California is part of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the World. Now, I am not expecting you to believe me, but what I tell you is he truth. No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear. Every civilization has a hidden code—a set of rules or principles that run through all its activities like a repeated design. As industrialism pushed across the planet, its unique hidden design became visible. It consisted of a set of six interrelated principles that programmed the behaviour of millions. Growing naturally out of the divorce of production and consumption, these principles affected every aspect of life from romance and sports to work and national security. Much of the angry conflict in our schools, businesses, and governments today actually centers on these half-dozen principles, as Second Wave people instinctively apply and defend them and Third Wave people challenge and attack them. However, this is getting ahead of the story. The most familiar of these Second Wave principles is standardization. Everyone knows that industrial societies turn out millions of identical products. Fewer people have stopped to notice, however, that once the market became important, we did more than simply standardize Coca-Cola bottles, light bulbs, and automobile transmissions. We applied the same principle to many other things. Among the first to grasp the importance of this idea was Theodore Vail who, at the turn of the century, built the American Telephone & Telegraph Company into a giant. (Not to be confused with the multinational ITT, the International Telephone & Telegraph Corporations.) #RandolphHarris 1 of 26

Working as a railway postal clerk in the late 1860’s, Mr. Vail had noticed that no two letters necessarily when to their destination via the same route. Sacks of mail traveled back and forth, often taking weeks or months to reach their destinations. Mr. Vail introduced the idea of standardized routing—all letter going to the same place would go the same way—and helped revolutionize the post office. When he later formed AT&T, he set out to place an identical telephone in every American home. Mr. Vail standardized not only the telephone handset and all its components but AT&T’s business procedures and administration as well. In a 1908 advertisement he justified his swallowing up small telephone companies by arguing for “a clearing-house of standardization” that would ensure economy in “construction of equipment, lines and conduit, as well as in operating methods and legal work,” not to mention “a uniform system of operating and accounting.” What Mr. Bail recognized is that to succeed in the Second Wave environment, “software”—id est, procedures and administrative routines—had to be standardized along with hardware. Mr. Vail was only one of the Great Standardizers who shaped industrial society. Another was Frederick Winslow Taylor, a machinist turned crusader, who believed that work could be made scientific by standardizing the steps each worker performed. In the early decades of this century Mr. Taylor decided that there was one best (standard) way to perform each job, one best (standard) tool to perform it with, and a stipulated (standard) time in which to complete it. #RandolphHarris 2 of 26

Armed with this philosophy, Mr. Taylor became the World’s leading management guru. In his time, and later, he was compared with Dr. Freud, Karl Marx, and Benjamin Franklin. Nor were capitalist employers, eager to squeeze the last ounce of productivity from their workers, alone in their admiration for Taylorism, with its efficiency experts, piecework schemes, and rate-busters. Communists shared their enthusiasm. Indeed, Vladimir Lenin urged Mr. Taylor’s methods be adapted for use in socialist production. An industrializer first and a Communist second, Mr. Lenin, too, was a believer in standardization. In Second Wave societies, hiring procedures as well as work were increasingly standardized. Standardized tests were used to identify and weed out the supposedly unfit, especially in the civil service. Pay scales were standardized throughout whole industries, along with fringe benefits, lunch hours, holidays, and grievance procedures. To prepare youth for the job market, educators designed standardized curricula. Men alike Alfred Binet and Lewis Terman devised standardized intelligence tests. School grading policies, admission procedures, and accreditation rules were similarly standardized. The multiple-choice test came into its own. The mass media, meanwhile, disseminated standardizing imagery, so that millions read the same advertisements, the same news, the same short stories. The repression of language used by marginalized ethnicities and cultures was implemented by central governments, combined with the influence of mass communications, led to the near disappearance of local and regional dialects or even whole languages, such as Welsh and Alsatian. #RandolphHarris 3 of 26

“Standard” American, English, French, or, for that matter, Russian, supplanted “nonstandard” languages. Different parts of the country began to look alike, as identical gas stations, billboards, and houses cropped up everywhere. The principle of standardization ran through every aspect of daily life. At an even deeper level, industrial civilization needed standardized weights and measures. It is no accident that one of the first acts of the French Revolution, which ushered the age of industrialism into France, was an attempt to replace the crazy-quilt patchwork of measuring units, common in preindustrial Europe, with the metric system and a new calendar. Uniform measures were spread through much of the World by the Second Wave. Moreover, if mass production required the standardization of machines, products, and processes, the ever-expanding market demanded a corresponding standardization of money, and even prices. Historically, money had been issued by banks and private individuals as well as by kings. Even as late as the nineteenth century privately minted money was still in use in parts of the United States of America, and the practice lasted until 1935 in Canada. Gradually, however, industrializing nations suppressed all nongovernmental currencies and managed to impose a single standard currency in their place. Until the nineteenth century, moreover, it was still common for buyers and sellers in industrial countries to haggle over every sale in the time-honoured fashion of a Cairo bazaar. #RandolphHarris 4 of 26

In 1825 a young Northern Irish immigrant named A. T. Stewart arrived in New York, opened a dry-goods store, and shocked customers and competitors alike by introducing a fixed price for every item. This one-price policy—price standardization—made Mr. Stewart one of the merchant princes of his era and cleared away one of the key obstacles to the development of mass distribution. Whatever their other disagreements, advanced Second Wave thinks shared the conviction that standardization was efficient. At many levels, therefore, the Second Wave brought a flattening out of differences through a relentless application of principle of standardization. Speculators were quick to see the financial opportunities in building commuter suburbs. Many of those who invested in streetcar lines were primarily interested in real estate profits rather than managing transit companies. Real estate speculators realized that having a streetcar line running to their properties did wonders for sales. The trolley was a subdivider’s dream, since previously marginal land that had been purchased at low cost could not be subdivided and sold at tremendous profit. Thus, for example, in Boston, the West End Line was originally established from Boston to Brookline by Henry Whitney to attract customers to his land. Nor was land speculation restricted to the largest cities. In Richmond, Virginia, where the electric streetcar had been invented, William Ginter built a streetcar line at his own expense in order to boom his north side upper-class commuter suburb of Ginter Parl. The streetcar line lost money, but the development more than made up for it in sold lots. #RandolphHarris 5 of 26

The most extensive system created primarily to sell real estate was developed by Henry E. Huntington in the Los Angeles, California USA area. His Pacific Electric Railway Company operated an extensive system of “Big Red” interurbans (heavier built streetcars for longer runs). Interurbans radiated out from Los Angeles throughout the Los Angeles basin area. Huntington consciously operated interurban streetcar lines to new areas at a loss in order to spur sales of his real estate holdings. Decades before the automobile was a potent force, Huntington’s interurbans had invented urban sprawl. Trying together spatially separate new communities of homeowners, the streetcars created the multicentered Los Angeles of today. Automobiles are often blamed for the sprawl of Los Angeles area; but the automobile did not create the sprawl—it simply allowed the orange groves between communities to be filled in. None of this is to suggest that trolley lines were not economic money-makers in their own right. Electrification of existing horsecar lines and consolidation of smaller companies into traction franchises made huge fortunes for company owners. The handful of owners of New York’s Metropolitan Street Railway Company made $100,000, 000 USD (approximately $3,130,174, 418.60 in 2021 dollars). In Chicago, Charles Yerkes, by astute business sense and a willingness to use bribery and unethical practices, had consolidated most of that city’s streetcars under his control. In so doing, he also became one of the most hated men in the city. His arrogant demand that he be given the sole franchise for the city for fifty years only failed to pass a bribed Chicago City Council because of the outage of an armed mob of city residents who stormed City Hall. (Unrepentant, Yerkes moved to England and bought the London Underground.) #RandolphHarris 6 of 26

Only after World War I did the streetcar companies, with their fixed nickel fares, increasing operating and maintenance costs, and aging equipment, becomes money-loosing operations. By this time, earlier excesses of the traction companies had made fare increases virtually impossible. In city after city transit companies were being sandwiched between rising costs and fixed revenues. Particularly during World War I, there were sharp increases in the wages paid transit operators, and older, heavily used equipment needed replacement. Most transit system, however, were tied to a 5-cent fare, and any attempt to raise fares led to massive public outcries. Given the fortunes made by earlier transit owner “robber barons,” there was little public sympathy for transit companies. Now was there any support for public subsidies or tax relief for what were seen as private companies. The use of public monies for the building and maintenance of roads for automobile usage was, on the other hand, viewed as necessary. Streetcar companies thus cut back on service and equipment, which in turned caused them to lose more riders to the faster and more flexible automobiles. Nor could bus lines ever win back automobile users. In spite of the riches initially going to the owners and investors, the electric street railways were a bargain for passengers. The standard fare was 5 cents, which was half the cost of the horsecars. Moreover, the consolidated trolley lines would take one anywhere in the system, and transfers were free. At the turn of the century, the trolleys were transporting customers to the extent of 2 billion trips a year. The streetcar had become an American way of life. From this point on, American city dwellers, and more important, suburbanites, would take easy and rapid mobility for granted as a basic right. #RandolphHarris 7 of 26

While the electric streetcar made middle-class suburbanization possible, the automobile was to make suburbanization the dominant residential pattern. As the twentieth century opened, the automobile was strictly a novelty—a rich man’s plaything. In all North America, there were only 8,000 horseless carriages, and most of these both expensive and highly unreliable vehicles. What changed North America into a continent of automobiles was Henry Ford’s Model T. The Model T was first introduced in 1908 and remained in production until 1927. The use of assembly line techniques and few variations (exempli gratia, Model T’s came in one colour—black) meant that the price of the “flivver” kept dropping during the two decades of its production. By the mid-1920s, a new basic Model T, which, when introduced, had cost $950.00 ($14,613.44 in 2021 dollars), could be bought for under $300 ($4,614.77 in 2021 dollars), while used models sold for as little as $50.00 ($769.13 in today’s dollars). (This promoted a social revolution as well, for it meant that young people with autos could easily escape the chaperonage of adults.) Ford’s assembly lines revolutionized auto manufacture by turning out a thousand completed cars every working day. The Model T looked ungainly, but although modestly powered, it was remarkably durable and dependable. Its high ground clearance meant it could navigate even rutted country roads, and it was so simple to repair that any farm boy could fix it. Moreover, the “Tin Lizzie” was inexpensive enough for the average middle-class urban or farm family to own. #RandolphHarris 8 of 26

By the time Ford finally brought out his new Model A in 1927, some 16 million Model T’s had been built, and every second vehicle on the road was a Ford. The rise in automobile registrations indicated how Ford’s assembly lines were bringing a revolution that was changing the face of America. Registrations jumped from 2.5 million in 1915 to 9 million in 1920. This was in spite of automobiles being defined as nonessential for production during the 1917-1918 period, when he United States of America was in World War I. By 1930 auto registrations has skyrocketed to 26.5 million, and in spite of the Great Depression, another 4.5 million cars were added during the 1930s. (Today the United States has 276 million cars registered with a population of 332 million people.) The widespread usage of automobiles by the 1920s meant that cars were being increasingly viewed as necessities rather than as simply recreational vehicles. The Sunday afternoon ride in the car might still take place, but for those suburbanites located near a rail or streetcar track, the auto was a commuting necessity. The automobile made possible the development of previously inaccessible land not served by mass transit. The consequence was a suburban middle-class housing boom in the 1920s. The wide interstitial areas between the transit lines could now be profitably developed. Land speculators, home builders, and those middle-class families owning an automobile no longer were tied to narrow corridors of development. By 1941 the Bureau of Public Roads reported that over 2,100 communities ranging in size up to 50,000 population were without any form of public transportation. Those commuters who could afford the cost of an auto could now drive to work and live where they pleased within a reasonable commuting distance. #RandolphHarris 9 of 26

Automobile suburbs were built at lower densities than earlier suburbs that were tied to fixed transit lines. Both newer and more established suburbs also began using the newly developed planning tool of zoning in order to exclude not only commercial activities but also inexpensive homes on small lots. Zoning laws came into widespread usage following the pioneering New York City Zoning Resolution of 1916 and subsequent court cases that ruled that zoning was a legal use of the police power of a municipality. Suburbs, whether upper or middle class, also sought to exclude not only less expensive homes, but also residents who did not match the racial, ethnic, and even religious makeup of existing residents. This was done in two ways. The simplest and most effective was through pressure on realtors not to show or sell homes to unwanted groups. Thus, if it were an all-Protestant suburb, Catholics or Jewish would be “steered” to other areas. The second method used was that of establishing for an area exclusive “restrictive covenants.” Restrictive covenants placed legal restrictions on property deeds, which prevented the resale of the property to specific groups. Some groups would have to pay well above market price, even if others were not interested in the home, just to be able to buy into the community because no one would sale to them or would not sale to them unless it was well above market value. As of 1950 over thirty-three percent of the homes in Los Angeles, California had restrictive covenants. By means of restrictive covenants and informal real estate practices, pre-World War II suburbs were stratified tightly according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Only in 1948 did the Supreme Court say such restrictions were unenforceable, and not until the 1968 Fair Housing Act were restrictive covenants declared illegal. #RandolphHarris 10 of 26

During the 1920 middle-class, auto-based suburbs sprang up surrounding every major city. The pattern of auto-based suburbs continued, although at a far reduced pace, throughout the Depression years of 1930s. By the eve of World War II, the auto had become the prime means of suburbanites, and even many city dwellers, commuting to work. This was true even in the older suburbs having public transit. In fact, by the beginning of the 1930s, over half of the commuter in all but the largest cities already were driving to work. Commuters in New York and Chicago still relied primarily on mass transit lines, but mot of those in Washington, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Kanas City, and Los Angeles drove. New York, and to a lesser extent Chicago, retained reliance on public transport in the center of the city both because there were few places for commuters to park their automobiles. Even today one finds New Yorkers who do not and cannot drive. However, in smaller cities, even before the mass suburbanization following World War II, the American suburbanite was committed to automobile commuting. Commuter suburbs built before the second World War largely were bedroom suburbs. They remained dependent on the central city for employment, entertainment, major shopping, and most services. However, they were fiercely politically and legally independent. The result was that the city, which had earlier lost it ability to annex suburbs along the railroad and streetcar corridors, now was virtually surrounded by suburban entities. The city had been encircled and banded by a ring of municipalities so that annexation was virtually impossible. #RandolphHarris 11 of 26

All of the consequences of this inability to expand were not perceived in the 1920s and 1930s. During the 1920s, the cities were economically strong, and during the Depression the focus was on retrenchment. There was little concern about the problems of suburbs liming city growth. Only during the housing boom following World War II did all of the consequences of banding the city with a ring of independent suburbs become evident. Evolutionary psychologists have explored our presumed human special capacity for altruism—for selflessly helping and caring for others. The theologian Jurgen Moltmann has said that self-giving is “God’s trinitarian nature, and is therefore a mark of all His works.” Clearly, self-giving is found not just in God’s human work. “Aiding others at the cost or risk to oneself is widespread in the animal kingdom,” notes Frans de Waal. So, there goes another claim to our uniqueness. Scripture does not confine “soulishness” to humans and neither does biology. However, as we have also seen, just because two behaviours are superficially similar is no reason to assume that the underlying mechanism and thinking patterns are identical. Self-giving, self-sacrificing behaviours are superficially similar is no reason to assume that the underlying mechanisms and thinking patterns are identical. Self-giving, self-sacrificing behaviour appears in different animals. However, that in itself tell us nothing about what underlies those behaviours. Self-giving behaviour may, for example, occur with or without self-awareness. Dr. De Waal had no doubt that “evolution has produced the requisites for mortality: a tendency to develop social norms and enforce the, to capacities of empathy and sympathy, mutual assistance and a sense of fairness, the mechanisms of conflict resolution, and so on.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 26

It seems, therefore, that there are good arguments for believing that some aspects of self-giving and self-limiting behaviour have developed over evolutionary history and become more and more pronounced among nonhuman primates. Those of us who begin from theistic presuppositions can see embedded with creation the seeds, development, and fruit of self-giving behaviour, which is built into the brain and has fully flowered in humankind. Such behaviour is not rigidly determined but is expressed moment to moment as people live in community and make personal choices. We need not deny the emergence of self-giving behaviour, which is built into the brain and has fully flowered in humankind. Such behaviour is not rigidly determined but is expressed moment to moment as people live in community and make personal choices. We need not deny the emergence of self-giving altruism in primate in order to defend the unique self-emptying sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That, we believe, was a unique and ultimate act that sets Christ apart from all others. If evolutionary science nevertheless seems to erode one’s sense of our mystery and spiritual significance, consider this: knowing how something came to be and how it works need never destroy our appreciation for its beauty and uniqueness. A music student who comes to understand the physics of organ sound can still savour the grandeur of Bach played on a great organ. As long ago as the fifth century, St. Augustine was able to express this awe from human creatures embedded in a long history: “The Universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state, but was gifted with the capacity to transform itself from unformed matter into a truly marvelous array of structures and life forms.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 26

Looking back to the birth of the Universe also evokes our sense of awe. It blows our minds—the entire Universe apparently inflating in an essential instant from a mere point to cosmological size. Scientists tells us that if energy in this Big Bang hand been infinitesimally less, the Universe would have collapsed back on itself. Had it been the teeniest bit more, the resulting thin Universe would never have supported life. As it is, the Universe is exquisitely “fine-tuned,” just precisely right to produce intelligent beings. Is there a benevolent Creator behind it? Although science is silent on that, it does offer us an amazing picture of an extraordinary nature that over time has given rise to everything from bacteria to the human brain. Our nature may be, as the Bible says, from dust to dust, but we are also amazing, priceless creatures, made in God’s own image for relationship with one another and with our creator. Therefore, the study of animal behaviour and cognition has a long history in psychology and poses no troubling issues for Christians. Attempts to specify uniquely human traits, such as the ability to read others’ minds, to display self-giving altruism, or to use language, have foundered with observations of animal mind reading and animal altruism, and with the training of chimpanzees to communicate by sign. However, then, scholars remind us that surface behaviour similarities between humans and other animals need not signify identical underlying processes. Moreover, animal cognition and helping is only a budding form of human thinking and altruism, and but a pale reminder of the infinite intelligence and love of God. #RandolphHarris 14 of 26

Finally, acknowledging the long emergence of life on Earth need not diminish by one iota our sense of awe at our own mysterious workings and spiritual significance. We must infer that the first words humans used had a much broader meaning in their minds than do those used in languages that are already formed; and that, being ignorant of the division of discourse into its constitutive parts, at first they gave each word the meaning of a whole sentence. When they began to distinguish subject from attribute and very from noun, which was no mean effort of genius, substantives were at first only so many proper nouns; the [present] infinitive was the only verb tense; and the notion of adjectives must have developed only with considerable difficulty, since every adjective must have developed only with considerable difficulty, since every adjective is an abstract word, and abstractions are difficult and no particularly natural operations. At first each object was given a particular name, without regard to genus and species which for those first founders were not in a position to distinguish; and all individual things presented themselves to their minds in isolation, as they are in the spectacle of nature. If one oak tree was called A, another was called B. [For the first idea one draws from two things is that they are not the same; and it often requires quite some time to observe what they have in common.] Thus the more limited the knowledge, the more extensive becomes the dictionary. The difficulty inherent in all this nomenclature could not easily be alleviated, for in order to group beings under various common and generic denominations, it was necessary to know their properties and their differences. Observations and definitions were necessary, that is to say, natural history and metaphysics, and far more than men of those times could have had. #RandolphHarris 15 of 26

Moreover, general ideas can be introduced into the mind only with the assistance of words, and the understanding grasps them only through sentences. That is one reason why animals cannot form such ideas or even acquire the perfectibility that depends on them. When a monkey moves unhesitatingly from one nut to another, does anyone think the monkey had the general idea of that type of fruit and that one compares its archetype with these two individuals? Undoubtedly not; but the sight of one of these nuts recalls to one’s memory the sensations one received of the other; and one’s eyes, modified in a certain way, announce to one’s sense of taste the modification it is about to receive. Every general idea is purely intellectual. The least involvement of the imagination thereupon makes the idea particular. Try to draw for yourself the image of a tree in general; you will never succeed in doing it. In spite of yourself, it must be seen as small or large, barren or leafy, light or dark; and if you were in a position to see in it nothing but what you see in every tree, this image would no longer resemble a tree. Purely abstract beings are perceived in the same way, or are conceived only through discourse. The definition of a triangle alone gives you the true idea of it. As soon as you behold one in your mind, it is a particular triangle and not some other one, and you cannot avoid making its lines to be perceptible or it plane to have a colour. It is therefore necessary to utter sentences, and thus to speak, in order to have general ideas. For as soon as the imagination stops, the mind proceeds no further without the assistance of discourse. If, then, the first inventors of language could give names only to idea thy already had, it follows that the firs substantives could not have been anything but proper nouns. #RandolphHarris 16 of 26

However, when, by means I am unable to conceive, our new grammarians began to extend to extend their ideas and to generalize their words, the ignorance of the inventors must have been subjected this method to very strict limitations. And just as they had at first unduly multiplied the names of individual things, owning to their failure o know the genera and species, they later made too few species and genera, owing to their failure to have considered beings in all their differences. Pushing these divisions far enough would have required more experience and enlightenment than they could have had, and more investigations and work then they were willing to put into it. Now if even today new species are discovered everyday that until now had escaped the attention of humans who judged things only on first appearance! As for primary classes and the most general notions, it is superfluous to add that they too much have escaped them. How, for example, would they have imagined or understood the words “matter,” “mind,” “substance,” “mode,” “figure,” and “movement,” when our philosophers, who for so long have been making use of them, have a great deal of difficulty understand them themselves; and when, since the ideas attached to these words are purely metaphysical, they found no model of them in nature? I stop with these first steps, and I implore my judge to suspend their reading here to consider, concerning the invention of physical substantives alone, that is to say, concerning the easiest part of the language to discover, how far language still had to go in order to express all the thoughts of humans, assume a durable form, be capable of being spoken in public, and influence society. #RandolphHarris 17 of 26

I implore them to reflect upon how much time and knowledge were needed to discover numbers, abstract words, aorists, and all the tenses of verbs, particles, syntax, the connecting of sentences, reasoning, and the forming of all logic of discourse. As for myself, being shocked by the unending difficulties and convinced of the almost demonstrable impossibility that languages could have arisen and been established by merely human means, I leave to anyone who would undertake it the discussion of the following difficult problem: which was the more necessary: an already formed society for the invention of languages, or an already invented language for the establishing of society? Whatever these origins may be, it is clear, from the little care taken by nature to bring humans together through mutual needs and to facilitate their use of speech, how little she prepared them for becoming habituated to the ways of society, and how little she contributed to all that humans have done to establish the bonds of society. In fact, it is impossible to imagine why, in that primitive state, one human would have done to establish the bonds of society. In fact, it is impossible to imagine why, in that primitive state, one human would have a greater need for another human than a monkey or a wolf has for another of its respective species; or, assuming this need, what motive could induce the other human to satisfy it; or even, in this latter instance, how they could be in mutual agreement regarding the conditions. I know that we are repeatedly told that nothing would have been so miserable as a human in that state; and if it is true, as I believe I have proved, that it is only after many centuries that humans could have had the desire and the opportunity to leave that state, that would be charge to being against nature, not against one whom nature have thus constituted. #RandolphHarris 18 of 26

However, if we understand the word miserable properly, it is a word which is without meaning or which signifies merely a painful privation and suffering of the body of the soul. Now I would very much like someone to explain to me what kind of misery can there be for a free being whose heart is at peace and whose body is in good health? I ask which of the two, civil, or natural life, is more likely to become insufferable to those who live it? We see about us practically no people who do not complain about their existence; many even deprive themselves of it to the extent they are able, and the combination of divine and human laws is hardly enough to stop his disorder. I ask if anyone has ever heard tell of a savage who was living in liberty ever dreaming of complaining about one’s life and of killing oneself. Let the judgment therefore be made with less pride on the side real misery lies. On the other hand, nothing would have been so miserable as savage humans, dazzled by enlightenment, tormented by passions, and reasoning about a state different from one’s own. It was by a very wise providence that the latten faculties one possessed should develop only as the occasion to exercise them presents itself, so that they would be neither superfluous nor troublesome to one beforehand, nor underdeveloped and useless in time of need. In instinct alone, humans had everything they needed in order to live in the state of nature; in a cultivated reason, one has only what one needs to live in society. #RandolphHarris 19 of 26

Others have said that pre-existing merits in this life are the reason and cause of the effect of predestination. For the Pelagians taught that the beginning of doing well came from us; and the consumption from God: so that it came about that the effect of predestination was granted to one, and not to another, because the one made a beginning by preparing, whereas the other did not. However, against this we have the saying of the Apostle (2 Corinthians 3.5), that “we are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves.” Now no principle of action can be imagined previous to the act of thinking. Wherefore it cannot be said that anything begun in us can be the reason of the effect of predestination. And so others said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination; giving us to understand that God gives grace to a person, and pre-ordains that He will give it, because He knows beforehand that He will make good use of that grace, as if a king were to give a horse to a soldier because he knows he will make good use of it. However, these seem to have drawn a distinction between that which flows from grace, and that which flows from free will, as if the same thing cannot come from both. It is, however, manifest that what is of grace is the effect of predestination; and this cannot be considered as the reason of predestination, since it is contained in the notion of predestination. Therefore, if anything else in us be the reason of predestination, it will outside the effect of predestination. Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and form a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes. Wherefore, that which flows from free-will is also of predestination. #RandolphHarris 20 of 26

We must say, therefore, that the effect of predestination may be considered in a twofold light—in one way in particular; and this there is no reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reasons or cause of another; a subsequent effect being the reason of a previous effect, as its final cause; and the previous effect being the reason of the subsequent as its meritorious cause, which is reduced to the disposition of the matter. Thus we might say that God pre-ordained to give glory on account of merit, and the He pre-ordained to give grace to merit glory. In another way, the effect of predestination may be considered in general. Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any causes coming from us; because whatsoever is in humans disposing them towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does his happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lam 5.21): “covert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted.” Yet predestination has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from its first moving principle. The use of grace foreknown by God is not the cause of conferring grace, except after the manner of a final cause; as was explained above. Humans kill for love, for revenge, for survival, even for ideas. Perhaps it is part of human nature, but in this survival, must we also be taught to hate? Predestination has its foundation in the goodness of God as regards its effects in general. Considered in its particular effect, however, one effect is the reason of another; as already stated. #RandolphHarris 21 of 26

The reason for predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which it itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the Universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the Universe. That this multiformity of graces may be preserved in things, Go allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above. Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole of the Universe. God will to manifest His goodness in humans; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom He reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is he reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refer, saying (Romans 9.22, 23): “What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory,” and (2 Timothy 2.20): “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of Earth; and some, indeed, unto honour, but some unto dishonour.” #RandolphHarris 22 of 26

Yet why God chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, expect the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. Xxvi. In Joan): “Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.” Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is although uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of Earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as one pleases (provided one deprives nobody of one’s due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: “Take what is thine, and go thy way. It is not lawful for me to do what I will? (Matthew 20.14, 15). Hail, holy Light. Saint John of the Cross, held unjustly as a prisoner, found his cell filled with light as he dreamed one night the Virgin appeared to him promising help if he escaped. Marinus, the Danish mystic, told me that Jesus appeared to him in meditation surrounded by a ball of light. #RandolphHarris 23 of 26

We want peace, of course, but sometimes we do not want to spend a lot of time trying to acquire it. Instead, we lose ourselves in the crowd, intrude ourselves into foreign affairs—that is to say, in affairs outside the monastery walls. Continue to do that, and we will surely lose what little peace we have. What is the attraction outside? Why do we pounce on every invitation, attend every function? Why do we ignore every chance to gather ourselves within? Blessed are those who live uncomplicated lives, for they shall have heads without headaches. Why have some Saints been such perfect models of the contemplative life? Because they strove to deaden their Earthly desires. In doing so they were not without some spiritual guile. They emptied out the innermost parts of their hidden hearts so they could cling to God. Inside the walls we play too much with our pet distractions; outside, we mingle too often with the passing parade. Rarely do we stamp out a vice completely. Daily do we forget to light a candle under ourselves. Rarely do we achieve the perfection that is possible within one day. And so we remain neither particular pretension. If we were maximally dead to ourselves and only minimally involved with others, then we could divine the divine, that is to say experience some of the delights in the Heavenly Garden. However, are we not, so we cannot. Our passion and concupiscences are plants, wildly successful plants chocking everything in sight. About to swing on down the road to perfection in the merry hope of following the Saints, we take a header on the first cobble and howl to high Heaven! Bruised knees, bruised feelings, we decide to stay home and nurse our hurts, not all that unhappy, it has to be admitted, about postponing the trip for the thousandth time. #RandolphHarris 24 of 26

Hold your ground like the brave embroiled in battle; that is what we should do. Have no fear. God will give us a sign from above. For He is prepared to help those who slug it out for a greater glory. After all, He promotes the fights, He says, so we can enjoy the victories. Spiritual progress, that is what we are concerned about here. Observing only the externals of our religion is not enough. Devotion will dry up if that is all we are going to do. Our garden’s overrun. Let us put ax to the root. Let us purge ourselves of the spurge, the gorse and the vetch, the cattail and the creeper. That is to say, as the Gospel of Matthew exhorts (3.10), let us root out our passions, the deadly nightshades that haunt our patch. Only then will the roses emerge. Stamp out just one vice a year, and you will soon be a perfect individual. That is a piece of common wisdom but, apparently, experience tells us otherwise. In the beginning of our monastic life, we were more obedient and more observant than we are today, many years after our first vows. Or so it seems in retrospect. Fervor and progress ought to inch along each day—that is the way it was in the Great Bernard’s day, or so he said in one of his sermons (27.5), when many of his monks managed to retain their firs fervor for a lifetime. However, nowadays it is an eyebrow raider if some boke can retain just a smidge of his first fervor for a few weeks! What is the moral? No pan, no gain. If we had undergone more pain at the beginning, we would have more gain by now. And would not that be nice? #RandolphHarris 25 of 26

Not to do what you are used to is hard. Harder still, to do what you are not accustomed to. However, if you do not make it a practice of dealing with the small annoyances, you will be helpless in the face of a big challenge. Make no mistake about it. Self-denial is what we are talking about here. Now is the time to make a new start. Resist your inclination. Unlearn your bad behaviour, lest it lead you little by little to worse behavior. Oh, if you would only make a turnaround! You would start pleasing yourself and stop annoying others. Living your life well, that is the way to pay more attention to your spiritual progress. O God, my mother, my father, lord of the hills, lord of the valleys, lord of the forest, please be patient with me. I am about to do what has always been done. Now I make you an offering, that you may be warned: I am about to charm your heart. Perhaps you will have the strength to endure it. I am going to work you in order that I may live. Let no animal purse me, no snake, no scorpion, no wasp annoy me, no failing timber hit me, no ax, no machete catch me. With all my heat I am going to work you. Thou art our Almighty God, O Lord eternal; how mighty is Thy name in all the Earth! And the Lord shall be King over all the Earth; on that day shall the Lord be One and His name one. As it is written in holy Scripture: The Lord shall reign forever; Thy God, O Zion, shall be Sovereign unto all generations. Hallelujah. Unto all generations we will declare Thy greatness, and to all eternity we will proclaim Thy holiness. Our mouth shall ever speak Thy praise, O our God, for Thou art a great and holy God and King. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Holy God. #RandolphHarris 26 of 26

Cresleigh Homes

Home is waiting! The Riverside Res 2 model is ideal for entertaining, 😍 or just spending time with the people you love in a beautiful space. You won’t believe the amount of open, airy living behind the exterior shown here! 😮

Residence Two a spacious single story home with approximately 2,600 square feet of home thoughtfully designed to maximize every available foot of space.

Three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a three car garage all come included in this home. The layout is an entertainer’s dream with large kitchen and working island, dining room connected through the butler’s pantry, and a large great room overlooking the ample rear yard. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-riverside-at-plumas-ranch/residence-2/

#CresleighHomes
#PlumasRanch