? certainly I am not. i pray, do not face me down that i am. do not argue me out of my senses. if the Great Turk or the King of France, wills that a man should die, with or without cause, die he must. and instances of the kind continually occur; but no such instances occur in England. i am in no more danger of death from king George, than from the Queen of Hungary. and if i study to be quiet and mid my own business, i am in no more danger of losing my liberty than my life. no, nor my property; i mean, by any act of the King. if this is in any degree invaded, it is not by the King or his parliament or army, but by the good patriots.
Hark! is hell or Bedlambroke loose? what roaring is that, loud as the waves of the sea? 'It is the patriot mob'.
what do they want with me?
why do they flock about me house?
'make haste! illuminate your windows in honour of Mr. Wilkes',
I cannot in conscience; i think it is encouraging vice
'then they will all be broken'.
that is, in plain English, Give them 29 shillings or they will rob you of 5 pounds.
here are champions for the laws of the land! for liberty and property! o vile horse-guards!
that dared, so grim and terrible, to advance
their miscreated front athwart the way!
True, they did nothing and said nothing. yet, in default of the civil powers, who did not concern themselves with the matter, they hindered the mob from finishing their work.
*42 22. why, then, these men, instead of anyway abridging it, plainly preserved my liberty and property. and by their benefit, not the care of those to whom it properly belonged, I still enjoy full civil liberty. i am free to live, in every respect, according to my own choice. my life, my person, my property , are safe. I am not murdered, maimed, tortured at any man's pleasure; I am not thrown into prison; i am not manacled; see, i have not one fetter, either on my hands or feet.
and are not you as free as I am?
are not you at liberty to enjoy the fruit of your labours?
who hinders you from doing it? does King George?
does Lord North?
do any of His Majesty's officers or soldiers? no, nor any man living. perhaps some would hinder you, if you acted contrary to law, but this is not liberty, it is licentiousness. deny the fact who can; am not i free to use my substance according to my own discretion?
and do not you enjoy the selfsame freedom. you cannot, you dare not, deny it.
at this hour I am at full liberty to use my property as i please.
and so are you;
you do, in fact, use your house, your goods, your land, as is right in your own eyes.
does any one take them from you?
No; nor does any one restrain you fro the full enjoyment of them. what then is the matter?
what is it you are making all this pother (def - commotion, uproar; heated discussion) about?
why are you thus wringing your hands, and screaming, to the terror of your quiet neighbours,
'Destruction! slavery! bondage! Help, countrymen!
Our liberty is destroyed! we are ruined, chained, fettered, undone!'
FETTERED! How?
where are the fetters, but in your won imagination?
there are none, either on your hands or mine:
neither you nor I can show to any man in his senses, that we have one chain upon us, even so big as a knitting needle.
23. I do not say, that the ministry are without fault; or that they have done all things well. but still I ask, What is the liberty which we want? it is not civil or religious liberty. these we have in such a degree as was never known before, not from the times of William the Conqueror. (foot- if the famous Middlesex election was an exception to this, yet observe, one swallow makes no summer.) but all this is nothing; this will never satisfy the bellua multorum capitum. (note -?) that 'many-headed beast', the people, roars for liberty of another kind. many want Indian liberty, the liberty of cutting throats or of driving a brace of balls
43 through the head of those ugly-looking fellows, whom they cannot abide the sight of. many more want the old Highland liberty, the convenient liberty of plundering. many others there are who want the liberty of war, of borrowing their neighbours' wives or daughters; and not a few. though they do not always avow it, the liberty of murdering their prince.
24. if you are a reasonable man, a man of real honour, and consequently want none of these, I beg to know what would you have? considering the thing calmly, what liberty can you reasonably desire which you do not already enjoy? what is the matter with you and with multitudes of the good people, both in England and Ireland, that they are crying and groaning as if they were chained to an oar, or barred up in the dungeons of the Inquisition? the plain melancholy truth is this: there is general infatuation, which spreads, like an overflowing stream, from one end of the land to this other and a man must have great wisdom and great strength, or he will be carried away by the torrent. but how can we account for this epidemic madness? for it deserves no better name. we must not dare to give the least intimation, that the devil has anything to do with it. No! this enlightened age is too wise to believe that there is any devil in being!
Satan,
avaunt! (def -'to the front'; away) hence we have driven thee back into the land of shadows; keep thou among thy own kindred:
with hydras, (def - water and marsh serpent with 9 heads each,if cut, grew 2)
gorgons, (three sister monsters with snakes for hair, wings, brazen claws and eyes that turned anyone who looked into them to stone) and
chimeras (mythological fire breathing monsters)
dire.
suppose it then to be a purely natural phenomenon; I ask again, How can we account for it? I apprehend if we could divest ourselves of prejudice, it might be done very easily and that without concerning ourselves with the hidden springs of action, the motives or intentions of men.letting these alone, is there not a visible, undeniable cause, which is quite adequate to the effect? the good people of England have, for some years past, been continually fed with poison. dose after does has been administered to them, for fear the first, or second or tenth, should not suffice, of a poison whose natural effect is to drive men out of their senses. Is 'the centaur not fabulous?' neither is Circe's cup. see how, in every county, city and village, it is now turning quiet, reasonable men, into wild bulls, bears, and tigers.
*44 but, to lay metaphor aside, how long have the public papers represented one of the est of Princes as if he had been one of the worst, as little better than Caligula, Nero or Domitian! these were followed by pamphlets of the same kind and aiming at the same point, - to make the King appear odious as well as contemptible in the eyes of his subjects. letters succeed,k wrote in fine language, and with exquisite art, but filled with the gall of bitterness. 'yes, but not against the King; Junius does not strike at him, but at the evil administration'. Thin pretence! does not every one see the blow is aimed at the King through the sides of his Ministers? all these are conveyed, week after week, through all London and all the nation. can any man wonder at the effect of this? what can be more natural? what can be expected, but that they who drink in these papers and letters with all greediness, will be throughly embittered and inflamed thereby? will first despise and then abhor the King? what can we expect, but that by the repeated doses of this poison they will be perfectly intoxicated and only wait for a convenient season to tear in pieces the royal monster, as they think him and all his
adherents?
25. at present there are hindrances in the way, so that they cannot use their teeth as they would. one is an untoward Parliament, who will not look upon the King with the same eyes that they do, but still think he has no more design or desire to enslave the nation, than to burn the city of London. a still greater hinderance is the army; even lions and bears do not choose to encounter them, so that these men of war do really at this time preserve the peace of the nation. what then can be done before the people cools, that this precious opportunity be not lost? what indeed, but to prevail upon the King to dissolve his parliament and disband his army? nay, let the parliament stay as it is, it will suffice to disband the army. if these red-coats were but out of the way, the mob would soon deal with the parliament. Probatum est (footnote - 'this has already been put to the proof.) nothing is more easy than to keep malignant members from the House. Remember Lord North not long ago: (footnote - rudely insulted by a turbulent mob, as he was going into the House) this was a taste, a specimen, of their activity. what then would they not do if they were masters of the field, if none were left to oppose them? would not the
*45 avenues of both Houses be so well guarded, that none but patriots would dare to approach?
26. but (as often as you have heard the contrary affirmed) King George has too much understanding, to throw himself into the hands of those men who have given full proof that they bear him no great good will. nor has he reason to believe that they are much more fond of his office than of his person. they are not vehemently fond of monarchy itself, whoever the Monarch be. therefore neither their good nor ill words will induce him, in haste, to leap into the fire with his eyes open.
27. but can anything be done to open the eyes, to restore the senses, of an infatuated (def- to inspire or possess with a foolish or unreasoning passion) nation? not unless the still renewed, still operating cause of that infatuation can be removed. but how is it possible to be removed, unless by restraining the licentiousness (def - unrestrained by law or general morality) of the press?
and is not this remedy worse than the disease
let us weigh this matter a little.
there was an ancient law in Scotland, which made leasing-making a capital crime. by leasing-making was meant, telling such willful lies as tended to breed dissension between the King and his subjects. what pity but there should be such a law enacted in the present session of parliament! by our present laws, a man is punishable for publishing even truth to the detriment of his neighbour.
this I would not wish.
but should he not be punished, who publishes palpable lies?
and such lies as manifestly tend to breed dissension between the King and his subjects?
such, with a 1000 more, was that bare-faced lie of the King's bursting out into laughter before the city Magistrates!
now does not the publisher of his lie deserve to lose his ears more than a common knight of the post?
and if he is liable to no punishment for a crime of so mischievous a nature, what a grievous defect is in our law!
and how loud does it call for a remedy!
28. to return to the point whence we set out you see whence arose this outcry for liberty and these dismal complaints that we are robbed of our liberty echoing through the land. it is plain to every unprejudiced man, they have not the least foundation. we enjoy at this day throughout these kingdoms such liberty, civil and religious, as no other kingdom or Commonwealth in Europe, or in the world, enjoys; and such as our ancestors never enjoyed from the Conquest to the Revolution. let us be thankful for it to God and the King! let us not, by our vile unthankfulness, yea, our
*46 denial that we enjoy it at all, provoke the King of kings to take it away. by one stroke, by taking to himself that Prince whom we know not how to value, He might change the scene and put an end to our civil as well as religious liberty. then would be seen who were patriots and who were not; who were real lovers of liberty and their country. the God of love remove that day far from us! deal not with us according to our deservings, but let us know, at least in this our day, the things which make for our peace.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
11.24.2018 Pope John Paul IV: Redemptor Hominis (The Redeemer of Man) 3.15.1979 and first pilgrimage to Poland 6.2-10.1979
taken from Witness To Hope: the biography of Pope John Paul II by George Weigel
*287 PROGRAM NOTES FOR A PONTIFICATE
as the 21 epistles in the New Testament suggest, Christina leaders have used letters as teaching instruments from the very beginning of the Church. Scholars date the origins of the modern papal 'encyclical', a letter to a specific group of bishops or to the world episcopate, to Benedict XIV 's Ubi Primum in 1740, although it was Gregory 16 who, in the early 19th century, first used the term 'encyclical' to refer to these documents. before the First Vatican Council, encyclicals were largely admonitory, warning against this or that deviant teaching. after Vatican !, Leo XIII used the encyclical as a vehicle for addressing theological issues and the Church's relationship to modern social, political, economic and intellectual life, as did Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI. Benedict XV used the device of an 'inaugural encyclical' to declare a halt to the brawling over Modernism that had damaged.
*288 Catholic theology and the Communio of the Church. Paul VIs 'inaugural encyclical' Ecclesiam Suam, signaled that ecclesiology - the Church's self understanding and mission - would be the theme of his pontificate.
John Paul II has said that he began work on a letter addressed to the entire Church and to all men and women of good will 'immediately' after his election. like Paul VI, he wanted to announce and explain the great theme of his pontificate through a major teaching document with doctrinal authority and Christian humanism, as he put it, 'was a subject i had brought with me' to Rome. 5 months after he arrived, he published the first encyclical ever devoted to Christian anthropology. (def - study of the nature and essence of mankind)
when it was released publicly on March 15, Redemptor Hominis
1.24.1979 Soviet foreign minister Andre Gromyko calls on Pope John Paul II in the Vatican
3.2.1979 the Pope moves to strengthen Czechoslovakian Catholicism through a letter on religious resistance to tyranny
3.15.1979 John Paul II releases the encyclical Redemptor Hominis, nature and essence of man
3.19.1979 a papal letter to Ukrainian Cardinal Iosyf Slipyei anticipates the 1988 millennium of Christianity in Kievan Rus' and defends the principle of religious freedom for all.
7. 2-10,1979 John Paul II's first pilgrimage to Poland.
8.14-31,1980 Gadansk shipyard strike gives birth to Solidarity trade union
291 in 1966, Poland's community rulers had been singularly unsuccessful in their efforts to co-opt the millennium of Polish Christianity. the regime hung signs in the streets:
A Thousand Years of the Polish State
every church in the country prominently displayed a banner reading, Poland's Sacred Millennium, 966-1066.
other church banners read the Polish government
For God and Country Socialism and Fatherland
the Nation Is With The Church the Party is with the Nation
Poland Ever-Faithful the Communist Regime is the Guarantee of
Peace and Frontiers
292 the regime didn't even try to keep pace with the Church symbolically during John Paul II's return to is homeland in June 1979. Victory Square, scene of many of the Polish communist regime's great public displays, had been transformed by government workers into an enormous liturgical stage for the papal Mass. from it, John Paul would address 1 million of his countrymen live, and tens of millions more on radio and TV. the centerpiece of the altar platform was a 50 foot tall cross, draped with an enormous replica of a priest's stole, reminding all present that they were witnessing a sacramental representation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. beneath the huge cross, where Mary had stood faithfully by, was a replica of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa.
no hero in polish history -not King Jan III Sobieske, not Tadeus Kosciuszko, not Jozef Pilsudski - had ever entered Warsaw as John Paul II did on June 2, 1979.
rebuilt Warsaw was a grim, gray place, its skyline dominated by the Palace f Culture and Sciences, a garish communist-baroque confection given to the city by Stalin. the city's grayness too often matched the people's mood. now for the pope, Warsaw had come alive, visually and spiritually. thousands of pilgrims had been welcomed into the homes of strangers. every church in the city had remained open overnight to give shelter to those who could not find places elsewhere. the entire route from Okecie Airport to the rebuild old City was lined with hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, 5 and 10 rows deep, waving small Polish flags. there was no disorder, only jubilation, as the enormous crowds kept to the places assigned to their parishes by the Church's efficient organizers.
the city had been transformed by homemade decorations. the windows and porches of the drab apartment blocks along the roads John Paul would travel had been turned into shrines and altars bedecked with flowers, flags and photographs of the pope. as the papal motorcade moved slowly along the street, bouquets were thrown in the Pope's path while the crowd broke out in songs, cheers and , in some cases, uncontrollable tears. many Poles knelt on the roadside as a beaming John Paul II scattered benedictions left and tight from the converted truck on which he rode. on June 2, 1979, 3 million Poles, twice the city's normal population, had come to see their countryman, Karol Wojtyla of Wadowice. Krakow and Rome.
some 230,000 tickets had been issued for the Mass; 300,000 people had wedged themselves into Victory Square, with another three-quarters of a million or so overflowing int the surrounding streets. it was a brilliantly sunny, hot day. accompanied by the strains of the papal anthem and the hymn 'Gude Mater Plonia' (Rejoice, Mother Poland), the Pope and Primate Wyszynski walked slowly toward the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the square. a young couple gave the Pope a bouquet, which he laid on the tomb before kneeling in silent prayer. he kissed the grave, signed the book of
*293 remembrance ( 'To Poland's Unknown Soldier -John Paul II') and walked to a tent where he vested for Mass.
attended by the Warsaw diplomatic corps and by representatives of the Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Mass began with a greeting from the Primate, who proclaimed that national unity - a constant theme of Communist propaganda - had now, in fact, been achieved: 'Holy Father, the capital is united today in prayer, led by the head of the Roman Catholic Church... Christ's vicar on earth, apostle of Christ and His Gospel, messenger of truth and love, a son of Poland, chosen by God...'
after the proclamation of the Gospel, a deep silence fell over the tremendous crowd.Polish Communist Party leader Edward Gierek watched nervously from a window in a hotel adjacent to the square, he and millions of others wondered : What would he say? what Could he say?
Karol Wojtyla looked out at a sea of expectant faces, paused - and then gave what may have been the greatest sermon of his life.
Today, he began, he wanted to 'sing a hymn of praise to divine providence' which had enabled him to come home 'as a pilgrim'. in doing so, he was fulfilling the wish of pope Paul VI, who had so 'ardently desired to set foot on the soil of Poland' that his desire reached 'beyond the span of a pontificate'. on his election, this polish Pope had 'immediately understood' that he had been chosen in order to fulfill what Pope Paul had been prevented from doing during the millennium celebration in 1966.
his papal pilgrimage was a continuation of those celebrations, because he had come for the anniversary of St. Stanislaw's martyrdom and that epic event in 1079 had been a fruit of Poland's conversion in 966. st. Stanislaw's witness, his resistance to the tyranny of autocratic state power, had become 'a special sign of the pilgrimage that we poles are making down through the history of the Church'. He, Pope John Paul II, was a product of that national spiritual journey and the defense of religious freedom that was one of its hallmarks.
why had a Pole been called to the chair of St. Peter? was it not because the Poland of today had become, through the terrible trials of the 20th century, 'The Land Of A Particularly Responsible Witness'?
the Poles, he insisted, had a right to think that, to think 'with singular humility but also with conviction' that it was to Poland, today, that 'one must come...to read again the witness of His cross and His resurrection'. this was no cause for boasting, however. 'If we accept all that I have dared to affirm in this moment, how many great duties and obligations arise? are we capable of them?'
the crowd began a rhythmic chant, 'We want God, we want God....'
it was, John Paul continued, the Vigil of Pentecost, so let us return in our imagination to the Upper Room in Jerusalem. there, the apostles and Mary waited for the Holy Spirit so that they could be the risen Christ's witnesses to the ends of the earth. Pentecost, the feast of the descent of the Holy Spirit, was
294 'The Birthday Of The Faith And Of The Church In Our Land Of Poland, Also'. just as the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, had gone from the Upper Room and preached in foreign tongues, so, too, was Pentecost 'the proclamation of the mighty works of god in our Polish language'. the mightiest of those works was the human person, redeemed by Christ; 'therefore Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography. the exclusion of Chris from the history of man is an act against man. without Christ it is impossible to understand the history of Poland especially the history of the people who have passed or are passing through this land....' even those who 'doubted or opposed', lived within the Christian context of polish history and culture, anyone who tried to deny this or to uproot it damaged the Polish nation. for Poland and its history - 'from Stanislaw in Skalka to Maximilian Kolbe at Oswiecim' - could not be understood without reference to Jesus Christ. that was why he had come to Poland: to reaffirm that 'Christ does not cease to teach the great cause of man', for Christ was 'an ever-open book on man, his dignity and his rights...' today, in Victory Square, he and his countrymen were asking, in the supreme prayer of the Mass, 'That Christ will Not Cease To Be For Us An Open Book Of Life For The Future,, for our Polish future'.
The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier bore silent testimony to a truth for which countless Poles had died, that 'there can be not just Europe without the independence of Poland marked on its map! Polish soldiers had fallen on numerous battlefields 'for our freedom and yours'. was history thus absurd? No. for that spirit of sacrifice was emblematic of 'every seed that falls into the earth and dies and thus bears fruit. it may be eh seed of the blood of a soldier shed on the battlefield o eh sacrifice of martyrdom in concentration camps or in prisons.it may be the seed of hard daily toil...in the fields, the workshop, the mine, the foundries and the factories. it may be the seed of the love of parents who do not refuse to give life to a new human being and undertake the whole task of bringing him up. it may be the seed of creative work in the universities, the higher institutes, the libraries and the places where the national culture is built. it may be the seed of prayer, of service of the sick, the suffering and abandoned -'all of that of which Poland is made'.
all of that, he concluded, was in the hands of the Mother of God - 'at the foot of the cross on Calvary and in the upper Room of Pentecost'. all of Poland's suffering and triumph; all of he history of the peoples who had lived on this land, 'including those who died in their hundreds of thousands within the walls of the Warsaw ghetto' all that was what he - 'a son of this land... who am also Pope John Paul II - offered to God in this Eucharistic sacrifice.
...and I cry from all the depths of this millennium, I cry on the vigil of Pentecost:
let Your Spirit descend.
let Your Spirit descend
Amen.
*295 throughout the Pope's sermon, the crowd responded rhythmically;
'We want God,
We want God in the family
we want God in the schools,
we want God in books,
we want God, we want god...'
seven hours after he had arrived, a crucial truth had been clarified by a million Poles response to John Paul's evangelism. Poland was not a communist country; Poland was a Catholic nation saddled with a communist state.
Poland's 'second baptism', which would change the history of he twentieth century, had begun.
*287 PROGRAM NOTES FOR A PONTIFICATE
as the 21 epistles in the New Testament suggest, Christina leaders have used letters as teaching instruments from the very beginning of the Church. Scholars date the origins of the modern papal 'encyclical', a letter to a specific group of bishops or to the world episcopate, to Benedict XIV 's Ubi Primum in 1740, although it was Gregory 16 who, in the early 19th century, first used the term 'encyclical' to refer to these documents. before the First Vatican Council, encyclicals were largely admonitory, warning against this or that deviant teaching. after Vatican !, Leo XIII used the encyclical as a vehicle for addressing theological issues and the Church's relationship to modern social, political, economic and intellectual life, as did Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI. Benedict XV used the device of an 'inaugural encyclical' to declare a halt to the brawling over Modernism that had damaged.
*288 Catholic theology and the Communio of the Church. Paul VIs 'inaugural encyclical' Ecclesiam Suam, signaled that ecclesiology - the Church's self understanding and mission - would be the theme of his pontificate.
John Paul II has said that he began work on a letter addressed to the entire Church and to all men and women of good will 'immediately' after his election. like Paul VI, he wanted to announce and explain the great theme of his pontificate through a major teaching document with doctrinal authority and Christian humanism, as he put it, 'was a subject i had brought with me' to Rome. 5 months after he arrived, he published the first encyclical ever devoted to Christian anthropology. (def - study of the nature and essence of mankind)
when it was released publicly on March 15, Redemptor Hominis
1.24.1979 Soviet foreign minister Andre Gromyko calls on Pope John Paul II in the Vatican
3.2.1979 the Pope moves to strengthen Czechoslovakian Catholicism through a letter on religious resistance to tyranny
3.15.1979 John Paul II releases the encyclical Redemptor Hominis, nature and essence of man
3.19.1979 a papal letter to Ukrainian Cardinal Iosyf Slipyei anticipates the 1988 millennium of Christianity in Kievan Rus' and defends the principle of religious freedom for all.
7. 2-10,1979 John Paul II's first pilgrimage to Poland.
8.14-31,1980 Gadansk shipyard strike gives birth to Solidarity trade union
291 in 1966, Poland's community rulers had been singularly unsuccessful in their efforts to co-opt the millennium of Polish Christianity. the regime hung signs in the streets:
A Thousand Years of the Polish State
every church in the country prominently displayed a banner reading, Poland's Sacred Millennium, 966-1066.
other church banners read the Polish government
For God and Country Socialism and Fatherland
the Nation Is With The Church the Party is with the Nation
Poland Ever-Faithful the Communist Regime is the Guarantee of
Peace and Frontiers
292 the regime didn't even try to keep pace with the Church symbolically during John Paul II's return to is homeland in June 1979. Victory Square, scene of many of the Polish communist regime's great public displays, had been transformed by government workers into an enormous liturgical stage for the papal Mass. from it, John Paul would address 1 million of his countrymen live, and tens of millions more on radio and TV. the centerpiece of the altar platform was a 50 foot tall cross, draped with an enormous replica of a priest's stole, reminding all present that they were witnessing a sacramental representation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. beneath the huge cross, where Mary had stood faithfully by, was a replica of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa.
no hero in polish history -not King Jan III Sobieske, not Tadeus Kosciuszko, not Jozef Pilsudski - had ever entered Warsaw as John Paul II did on June 2, 1979.
rebuilt Warsaw was a grim, gray place, its skyline dominated by the Palace f Culture and Sciences, a garish communist-baroque confection given to the city by Stalin. the city's grayness too often matched the people's mood. now for the pope, Warsaw had come alive, visually and spiritually. thousands of pilgrims had been welcomed into the homes of strangers. every church in the city had remained open overnight to give shelter to those who could not find places elsewhere. the entire route from Okecie Airport to the rebuild old City was lined with hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, 5 and 10 rows deep, waving small Polish flags. there was no disorder, only jubilation, as the enormous crowds kept to the places assigned to their parishes by the Church's efficient organizers.
the city had been transformed by homemade decorations. the windows and porches of the drab apartment blocks along the roads John Paul would travel had been turned into shrines and altars bedecked with flowers, flags and photographs of the pope. as the papal motorcade moved slowly along the street, bouquets were thrown in the Pope's path while the crowd broke out in songs, cheers and , in some cases, uncontrollable tears. many Poles knelt on the roadside as a beaming John Paul II scattered benedictions left and tight from the converted truck on which he rode. on June 2, 1979, 3 million Poles, twice the city's normal population, had come to see their countryman, Karol Wojtyla of Wadowice. Krakow and Rome.
some 230,000 tickets had been issued for the Mass; 300,000 people had wedged themselves into Victory Square, with another three-quarters of a million or so overflowing int the surrounding streets. it was a brilliantly sunny, hot day. accompanied by the strains of the papal anthem and the hymn 'Gude Mater Plonia' (Rejoice, Mother Poland), the Pope and Primate Wyszynski walked slowly toward the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the square. a young couple gave the Pope a bouquet, which he laid on the tomb before kneeling in silent prayer. he kissed the grave, signed the book of
*293 remembrance ( 'To Poland's Unknown Soldier -John Paul II') and walked to a tent where he vested for Mass.
attended by the Warsaw diplomatic corps and by representatives of the Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Mass began with a greeting from the Primate, who proclaimed that national unity - a constant theme of Communist propaganda - had now, in fact, been achieved: 'Holy Father, the capital is united today in prayer, led by the head of the Roman Catholic Church... Christ's vicar on earth, apostle of Christ and His Gospel, messenger of truth and love, a son of Poland, chosen by God...'
after the proclamation of the Gospel, a deep silence fell over the tremendous crowd.Polish Communist Party leader Edward Gierek watched nervously from a window in a hotel adjacent to the square, he and millions of others wondered : What would he say? what Could he say?
Karol Wojtyla looked out at a sea of expectant faces, paused - and then gave what may have been the greatest sermon of his life.
Today, he began, he wanted to 'sing a hymn of praise to divine providence' which had enabled him to come home 'as a pilgrim'. in doing so, he was fulfilling the wish of pope Paul VI, who had so 'ardently desired to set foot on the soil of Poland' that his desire reached 'beyond the span of a pontificate'. on his election, this polish Pope had 'immediately understood' that he had been chosen in order to fulfill what Pope Paul had been prevented from doing during the millennium celebration in 1966.
his papal pilgrimage was a continuation of those celebrations, because he had come for the anniversary of St. Stanislaw's martyrdom and that epic event in 1079 had been a fruit of Poland's conversion in 966. st. Stanislaw's witness, his resistance to the tyranny of autocratic state power, had become 'a special sign of the pilgrimage that we poles are making down through the history of the Church'. He, Pope John Paul II, was a product of that national spiritual journey and the defense of religious freedom that was one of its hallmarks.
why had a Pole been called to the chair of St. Peter? was it not because the Poland of today had become, through the terrible trials of the 20th century, 'The Land Of A Particularly Responsible Witness'?
the Poles, he insisted, had a right to think that, to think 'with singular humility but also with conviction' that it was to Poland, today, that 'one must come...to read again the witness of His cross and His resurrection'. this was no cause for boasting, however. 'If we accept all that I have dared to affirm in this moment, how many great duties and obligations arise? are we capable of them?'
the crowd began a rhythmic chant, 'We want God, we want God....'
it was, John Paul continued, the Vigil of Pentecost, so let us return in our imagination to the Upper Room in Jerusalem. there, the apostles and Mary waited for the Holy Spirit so that they could be the risen Christ's witnesses to the ends of the earth. Pentecost, the feast of the descent of the Holy Spirit, was
294 'The Birthday Of The Faith And Of The Church In Our Land Of Poland, Also'. just as the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, had gone from the Upper Room and preached in foreign tongues, so, too, was Pentecost 'the proclamation of the mighty works of god in our Polish language'. the mightiest of those works was the human person, redeemed by Christ; 'therefore Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography. the exclusion of Chris from the history of man is an act against man. without Christ it is impossible to understand the history of Poland especially the history of the people who have passed or are passing through this land....' even those who 'doubted or opposed', lived within the Christian context of polish history and culture, anyone who tried to deny this or to uproot it damaged the Polish nation. for Poland and its history - 'from Stanislaw in Skalka to Maximilian Kolbe at Oswiecim' - could not be understood without reference to Jesus Christ. that was why he had come to Poland: to reaffirm that 'Christ does not cease to teach the great cause of man', for Christ was 'an ever-open book on man, his dignity and his rights...' today, in Victory Square, he and his countrymen were asking, in the supreme prayer of the Mass, 'That Christ will Not Cease To Be For Us An Open Book Of Life For The Future,, for our Polish future'.
The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier bore silent testimony to a truth for which countless Poles had died, that 'there can be not just Europe without the independence of Poland marked on its map! Polish soldiers had fallen on numerous battlefields 'for our freedom and yours'. was history thus absurd? No. for that spirit of sacrifice was emblematic of 'every seed that falls into the earth and dies and thus bears fruit. it may be eh seed of the blood of a soldier shed on the battlefield o eh sacrifice of martyrdom in concentration camps or in prisons.it may be the seed of hard daily toil...in the fields, the workshop, the mine, the foundries and the factories. it may be the seed of the love of parents who do not refuse to give life to a new human being and undertake the whole task of bringing him up. it may be the seed of creative work in the universities, the higher institutes, the libraries and the places where the national culture is built. it may be the seed of prayer, of service of the sick, the suffering and abandoned -'all of that of which Poland is made'.
all of that, he concluded, was in the hands of the Mother of God - 'at the foot of the cross on Calvary and in the upper Room of Pentecost'. all of Poland's suffering and triumph; all of he history of the peoples who had lived on this land, 'including those who died in their hundreds of thousands within the walls of the Warsaw ghetto' all that was what he - 'a son of this land... who am also Pope John Paul II - offered to God in this Eucharistic sacrifice.
...and I cry from all the depths of this millennium, I cry on the vigil of Pentecost:
let Your Spirit descend.
let Your Spirit descend
Amen.
*295 throughout the Pope's sermon, the crowd responded rhythmically;
'We want God,
We want God in the family
we want God in the schools,
we want God in books,
we want God, we want god...'
seven hours after he had arrived, a crucial truth had been clarified by a million Poles response to John Paul's evangelism. Poland was not a communist country; Poland was a Catholic nation saddled with a communist state.
Poland's 'second baptism', which would change the history of he twentieth century, had begun.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
11.21.2018 John Wesley Works, Vol. 5; SERMON #13, On Sin In Believers, pp.144-156
*144 'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature'. II Cor. 5.17
I. 1. is there then sin in him that is in Christ?
does sin Remain in one that believes in Him?
is there any sin in them that are born of God, or are they wholly delivered from it?
let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity, or that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. rather it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian; the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness.
2. and yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive Church. indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. and so far as I have ever observed, the whole body of ancient Christians , who
*145 have left us anything in writing , declare with one voice, that even believers in Christ, till they are 'strong in the Lord and in the power of His might', have need to 'wrestle with flesh and blood', with an evil nature, as well as 'with principalities and powers.
3. and herein our own Church (as indeed in most points) exactly copies after the primitive; declaring in her Ninth Article, 'Original sin is the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit. and this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in greek phromana sarkos, is not subject to the law of God. and although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin'.
4. the same testimony is give by all other Churches; not only by the Greek and Romish Church, but by every Reformed Church in Europe, of whatever denomination. indeed some of these seem to carry the thing too far; so describing the dominion over it, but rather is in bondage thereto and, by this means, they leave hardly any distinction between a believer and an unbeliever.
5. to avoid this extreme, many well-meaning men, particularly those under the direction of the late Count Zinzendorf, ran into another; affirming, that all true believers are not only saved from the Dominion of sin, but from the Being of inward as well as outward sin, so that it no longer Remains in them', and from them, about 20 years ago, many of our countrymen imbibed the same opinion, that even the corruption of nature is No More, in those who believe in Christ.
6. it is true that, when the Germans were pressed upon this had, they soon allowed , (many of them at least), that 'sin did still remain In The Flesh, but not In The Heart of a believer', and, after a time, when the absurdity of this was shown, they fairly gave up the point; allowing that sin did still remain, though not reign , in him that is born of God.
7. but the English, who had received it from them, (some directly, some at second or third hand) were not so easily prevailed upon to part with a favourite opinion, and even when the generality of them were convinced it was utterly indefensible,
*146 a few could not be persuaded to give it up, but maintain it to this day.
II. 1. for the sake of these who really fear God and desire to know 'the truth as it is in Jesus', it may not be amiss to consider the point with calmness and impartiality. in doing this, I use indifferently the words, Regenerate, Justified, or Believers; since, though they ave not precisely the same meaning, (the First implying an inward, actual change, the Second a relative one and the Third the means whereby both the one and the other are wrought,) yet they come to one and the same thing; as every one that believes, is both justified and born of God.
2. by sin, I here understand inward sin;
any sinful temper, passion or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ.
3. the question is not concerning Outward Sin; whether a child of God Commit Sin or no. we all agree and earnestly maintain, 'He that commiteth sins of the devil'. we agree, 'whosoever is born of God doth not omit sin'. neither do we now inquire
whether inward sin will Always remain in the children of God ;
whether sin will continue in the soul as long as it continues in the body.
nor yet do we inquire whether a justified person may Relapse either into inward or outward sin, but simply this,
Is a justified or regenerate man freed from All Sin as soon as he is justified?
Is thee then no sin in his heart? - nor ever after, unless he fall from grace?
4. we allow that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious.he is born again, 'not of blood nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' he is a child of God, a member of Christ, an heir of the kingdom of heaven 'the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keepeth his heart and mind in Christ Jesus'. his very body is a 'temple of the Holy Ghost', and an 'habitation of God through the Spirit'. he is 'created anew in Christ Jesus'. he is Washed, he is Sanctified . his heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed 'from the corruption that is in the world' 'the love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto him'. and so long s he 'walketh in love' (which he may always do) he worships god in spirit and in truth. he keepeth the commandments of God and doeth
*147 those things that are pleasing in his sight; so exercising himself as to 'have a conscience void of offence, toward God and toward men', and he has power both over outward and inward sin, even from the moment he is justified.
III.1. 'But was he not then freed from all sin, so that there is no sine in his heart?
I can not say this.
I cannot believe it; because St. Paul says the contrary.
he is speaking to believers, and describing the state of believers in general, when he says, 'the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: these are contrary the one to the other'. Gal. 5.17 nothing can be more express. the Apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit even in believers; that even in the regenerate there are 2 principles, 'contrary the one to the other.
2. again: when he writes to the believers at Corinth, to those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, (I Cor. 1.2) he says, 'I, brethren, could not speak unto you, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal? (Chap 3.1-3) now here the Apostle speaks unto those who ere unquestionably believers, - whom, in the same breath,he styles his brethren in Christ, - as being still, in a measure, carnal. he affirms, there was envying, (an evil temper) occasioning strife among them and yet does not give the least intimation that they had lost their faith. nay, he manifestly declares they had not; for then they would not not have been babes in Christ. and (what is most remarkable of all) he speaks of being carnal and babe in Christ, as one and the same thing; plainly showing that every believer is (i a degree) carnal, while he is only a babe in Christ.
3. indeed this grand point , that there are 2 contrary principles in believers, - nature and grace, the flesh and the Spirit, runs through all the Epistles of St. Paul, yea, through all the Holy Scriptures; almost all the directions and exhortations therein are founded on this supposition; pointing at wrong tempers or practices in those who are, notwithstanding, acknowledged by the inspired writers to be believers. and they are continually exhorted to fight with and conquer these, by the power of the faith which was in them.
4. and who can doubt, but there was faith in the angel of the church of Ephesus, when our lord said to him, 'I
*148 know thy works and thy labour and thy patience: thou hast patience and for My name's sake hast laboured and hast not fainted (Rev. 2. 2-4) but was there, meantime, no sin in his heart? Yea, or Christ would not have added, 'Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love'. this was real sin which God saw in his heart; of which, accordingly, he is exhorted to Repent, and yet we have no authority to say, that even then he had no faith.
5. nay, the angel of the church at Pergamos, also, is exhorted to repent, which implies sin, though our Lord expressly says, 'thou hast not denied my faith'. (vss 13,16) and to the angel of the church in Sardis, he says, 'Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die'. the good which remained was Ready To Die, but was not actually dead. (3.2) so there was still a spark of faith even in him, which he is accordingly commanded to Hold Fast (v3)
6. once more: then the Apostle exhorts believers to 'cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit', (2 Cor, 7.1) he plainly teaches, that those believers were not yet cleansed therefrom.
will you answer, 'he that abstains from all appearance of evil, does Ipso Facto (def - from the very nature of the deed) cleanse himself from all filthiness?' not in anywise. for instance: a man reviles me: I feel resentment, which is filthiness of spirit; yet i say not a word. here i 'abstain from all appearance of evil', but this does not cleanse me from that filthiness of spirit, as i experience to my sorrow.
7. and as this position, 'There is no sin in a believer, not carnal mind, no bent to backsliding: a natural tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God and cleave to the things of earth. they are daily sensible of sin remaining in their heart, -pride, self-will, unbelief and of sin cleaving to all they speak and do, even their best actions and holiest duties. yet at the same time they 'know that they are of God', they cannot doubt of it for a moment. they fell His Spirit clearly 'witnessing with their spirit, that they are the children of God'. they rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement'. so that they are equally assured, that sin is in them, and that 'Christ is in them the hope of glory.
*149 8. 'But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is? Undoubtedly he can, otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. where the sickness is, there is the Physician,
Carrying on His work within,
Striving till he cast out sin.
Christ indeed cannot Reign, where sin Reigns; neither will he Dwell where any sin is Allowed. but He Is and Dwells in the heart of every believer, who is Fighting Against all sin; although it be not yet purified, according to the purification of the sanctuary.
9. it has been observed before, that the opposite doctrine - That there is no sin in believers, - is quit new in the church of Christ; that it was never heard of for 1700 years; never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendorf. I do not remember to have seen the least intimation of it, either in any ancient or modern writer; unless perhaps in some of the wild, ranting antinomians. and these likewise say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin In Their Flesh, although no Sin In Their Heart. but whatever doctrine is New must be Wrong; for the Old religion is the only True one and no doctrine can be right, unless it is the very same 'which was from the beginning'.
10. one argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. one says,'I felt anger today'. must i reply, 'The you have no faith? another says, 'I know what you advise is good but my will is quite averse to it'. must i tell him, 'The you are an unbeliever, under the wrath and the curse of God?' what will be he natural consequence of this? why, if he believe what i say, his soul will not only be grieved and wounded, but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch as he will 'cast away' that 'confidence which hath great recompense of reward', and having cast away his shield, how shall he 'quench the fiery darts of the wicked one?' how shall he overcome the world? - seeing 'this is the victory that overcometh the world,even our faith'. he stands disarmed in the midst of his enemies, open to all their assaults. what wonder, then, if he be utterly overthrown; if they take him captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wickedness to another and never see good any more? I cannot, therefore, by any means
*150 receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; First, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture; Secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children of God; - Thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; and, lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal consequences; not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.
IV. 1. however, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavour to support it. and it is, First, from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. they argue thus: 'the Scripture says, Every believer is born of God, is clean, is holy, is sanctified, is pure in heart, has a new heart, is a temple of the holy Ghost. now, as 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh' , is altogether evil, so 'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit', is altogether good, again: A man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean,unsanctified, unholy. he cannot be pure and impure or have anew and an old heart together. neither can his soul be unholy, while it is a temple of the Holy Ghost'.
I have put this objection as strong as possible, that its full weight may appear. let us now examine it, part by part. and, 1. 'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, is altogether good['. i allow the text, but not the comment. for the text affirms this and no more, - that every man who is 'born of the Spirit', is a spiritual man, he is so, but so he may be, and yet not be altogether spiritual. the Christians at Corinth were spiritual men; else they had been no Christians at all; and yet they were not altogether spiritual: they were still, in part, carnal. - 'But they were fallen from grace'. St. Paul says, No. they were even then babes in Christ. 2. 'But a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy'. indeed, he may. so the Corinthians were. 'ye are washed', says the Apostle, 'ye are sanctified', namely, cleansed from 'fornication, idolatry, drunkenness' and all other sin, (I Cor. 6. 9-11) and yet at the same time,in another sense of the world, they were unsanctified; they were not washed, not inwardly cleansed from envy, evil surmising, partiality. 'But sure, they had not new heart and an old heart together'. it is most sure they had, for , at that very time, their hearts were Truly, yet not
*151 Entirely, renewed. their carnal mind was nailed to the cross; yet it was not wholly destroyed. - 'But could they be unholy while they were 'temples of the Holy Ghost ? yes; that they were temples of the Holy Ghost, is certain: (I Cor 4.19) and it is equally certain, they were, in some degree, carnal, that is, unholy.
2. 'However, there is one scripture more which will put the matter out of question: 'if any man be 'a believer 'in Christ he is a new creature. only thins are passed away; behold, all things are become new'. (II Cor. 5.17) now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once'. yes, he may: he may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. they were doubtless 'renewed in the spirit of their mind', or they could not have been so much as 'babes in Christ', yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they Envied one another . 'but it is said expressly, 'old things are passed away: all things are become new'. but we must not so interpret the Apostle's words, as to make him contradict himself. and if we will make him consistent with himself,the plain meaning of the worlds is this: his old judgment concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed concerning the things of God in general, is now passed away; so are his old desires,designs, affections, tempers and conversation. all these are undeniably become new, greatly changed from what they were and yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the old man, too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, though they cannot gain any advantage over him, as long as he watches unto prayer.
3. this whole argument, 'If he is clean, he is clean'; 'if he is holy, he is holy'; (and 20 more expressions of the same kind may easily be heaped together ) is really no better than playing upon words: it is the fallacy of arguing from a Particular to a General; of inferring a general conclusion from particular premises. propose the sentence entire and ti runs thus: 'if he is holy At All, he is holy Altogether'. that does not follow: every babe in Christ is holy and yet not altogether so he is saved from sin; yet not entirely: it Remains, though it does not Reign. if you think it does not Remain, (in babes at least, whatever the case with young men or fathers,) you certainly have not considered the height and depth and length
*152 breadth of the law of God; even the law of love, laid down by the St. Paul in the 13th of Corinthians) and that Every anomia, disconformity to or deviation from, this law is Sin. now, is there no disconformity to this in the heart or life of a believer? what may be in an adult Christian, is another question, but what a stranger must he be to human nature, who can possibly imagine, that this is the case with every babe in Christ!
4. 'but believers walk after the Spirit..(Rom. 8.1)and the Spirit of God dwells in them; consequently, they are delivered from the guilt, the power, or, in one word, the being of sin'.
these are coupled together, as if they were the same thing. but they are not the same thing. but they are not the same thing. the Guilt is one thing, the power another and the Being yet another. that believers are delivered from Guilt and power of sin we allow; that they are delivered from the Being of it we deny. nor does it in an wise follow from these texts. a man may have he Spirit of god dwelling in him, and may 'walk after the Spirit' though he still feels 'the flesh lusting against the Spirit'.
5. but 'the church is the body of Christ' (Col. 1.24) this implies, that its members are washed from all filthiness; otherwise it will follow, that Christ and Belial are incorporated with each other'.
nay, it will not follow from hence, 'Those who are the mystical body of Christ, still feel the flesh lusting against the Spirit', that Christ has any fellowship with the devil or with that sin which he enables them to resist and overcome.
6. 'but are not Christians 'come to the heavenly Jerusalem', where 'nothing defiled can enter? (Heb 12.22) Yes 'and to an innumerable company of angels and to the spirits of just men made perfect' that is,
Earth and heaven all agree;
all is one great family.
and they are likewise holy and undefiled, while they 'walk after the Spirit'; although sensible there is another principle in them and that 'these are contrary to each other'.
*153 7. 'but Christina are reconciled to God. now this could not be, if any of the carnal mind remained; for this is enmity against god: consequently, no reconciliation can be effected by by its total destruction.
we are 'reconciled to God through the blood of the cross' which is enmity with God, is put under our feet the flesh has no more dominion over us. but it still Exists and it is still in its nature enmity with God, lusting against his Spirit.
8. but' they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts'. (Gal. 5.24) they have so, yet it remains in them still and often struggles to break from the cross. 'Nay, but they have 'put off the old man with his deeds'. (Col. 3.9) they have and, in the sense above described, 'old things are passed away; all things are become new.' 100 texts may be cited to the same effect and they will all admit of the same answer - 'But , to say all in one word, 'Christ gave Himself for the Church, that it might be holy and without blemish'. (Eph,. 5.25.27) and so it will be in the end, but it never was yet, from the beginning to this day.
9. 'but let experience speak: all who are justified do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin'. that i doubt; but, if they do,do they find it ever after/ else you gain nothing. 'if they do not, it is their own fault'. that remains to be proved.
10. 'but in the very nature of things, can a man have pride in him and not be proud; anger and yet not be angry?'
a man may have Pride in him, may think of himself in some particulars above what he ought to think, (an so be proud in that particular) and yet not be a proud man in his general character. he may have Anger in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, without Giving Way to it - 'But can anger and pride be in that heart, where Only meekness and humility are felt? no, but Some pride and anger may be in that heart, where there is much humility and meekness
it avails not to say, these tempers are there, but they do not Reign:for sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign; for Guilt and power are essential properties of sin. therefore, where one of them is,all must be'.
Strange indeed! Sin cannot, in any kind or degree Exist
*154 where it does not Reign? absolutely contrary this to all experience, all Scripture, all common sense. resentment of an affront is sin; it is anomia, disconformity to the law of love. this has existed in me a 1000 times. yet it did not and does not Reign - 'but Guilt and power are essential properties of sin, therefore, where one is, all must be'. No, in the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all,no condemnation from God upon that account. and in this case, it has no power, though it 'lusteth against the Spirit', it cannot prevail, here, therefore, as in 10,000 instances, there is Sin without either guilt or Power.
11. but the supposing sin in a believer is pregnant with every thing frightful and discouraging. it implies the contending with a power that has the possession of our strength; maintains his usurpation of our hearts and there prosecutes the war in defiance of our Redeemer'. Not so: the supposing sin is in us, does not imply that it has the possession of our strength; no more than a man crucified has the possession of those hat crucify him. as little does it imply, that 'sin maintains its usurpation of our hearts'. the usurper is dethroned. he remains indeed where he once reigned,but remains In Chains. so that he does, in some sense, 'prosecute the war', yet he grows weaker and weather; while the believer goes on from strength to strength, conquering and to conquer.
12. 'I am not satisfied yet: He that has sin in him, is a slave to sin. therefore, you suppose a man to be justified, while he is a slave to sin now, if you allow men may be justified while they have pride, anger, or unbelief in them; nay, if yo aver,these are (at least for a time) in all that are justified; what wonder that we have so many proud, angry, unbelieving believers?
I do not suppose any man who is justified is a slave to sin, yet I do suppose sin remains (at least for a time) in all that are justified.
but, if sin remains in a believer, he is a sinful man; If pride, for instance, then he is proud; if self-will, then he is self-willed; if unbelief,then he is an unbeliever; consequently, no believer at all. how then does he differ from unbelievers, from unregenerate men? this is still mere playing upon words. it means no more than, if there is sin, pride, self-will in him,
*155 then - there is sin, pride, self-will. and this nobody can deny. in that sense then he is proud or self-willed. but he is not proud or self-willed in the same sense that unbelievers are; that is, Governed by pride or self-will. herein he differs from unregenerate men. they obey sin; he does not. flesh is in them both, but they 'walk after the flesh', he 'walks after the Spirit'.
'but how can Unbelief be in a believer?' that world has 2 meanings. it means either no faith or little faith; either the Absence of faith or the Weakness of it. in the former sense, unbelief is not in a believer; in the later, it is in all babes. their faith is commonly mixed with doubt or fear: that is, in the latter sense, with unbelief. 'Why are ye fearful', says our Lord, 'O ye of little faith? again: 'O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?' you see here was Unbelief in Believers; little faith and much unbelief.
13. 'but this doctrine, that sin remains in a believer; that a man may be in the favour of God, while he has sin in his heart; certainly tends to encourage men in sin'. understand the proposition tight and no such consequence follows. man may be in God's favour though he feel sin, but not if he yields to it Having Sin does not forfeit the favour of God, Giving Way To Sin does. thought the flesh in you 'lust against the Spirit', you may still be a child of God, but if you 'walk after the flesh', you are a child of the devil. no this doctrine does not encourage to obey sin, but to resist it with all our might.
V. 1. the sum of all is this: there are in every person, even after he is justified, 2 contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul, the Flesh and the Spirit. hence, although even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. in a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet, in a degree they are carnal. accordingly,believers are continually exhorted to watch against the flesh, as well as the world and the devil. and to this agrees the constant experience of the children of god. while they feel this witness in themselves, they feel a will not wholly resigned to the will of God. they know they are in him and yet find an heart ready to depart from Him, a proneness to evil in many instances and a backwardness to that which is good. the contrary doctrine is wholly new; never heard of in the church of Christ, from the time of his coming into the world,till the
*156 time of Count Zinzendorf and it is attended with the most fatal consequences. it cuts off all watching against our evil nature, against the Deliah which we are told is gone, though she is still lying in our bosom. it tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world , the flesh and the devil.
2. let us,therefore, hold fast the sound doctrine 'once delivered to the saints' and delivered down by them, with the written word, to all succeeding generations, that,although we are renewed,cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether, but the flesh, the evil nature, still Remains, (though subdued.) and wars against the Spirit. so much the more let us use all diligence in 'fighting the good fight of faith',. so much the more earnestly let us 'watch and pray' against the enemy within. the more carefully let us take to ourselves and 'put on, the whole armor of God '; that,although we wrestle' both 'with flesh and blood and with principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places', we 'may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all, to stand.
I. 1. is there then sin in him that is in Christ?
does sin Remain in one that believes in Him?
is there any sin in them that are born of God, or are they wholly delivered from it?
let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity, or that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. rather it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian; the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness.
2. and yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive Church. indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. and so far as I have ever observed, the whole body of ancient Christians , who
*145 have left us anything in writing , declare with one voice, that even believers in Christ, till they are 'strong in the Lord and in the power of His might', have need to 'wrestle with flesh and blood', with an evil nature, as well as 'with principalities and powers.
3. and herein our own Church (as indeed in most points) exactly copies after the primitive; declaring in her Ninth Article, 'Original sin is the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit. and this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in greek phromana sarkos, is not subject to the law of God. and although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin'.
4. the same testimony is give by all other Churches; not only by the Greek and Romish Church, but by every Reformed Church in Europe, of whatever denomination. indeed some of these seem to carry the thing too far; so describing the dominion over it, but rather is in bondage thereto and, by this means, they leave hardly any distinction between a believer and an unbeliever.
5. to avoid this extreme, many well-meaning men, particularly those under the direction of the late Count Zinzendorf, ran into another; affirming, that all true believers are not only saved from the Dominion of sin, but from the Being of inward as well as outward sin, so that it no longer Remains in them', and from them, about 20 years ago, many of our countrymen imbibed the same opinion, that even the corruption of nature is No More, in those who believe in Christ.
6. it is true that, when the Germans were pressed upon this had, they soon allowed , (many of them at least), that 'sin did still remain In The Flesh, but not In The Heart of a believer', and, after a time, when the absurdity of this was shown, they fairly gave up the point; allowing that sin did still remain, though not reign , in him that is born of God.
7. but the English, who had received it from them, (some directly, some at second or third hand) were not so easily prevailed upon to part with a favourite opinion, and even when the generality of them were convinced it was utterly indefensible,
*146 a few could not be persuaded to give it up, but maintain it to this day.
II. 1. for the sake of these who really fear God and desire to know 'the truth as it is in Jesus', it may not be amiss to consider the point with calmness and impartiality. in doing this, I use indifferently the words, Regenerate, Justified, or Believers; since, though they ave not precisely the same meaning, (the First implying an inward, actual change, the Second a relative one and the Third the means whereby both the one and the other are wrought,) yet they come to one and the same thing; as every one that believes, is both justified and born of God.
2. by sin, I here understand inward sin;
any sinful temper, passion or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ.
3. the question is not concerning Outward Sin; whether a child of God Commit Sin or no. we all agree and earnestly maintain, 'He that commiteth sins of the devil'. we agree, 'whosoever is born of God doth not omit sin'. neither do we now inquire
whether inward sin will Always remain in the children of God ;
whether sin will continue in the soul as long as it continues in the body.
nor yet do we inquire whether a justified person may Relapse either into inward or outward sin, but simply this,
Is a justified or regenerate man freed from All Sin as soon as he is justified?
Is thee then no sin in his heart? - nor ever after, unless he fall from grace?
4. we allow that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious.he is born again, 'not of blood nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' he is a child of God, a member of Christ, an heir of the kingdom of heaven 'the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keepeth his heart and mind in Christ Jesus'. his very body is a 'temple of the Holy Ghost', and an 'habitation of God through the Spirit'. he is 'created anew in Christ Jesus'. he is Washed, he is Sanctified . his heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed 'from the corruption that is in the world' 'the love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto him'. and so long s he 'walketh in love' (which he may always do) he worships god in spirit and in truth. he keepeth the commandments of God and doeth
*147 those things that are pleasing in his sight; so exercising himself as to 'have a conscience void of offence, toward God and toward men', and he has power both over outward and inward sin, even from the moment he is justified.
III.1. 'But was he not then freed from all sin, so that there is no sine in his heart?
I can not say this.
I cannot believe it; because St. Paul says the contrary.
he is speaking to believers, and describing the state of believers in general, when he says, 'the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh: these are contrary the one to the other'. Gal. 5.17 nothing can be more express. the Apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit even in believers; that even in the regenerate there are 2 principles, 'contrary the one to the other.
2. again: when he writes to the believers at Corinth, to those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, (I Cor. 1.2) he says, 'I, brethren, could not speak unto you, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. ye are yet carnal, for whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal? (Chap 3.1-3) now here the Apostle speaks unto those who ere unquestionably believers, - whom, in the same breath,he styles his brethren in Christ, - as being still, in a measure, carnal. he affirms, there was envying, (an evil temper) occasioning strife among them and yet does not give the least intimation that they had lost their faith. nay, he manifestly declares they had not; for then they would not not have been babes in Christ. and (what is most remarkable of all) he speaks of being carnal and babe in Christ, as one and the same thing; plainly showing that every believer is (i a degree) carnal, while he is only a babe in Christ.
3. indeed this grand point , that there are 2 contrary principles in believers, - nature and grace, the flesh and the Spirit, runs through all the Epistles of St. Paul, yea, through all the Holy Scriptures; almost all the directions and exhortations therein are founded on this supposition; pointing at wrong tempers or practices in those who are, notwithstanding, acknowledged by the inspired writers to be believers. and they are continually exhorted to fight with and conquer these, by the power of the faith which was in them.
4. and who can doubt, but there was faith in the angel of the church of Ephesus, when our lord said to him, 'I
*148 know thy works and thy labour and thy patience: thou hast patience and for My name's sake hast laboured and hast not fainted (Rev. 2. 2-4) but was there, meantime, no sin in his heart? Yea, or Christ would not have added, 'Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love'. this was real sin which God saw in his heart; of which, accordingly, he is exhorted to Repent, and yet we have no authority to say, that even then he had no faith.
5. nay, the angel of the church at Pergamos, also, is exhorted to repent, which implies sin, though our Lord expressly says, 'thou hast not denied my faith'. (vss 13,16) and to the angel of the church in Sardis, he says, 'Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die'. the good which remained was Ready To Die, but was not actually dead. (3.2) so there was still a spark of faith even in him, which he is accordingly commanded to Hold Fast (v3)
6. once more: then the Apostle exhorts believers to 'cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit', (2 Cor, 7.1) he plainly teaches, that those believers were not yet cleansed therefrom.
will you answer, 'he that abstains from all appearance of evil, does Ipso Facto (def - from the very nature of the deed) cleanse himself from all filthiness?' not in anywise. for instance: a man reviles me: I feel resentment, which is filthiness of spirit; yet i say not a word. here i 'abstain from all appearance of evil', but this does not cleanse me from that filthiness of spirit, as i experience to my sorrow.
7. and as this position, 'There is no sin in a believer, not carnal mind, no bent to backsliding: a natural tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God and cleave to the things of earth. they are daily sensible of sin remaining in their heart, -pride, self-will, unbelief and of sin cleaving to all they speak and do, even their best actions and holiest duties. yet at the same time they 'know that they are of God', they cannot doubt of it for a moment. they fell His Spirit clearly 'witnessing with their spirit, that they are the children of God'. they rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement'. so that they are equally assured, that sin is in them, and that 'Christ is in them the hope of glory.
*149 8. 'But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is? Undoubtedly he can, otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. where the sickness is, there is the Physician,
Carrying on His work within,
Striving till he cast out sin.
Christ indeed cannot Reign, where sin Reigns; neither will he Dwell where any sin is Allowed. but He Is and Dwells in the heart of every believer, who is Fighting Against all sin; although it be not yet purified, according to the purification of the sanctuary.
9. it has been observed before, that the opposite doctrine - That there is no sin in believers, - is quit new in the church of Christ; that it was never heard of for 1700 years; never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendorf. I do not remember to have seen the least intimation of it, either in any ancient or modern writer; unless perhaps in some of the wild, ranting antinomians. and these likewise say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin In Their Flesh, although no Sin In Their Heart. but whatever doctrine is New must be Wrong; for the Old religion is the only True one and no doctrine can be right, unless it is the very same 'which was from the beginning'.
10. one argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. one says,'I felt anger today'. must i reply, 'The you have no faith? another says, 'I know what you advise is good but my will is quite averse to it'. must i tell him, 'The you are an unbeliever, under the wrath and the curse of God?' what will be he natural consequence of this? why, if he believe what i say, his soul will not only be grieved and wounded, but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch as he will 'cast away' that 'confidence which hath great recompense of reward', and having cast away his shield, how shall he 'quench the fiery darts of the wicked one?' how shall he overcome the world? - seeing 'this is the victory that overcometh the world,even our faith'. he stands disarmed in the midst of his enemies, open to all their assaults. what wonder, then, if he be utterly overthrown; if they take him captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wickedness to another and never see good any more? I cannot, therefore, by any means
*150 receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; First, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture; Secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children of God; - Thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; and, lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal consequences; not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.
IV. 1. however, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavour to support it. and it is, First, from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. they argue thus: 'the Scripture says, Every believer is born of God, is clean, is holy, is sanctified, is pure in heart, has a new heart, is a temple of the holy Ghost. now, as 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh' , is altogether evil, so 'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit', is altogether good, again: A man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean,unsanctified, unholy. he cannot be pure and impure or have anew and an old heart together. neither can his soul be unholy, while it is a temple of the Holy Ghost'.
I have put this objection as strong as possible, that its full weight may appear. let us now examine it, part by part. and, 1. 'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, is altogether good['. i allow the text, but not the comment. for the text affirms this and no more, - that every man who is 'born of the Spirit', is a spiritual man, he is so, but so he may be, and yet not be altogether spiritual. the Christians at Corinth were spiritual men; else they had been no Christians at all; and yet they were not altogether spiritual: they were still, in part, carnal. - 'But they were fallen from grace'. St. Paul says, No. they were even then babes in Christ. 2. 'But a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy'. indeed, he may. so the Corinthians were. 'ye are washed', says the Apostle, 'ye are sanctified', namely, cleansed from 'fornication, idolatry, drunkenness' and all other sin, (I Cor. 6. 9-11) and yet at the same time,in another sense of the world, they were unsanctified; they were not washed, not inwardly cleansed from envy, evil surmising, partiality. 'But sure, they had not new heart and an old heart together'. it is most sure they had, for , at that very time, their hearts were Truly, yet not
*151 Entirely, renewed. their carnal mind was nailed to the cross; yet it was not wholly destroyed. - 'But could they be unholy while they were 'temples of the Holy Ghost ? yes; that they were temples of the Holy Ghost, is certain: (I Cor 4.19) and it is equally certain, they were, in some degree, carnal, that is, unholy.
2. 'However, there is one scripture more which will put the matter out of question: 'if any man be 'a believer 'in Christ he is a new creature. only thins are passed away; behold, all things are become new'. (II Cor. 5.17) now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once'. yes, he may: he may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. they were doubtless 'renewed in the spirit of their mind', or they could not have been so much as 'babes in Christ', yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they Envied one another . 'but it is said expressly, 'old things are passed away: all things are become new'. but we must not so interpret the Apostle's words, as to make him contradict himself. and if we will make him consistent with himself,the plain meaning of the worlds is this: his old judgment concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed concerning the things of God in general, is now passed away; so are his old desires,designs, affections, tempers and conversation. all these are undeniably become new, greatly changed from what they were and yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the old man, too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, though they cannot gain any advantage over him, as long as he watches unto prayer.
3. this whole argument, 'If he is clean, he is clean'; 'if he is holy, he is holy'; (and 20 more expressions of the same kind may easily be heaped together ) is really no better than playing upon words: it is the fallacy of arguing from a Particular to a General; of inferring a general conclusion from particular premises. propose the sentence entire and ti runs thus: 'if he is holy At All, he is holy Altogether'. that does not follow: every babe in Christ is holy and yet not altogether so he is saved from sin; yet not entirely: it Remains, though it does not Reign. if you think it does not Remain, (in babes at least, whatever the case with young men or fathers,) you certainly have not considered the height and depth and length
*152 breadth of the law of God; even the law of love, laid down by the St. Paul in the 13th of Corinthians) and that Every anomia, disconformity to or deviation from, this law is Sin. now, is there no disconformity to this in the heart or life of a believer? what may be in an adult Christian, is another question, but what a stranger must he be to human nature, who can possibly imagine, that this is the case with every babe in Christ!
4. 'but believers walk after the Spirit..(Rom. 8.1)and the Spirit of God dwells in them; consequently, they are delivered from the guilt, the power, or, in one word, the being of sin'.
these are coupled together, as if they were the same thing. but they are not the same thing. but they are not the same thing. the Guilt is one thing, the power another and the Being yet another. that believers are delivered from Guilt and power of sin we allow; that they are delivered from the Being of it we deny. nor does it in an wise follow from these texts. a man may have he Spirit of god dwelling in him, and may 'walk after the Spirit' though he still feels 'the flesh lusting against the Spirit'.
5. but 'the church is the body of Christ' (Col. 1.24) this implies, that its members are washed from all filthiness; otherwise it will follow, that Christ and Belial are incorporated with each other'.
nay, it will not follow from hence, 'Those who are the mystical body of Christ, still feel the flesh lusting against the Spirit', that Christ has any fellowship with the devil or with that sin which he enables them to resist and overcome.
6. 'but are not Christians 'come to the heavenly Jerusalem', where 'nothing defiled can enter? (Heb 12.22) Yes 'and to an innumerable company of angels and to the spirits of just men made perfect' that is,
Earth and heaven all agree;
all is one great family.
and they are likewise holy and undefiled, while they 'walk after the Spirit'; although sensible there is another principle in them and that 'these are contrary to each other'.
*153 7. 'but Christina are reconciled to God. now this could not be, if any of the carnal mind remained; for this is enmity against god: consequently, no reconciliation can be effected by by its total destruction.
we are 'reconciled to God through the blood of the cross' which is enmity with God, is put under our feet the flesh has no more dominion over us. but it still Exists and it is still in its nature enmity with God, lusting against his Spirit.
8. but' they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts'. (Gal. 5.24) they have so, yet it remains in them still and often struggles to break from the cross. 'Nay, but they have 'put off the old man with his deeds'. (Col. 3.9) they have and, in the sense above described, 'old things are passed away; all things are become new.' 100 texts may be cited to the same effect and they will all admit of the same answer - 'But , to say all in one word, 'Christ gave Himself for the Church, that it might be holy and without blemish'. (Eph,. 5.25.27) and so it will be in the end, but it never was yet, from the beginning to this day.
9. 'but let experience speak: all who are justified do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin'. that i doubt; but, if they do,do they find it ever after/ else you gain nothing. 'if they do not, it is their own fault'. that remains to be proved.
10. 'but in the very nature of things, can a man have pride in him and not be proud; anger and yet not be angry?'
a man may have Pride in him, may think of himself in some particulars above what he ought to think, (an so be proud in that particular) and yet not be a proud man in his general character. he may have Anger in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, without Giving Way to it - 'But can anger and pride be in that heart, where Only meekness and humility are felt? no, but Some pride and anger may be in that heart, where there is much humility and meekness
it avails not to say, these tempers are there, but they do not Reign:for sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign; for Guilt and power are essential properties of sin. therefore, where one of them is,all must be'.
Strange indeed! Sin cannot, in any kind or degree Exist
*154 where it does not Reign? absolutely contrary this to all experience, all Scripture, all common sense. resentment of an affront is sin; it is anomia, disconformity to the law of love. this has existed in me a 1000 times. yet it did not and does not Reign - 'but Guilt and power are essential properties of sin, therefore, where one is, all must be'. No, in the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all,no condemnation from God upon that account. and in this case, it has no power, though it 'lusteth against the Spirit', it cannot prevail, here, therefore, as in 10,000 instances, there is Sin without either guilt or Power.
11. but the supposing sin in a believer is pregnant with every thing frightful and discouraging. it implies the contending with a power that has the possession of our strength; maintains his usurpation of our hearts and there prosecutes the war in defiance of our Redeemer'. Not so: the supposing sin is in us, does not imply that it has the possession of our strength; no more than a man crucified has the possession of those hat crucify him. as little does it imply, that 'sin maintains its usurpation of our hearts'. the usurper is dethroned. he remains indeed where he once reigned,but remains In Chains. so that he does, in some sense, 'prosecute the war', yet he grows weaker and weather; while the believer goes on from strength to strength, conquering and to conquer.
12. 'I am not satisfied yet: He that has sin in him, is a slave to sin. therefore, you suppose a man to be justified, while he is a slave to sin now, if you allow men may be justified while they have pride, anger, or unbelief in them; nay, if yo aver,these are (at least for a time) in all that are justified; what wonder that we have so many proud, angry, unbelieving believers?
I do not suppose any man who is justified is a slave to sin, yet I do suppose sin remains (at least for a time) in all that are justified.
but, if sin remains in a believer, he is a sinful man; If pride, for instance, then he is proud; if self-will, then he is self-willed; if unbelief,then he is an unbeliever; consequently, no believer at all. how then does he differ from unbelievers, from unregenerate men? this is still mere playing upon words. it means no more than, if there is sin, pride, self-will in him,
*155 then - there is sin, pride, self-will. and this nobody can deny. in that sense then he is proud or self-willed. but he is not proud or self-willed in the same sense that unbelievers are; that is, Governed by pride or self-will. herein he differs from unregenerate men. they obey sin; he does not. flesh is in them both, but they 'walk after the flesh', he 'walks after the Spirit'.
'but how can Unbelief be in a believer?' that world has 2 meanings. it means either no faith or little faith; either the Absence of faith or the Weakness of it. in the former sense, unbelief is not in a believer; in the later, it is in all babes. their faith is commonly mixed with doubt or fear: that is, in the latter sense, with unbelief. 'Why are ye fearful', says our Lord, 'O ye of little faith? again: 'O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?' you see here was Unbelief in Believers; little faith and much unbelief.
13. 'but this doctrine, that sin remains in a believer; that a man may be in the favour of God, while he has sin in his heart; certainly tends to encourage men in sin'. understand the proposition tight and no such consequence follows. man may be in God's favour though he feel sin, but not if he yields to it Having Sin does not forfeit the favour of God, Giving Way To Sin does. thought the flesh in you 'lust against the Spirit', you may still be a child of God, but if you 'walk after the flesh', you are a child of the devil. no this doctrine does not encourage to obey sin, but to resist it with all our might.
V. 1. the sum of all is this: there are in every person, even after he is justified, 2 contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul, the Flesh and the Spirit. hence, although even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. in a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet, in a degree they are carnal. accordingly,believers are continually exhorted to watch against the flesh, as well as the world and the devil. and to this agrees the constant experience of the children of god. while they feel this witness in themselves, they feel a will not wholly resigned to the will of God. they know they are in him and yet find an heart ready to depart from Him, a proneness to evil in many instances and a backwardness to that which is good. the contrary doctrine is wholly new; never heard of in the church of Christ, from the time of his coming into the world,till the
*156 time of Count Zinzendorf and it is attended with the most fatal consequences. it cuts off all watching against our evil nature, against the Deliah which we are told is gone, though she is still lying in our bosom. it tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world , the flesh and the devil.
2. let us,therefore, hold fast the sound doctrine 'once delivered to the saints' and delivered down by them, with the written word, to all succeeding generations, that,although we are renewed,cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether, but the flesh, the evil nature, still Remains, (though subdued.) and wars against the Spirit. so much the more let us use all diligence in 'fighting the good fight of faith',. so much the more earnestly let us 'watch and pray' against the enemy within. the more carefully let us take to ourselves and 'put on, the whole armor of God '; that,although we wrestle' both 'with flesh and blood and with principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places', we 'may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all, to stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)