"AS I SEE IT"
Volume 11, Number 7, July 2008
“I too will have my say; I too will tell what I know.
For I am full of words, and the spirit within me compels me;
Inside I am like bottled-up wine, like new wineskins ready to burst.
I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply.
I will show partiality to no one. Nor will I flatter any man.”
“That which ordinary men are fit for I am qualified in, and the best of me is diligence.”
Earl of Kent
Shakespeare’s King Lear
Act I, scene iv, ll. 32-34
[“As I See It” is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek. Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the Word of God. The editor’s perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at: DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address. Back issues sent on request. All back issues may be accessed at http://www.KJVOnly.org]
The Heart of Puritanism
“The heart of the Puritan movement was the reading of the Bible--not just on ecclesiastical occasions but constantly, lingeringly, and intensively, not primarily alone but in the company of others, and not only for absorption but for discussion. Though not above entertaining suspicion, the Puritans had contempt for ignorance; and an ignorant believer to them was no believer at all. Puritanism was a peculiarly social movement in an intellectual sense, for it made exposition and discussion an integral part of religious experience; and knowledge and understanding of the Bible were as important as acceptance of it.”
Arthur Bernon Tourtellot
Benjamin Franklin, the Shaping of Genius: the Boston Years
Garden City New York: Doubleday & Co, 1977; p. 32
Commentator Albert Barnes on the Extent of the Atonement
[Note: Albert Barnes (1798-1870), graduate of Princeton Seminary and long-time Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia, authored an extensive and very popular commentary on the whole New Testament and much of the Old, which is still worth consulting today. In my own limited experience with his commentaries, I have found them thoughtful and well-considered, and worth the time invested in reading them--editor]
On 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “For the love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him which died for them and rose again.”--
“The phrase ‘for all’ (huper panton) obviously means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made; and while it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others, and for their sakes, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference to any class or condition of men, and no particular applicability to one class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to any one class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, any more applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever be true in regard to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all.
The argument in favor of the general atonement, from this passage, consists in the following points: 1. That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first-principle--an elementary position--a maxim on which to base another important doctrine--to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument--like one of the first principles or maxims in science.
2. It is the plain and obvious meaning of the expression--the sense which strikes all men, unless they have some theory to support to the contrary; and it requires all the ingenuity which men can ever command to make it appear even plausible that this is consistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement--much more to make it out that it does not mean all. If a man is told that all the human family must die, the obvious interpretation is, that it applies to every individual. If told that all the passengers on board a steamboat were drowned, the obvious interpretation is, that every individual was meant. If told that a ship was wrecked, and that all the crew perished, the obvious interpretation would be that none escaped. If told that all the inmates of an hospital were sick, it would be understood that there was not an individual that was not sick. Such is the view which would be taken by nine hundred and ninety-nine persons out of a thousand, if told that Christ died for all; nor could they conceive how this could be consistent with the statement that he died only for the elect, and that the elect was only a small part of the human family.
3. This interpretation is in accordance with all the explicit declarations on the design of the death of the Redeemer. Hebrews 2:9, ‘That he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.’ Compare John 3:16, ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ I Timothy 2:6, ‘Who gave himself a ransom for all.’ See Matthew 20:28, ‘The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many.’ I John 2:2, ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.’
4. The fact also, that on the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer salvation is offered unto all men by God, is a proof that he died for all. The apostles were directed to go ‘into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,’ with the assurance that ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,’ Mark 16:15, 16; and everywhere in the Bible the most full and free offers of salvation are made to all mankind. Compare Isaiah 55:1; John 7:37; Revelation 22:17. These offers are made on the ground that the Lord Jesus died for men, John 3:16. They are offers of salvation through the gospel, of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life to be made ‘to every creature.’ But if Christ died only for a part; if there is a large portion of the human family for whom he died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalizing them with offers of that which does not exist, and which he knows does not exist.
It is no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and he knows who the elect are, and yet he offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all, and no possibility that all to who the offer comes should be saved, then God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating his character.
5. If this interpretation is not correct, and if Christ did not die for all, then the argument of Paul here is a non sequitur, and is worthless. The demonstration that all are dead, according to him, is that Christ died for all. But suppose that he meant, or that he knew, that Christ died only for a part--for the elect--then how would the argument stand, and what would be its force? ‘Christ died only for a portion of the human race, therefore ALL are sinners. Medicine is provided only for a part of mankind, therefore all are sick. Pardon is offered to part only, therefore all are guilty.’ But Paul never reasoned in this way. He believed that Christ died for all mankind, and on the ground of that he inferred at once that all needed such an atonement; that all were sinners, and that all were exposed to the wrath of God. And the argument is in this way, and in this way only, sound. . . .
It is observable that Paul makes a distinction here between those for whom Christ died and those who actually ‘live;’ thus demonstrating that there may be many for whom he died who do not live to God, or who are not savingly benefited by his death. The atonement was for all, but only a part are actually made alive to God. Multitudes reject it; but the fact he died for all, that he tasted death for every man, that he not only died for the elect but for all others, that his benevolence was so great as to embrace the whole human family in the design of his death, is a reason why they who are actually made alive to God should consecrate themselves entirely to his service. The fact that he died for all evinced such unbounded and infinite benevolence, that it should induce us who are actually benefited by his death, and who have any just views of it, to devote all that we have to his service.”
Barnes Notes on the New Testament
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978 reprint
pp. 851, 852
All italics and all capitals in original
On I John 2:2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”--
“But also for the sins of the whole world. The phrase ‘the sins of’ is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all men, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, ‘the whole world,’ is one which naturally embraces all men; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all men; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the ‘propitiation for the sins of the whole world’ in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true.”
Ibid., p. 1471
All italics in original
Cotton Mather’s Book Prayer
[Note: Cotton Mather (1663-1728) was the third generation and final prominent member of the Mather and Cotton families of Puritans that dominated life in colonial Boston for the city’s first century. His interests were diverse, his learning vast, his writings voluminous, and his immense personal library unrivaled in the English colonies.]
“Tho’ I am furnished with a very great library, yet seeing a library of a late minister in the town to be sold, and a certain collection of books there, which had it may be above 600 single sermons in them, I could not forbear wishing myself made able to compass such a treasure. I could not forbear mentioning my wishes in my prayers before the Lord, that in case it might be a service to His interests, He would enable me in His good providence, to purchase the treasure now before me. But I left the matter before Him with the profoundest resignation, willing to be without everything that He should not order for me. Behold, a gentleman, who a year ago treated me very ill-- but I cheerfully forgave him!--carried me home to dine with him, and upon an accidental mention of the library aforesaid, he to my surprise compelled me to accept of him a sum of money which enabled me to come at what I had been desirous of.”
Quoted from: Arthur Bernon Tourtellot
Benjamin Franklin, the Shaping of Genius: the Boston Years
Garden City New York: Doubleday & Co, 1977; p. 168
[More than once, I too have hoped that books that would be of service to my own interests, might also be of service to God’s interests, and that He would therefore allow me to acquire them with a clear conscience!--editor]
Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993. 366 pp., paperback.
Josh McDowell is well-known for the numerous books on various aspects of Christian apologetics which he has penned over the past several decades. Those volumes are generally quite useful in deflecting, defusing and discrediting various attacks on the credibility of the Bible. This present volume, co-authored by one Bill Wilson (who is otherwise unknown to me) and originally published in 1988, is comparable to McDowell’s other volumes. Herein, the authors present, with numerous documented quotes from a variety of recognized scholars and experts, strong evidence from extra-biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus, evidence from textual criticism, secular history, archaeology, geography and other areas for the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament accounts of Jesus, and provide an excellent apologetic (defense) for the reality of NT miracles, including and especially the resurrection, and for the Deity of the Messiah.
Some parts of the book can be characterized as excellent, some parts are good, and some few portions are not up to snuff, particularly the section on NT quotes of the OT (pp. 227-232) where terminology is frequently improperly used, and some facts are incorrect. There are also some minor errors elsewhere--“Q” is a posited common source behind Matthew and Luke, not Matthew and Mark, as stated (p. 155). “Pentecost” is said to be fifty days after the resurrection, when in fact it is 50 days after Passover (p. 162). The alleged “fourteen to seventeen” years during which Paul ministered in the vicinity of Tarsus (p. 171) is too long by at least 7 to 10 years. The “winter solstice” is inaccurately identified as occurring on December 25 (p. 191). “Literally” (p. 212) is certainly not accurately used. The claim (p. 237) that the NT contains more Hebrew than Aramaic words is incorrect, unless the very common “amen” be counted as a separate word every time it occurs. “Messiah” (p. 291), is certainly not a Hebrew word, but an Aramaic one. The quote ascribed to “Song of Songs” (p. 292)--a Biblical book--is, rather, a quote from the inter-testamental pseudepigraphal book “Psalms of Solomon.” The reference to “John 11” (p. 300) is more correctly to Matthew 11.
Some assertions are dubious, including the undocumented claim (p. 206) that “gates of Hades” was a rabbinic term referring to Gentile cities; I have never seen any such use anywhere, including numerous commentaries on Matthew 16:18, especially those focused on rabbinic literature. The claim (p. 246) that John presents Jesus as dying at the same time the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple is highly doubtful, as is the claim that Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover a day in advance of the Jerusalem Jews (p. 258). And while adequate and accurate documentation (and we ran numerous references to see for ourselves if they were given accurately) is provided for the great majority of the claims and quotes given, yet, it is in an abbreviated “code” that must be deciphered; it would not have required much more space to simply give the titles of the works cited in full. These few flaws do not seriously mar the overall worth of this book.
We append numerous quotations gleaned from these pages, with authors noted, if they are other than McDowell and Wilson. The book itself will have to be referenced to garner the precise published source of the quotes.
“It is a matter of amazement to me that books constantly get published, and television programs produced, which set out the most bizarre interpretations of Jesus of Nazareth on the most slender of evidence.” (Michael Green, p. 15)
“One often overlooked observation is the way the various popular reconstructions of Jesus’ life contradict one another.” (pp. 16-17)
“All such reconstructions of Jesus necessarily have in common an extreme skepticism with regard to the primary evidence for Jesus, the canonical gospels, which are regarded as a deliberate distortion of the truth in order to offer a Jesus who is fit to be the object of Christian worship. Instead, they search out hints of ‘suppressed evidence,’ and give a central place to incidental historical details and to later ‘apocryphal’ traditions not unknown to mainstream biblical scholarship, but which have generally been regarded as at best peripheral, and in most cases grossly unreliable. The credulity with which this ‘suppressed evidence’ is accepted and given a central place in reconstructing the ‘real’ Jesus is more remarkable when it is contrasted with the excessive skepticism shown towards the canonical gospels.” (R. T. France, p. 18)
“Did the early Jewish rabbis think Jesus was a myth or a legend? Absolutely not. There is not a hint of a suggestion of this hypothesis, regardless of what some modern philosophers and theologians may conclude.” (p. 70)
Speaking of the post NT writings vis-à-vis the NT: “Not one compares for a moment in depth and spiritual fullness with a St. Paul or St. John; and the whole patristic literature, with its incalculable value, must ever remain very far below the New Testament. The single epistle to the Romans or the Gospel of John is worth more than all commentaries, doctrinal, polemic, and ascetic treatises of the Greek and Latin fathers, schoolmen and reformers.” (Philip Schaff, p. 73)
“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A. D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” (William F. Albright, p. 110)
“Only modern scholars who lack both historical method and perspective can spin such a web of speculation as that with which form critics have surrounded the gospel tradition.” (William F. Albright, p. 111)
“At this point the literary critic continues to follow Aristotle’s dictum: ‘The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.’ In other words, as John W. Montgomery summarizes: ‘One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.’ “ (p. 113)
“A. N. Sherwin-White, a classical historian, writes that ‘for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.’ He continues by saying that ‘any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.’ ” (p. 117)
“There are many definitions of ‘history,’ but the one I prefer is ‘a knowledge of the past based upon testimony’ “ (p. 118)
“In regard to the dating of the gospels by certain critics, R. T. France has commented, ‘It is interesting to observe that the lateness of the date proposed is often in proportion to the degree of a scholar’s skepticism as to their historical value; the cynic might wonder which came first!’ “ (p. 129)
“Referring to the Gospel of John, [C. S.] Lewis goes on to say: ‘I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that no one of them is like this. . . .These men ask me to believe that they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-see and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.” (p. 134)
“They [i.e., modern Bible critics] will not let the text speak on its own terms. Certainly the modern theologians would not want us to read their books the way they want us to read the New Testament!” (Harold Hoehner, p. 145)
“Most scholars who do not presuppose an anti-supernatural bias date the synoptic gospels generally in the 60s [A.D.], some a little earlier.” (p. 154)
“Bultmann, who viewed the New Testament as an historically flawed document, had never visited the sites in Israel and had never considered the influence of Jewish culture on Jesus.” (p. 198)
“All these evidences of accuracy [by Luke] are not accidental. A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.” (F. F. Bruce, p. 206)
“It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.” (Nelson Glueck, p. 213; the quote in the original source continues: “Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible,” Rivers in the Desert, p. 31)
“More and more the older view that the biblical data were suspect and even likely to be false, unless corroborated by extrabiblical facts, is giving way to one which holds that, by and large, the biblical accounts are more likely to be true than false, unless clear-cut evidence from sources outside the Bible demonstrate the reverse.” (Harry Orlinsky, p. 213)
“A proper historical understanding of the New Testament is impossible without a detailed knowledge of Jewish literature and thought.” (R. A. Stewart, p. 233)
“I know of no reputable New Testament scholar or historian today who would any longer defend the view that the Christian ideas of the resurrection were derived from parallels of pagan religions.” (William Craig, p. 283)
“You can count on it. Every few years, some ‘scholar’ will stir up a short-lived sensation by publishing a book that says something outlandish about Jesus. . . .The amazing thing about all these debunk-Jesus books is that they accept as much of the recorded gospels as they find convenient, then ignore or repudiate other parts of the same document which contradict their notions.” (Lewis Cassels, p. 321)
In the Presence of My Enemies by Gracia Burnham, with Dean Merrill. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers 2003. 307 pp. hardback.
Martin and Gracia Burnham had served in the Philippines with New Tribes Mission for 17 years--Martin was a pilot who flew people and supplies to remote mission stations--when they were kidnapped for ransom in May 2001, along with several dozen other people, from a sea side resort in the southern Philippines. The Burnhams had gone there to celebrate their anniversary.
While most of the other captives were soon released (or died), the Burnhams remained prisoners for more than a year of the cell of 20 or so Moslem Jihadists who had taken them and hoped to extort a large ransom for their release. The Filipino military by fits and starts pursued the captors and captives through the jungles of a couple of islands, steadfastly refusing to allow American military action on Philippine soil (the Americans were infinitely better equipped and prepared to successfully free the hostages). When the Philippine forces finally caught up with the captors, they moved in with guns blazing. The result--numbers of the Jihadists were killed, as were Martin Burnham and a Filipino nurse also held captive; Gracia was wounded in the leg. All these casualties were inflicted by the Filipino forces; had the Philippine government allowed an American military commando raid--and our forces were standing by to do just that--, the ordeal would have certainly ended months earlier, and almost certainly without the loss of hostage lives.
This well-written book recounts the paths by which the Burnhams met, married, and entered missionary service, as well as detailing the events of the year in captivity, and how they were able to endure physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Along the way, insights are provided into how and why the Moslem terrorists act and think (if their utter irrationality can be so characterized) as they do.
It is good for American Christians, especially, to be reminded that there is often a price--even a very high price--to be paid by those who faithfully serve Christ, though the ultimate reward for such service is beyond all calculation.
Mrs. Burnham has written a follow-up book as well, which we have not yet read.
“Our captors’ greatest goal, it seemed, was to get to Afghanistan. What a utopia that would be, they said. But if that didn’t work out, they would settle for their second choice: to go to America and get a good job!” (p. 17)
“A sober, moon-faced captor named Musab established himself as the Abu Sayyaf’s spiritual leader and began conducting Koran studies up in the bow of the boat. Those who attended were soon bored to death with his lengthy orations. They had Korans, but only two in the group had read the book all the way through. One day, after listening to them read in a distinctly nasal, singsong tone, Martin asked one of the guys, ‘What did you say?’
‘Oh, we don’t know,’ he responded. ‘We just learned how to pronounce the words in Arabic, but we don’t know what they mean.’
“Of course not. We don’t know Arabic.’
I asked, ‘Why don’t you translate the Koran in Tagalog, then, so you know what you’re reading?’
‘Oh, no, no--then it would be corrupted. The only true Koran is in Arabic.” (p. 73; this exchange seemed to me reminiscent of how some defend the often obscure or even unintelligible KJV as the only acceptable English Bible translation--editor)
The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1968. 75 pp., paperback.
I was in my final semester at Wichita State University in the summer of 1972 when I was first made aware of this little treatise opposing the imposition of state power to plunder the productive for the sake of the idle. I had one of my rare few politically-conservative (Goldwater-1964 type conservative) professors at that state school. In a course, “Law and Society,” we read this and some other like-minded writings by Ortega y Gasset and Hayek, and perhaps others (if memory here fails, I plead that it has been 36 years, after all!). I recently decided to renew my acquaintance with its contents.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman and author, and Deputy to the French legislative assembly. He wrote in strong opposition to the rising tide of state socialism towards which France was rushing. Bastiat gives the philosophical base for opposing government-imposed schemes of wealth redistribution--the government doing by force of law that for which a citizen would be charged with the crime of theft. Along the way, Bastiat notes the condescending arrogance of state socialists who suppose themselves better judges of how the citizens should spend their money and live their lives than they themselves are.
He draws a clear distinction between political rights and mere political demands, the latter of which in truth are the granting of special favors.
The statists/socialists (and reading this account sounds like a description of present-day Democrats--and too many Republicans--in the U.S. who promise everything to everybody, and always at someone else’s expense) want monopoly control of society, education, personal choices and actions. They demand a bland uniformity, and despise anyone of actual superior abilities or achievement. The bureaucrats are threatened by anyone with initiative or self-sufficiency, and such must not be tolerated. Above all, they hate “competition” which might reveal their own inherent inferiority.
In this era of rampant state socialism, with strong prospect for more--and worse--of the same, Bastiat’s ruminations from a century and a half back are timely fodder for our own thoughts. Whether in print or not, I cannot say; used copies should not be difficult to obtain through the usual channels.
“When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it--without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud--to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.” (p. 26)
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by the government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” (pp. 32-33)
“According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men--governors and legislators--the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, they aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted to virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.” (p. 36)
“Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of a people toward liberty. And what is liberty, whose name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties--liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism--including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” (p. 51)
“If the [common] people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence? . . . .If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of the organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?” (p. 62)
“Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights--or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harassed, and the most exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the case.” (p. 64)
“There are too many ‘great’ men in the world--legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.” (p. 74)