We live in a dark and frightening age. One reason for this is the part played by the ideology of inhumanity in our time. The awareness that we are all human beings together has become lost in war and politics. We have reached the point of regarding each other only as members of people either allied with us or against us and our approach: prejudice, sympathy, or antipathy are all conditioned by that. Now we must rediscover the fact that we—all together—are human beings, and that we must strive to concede to each other what moral capacity we have. We generally take three psychological laws for granted and they represent tendencies and are effective. First law: given that family institutions are just, and that the parents love the child and manifestly express their love by caring for one’s good, then the child, recognizing their evident love of one, comes to love them. Second law: given that a person’s capacity for fellow feeling has been realized by acquiring attachments in accordance with the first law, and given that a social arrangement is just and publicly known by all to be just, then this person develops ties of friendly feeling and trust toward others in the association as they with evident intention comply with their duties and obligations, and live up to the ideals of their situation. Third law: given that a person’s capacity for fellow feeling has been realized by one’s forming attachments in accordance with the first two laws, and given that a society’s institutions are just and are publicly known by all to be just, then this person requires the corresponding sense of justice as one recognizes that one and those for whom one cares are the beneficiaries of these arrangements. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

Perhaps the most striking feature of these laws (or tendencies) is that their formulation refers to an institutional setting as being just, and in the last two, as being publicly known to be such. The principles of moral psychology have a place for a conception of justice: and different formulations of these principles result when different conceptions are used. Thus some view of justice enters into the explanation of the development of the corresponding sentiment; hypotheses about this psychological process incorporate moral notions even if these are understood only as part of the psychological theory. This much seems straightforward, and assuming that ethical ideas can be stated clearly, there is no difficulty in seeing how there can be laws of this kind. The preceding outline of moral development indicates how these matters can be worked out. After all, the sense of justice is a settled disposition to adopt and to want to act from the moral point of view insofar at least as the principles of justice define it. It is hardly surprising that these principles should be involved in the formation of this regulative sentiment. Indeed, it seems likely that our understanding of moral learning cannot far exceed our grasp of the moral conceptions that are to be learned. Analogously, our understanding of how we learn our language is limited by what we know about its grammatical and semantic structure. Just as psycholinguists depends upon linguistics, so the theory of moral learning depends upon an account of the nature of morality and its various forms. Our common-sense ideas about these matters do not suffice for the aims of theory. #RadnolphHarris 2 of 23

No doubt some prefer that social theories avoid the use of moral notions. For instance, they may wish to explain the formation of affective ties by laws referring to the frequency of interaction among those engaged in some common task, or to the regularity with which some persons take the initiative or exercise authoritative guidance. Thus one law may state that among equals cooperating together, where equality is defined by the accepted rules, the more often individuals interact with one another, the more likely it is that friendly feelings develop between them. Another law may asset that the more someone in a position of authority uses one’s powers and leads those subject to one, the more they come to respect one. However, since these laws (or tendencies) do not mention the justice (or fairness) of the arrangements in question, they are bound to be very limited in scope. Those who subject to another exercising authority will surely regard one differently depending upon whether the whole arrangement is just and well designed to advance what they take to be their legitimate interests. And the same is true of cooperation among equals. Institutions are patterns of human conduct defined by public systems of rules, and the very holding of the offices and positions which they define normally indicates certain intentions and aims. The justice or injustice of society’s arrangements and human’s beliefs about these questions profoundly influence the social feelings; to a large extent they determine how we regard another’s accepting or rejecting an institution, or one’s attempt to reform or defend it. #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

It may be objected that much social theory does well enough without using any moral ideas. The obvious example is economics. However, the situation in economic theory is peculiar in that one can often assume a fixed structure of rules and constraints that define the actions open to individuals and firms, and certain simplifying motivational assumptions are highly plausible. The theory of price (its more elementary parts anyway) is an illustration. One does not consider why buyers and sellers behave in accordance with the rules of law governing economic activity; or how preferences get formed or legal norms established. For the most part, these matters are taken as given, and at a certain level there is no objection to this. One the other hand, the so-called economic theory of democracy, the view that extents the basic ideas and methods of price theory to the political process, must for all its merits be regarded with caution. For a theory of a constitutional regime cannot take the rules as given, nor simply assume that they will be followed. And while being biblically motivated and informed may give wisdom, it does not necessarily assure political success. In this arena Christians in politics are often at a disadvantage. If one is consumed with politics, their first priority would be the morning newspapers, not the Bible. However, for many Christians, their first priority is not their political career; it is their relationship with God. However, because of that, they tend to be conscientious in their work, their first ambition is not for the continued pursuit of position. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

Christians spurn political infight and place a higher premium on trust than power. The servantlike attitude is so diametrically opposed to society’s that it can easily be mistaken for weakness. In reality it gives a greater strength. The Christian in a position of power is not enslaved by that position—and thus the Christian has tremendous freedom to follow the dictates of conscience, not the fickle winds of self-interest. However, Christian are also exposed to greater struggles of conscience. They are honour bound to be the best states-people they can be, as well as the best Christians they can be. These competing allegiances means that a good Christian can be a good a good politician, but it is probably quite impossible for a good Christian to be a highly successful politician. Foremost is the issue of divided allegiances between God and the state. When there is a conflict of loyalty, the sincere Christian must obey God. Yet the politician’s oath of office is to uphold the laws of the state. The prevailing American view that faith is something private with no effect on public responsibility was first put forth by John Kennedy in a dramatic speech to the Houston Ministerial Association in the 1960 campaign. Protestants feared that Kennedy, a Catholic, would be bound by the dictates of the Roman church. So Kennedy pulled off a political masterstroke when he told the Texas ministers, mostly Baptists, that “whatever issue many come before me as president, if I’m elected…I will male my decision in accordance…with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.” #RanoldphHarris 5 of 23

President Kennedy’s message, which brought the house down, was a key to his election. However, it set a precedent that has now become part of established American political wisdom: One’s religious convictions must have no effect on one’s public decision. However, consider President Kennedy’s words: “No power…could case me to decide otherwise.” Not God? Though President Kennedy’s approach was enormously popular, it was also a renunciation of any influence his religion might have. He subsumed his church responsibility under his patriotism—or his candidacy. By contrast, Hilaire Belloc stood for election in 1906 in the British Parliament. As a Roman Catholic, he knew he would have to struggle to overcome religious prejudices, so he decided to confront the issues head-on. In his first campaign speech, he stood at the rostrum with a rosary in his hand and said, “I am a Catholic. As far as possible I go to Mass every day. As far as possible I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative.” He was elected. What else can a public official do? you may ask. The officeholder in a free society cannot impose personal views on the electorate; the democratic process must be respected in a pluralist society. That is true. Some go on to conclude, however, that the Christian officeholder is thus free, in the name of political prudence, to support or accept the majority will when it is contrary to Christian teaching (a view eloquently espoused by Governor Mario Cuomo in his 1984 Notre Dame address). #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

Religious conviction is thereby reduced to a private matter; the social implications of the gospel are simply ignored. And as we have seen, the results of such privatization can be dangerous to society as a whole. Another position, often taken, is some are prepared to thrust their own theological view on an unsuspecting nation. This view, articulated by some in political debate today, argues that a Christian political should use one’s position to speak for God. However, the issue tends to be not a conflict between human rights or human life and state policy, areas where a Christian leader must take a stand. Rather, it is many times a question of biblical prophecy, whose fulfillment is the responsibility of God, not humans. Some political, if unconsciously, play God. They may be confused about the duty of government. As God’s servant, one’s sworn task is to preserve order, promote justice, and restrain evil, which sometimes means acting decisively to prevent war in a volatile international situation. Richard Neuhaus writes, “To gain public office and take an oath before God to maintain the constitutional order, and then to use that office as a tool for advancing one’s reading of Bible prophecy is an act of hubris, treachery, treason and deceit.” Both view—privatized faith and using political power to play God—are deeply flawed. This brings us full circle: Is it possible for a devout Christian to serve in public office without compromising either one’s conscience or constituency? #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

It is possible. However, only if the Christian officeholder understand several key truths. First, a government official must not play God; one’s duty is to facilitate government’s ordained role of preserving order and justice, not to use government to accomplish the goals of the church. Second, the Christian must respect the rights of all religious groups and insure that government protects every citizen’s freedom of conscience. There is an alternative to the imposition of religious values or the passive acceptance of majority opinion, a principle that pays both pluralism and conscience their due. Christian politicians must do all in their power to make clear, public arguments on issues of moral and political importance, to persuade rather than coerce. A recent Vatican statement put it this way: “Politicians must commit themselves through their interventions upon public opinion, to securing in society the widest possible consensus on…essential points (matters concerning human rights, human lie, or the institution of the family).” A third concern brings us back to the question we have considered in the past. What about the Christian responsibility in an age where national leaders in the nuclear age do not—perhaps, cannot—be entirely candid in public pronouncements? As Secretary of State George Shultz once defended the government’s clandestine actions by quoting Winston Churchill: “In times of war, the truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

However, if a Christian in office is forced to lie against one’s conscience, the Christian should resign. Clearly the political process is importantly one of enacting and revising rules and of trying to control the legislative and executive branches of government. Even if everything is done in accordance with constitutional procedures, we need to explain why these are accepted. Nothing analogous to the constraints of a competitive market holds for this case; and there are no legal sanctions in the ordinary sense for many sorts of unconstitutional actions by parliament and chief executives, and political forces they represent. The leading political actors are guided therefore in part by what they regard as morally permissible; and since no system of constitutional checks and balances succeeds in setting up an invisible hand that can be relied upon to guide the process to a just outcome, a public sense of justice is to some degree necessary. It would appear, then, that a correct theory of justice which explains how moral sentiments influence the conduct of public affairs. I touched upon this question in connection with the role of civil disobedience; it suffices to add here that one test of the contract doctrine is how well is serves this purpose. A second point about the psychological laws is that they govern changes in the affective ties which belong to our final ends. To clarify this, we may observe that to explain an intentional action is to show how, given our beliefs and the available alternatives, it accords with our plan of life, or with that subpart of it relevant in their circumstances. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

Often this is done by a series of explanations saying that a first thing is done in order to achieve a second; that the second thing is done in order to achieve a third, and so on, the series being finite and ending at an aim for the sake of which the previous things are done. In accounting for our various actions, we may cite many different chains of reasons, and these normally stop at different points given the complexity of a plan of life and its plurality of ends. Moreover, a chain of reasons may have several branches, since an action may be done to advance more than ne end. How activities furthering the many ends are scheduled and balanced against each other is settled by the plan itself and the principles upon which it is based. Now among our final ends are the attachments we have for persons, the interest we take in the realization of their interests, and the sense of justice. The three laws describe how our system of desires comes to have new final ends as we acquire affective ties. These changes are to be distinguished from our forming derivative desires as a consequence of additional knowledge or further opportunities, or from our determining our existing wants in a more specific way. For example, someone wishing to travel to a certain place is informed that a certain route is the best. Upon accepting this advice, one has a desire to proceed in a particular direction. Derivative desires of this sort have a rational explanation. They are desires to do what in view of the evidence on hand will most effectively realize our present aims, and they shift along with knowledge and belief, and the available opportunities. #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

The three psychological laws do not provide rational explanations of desires in this sense; rather they characterize transformations of our pattern of final ends that arise from our recognizing the manner in which institutions and the actions of others affect our good. Of course, whether an aim is final or derivative is not always easy to ascertain. The distinction is made on the basis of a person’s rational plan of life and the structure of this plan is not generally obvious, even to one. Yet for our purposes here, the distinction is clear enough. A third observation is that the three laws are not merely principles of association or of reinforcement. While they have a certain resemblance to these learning principles, they assert that the active sentiments of love and friendship, and even the sense of justice, arise from the manifest intention of other persons to act for our good. Because we recognize that they wish us well, we care for their well-being in return. Thus we acquire attachments to persons and institutions according to how we perceive our good to be affected by them. The basic idea is ne of reciprocity, a tendency to answer in kind. Not this tendency is a deep psychological fact. If not impossible, without it our nation would be very different and fruitful social cooperation fragile. For surely a rational person is not indifferent to things that significantly affect one’s good; and supposing that one develops some attitude toward them, one acquires either a new attachment or a new aversion. #RandolphHarris 11 of 23

Humans can no longer life for oneself alone. We must realize that all life is valuable and that we are united to all life. From this knowledge comes our spiritual relation with the Universe. The only way out of today’s misery is for people to become worthy of each other’s trust. If we answered love with hate, or came to dislike those who acted fairly towards us or were averse to activities that further our good, a community would soon dissolve. Beings with a different psychology either have never existed or must soon have disappeared in the course of evolution. A capacity for a sense of justice built up by responses in kind would appear to be a condition of human sociability. The most stable conceptions of justice are presumably those for which the corresponding sense of justice is most firmly based on these tendencies. Finally, several comments about the account of moral development as a whole. The reliance upon the three principles of moral psychology is of course a simplification. A fuller account would distinguish between different kinds of learning and therefore between instrumental conditioning (reinforcement) and classical conditioning, so likely to shape our emotions and feelings. A consideration of modeling and imitation, and the learning of concepts and principles, would also be necessary. There is no reason to deny the significance of these forms of learning. For our purposes, though, the three-stages schema may suffice. Insofar as it stresses the forming of attachments as final ends, the sketch of more learning resembles the empiricist tradition with its emphasis on the importance of acquiring new motives. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

There are also ties with which I have called the rationalistic view. For one thing, the acquisition of the sense of justice takes place in stages connected with the growth of knowledge and understanding. If the sentiment of justice is to be acquired, one must develop a conception of the social World and of what is just and unjust. Only when the human spirit grows powerful within us and guides us back to a civilization based on humanitarian ideal; only then will it act, through our intermediacy, upon those other peoples. All humans are endowed with the faculty of compassion, and for this reason can develop the humanitarian spirit. There is light shining in them, let them manifest an idea and it will radiate. Because I have confidence in the power of Truth and of the spirit, I believe in the future of humankind. The manifest intentions of others are recognized against a background of public institutions as interpreted by one’s view of the elf and its situation. I have not maintained, however, that the stages of development are innate or determined by psychological mechanisms. Whether various native propensities influence these stages is a matter I have left aside. Rather a theory of right and justice is used to describe what the expected course of development might be. The manner in which a well-ordered society is arranged, and the full system of principles, ideals, and precepts that govern the compete scheme, provide a way of distinguishing thee levels of morality. It seems plausible that, in a society regulated by the contract doctrine, moral learning would follow the order presented. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

The stages are determined by the structure f what is to be learned, proceeding from the simpler to the more complex as the requisite capacities are realize. By founding the account of moral learning explicitly upon a particular ethical theory, it is evident in what sense the sequence of stages represents a progressive development and not simply a regular sequence. Just as persons gradually formulate rational plans of life that answer to their deeper interests, so they come to know the derivation of moral precepts and ideals from the principles that they would accept in an initial situation of equality. Ethical norms are no longer experienced merely as constraints, but are tied together into one coherent conception. The connection between these standards and human aspirations is now comprehended, and persons understand their sense of justice as an extension of their natural attachments, and as a way of caring about the collective good. The many chains of reasons with their various stopping points are no longer simply distinct but are seen as elements of a systematic view. Those who espouse a different one will favour another account of these matters. However, in any case, some conception of justice surely has a place in explaining moral learning, even if this conception belongs solely to the psychological theory and is not itself accepted as philosophically correct. When we observe contemporary society one thing strikes us. We debate but make no progress. Why? Because as peoples we do not yet trust each other. #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

It is astounding that humans, the instigator, inventor and vehicle of all these developments, the originator of all judgments and decisions and the planner of the future, must make oneself such a quantie negligeable. The contradiction, the paradoxical evaluation of humanity by humans oneself, is in truth a matter for wonder, and one can only explain it as springing from an extraordinary uncertainty of judgment—in other words, humans are an enigma to themselves. This is understandable, seeing that they lack the means of comparison necessary for self-knowledge. One knows how to distinguish oneself from animals in point of anatomy and physiology, but as a conscious, reflecting being, gifted with speech, one lacks all criteria for self-judgment. One is on this planet a unique phenomenon which ne cannot compare with anything else. The possibility of comparison and hence of self-knowledge would arise only if one could establish relations with quasi-human mammals inhabiting other stars. Until then humans must continue to resemble a hermit who knows that in respect of comparative anatomy one has affinities with the anthropoids but, to judge by appearances, is extraordinarily different from one’s cousins in respect of one’s psyche. It is just in this most important characteristic of one’s species that one cannot know oneself and therefore remains a mystery to oneself. The differing degrees of self-knowledge within one’s own species are of little significance compared with the possibilities which would be opened out by an encounter with a creature of similar structure but different origin. #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

Our psyche, which is primarily responsible for all the historical changes wrought by the hand of humans on the face of this planet, remains an insoluble puzzle and an incomprehensible wonder, an object of abiding perplexity—a feature it shares with all Nature’s secrets. In regard to the latter will still have hope of making more discoveries and finding answers to the most difficult questions. However, in regard to the psyche and psychology there seems to be a curious hesitancy. Not only is it the youngest of the empirical sciences, but it has great difficulty in getting anywhere near its proper object. In the same way that our picture of the World had to be freed by Copernicus from the prejudice of egocentricity, the most strenuous efforts of a well-nigh revolutionary nature were needed to free psychology, first from the spell of mythological ideas, and then from the prejudice that the psyche is, on the one hand, a mere epiphenomenon of a biochemical process in the brain and, on the other hand, a purely personal matter. The connection with the brain does not in itself prove that the psyche is an epiphenomenon, a secondary function casually dependent on biochemical processes in the physical substrate. Nevertheless, we know only too well how much the psychic function can be disturbed by verifiable processes in the brain, and this fact is so impressive that the subsidiary nature of the psyche seems an almost unavoidable inference. The phenomena of parapsychology, however, warn us to be careful, for they point to a relativization of space and time through psychic factors which casts doubt on our naïve and overhasty explanation in terms of psychophysical parallelism. #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

For the sake of this explanation people deny the finding of parapsychology outright, either for philosophical reasons or for intellectual laziness. This can hardly be considered a scientifically responsible attitude, even though it is a popular way of a quite extraordinary intellectual difficulty. To assess the psychic phenomenon, we have to take account of all the other phenomena that go with it, and accordingly we can no longer practise any psychology that ignores the existence of the unconscious or of parapsychology. The structure and physiology of the brain furnish no explanation of the psychic process. The psyche has a peculiar nature which cannot be reduced to anything else. Like physiology, it presents a relatively self-contained field of experience, to which we must attribute a quite special importance because it includes one of the two indispensable conditions for existence as such, namely, the phenomenon of consciousness. Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no World, for the World exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being. Thus the psyche is endowed with the dignity of a cosmic principle, which philosophically and in fact gives it a position co-equal with the principle of physical beings. The carrier of this consciousness in the individual, who does not produce the psyche of one’s own volition but is, on the contrary, preformed by it and nourished by the gradual awakening of consciousness during childhood. If therefore the psyche is of overriding empirical importance, so also is the individual, who is the only immediate manifestation of the psyche. #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

This fact must be expressly emphasized for two reasons. Firstly, the individual psyche, just because of its individuality, is an exception to the statistical rule and is therefore robbed of one of its main characteristics when subjected to the levelling influence of statistical evaluation. Secondly, the Churches grant it validity only in so far as it acknowledges their dogmas—in other words, when it submits to a collective category. In both cases the will to individuality is regarded as egotistic obstinacy. Science devalues this as subjectivism, and the Churches condemn it morally as heresy and spiritual pride. As to the latter charge, it should not be forgotten that, unlike other religions, Christianity holds up before us a symbol whose content is the individual way of life of a man, the Son of Man, and that it even regards this individuation process as the incarnation and revelation of God Himself. Hence the development of man into a self acquires a significance whose full implications have hardly begun to be appreciated, because too much attention to externals blocks the way to immediate inner experience. Were not the autonomy of the individual the secret longing of many people it would scarcely be able to survive the collective suppression either morally or spiritual. All these obstacles make it more difficult to arrive at a correct appreciation of the human psyche, but they count for very little beside one other remarkable fact that deserves mentioning. This is the common psychiatric experience that the devaluation of the psyche and other resistances to psychological enlightenment are based in large measure on fear—on panic fear of the discoveries that might be made in the realm of the unconscious. #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

These fears are not found only among persons who are frightened by the picture Dr. Freud painted of the unconscious; they also troubled the originator of psychoanalysis himself, who confessed to me that it was necessary to make a dogma of his sexual theory because this was the sole bulwark of reason against a possible “eruption of the black flood of occultism.” In these words of Dr. Freud was expressing his conviction that the unconscious still harboured many things that might lend themselves to “occult” interpretation, as is in fact the case. These “archaic vestiges,” or archetypal forms grounded on the instincts and giving expression to them, have a numinous quality that sometimes arouses fear. They are ineradicable, for they represent the ultimate foundations of the psyche itself. They cannot be grasped intellectually, and when one has destroyed one manifestation of them, they reappear in altered form. It is this fear of the unconscious psyche which not only impedes self-knowledge but is the gravest obstacle to a wider understanding and knowledge of psychology. Often this fear is so great that one dares not admit it even to oneself. This is a question which every religious person should consider very seriously; one might get an illuminating answer. We behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of God to give. “I do nothing of Myself,” said Christ; “the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father.” “I seek not Mine own glory, but the glory of Him that sent Me.” John 8.28; 6.57; 8.50; 7.18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the Universe. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the Heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings; through the beloved Son, the Father’s life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of the great character. Moroni said that with this golden book were two stones in silver bows called the Urim and Thummim, which were fastened to a breastplate. These were prepared by God to be used in translating the book. He explained that in ancient times, as related in the Bible, prophets possessed and used Urim and Thummim and breastplate. Those who used them were called “seers.” The angel explained that many prophecies of the Bible were about to be fulfilled. He quoted Scripture after Scripture from the Bible concerning these prophecies. Joseph Smith was cautioned that after he received the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and breastplate, he must not show them to anyone. As the angel talked, Joseph saw in a vision the place where the plates were hidden. Then the light in the room gathered around the angel Moroni and he disappeared from Joseph’s sight. As Joseph lay on his bed thinking about this wonderful experience, the room suddenly became bright again and the same Heavenly messenger stood at his bedside. He told the young man exactly the same things he had on his first visit, and showed the same vision. Then he disappeared in the same manner. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

After having been told these things twice, Joseph thought he could not forget them, but to his amazement the same messenger returned and repeated the same things as before. This time he cautioned Joseph that Satan would tempt him to obtain the plates for the purpose of getting rich. Joseph was forbidden to do this and was told that he must have no other reason for obtaining the plates than to glorify God; otherwise he could not have them. Almost immediately after the angel Moroni has ascended into Heaven following his third visits, and while Joseph lay thinking of the experiences of the night, he heard the cock crow in the barnyard. He realized then that morning had arrived and that his interviews with the Heavenly messenger had occupied the whole night. Predestination is the foreknowledge of God’s benefits. However, foreknowledge is not the things foreknown, but in the person who foreknows them. Therefore, predestination is in the one who predestines, and not in the predestined. Predestination is not anything in the predestined; but only in the person who predestines. Predestination is a part of providence. Now providence is not anything in the things provided; but is a type in the mind of the provider. However, the execution of providence which is called government, is in a passive way the thing governed, and in an active way the governor. Whence it is clear that predestination is type the ordering of some persons toward eternal salvation, existing in the divine mind. The execution, however, of this order is in a passive way in the predestined, but actively in God. The execution of predestination is the calling and magnification; accord to the Apostle (Romans 3.30): “Whom He predestined, them He also called and whom He called, them He also magnified.” #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

Actions passing out to external matter imply of themselves passion—for example, the actions of warming and cutting; but not so actions remaining in the agent, as understanding and willing. Predestination is an action of this latter class. Wherefore, it does not put anything in the predestined. However, its execution, which passes out to external thing, has an effect in them. Destination sometimes denotes a real mission of someone to a given end; thus, destination can only be said of someone actually existing. It is takes, however, in another sense a mission which a person conceives in the mind; and in this manner we are aid to destine a thing which we firmly propose in our mind. In this latter way it is said that Eleazar “determined not to do any unlawful things for the love of life,” reports 2 Maccabees 6.20. Thus destination can be of a thing which does not exist. Predestination, however, by reason of the antecedent nature it implies, can be attributed to a thing which does not actually exist; in whatsoever ways destination is accepted. Preparation is twofold: of the patient in respect to passion and this is in the thing prepared; and f the agent to action, and this is in the agent. Such a preparation is predestination and as an agent by intellect is said to prepare itself to act, accordingly as it preconceives the idea of what is to be done. Thus, God from all eternity prepared by predestination, conceiving the idea of the order of some towards salvation. Grace does not come into the definition of predestination, as something belonging to its essence, but inasmuch as predestination implies a relation to grace, as of cause to effect, and of act to its object. #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

Whence it does not follow that predestination is anything temporal. We may take comfort in the fact that the Overself never at any moment abandons or obliterates the human personality, however debased it becomes. Nor could it do so, whatever foolish cults say to the contrary, for through this medium it finds an expression in time-space. When we say that the Overself is within the heart, it would be a great error to think that we mean it is limited to the heart. For the heart is also within it. This seeming paradox will yield to reflection and intuition. The mysterious relationship between the ego and the Overself has been expressed by Jesus Christ in the following words: “The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.” Do not day that I will depart tomorrow because even today I still arrive. Look deeply: I arrive in every second to be a bud on a spring branch, to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile, learning to sing in my new nest, to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower, to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone. We invoke Thy divine assistance upon this entire congregation, its men and women as well as its children. May there by a vouchsafed unto them salvation from Heaven, grace, lovingkindness, and mercy, long life, ample sustenance, health of body and enlightenment of the mind. May you be blessed with children who will not neglect the Scripture. May the Ruler of the Universe bless you, prolong your lives, increase your days, and add to your years. May you be saved and delivered from every trouble and misfortune. May the Lord of Heaven be your help at all times and reasons; and let us say, Amen. I declare every barrier to the promise of God for you is being broken in the name of Jesus! The floodgates are being opened! #RandolphHarris 23 of 23

MILLS STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA |

Now Selling!

Cresleigh Homes offers exquisite architectural designs with the ability to personalize space and style, plus expansive home sites.

Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch is Rancho Cordova’s newest

home community! This charming neighborhood offers an array of home types with eye catching architecture styles such as Mission, Mid-Century Modern, California Modern, and Contemporary Farmhouse.

Located off Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway, the residents of Cresleigh Ranch will enjoy, being just minutes from shopping, dining, and entertainment, and quick access to Highway 50 and Grant Line Road providing a direct route into Folsom. Residents here also benefit from no HOA fees, two community parks and the benefits of being a part of the highly-rated Elk Grove Unified School District.

Cresleigh Ranch