Following the Protestant doctrine of the two kingdoms and royal supremacy, John Donne denies that the presbyterium has power over persons:

‘First, then, for our office towards you, because you may be apt to say, You take too much upon you, you sonnes of Levi; We the sonnes of Levi, open unto you our Commission, and we pursue but that we professe, that we are sent but to pray, but to intreat you; and we accompany it with an outward declaration, we stand bare and you sit covered. When greater power seems to be given us, of treading upon Dragon and Scorpions, of binding and loosing, of casting out Devills, and the like, we confesse these are powers over sinnes, over Devills that doe, or endevour to possesse you, not over you, for to you we are sent to pray and intreat you. Though God sent Jeremy with that large Commission, Behold this day, I have set thee over the Nations, and over the Kingdomes, to pluck up, and to rout out, to destroy and to throw down; and though many of the Prophets had their Commissions drawn by that precedent, we claime not that, we distinguish between the extraordinary Commission of the Prophet, and the ordinary Commission of the Priest, we admit a great difference between them, and are farre from taking upon us, all that the Prophet might have done; which is an errour, of which the Church of Rome, and some other over-zealous Congregations have been equally guilty, and equally opposed Monarchy and Soveraignty, by assuming to themselves, in an ordinary power, whatsoever God, upon extraordinary occasions, was pleased to give for the present, to his extraordinary Instruments the Prophets; our Commission to the pray, and to intreat you.’

What the priest has is persuasion, not the right of potestas held over kings and governors.


‘Among many people on the right, social justice has as little meaning as can be fit on a piece of confetti. They want to defend the nation but ultimately care very little for the people. They still do not understand that capitalism is intrinsically globalist, because it requires the abolition of borders (“laissez faire, laisser passer!”), and by reason of its propensity for boundlessness it cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing social relations or seeing national identities as so many obstacles to the expansion of the globalized market; that the anthropological model it holds (that of an individual based on the permanent maximization of his advantage) is as much at work in economic liberalism as it is in social liberalism, and that the axioms of interest and the machinery of profit are pillars of the dictatorship of mercantile values.’
— Alain de Benoist, tr. Eugène Montsalvat

Hezbollah and the Need for Better Music

Hezbollah is today leading the defence of Lebanon against the forces of Daesh (ISIS), not fearing to make tactically aggressive manoeuvres in Syria and lend its hand to the forces of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. For this reason even Christians and Sunnis have joined their defence. This willingness to use military force for the common good is due at least in part to the music that helps maintain Hezbollah’s confidence.

So much of contemporary Christian music, on the other hand, seems to be written for women and eunuchs, and certainly not for men. I am not, of course, the first to have observed this tendency: others have noted it for years. How much of our music, training us in a general meekness and mildness – rather than humility before God and justly wielded power, but iron strength before the prowling lion Satan – has destroyed our ability to stand up to the snakes who spread false teaching, wolves who devour the flock, and wild beasts who rage against the people of God?

Shall we not consider the words of Glaucon and Socrates discussing music in Plato’s Republic (398d–399c, tr. Grube)?

Nonetheless, I said, you know that, in the first place, a song consists of three elements – words, harmonic mode, and rhythm.

Yes, I do know that.

As far as words are concerned, they are no different in songs than they are when not set to music, so mustn’t they conform in the same way to the patterns we established just now?

They must.

Further, the mode and rhythm must fit the words.

Of course.

And we said that we no longer needed dirges and lamentations among our words.

We did, indeed.

What are the lamenting modes, then? You tell me, since you’re musical.

The mixo-Lydian, the syntono-Lydian, and some others of that sort.

Aren’t they to be excluded, then? They’re useless even to decent women, let alone to men.


Drunkenness, softness, and idleness are also most inappropriate for our guardians [i.e. the warrior ruling class, as opposed to the producers].

How could they not be?

What, then, are the soft modes suitable for drinking-parties?

The Ionian and those Lydian modes that are said to be relaxed.

Could you ever use these to make people warriors?

Never. And now all you have left is the Dorian and Phrygian modes.

I don’t know all the musical modes. Just leave me the mode that would suitably imitate the tone and rhythm of a courageous person who is active in battle or doing other violent deeds, or who is failing and facing wounds, death, or some other misfortune, and who, in all these circumstances, is fighting off his fate steadily and with self-control. Leave me also another mode, that of someone engaged in a peaceful, unforced, voluntary action, persuading someone or asking a favor of a god in prayer or of a human being through teaching and exhortation, or, on the other hand, of someone submitting to the supplications of another who is teaching him and trying to get him to change his mind, and who, in all these circumstances, is acting with moderation and self-control, not with arrogance but with understanding, and is content with the outcome. Leave me, then, these two modes, which will best imitate the violent or voluntary tones of voice of those who are moderate and courageous, whether in good fortune or in bad.

The modes you’re asking for are the very ones I mentioned.

In the kingdom of God, as long as it exists within a fallen world, there must (pace Plato) be lamentation. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, indeed, teach us to mourn for Jerusalem fallen, and mourn we must unto the ending of the world. Blessed, says our Lord, are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. In the mourning of a Christian, directed toward God, is both a plea against the present and a confidence in the judgement of God. For the Christian warrior, then, it is the elegy and the hope of the world to come, the world that is coming from heaven to earth, that together make his resolve to fight. In Christendom, therefore, we must have the Lydian and the Mixolydian (both authentic and plagal), which Western music has kept as church modes 5–8, elegiac but hopeful.

Nevertheless, much neglected among Western Christians today are modes 1–4, comprising the Dorian and the Phrygian (both authentic and plagal). These are modes we dearly need to bring back into the idiom of the common Christian’s expression, that he may be fit both to speak sober reason and to make war against the devil and, when there is need, against forces of flesh and blood as well. What the devil has removed from the throats of Christians, let us restore to the songs of the Church.

Tallis’s psalm tunes here, except the ninth, are numbered to correspond to the church modes (or tones): (1) Dorian, (2) Hypodorian, (3) Phrygian, (4) Hypophrygian, (5) Lydian, (6) Hypolydian, (7) Mixolydian, (8) Hypomixolydian.

Dressing Better in Worship

Last summer, Roman Catholic bishop Thomas Tobin criticized the irreverent way in which people dressed and behaved at Mass, calling it ‘sloppy and even offensive’. He gave some quite specific examples:

Hirsute flabmeisters spreading out in the pew, wearing wrinkled, very-short shorts and garish, unbuttoned shirts; mature women with skimpy clothes that reveal way too much, slogging up the aisle accompanied by the flap-flap-flap of their flip-flops; hyperactive gum-chewing kids with messy hair and dirty hands, checking their iPhones and annoying everyone within earshot or eyesight.

Dressing up for church is indeed not always what it was in the 1950s. Before Victorian times, dressing up for most people meant simply appearing in the clean set of clothes rather than the one dirtied in manual labour. However important it is to dress respectfully, the Church must never become the place of the bourgeoisie, excluding the poor who cannot afford finer clothes.

But the Church should also be a clother of the poor. We see Jonathan divesting himself of his princely dignity to invest David with royal honour. We see St Martin cutting off a piece of his cloak to cover a beggar’s rags. We see Jesus Christ himself, the only-begotten Son of God, coming naked into this world to cover man’s sin and clothe him with righteousness and glory and honour. Shall we, seeing someone without decent clothes, not find him clothing fit for the purpose? If a poor man comes in, we should honour him; if a woman comes in with bare shoulders or with no covering for her head, we should give her what she needs.

Thus the Church can honour the worship of God with both a reverent outward appearance and care for persons of every station, neither capitulating to the cultural levelling common in postmodern life nor conforming to the oppression of the poor.


A Carol for the Feast of St Stephen

Performed by Magpie Lane.

Saint Stephen was a holy man
Endued with heavenly might,
And many wonders he did work
All in the people’s sight;
And by the holy Spirit of God,
Which did his heart inflame,
He spared not, in every place,
To preach God’s holy Name.

O man, do never faint nor fear,
When God the truth shall try;
But mark how Stephen, for Christ’s sake,
Was a-willing for to die.

Before the elders he was brought,
His answer for to make,
But they could not the spirit withstand
Whereby this man did speak.
While this was told, the multitude
Beholding him aright,
His comely face began to shine
Most like an angel bright.

Then Stephen did put forth his voice,
And he did first unfold
The wond’rous works which God had wrought
E’en for their fathers old;
That they thereby might plainly know
Christ Jesus should be he
That from the burden of the law
Should quit us frank and free.

But, oh! quoth he, you wicked men,
Which of your fathers all
Did not the prophets persecute,
And keep in woeful thrall?
But when they heard him so to say,
Upon him they all ran,
And there without the city gates
They stoned this holy man.

There he most meekly on his knees
To God did pray at large
Desiring that he should not lay
This sin unto their charge;
Then yielding up his soul to God,
Who had it dearly bought,
He lost his life, and his body then
To the grave was seemly brought.


Christ Enthroned on the Theotokos

Drawing by Veronica Cruwys.

He whom heaven and earth cannot contain is cradled in his mother’s lap, for me and for you.

Behold the mighty arm of the Lord. Behold the revelation that binds together the fragments by which the majestic God could not but be expressed by the prophets and the pagan sages. Behold the light of God’s face, which Moses could not see and live, which now burns in the hearts of all who believe in his Name. Worship him now; bend the knees of your heart and kiss the light of his countenance, which gives you peace.

Let loving hearts enthrone him.

Richer Images in Church Instruction

Children’s Sunday schools in Protestant churches are typically full of moralistic stories and impoverished figures on felt boards. What I like better are the line drawings offered by John Matusiak, many of which are based on Eastern Orthodox icons:


Since children’s Sunday schools will almost invariably use images, it seems best to me that these images should look serious and not frivolous, their iconography rich and not simplistic, their conception mature and not childish. The images used to teach should be a tool for children to understand other instructive images, that their eyes may be enlightened by faith rather than that their spirits may be seduced by the sensuous.

From young children’s colouring books to devotional books and church walls, images should, besides drawing the attention of the senses, also invite reflection on doctrine and personal piety.

The Last Judgement.

Privatized Christianity in America


Christianity Today reports on a great number of lone-ranger Christians in the United States:

‘Despite believing their church emphasizes spiritual growth, engagement with the practices associated with discipleship leave much to be desired,’ the report stated. Fewer than half of practicing Christian adults are involved in activities such as Sunday school or fellowship groups (43%), a group Bible study (33%), or meeting with a spiritual mentor (17%).

The same article also gives this telling pie chart, showing that 38% of Christians who say spiritual growth is very or somewhat important also would rather do their discipleship on their own:

To me, discipleship on one’s own, just ‘me and Jesus’, just seems a contradiction in terms. St Paul says in Ephesians, after all, that the whole Body of Christ builds itself up. Even those who are much deprived of the Church’s physical presence generally should seek what fellowship can be had, that they may be built up by the Church and themselves contribute to the Church they belong to by faith.

Is the wrong doctrine of Christian life being taught? I think so. The problem, I think, is the emphasis on private devotions as the home of personal piety. As I have written before, to have one’s own private experience validated in the midst of a multitude is not public piety at all, but rather a projection of oneself onto others: there is not thereby created a public piety, but an exhibitionist piety. Whatever helps fulfil the individual end is what many Christians wish to do; they have little sense of distinct ends held by a group in common. But Althusius, following both the Scriptures and the philosophers, affirms the existence of these ends and the life of the organized body as distinct from, though connected to, the lives of the members:

Political order in general is the right and power of communicating and participating in useful and necessary matters that are brought to the life of the organized body by its associated members. It can be called the public symbiotic right.

The thing is not only about ‘accountability’, the appeal of the man desperate to find justification for the involvement of other persons in individual life. Indeed, the very idea of accountability makes no sense but as an unnatural imposition from without unless – and this truth bears repetition – there is by human nature such a thing as common life, whose ends are intrinsic to man, and known by his very body and soul, but unable to be fulfilled by the individual in himself. Our responsibility to one another comes from the need, which by right of nature we pursue, to fulfil the end of what Althusius calls ‘political “symbiotic” man’, namely ‘holy, just, comfortable, and happy symbiosis, a life lacking nothing either necessary or useful’. Keeping ignorance of this natural fact by artifice, however, we find ourselves unable to justify social life except on the grounds of freely desired desire.

Not helping matters is the notion of going to heaven, by oneself, as ascending to the place where God dwells. The idea would appear to be well substantiated: the Psalms speak of the desire to remain in God’s temple, saying that one day in his courts is better than thousands elsewhere. The temple of stone having been made obsolete and then destroyed, we think then of some ascent to heaven, some separation from earthly things. The notion of ascent to the heavenly temple is not untrue, but the mystical quest can overshadow real human life unless we remember by whose work we are united to Christ in the first place, and to what end. The Holy Spirit by whose secret work we are in Christ also equips us to fulfil his priestly mission as one priesthood under the high priesthood of Christ. The whole earth is to be the Lord’s holy temple, for it shall be full of the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea. The beatific vision, glimpsed in our Lord’s Transfiguration, is the glory that, in the holiness of our lives, is to fill the earth as it is in heaven; and this task requires all flesh to see the glory together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.


N. T. Wright on what the resurrection of Jesus started:

‘Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning of God’s new project not to snatch people away from earth to heaven but to colonize earth with the life of heaven. That, after all, is what the Lord’s Prayer is about.’

Thy kingdom come, the Lord teaches us to say. Though our minds must ascend with him to heaven, his Spirit makes our bodies the instruments of his kingdom here today.


Analects 11.1:

‘The Master said, “Those of my disciples who were first to enter into study of ritual and music with me were simple rustics, whereas those who entered later were aristocrats (junzi 君子). If I had to employ them [in public office], I would prefer the first.” ’

Sometimes, the appearance of cultural accomplishment, and even some technical advancement, does not mean superiority. Much greatness can be achieved on borrowed time, even on principles less sound than those which animate cultural expressions that are much less refined. Every society is at least somewhat degenerate, yet history is full of greatness, because God will be glorified no matter what. A high pitch of fervour or even of legal achievement does not always indicate a higher moral tone overall; sometimes a good tree, even if slowly dying, continues to bear good fruit until the bitter end. So we should not despise the simple. God knows the secrets of the heart, and he does not judge by appearances; but he does as he pleases.

Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

In Defence of Defence

‘In response to the San Bernardino terror attack two weeks ago,’ World magazine reports, ‘college students from around the country joined thousands of Liberty [University] students in supporting [university president] Falwell’s public address, which encouraged students to get concealed-carry permits to protect themselves and their classmates in case of similar attacks by Muslim extremists.’ Some student leaders at Wheaton College, on the other hand, have responded with an open letter, as have some Ph.D. students at Princeton Theological Seminary. The Wheaton students say,

In his remarks, [Mr Falwell] called for students to arm themselves so that they could ‘end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them’, exhorting the students to ‘teach them a lesson if they ever show up here’. While these sorts of remarks epitomize the ever-growing fear and hostility directed toward Muslims, we as Evangelical Christians hold that Christ calls us not to react with religious oppression or violence – instead, we have the responsibility to live out fearless love in order to pursue unity.

I agree with the call for Christians to respond with courage rather than reacting without reflection. This call, such as it is, I find admirable and wise. To clam up against an actual or merely perceived enemy is less than human, falling short of the reason we ought to exercise in the image of God. To move against Muslims in general, simply for believing in and practising a certain religion, is foolish and unworthy of a Christian; to treat others poorly for the sake of their beliefs, indeed, fits the definition of bigotry exactly, and to do so is contrary both to our Protestant heritage and to the law of the Lord.

What the students at Wheaton and PTS do not see is that they are themselves reacting against what they perceive to be a threat – to their usual way of life or to their prestige. Mr Falwell’s comments, they say, ‘detract from the witness of the Gospel and the call to love our neighbors and pursue unity’. I doubt not that they think so, but the claim rings hollow nonetheless. Is it witness to Muslims that would be hurt by a call to defensive violence? Is it not rather the liberals whose good opinion the students cherish, whose company they covet? Much as the students may identify with evangelical Christianity, they are loath to be associated with ‘the wrong sort’. I can relate, as can anyone who is tied, by unchosen relations, to persons whose conduct he finds embarrassing. But this aversion of theirs, understandable as it is, has brought out bad exegesis of holy Scripture. The remonstrating students rely upon abstractions that, rather than being supported by the word of God, encode the values of the liberal chattering classes. They have criticized fear on the basis of the proposition that, in the words of St John, there is no fear in love. Ergo, they say, we must resist fear of Muslims. What does St John actually say?

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us.

Because we know that the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, and confess that Jesus of Nazareth is this Son of God, we know the love of God; and it is this love that sets us free from the fear of judgement and torment, as we behold the love that God has shown to us.

To be sure, the truth of this passage applies to Christians’ relations with Muslims. First, we have no need to justify ourselves by making Muslims out to be subhuman, and by comparison to stand out as chosen and approved. Second, the love of God, which we have experienced, calls upon us as well, that we should show forth in our conduct the image of his love; and just as Christ died for all men without exception, so ought we to love all men without exception. St John assures us that those who do otherwise do not have the love of God within them, and that they do not know God. His words are stern, and those who think themselves made of sterner stuff should think again. A hard teaching it may be, but he who would live must accept the truth; let them complain of God’s meanness whose love is greater than his.

Let us not have meaningless group hugs and bromides about unity and brotherhood. Christ has died for all without exception, but he has not died for all without distinction. Those who believe in his holy Name and those who blaspheme against it are not one. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. To unite the two, says St Paul, is to put together Christ and a harlot: it is as great a sin as the Muslims imagine Christians commit in ‘associating partners with God’, the blasphemous idolatry of shirk. ’Tis one thing to commit to showing the love of Christ in our bodies, but quite another thing to commit our bodies to destruction for the sake of boasting in the flesh.

And such committal is what we have in those who, professing godly love for enemies, would rather die at the hands of wicked men, and call others so to die, and think themselves godlier than those who would not, than stop those to whom they owed no allegiance. Render unto Cæsar, says the Lord, but it is no noble martyr’s death to offer no resistance to a thief, and thus to give over to death a bearer of the holy gospel. The would-be martyrs, would they surrender the sacred vessels of the Lord’s most precious body and blood? If they would not there be traditores, how much more should they keep themselves living witnesses and living members of the Body of Christ? To follow Christ’s blameless steps in holy martyrdom is an honour, but suicide is dishonour to the body.

We should count it honour to suffer for the sake of Christ, and in suffering to love our enemies: for our sakes our Lord scorned the shame of the Cross. But nowhere has love overruled good sense. To know the love of God is not to take leave of our senses. To be armed, if slow to anger, if not overzealous to kill, is to use that sense which is common to man – and which the wisdom of God will not deny, for God is one. For the calamities that have come upon us for our sins, let us beseech the Lord to hear us, that he may turn these evils from us when we repent of our evil; but, though the kingdom of God spreads only by the sword of the Spirit, let us also be willing to defend our lives and our people with the sword of steel. God is not a pacifist.

* * *

Update: For quite a different view, Nijay Gupta at George Fox Evangelical Seminary has written a piece entitled ‘Advent Lament: The Falwell Threat and the Apostolic Mission (Power and Suffering in the Acts of the Apostles)’.


Regarding Gaius Julius Cæsar and his De bello Gallico, the question is not whether to read; for the power of his writing is well known, and the force of his person spellbinding. The question is whether his student should read in English or in the original Latin.


Frederick S. Carney in his translator’s preface to Politica:

‘The Calvinist theological writers constitute a fifth category. They serve a number of functions. The Biblical commentaries of Peter Martyr (Vermigli), Francis Junius, and John Piscator are called upon to give meaning to the concepts of piety and justice as interpretive of true symbiosis, and to describe the ancient Jewish polity that Althusius considers to have been the most wisely and perfectly constructed one since the beginning of time. The churchly writings of John Calvin, Jerome Zanchius, Benedict Aretius, and Zachary Ursinus are the major sources for Althusius’ exposition of the ecclesiastical order in both the province and the commonwealth. Zanchius’ extensive discussion of law in his De redemptione contributes more than anything else to Althusius’ understanding of the relation of the Decalogue to natural law, and of both to the proper laws of various nations. Then there are special topics on which Althusius finds his theological colleagues to be helpful, such as Peter Martyr’s discussion of war.’

I think I will read this stuff.

South China Morning Post to Become Pro-CCP Propaganda

Spectators in front of a large sign on Nixon’s motorcade route in China.

Mainland Chinese Internet giant Alibaba, reports the New York Times, is buying Hong Kong’s respected South China Morning Post (SCMP).

Alibaba is acquiring an award-winning newspaper that for decades has reported aggressively on subjects that China’s state-run media outlets are forbidden to cover, like political scandals and human-rights cases. Alibaba said the deal was fueled by a desire to improve China’s image and offer an alternative to what it calls the biased lens of Western news outlets. While Alibaba said the Chinese government had no role in its deal to buy the Hong Kong newspaper, the company’s position aligns closely with that of the Communist Party, which has grown increasingly critical of the way Western news organizations cover China.

I agree that WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) nations have pretty biased mainstream media, which is why I also read RT with its pro-Putin bias; but the way to confront the false propaganda of the WEIRD media, with their often duplicitous talk of ‘human rights’, is not to add false propaganda supporting the CCP and ‘China stronk’ (強國). Because of money, the SCMP is already under pressure from the HK-China oligarchic establishment, but this development just seals the deal.

A Counterproposal to That of Mr Trump


King David Handing the Letter to Uriah.

How to deal with the Gentiles when they submit to peace, and when they will rather make war:

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

So, too, though in a more spiritual sense, should Christian nations deal with those who are not of God: those who will have peace, who even if not believing the holy gospel will submit to its political terms, to live peaceably under its law and the explicit acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Lord of the state, Christians are to accept; for we no longer have a call to destroy utterly the Amorites in the land. Those, however, who will make war and dissimulate with seditious taqiyya even though not oppressed for the sake of their belief, them we ought to smite or expel. The terms imposed may include the requirement that foreigners not professing the Christian faith attend an approved Christian church service twice a month, in order to ensure that (barring catastrophe) certain religions do not come to rule the nation. In this way we may live without feeling the need to examine Moriscos with an Inquisition, but instead be freed to treat them kindly as friends living faithfully under the same ruler.

In token of their good faith, then, foreigners may be required to give an oath of allegiance, similar to the one imposed by the Quebec Act upon those professing the religion of the Church of Rome:

I A.B., do sincerely promise and swear: That I will be faithful, and bear true Allegiance to his Majesty King George, and him will defend to the utmost of my Power, against all traitorous Conspiracies, and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his Person, Crown, and Dignity; and I will do my utmost Endeavor to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons, and traitorous Conspiracies, and Attempts, which I shall know to be against him, or any of them; and all this I do swear without any Equivocation, mental Evasion, or secret Reservation, and renouncing all Pardons and Dispensations from any Power or Person whomsoever to the contrary. So help me GOD.

These terms, I believe, are milder than those which Islamic rulers have ordered for Christians, denying Muslims neither the free exercise of their religion, provided they observe the bounds of good order, nor the opportunity to live well and unmolested under the rule of an unbigoted law.

And, as I have before, so I continue to support the return of the Alien Acts passed in 1798.