Sit anima mea cum Westleio

"We hope nothing then, we fear every thing, from a religious movement, which nevertheless in its rise excites our sympathy, and of which we do not deny, as of any event in the world, the incidental benefits.  Yet interest, pity and admiration we do feel for many of the principal agents in it; and if the choice lay between them and the reformers of the 16th century (which we thankfully acknowledge it does not,) a serious inquirer would have greater reason for saying, 'Sit anima mea cum Westleio,' than 'cum Luthero,' or 'cum Calvino,' and 'cum multis aliis,' as the grammar has it, 'quos nunc perscribere longum est.'"

     John Henry Newman, reviewing vol. 1 of The life and times of Selina, Countess of Huntingdon (London:  Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1839), in The British critic, and quarterly theological review 28, no. 56 (October 1840):  264.  All of this though Methodism was, for Newman, undoubtedly "a formal heresy" (263).
     George Whitfield in a letter from Bristol dated 24 June 1749:  "Sit anima mea cum Methodistis."
     I was put onto this by Robert G. Walker, "A game of tag:  a new source for Samuel Johnson?," Times literary supplement no. 5675 (January 6, 2012):  14 (14-15), where the source and subsequent career of the Averoeism "Sit anima mea cum . . ." is discussed at some length.

Iron, then blood

"Nicht durch Reden und Majoritätsbeschlüsse werden die großen Fragen der Zeit entschieden . . . sondern durch Eisen und Blut".

     Otto von Bismark, "Shortly after being appointed premier of Prussia in [(on 30 September)] 1862," as quoted by R. J. W. Evans, in "The gambler in blood and iron," The New York review of books 59, no. 3 (February 23, 2012), 37n1, citing Die gesammelten Werke, ed. H. von Petersdorff (Berlin:  Otto Stolberg, 1924-1934), vol. 10, p. 140.  According to the 3rd edition of the Oxford dictionary of quotations, Bismark himself reversed the two words in his famous speech to the Prussian House of Deputies on 28 January 1886.  But Prof. Evans thinks that by that point he was simply going along with the "geflugeltes Wort" that the public had been making of it since the 1860s (note to me dated 12 February 2012).

Grace

You say grace before meals.
All right.
But I say grace before the play and the opera,
And grace before the concert and pantomime,
And grace before I open a book,
And grace before sketching, painting,
Swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing, dancing;
And grace before I dip the pen in the ink.

     G. K. Chesterton, "Grace," British Library MS Add. 73334 (c. 1894-1896), fol. 5v, as reproduced on p. 43 of vol. 10 of the Collected works (Collected poetry, Part 1), under "Juvenile and early poems," as well as elsewhere, as indicated by the British Library record.  I was introduced to this by my sister, Lois Perisho Tebo.

"Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church"

"We have had great disputes how the church ought to be regulated; and indeed the subject of these disputes was of great importance: but the due regulation of your families is of no less, and in some respects, of much greater importance. Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church, consecrated to Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rules. And family education and order are some of the chief of the means of grace. If these fail, all other means are like to prove ineffectual. If these are duly maintained, all the means of grace will be like to prosper and be successful.
"Let me now therefore, once more, before I finally cease to speak to this congregation, repeat and earnestly press the counsel, which I have often urged on heads of families here, while I was their pastor, to great painfulness, in teaching, warning and directing their children; bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; beginning early, where there is yet opportunity; and maintaining a constant diligence in labors of this kind: remembering that, as you would not have all your instructions and counsels ineffectual, there must be government as well as instructions, which must be maintained with an even hand, and steady resolution; as a guard to the religion and morals of the family, and the support of its good order. Take heed that it ben't with any of you as it was with Eli of old, who reproved his children, but restrained them not; and that by this means you do not bring the like curse on your families, as he did on his."

     Jonathan Edwards, "A farewell sermon preached at the first precinct in Northampton, after the people's public rejection of their minister…on June 22, 1750," Application VI (Directions), First.  The works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Perry Miller et al., vol. 25 (Sermons and discourses, 1743-1758, ed.Wilson H. Kimnach (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2006)), p. 484. 
     According to The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online as consulted on 4 February 2012, Edwards used for the family the phrase "little church" twice else:  in The great awakening (WJE 4, p. 487), and in the sermon "Living to Christ" (on Phil 1:21; WJE 10, p. 577). 

Wilcox on Murray on "the modern horror of being thought 'judgmental'"

     "There are at least two ways to close this cultural divide and renew the cultural foundations of the American experiment. First, policy makers and business leaders need to shore up the economic foundations of working- and middle-class life. . . .
      "Second, as Mr. Murray notes, the members of the upper class must abandon the modern horror of being thought 'judgmental'; instead, he says, they should 'preach what they practice.' This does not mean turning the clock back to the 1950s or the Victorian age. It just means that the elites who control the heights of government, education, business and the popular culture could do a lot more to encourage the core American values that they themselves now live by."

     W. Bradford Wilcox, "Values inequality," The Wall Street journal, 31 January 2012.

"the Church is His Body and that Body may sin"

     "Not long ago Mr Middleton Murry wrote a book in which he spoke of 'the betrayal of Christ by the Churches'.  To this Father Gerald Vann wrote a reply in which he spoke of 'the betrayal of the Church by the Christians'.  Both were concerned with the same facts, but Mr Murry spoke as a Protestant, Father Vann as a Catholic.  It is impossible for Christ to be betrayed by the Church, because the Church is His Body and that Body may sin and so betray both Christ and the Church, and this is the situation in which we find ourselves.  We are all more or less guilty. . . ."

     Bede Griffiths, The golden string, chap. 10 (Catholicism) ((New York:  P. J. Kenedy and Sons, 1954), 158).  I get the distinction, but isn't this poorly formulated?  "It is impossible for Christ to be betrayed by the Church," which "is His Body and . . . may sin"?
     I was referred to The golden string by C. S. Lewis in Surprised by joy, but found it inferior.  Absolutely everything as a major turning point.  An excessively Whig memoir.

"Do you not know that we are to judge angels?"

In this “historical [(as distinguished from metaphysical)] dualism” of St. Paul, “There are two successive economies. The one was established on the subordination of the physical world to the ‘powers’ created by God in the good, and more particularly to their head, ‘the prince of this world’. This first economy was wrecked by the lie of its head, who carried along with him, if not the whole hierarchy of which he was the summit, at least a considerable portion of it. Still, it survives. This survival is provisionary, but for as long as it lasts, the στοιχεία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου [(Col 2:8, 20)], the κοσμοκράτορες [(Eph 6:12)] retain in it, with their function, however they perform it, their authority, which is of divine origin. It is true, on the one hand, that they abuse it, in this sense, that they divert to themselves the worship of the creatures inferior [to them], [the] worship of which they would be only the ministers [were it directed] towards God. But it is not less true, on the other hand, that they are deluded on this point, and that, at the very height of their malice, they do but serve, without being aware of it, the divine intentions. The impossibility of their situation [(Cette situation paradoxale)] becomes [unmistakably] evident [(éclate)] in the blindness of the ‘rulers of this age’ [(1 Cor 2:6, 8)], who crucified the Lord of glory, but who would undoubtedly have carefully avoided such a mistake if they had had any insight into the significance of what they were then doing. In fact, by leading to its consummation the perversion of the economy that had been entrusted to them, they struck a fatal blow against their own authority [(ils en ont cassé le ressort)]. Henceforth, there can take the place of it another economy, in which it is the new humanity, the humanity of Christ, at once both God and man, which reigns in the name of God.

     “In this perspective, everything becomes clear. The good angels suffer the repercussions consequent upon the defection and eviction of Satan not personally, but as members of a spiritual organism fallen in its head, and therefore in the whole of its structure. They will indeed collaborate in the new economy. They will even have a place of honor. But they will no longer be its rulers. They will enter into it as auxiliaries of a new ruler, who is the last Adam, the divine man. In this sense they will find themselves subordinates in the [very] world of which they were once the rectors, because the new humanity, one with its [new] head, the Christ, [one] with a unity to which they cannot pretend, will [at that point] participate in his sovereignty. It is for this reason that St. Paul can say, “Do you not know that we will judge the angels?” (1 Cor 6:3) And this is exactly the situation that he describes in the epistle to the Galations as ours with respect to the law established by them. We have been under the law, and therefore under the angels, as an heir under his custodian. For as long as the heir remains a minor, the custodian is his master. But when the former attains to his majority, the latter becomes what he was in reality, a simple servant—let us not mince words: a slave—in the house in which the heir is lord by hereditary right [(cf. Gal 3:23-24)].

     “Reciprocally, for as long as the definitive economy, that of the Christ, has not supplanted the first, it persists, [together] with the relations that constitute of it the warp and woof. Satan remains the ruler of this world, and he is, in his very malice, the agent of the holy [(justicière)] wrath by which God, through him, makes contact with all of those who have identified themselves with his revolt. [Nonetheless] it remains [the case] that this wrath will accomplish the aims of saving love. . . ."

     Louis Bouyer, “Les deux économies du gouvernement divin: Satan et le Christ,” in Initiation théologiques par un groupe de théologiens, tome II: Dieu et sa creation, 2nd ed. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1953), 514-516 (504-535).