Author Archives: memoirandremains

Freud on the “Freudian Slip”

23 Tuesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Freud, Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The previous look at The Psychopathology of Everyday Life is found here.

            The “Freudian slip” is the most famous of all concepts from Freud. It occurs when someone reveals a hidden motivation by substituting the “wrong” word. As he begins this essay, Freud reviews the work done by Meringer and Mayor, and then the observations of Wundt. 

Freud underscores an element from Wundt – an element which Freud will enforce at the end of this essay: These slips of the tongue take place when there is a “suspension of the attention that it would inhibit it, the uninhibited flow of associations is activated and may be said, even more definitely, to do so through that suspension.” (60) As he says toward the end of the essay, “I do not think anyone would make a slip of the tongue [examples given], in short in all those cases where, as one may say, the mind is really concentrated on the matter in hand.” (96)

Freud rejects the argument that slips of the tongue are merely the result of confusing or substituting sounds of words. He does not deny that sounds of words can have an effect upon errors, and indeed may be the cause of some errors:

But they do not seem to me strong enough to impair correct speech by their own influence alone. In those cases that I have studied closely and of which I can claim some understanding, they merely represent an existing mechanism that can easily be used by a remote psychic motive without its binding itself to the sphere of influence of those connections. In a great many substitutions, a slip of the tongue occurs quite regardless of such laws of phonetics. (79)

Freud explains that he uses these slips to “resolve and track down neurotic symptoms.” (78) Patients “may try to conceal the subject, but cannot help revealing it unintentionally in many different ways.” 

He contends that his theory “will stand up to examination even in its minor details.” (95)

To support his contention, he notes dozens of instances where someone substitutes one word for another, and thereby discloses a secret they had hoped to conceal. 

I found most compelling the example he gave from the novel Egoist by George Meredith (I cannot agree with Freud that Meredith is the “greatest English novelist”). Without rehearsing the entire nature of the example, the proposition is that a woman in the novel, by a confusion of names reveals a secret hope and desire she tries to keep concealed – but cannot. Why I found this example compelling is that is an independent attestation by someone other than Freud (or a professional psychologist/psychiatrist) of the same idea.  Now, since Meredith was a rough contemporary of Freud, it is possible that such ideas “were in the air.” 

However, Freud provides an example from Shakespeare where Portia discloses herself by a slip.

Let’s take his concept seriously, that people sometimes say what they mean to conceal. I would think that best explained by the fact that a person is intently thinking about two things and is speaking with the hope of not saying something but the thoughts get the better of the tongue – we can’t concentrate on two things at once. For instance, Freud gives an example of where he is attempting to defend himself from a conflict with his wife and thus discloses something he did not wish to say.

But Freud has a rather different theory of what happens: He puts the emphasis on the unintended nature of the disclosure. In his theory, the concealed fact just finds a way out because sufficient control is not being brought to bear upon the speech so the unconscious makes a break for it. 

Yet, I think his examples could easily be re-read as not an unconscious escape but rather the conflict of multiple thoughts. 

For instance, he gives the example of where a soldier on trial for burglary used the word Diebstellung – position as thief – when he meant to use the word Dienstellung – military service.  The soldier made this blunder while testifying in Court. But it is in just such a circumstance that Freud said a slip would not occur, “in a speech made in defense of his name and honor before a sworn jury” (96). The soldier was trying to explain that he could not have committed the crime because he was still in the military: but he would at the same time be thinking of what he had been accused. 

If there are revealing substitutions, I don’t think he proves a subversive unconscious but rather a confusion of thoughts. 

Robert Browning, The Lost Mistress

21 Sunday Feb 2021

Posted by in Robert Browning

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

All’s over, then: does truth sound bitter 

As one at first believes? 

Hark, ’tis the sparrows’ good-night twitter 

About your cottage eaves! 

And the leaf-buds on the vine are woolly, 

I noticed that, today; 

One day more bursts them open fully 

– You know the red turns grey. 

Tomorrow we meet the same then, dearest? 

May I take your hand in mine? 

Mere friends are we, – well, friends the merest 

Keep much that I resign: 

For each glance of the eye so bright and black, 

Though I keep with heart’s endeavor, – 

Your voice, when you wish the snowdrops back, 

Though it stay in my soul for ever! – 

Yet I will but say what mere friends say, 

Or only a thought stronger; 

I will hold your hand but as long as all may, 

Or so very little longer! 

Summary: The poem itself is remarkably simple at one level. The poet is saying goodbye to a romantic relationship, not to the woman. As he parts from her home, their romance is over. Come the morning, they will be “friends.”  

What makes the poem striking is the manner in which Browning sketches this awkward, ambivalent moment. He works out the intricacy of the thoughts and emotions of the man who has lost the woman; revealing the shift in their relationship.

It is by turns delicate, melancholy, wicked, hopeful. This short piece is an absolute gem.

First Stanza 

All’s over, then: does truth sound bitter 

As one at first believes? 

Hark, ’tis the sparrows’ good-night twitter 

About your cottage eaves! 

Summary: There are three elements to this stanza: (1) the interjection; (2) the question; and (3) the seemingly irrelevant turn to the sparrows. He is saying a goodbye of sorts, and then he turns to the birds.

Notes:

All’s over: 

The poem is in the voice of the poet to the mistress. We pick up the story in the middle. Something has just happened, but what did happen is unknown to the reader. We’ve walked onto the intimate of moments between two people. The only thing we know is that is definitively over.

By not telling us more than the end has come, Browning puts our focus wholly upon the moment. There is no possible negotiation; our attention thus solely upon the now of their relationship.

The rhythm accentuates the meaning. The poem begins with two consecutive accented syllables. 

Then: does truth sound bitter 

As one at first believes? 

Just as the poem abruptly begins with the end, we see in these lines the subtle turn which is taking place. At first, the truth was bitter. But here is negotiating with the truth and his relationship to it. By saying the bitterness was “at first believe[d]”, he implies that perhaps his original bitterness could be otherwise. He is negotiating with his situation. 

This is not quite hopefulness for the relationship: he is not asking her to reconsider whatever has just taken place. But he is finding something here which will be new. Somehow the bitterness can be displaced.

This sets the agenda for the poem. The initial interjection closes the door on what has just happened. This pausing to think of bitterness opens the door to the movement through the remainder of the poem.

Hark, ’tis the sparrows’ good-night twitter 

About your cottage eaves! 

One misses the connection of these lines if the poem is considered as a straight logical argument. The sparrows from nothing directly to do with the proceeding events. But when we think of this as it would play out emotionally, we have a clue.

You are standing at the door of the woman whom you have loved, and now you must say goodbye to all that hope and desire and expectation. You were on the verge of being crushed and then there in the evening an idea begins to form. You have just been saved from bitterness. And in this moment of incipient joy or hope you notice the birds. The tiny sparrow twitter about her “cottage eaves” (which is much more becoming than “roofline”).

Finally, I can’t help but hearing Wordsworth’s Strange Fits of Passion in the background. I can’t prove it up, but somehow I think it’s lurking here.

Second Stanza

And the leaf-buds on the vine are woolly, 

I noticed that, today; 

One day more bursts them open fully 

– You know the red turns grey. 

He then continues with this lingering observation of her home. Yes, here are the sparrows. I hadn’t noticed them just a moment ago, and look her are the flowers on the vine. 

He is telling her notice that flowers are about to burst open: it will happen tomorrow. By the way, he has a resolution for tomorrow himself. 

The last line is vicious. It is easy to miss the point here and think that Browning is raising the commonplace observation that nothing is permanent. That would be boring. 

Think more carefully: You have just been rejected, on some unknown basis. You were on the verge of being crushed (bitterness) and then you had a change in thoughts. You are not going to be destroyed. You note the lovely sparrows. You note the flowers ready to burst open.

And then he says to her: You know all those flowers will die. He doesn’t say it directly. The vague way he raises the point makes it sound as if he is merely thinking out loud. 

But he tells his “lost mistress,” you know those flowers will die. Yes, that is a retrospective evaluation of his relationship: but the dying flowers are in the future. The death is not what he has just suffered, but what she will soon face. Her flowers have reached their zenith.

Third Stanza

Tomorrow we meet the same then, dearest? 

May I take your hand in mine? 

Mere friends are we, – well, friends the merest 

Keep much that I resign: 

Here begins the negotiation. He has gone from rejection in the first words to having some control over the circumstance. He has already suffered whatever loss he will suffer; her flowers have yet to face.

The “dearest” at the end of the first line is loaded. Is it plaintive? Ironic?

The complication then comes in the lines: (1) may I take your hand; (2) we will be “mere” friends.  These lines are negotiating the nature of their new relationship. 

Mere friends are we, – well, friends the merest 

The rhythm throws the accent on the first syllable. There are two pauses in one line. The chiasm: mere-friends-friends-mere drives the point home in an overkill:

MERE FRIENDS are we ….. well …. FRIENDS the MERest

The last line then introduces his “offer”

Stanza Four

Keep much that I resign: 

For each glance of the eye so bright and black, 

Though I keep with heart’s endeavor, – 

Your voice, when you wish the snowdrops back, 

Though it stay in my soul for ever! – 

This stanza reminds of John Donne’s poem “The Message” which begins:

Send home my long stray’d eyes to me, 

Which O too long have dwelt on thee, 

Yet since there they have learn’d such ill, 

Such forc’d fashions, 

And false passions, 

That they be 

Made by thee 

Fit for no good sight, keep them still.

But the possible allusion to Donne is ironic. Donne is sending everything back, but Browning returns nothing though it is resigned to her. Note the use of the word “though” in the second and fourth lines of the stanza:

For each glance of the eye so bright and black, 

Though I keep with heart’s endeavor, – 

Your voice, when you wish the snowdrops back, 

Though it stay in my soul for ever! – 

He offers back to her each glance she shared with him, and the sound of her voice. And yet, even if he returns it to her, it still remains in his heart and soul. She has already been communicated to him and this cannot be undone. 

So we have come to the place where she cannot obtain she apparently sought: a place where this had never taken place. She has already bestowed something upon him which she cannot retrieve. 

This trope of the lover turning over some secret token which cannot be retrieved and which has become a liability lurks in the background of these lines. 

This matter of love and loss has become significantly more dangerous. 

Which leads us to the conclusion

Fifth Stanza

Yet I will but say what mere friends say, 

Or only a thought stronger; 

I will hold your hand but as long as all may, 

Or so very little longer! 

He returns to the negotiated space of “mere friends” but now discloses what has happened. She has left the tokens with him, and since those tokens cannot be retrieved, even their position of “mere friends” is different.

He only raises the matters of speaking to her and holding her hand. But these matters were already raised above. He said things which mere friends would say, about sparrows and flowers – and yet what he has said is a “thought stronger.” There was more in his mentioning sparrows and flowers than would if someone else had spoken. 

When he touches her hand, it will be for no longer than anyone else. But she will know that something has happened here that has not happened among her other “mere friends.” 

William Burroughs in 1965

19 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Literature

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Often there is a startling gap between the art and the artist. William Burroughs wrote some truly grotesque, strange fiction. I hardly know how to characterize his strange and vicious sarcasm. He was famously debauched; a junky; shot his wife in Mexico City, allegedly playing William Tell.

Digression: In law school, we read a case in criminal law of a man who shot his wife. He defended himself by claiming he was shooting beer cans off the TV and his wife came in and she was accidentally shot. By that point in my legal education I remember thinking, Okay, Not what I would would do, but who knows? Our professor snapping us back into reality asked to consider the matter with more sober judgment. As Thomas Brooks would say, You are wise and know how to apply it.

Back to Mr. Burroughs: proposed some very strange ideas:

“Exterminate all rational thought. That is the conclusion I have come to.”

And, “That’s Panama – Nitrous flesh swept out by your voice and end of receiving set – Brain eating birds patrol the low frequency brain waves – Post card waiting forgotten civilians ‘and they are all on jelly fish, Meester.'”

Burroughs was a remarkably strange, deranged man (and in saying so I do not doubt he would wholly concur). His milieu was madness. Now from this position, Burroughs was insightful in a way few could possibly be:

Junk is the ideal product…the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy…The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client. He pays his stuff in junk.

The face of “evil” is always the face of total need.

On that last quotation, Mr. Burroughs was profoundly Augustinian: evil is a desire for something else, it is always discontentment.

His critique of consumer culture in one novel is so obscene that I cannot repeat it. And yet, the obscenity is like a clarification of the sin of consumerism (we always privilege our own sins and find the sins of others inexplicable; sin is always irrational, and yet not all fish are caught with the same bait. I have caught a marlin while trolling a lure and a catfish with a still bait on the lake floor. All sin is obscene.). Sometimes he was bizarrely hysterical:

A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what’s going on. A psychotic is a guy who’s just found out what’s going on.

Back to Burroughs: This description is from the Paris Review. One would think that such a monster, a murderer, a drug addict, possessed of a bizarre imagination; profane beyond all bounds of civilized society, would be a monster. And thus, to read this description from the Paris Review (if I had literary talent … alas) is both marvelous and comical:

At noon the next day he was ready for the interview. He wore a gray lightweight Brooks Brothers suit with a vest, a blue-striped shirt from Gibraltar cut in the English style, and a deep-blue tie with small white polka dots. His manner was not so much pedagogic as didactic or forensic. He might have been a senior partner in a private bank, charting the course of huge but anonymous fortunes. A friend of the interviewer, spotting Burroughs across the lobby, thought he was a British diplomat. At the age of fifty, he is trim; he performs a complex abdominal exercise daily and walks a good deal. His face carries no excess flesh. His expression is taut, and his features are intense and chiseled. He did not smile during the interview and laughed only once, but he gives the impression of being capable of much dry laughter under other circumstances. His voice is sonorous, its tone reasonable and patient; his accent is mid-Atlantic, the kind of regionless inflection Americans acquire after many years abroad. He speaks elliptically, in short, clear bursts.

George Swinnock, The Christian Man’s Calling, 1.4a

17 Wednesday Feb 2021

Posted by in George Swinnock, George Swinock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

CHAPTER IV

What it is for a man to make religion his business, or to exercise himself to godliness

I proceed to the second particular promised, that is, To shew what it is for a man to exercise himself to godliness. It implieth these three things:

The outline

A. Precedence in all actions

B. Pursue it with “industry”

C. Persevere

A. Precedence in all actions

1. General Statement

2. Categories of Conduct

3. Response to Hinderances

4. Attendance to Worship

5. Exhortation/encouragement

6. Conclusion

First, To give it the precedency in all our actions. That which a man maketh his business, he will be sure to mind, whatsoever he omits. 

1. Swinnock first provides an example to make the standard comprehensible. He is also dealing with a potential objection by using something which he assumes would not entail the same objection. The illustration merely says, Give godliness the same level of attention you do work. But there is an implied argument: One might think, you can’t possibly expect me to devote my primary attention to this. Answer, you willingly devote yourself to your business pursuits. You won’t goof off before you got your work done. Implied argument: Godliness is more important than money. Conclusion: Therefore, you should give godliness this level of attention.

This argument and illustration would have greater force in a world without the excess resources available today in the West. When ruin and starvation were real threats for the reader, the force of you would work hard has a more emphatic effect.

A good husband will serve his shop before his sports, and will sometimes offer a handsome and warrantable kind of disrespect to his friends, that his calling may have his company; he will have some excuse or other to avoid diversions, and force his way to his trade through all opposition, and all because he makes it his business: he that makes religion his business, carrieth himself towards his general, as this man doth towards his particular, calling. 

Then he provides a summary statement. Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you have told them. 

In his whole life he walks with God, and is so mannerly and dutiful, as to give God the upper hand all the way. 

2. Categories: These points will be developed at much greater length in the remainder of the book. What Swinnock does here is to provide the specific categories of conduct: worship, family, work:

He knoweth that his God must be worshipped, that his family must be served, and that his calling must be followed, (for religion doth not nullify, only rectify his carriage towards his earthly vocation;) but each in their order,—that which is first in regard of excellency is first in regard of his industry. 

An illustration with an implied argument

Children > Cattle

Savior > World

He will fulfill the most necessary, even if it costs him elsewhere:

He is not so unnatural as to serve his cattle before his children, nor so atheistical as to serve his body and the world before his soul and his Saviour. He is so sensible of his infinite engagements to the blessed God, that he allotteth some time every day for his religious duties; and he will be sure to pay God home to the utmost of his ability, whosoever he compounds with, or pays short.

3. Hinderances

The use of a sea voyage as a metaphor for the difficulties of life was a commonplace during this time in England. And again, the metaphor involves an argument: Just as a mariner in a storm would not give place to distractions which would keep from coming to port, so a godly man will not allow distractions to keep him from heaven:

As he sails along through the tempestuous sea of this world towards his eternal haven of rest, he hath many temporal affairs in his company, but he is specially careful that they keep their distance, and strike sail through the whole voyage. 

If the other calls upon his time will not keep to their place, then they simply must go. The applicable story of Hagar is found in Genesis 21:

If his worldly businesses offer, like Hagar, to jostle or quarrel for pre-eminence with their superior, religion, he will, if possible, chide them into subjection, and cause them to submit; but rather cast them out than suffer them to usurp authority over their mistress.

That is a rather complicated series of clauses:

If his worldly businesses offer, 

                        like Hagar, 

            to jostle or quarrel for pre-eminence 

                        with their superior, 

                                    religion, 

he will, 

            if possible, 

chide them into subjection, 

and cause them to submit; 

but rather cast them out 

            than suffer them to usurp authority over their mistress.

He then enters into a counter argument, although this is not clearly explained. If someone follows in godliness, but does not really have a desire for it, will follow after distractions. The Gadarenes: In Matthew 8, Jesus, in the land of the Gadarenes, heals a man filled with demons. The demons move from the man into the swine. The people of the land are more upset by the death of the pigs, than they are pleased with the salvation of a man:

He that minds religion by the by, will, if other things intervene, put it back, and be glad of an excuse to waive that company, to which he hath no love; nay, he doth in the whole course of his life prefer his swine, as the Gadarenes, before his soul; set the servant on horseback and suffer the master to go on foot. 

He here uses three illustrations from Scripture. This was a common use of Scripture as illustration among the Puritans. But what needs to be noted is that the passages are not used as prooftexts or as exegesis: 

In the first, just as a hardhearted wealthy man ignores the life of the poor and speaks rudely to him. This images works well for his point. The second involves Jacob (Gen. 48) where he blesses the second-born over the first born, and so one who prioritizes anything over godliness has their priorities in the wrong order. The second image is not as successful, because Jacob’s decision was the correct one in his case. The third is an oblique reference to Esau

His voice to religion is like the Jews’ to the poor man in vile raiment, ‘Stand thou there, or sit thou here under my footstool;’ and his words to the world are like theirs to the man in goodly apparel, ‘Come up hither, or sit thou here in a good place,’ James 2:2, 3.  

He doth, like Jacob, lay the right hand of his care and diligence upon the youngest son, the body, and the left hand upon the first-born, the soul. 

That which was Esau’s curse is esteemed by him as a blessing, that the elder serves the younger: 

Swinnock ends the three illustrations with a characterization of one who leaves off godliness. The first element is the stupidity of preferring the lesser before the greater; the last three elements all involve his rebellion against God:

he is 

[1]so unwise as to esteem lying vanities before real mercies; 

[2]often so unworthy as to forget God, 

            [a]whosoever he remembereth; 

[3]and so uncivil at best as to give God the world’s leavings, 

[4]and to let the almighty Creator dance attendance till he pleaseth to be at leisure. 

What this practice looks like:

If he be in the midst of his devotion, he makes an end upon the smallest occasion; and is like the patriarch, who ran from the altar, when he was about his office, to see a foal new fallen from his beloved mare.

4. Attendance to Worship

Here we have proposition (God first), example, (Abraham’s steward), application (godliness is an errand):

But every saint, like Solomon, first builds a house for God, and then for himself. Whoever be displeased, or whatever be neglected, he will take care that God be worshipped. 

Abraham’s steward, when sent to provide a wife for Isaac, though meat were set before him, refused to eat till he had done his errand, Gen. 24:33. 

Godliness is the errand about which man is sent into the world; now, as faithful servants, we must prefer our message before our meat, and serve our master before ourselves.

What this means to make godliness his chief errand.  In this instance, he states that godliness must be the element which begins the day:

He that makes godliness his business gives it the first of the day, and the first place all the day. He gives it the first of the day: 

Now he gives examples to prove the point:

Jesus Christ was at prayer ‘a great while before day,’ Mark 1:35.

Abraham ‘rose up early in the morning to offer sacrifice,’ Gen. 22:1;

so did Job, chap. 1:5.

David crieth out, ‘O God, my God, early will I seek thee,’ Ps. 63:1. ‘In the morning will I direct my prayer to thee, and look up,’ Ps. 5:3.

The next two examples contain an implicit argument: If the pagan will rise early to worship a false god, then certainly you should rise early to worship the true:

The Philistines in the morning early offered to their god Dagon. The Persian magi worshipped the rising sun with their early hymns. 

He then repeats the original proposition together with a flourish. This sort of construction is quite common in Swinnock:

Proposition

Illustration

Application

Proposition recap

The saint in the morning waits upon heaven’s Majesty. As soon as he awakes he is with God; one of his first works, when he riseth, is to ask his heavenly Father’s blessing. Like the lark, he is up early, singing sweetly the praise of his Maker; and often, with the nightingale, late up, at the same pleasant tune.

This final repetition and recap would do better if the first line were dropped. It seems out of place:

He finds the morning a greater friend to the Graces than it can be to the Muses. Naturalists tell us that the most orient pearls are generated of the morning dew. Sure I am, he hath sweet communion with God in morning duties.

5. Exhortation/encouragement

Reader, let me tell thee, if religion be thine occupation, thy business, God will hear from thee in the morning; one of the first things after thou art up will be to fall down and worship him. Thy mind will be most free in the morning, and thine affections most lively, (as those strong waters are fullest of spirits which are first drawn;) and surely thou canst not think but that God, who is the best and chiefest good, hath most right to them, and is most worthy of them.

Contemporary style in exegetical preaching is to put all the application or encouragement in a separate section at the end. I find that a fault, because it elevates a sense of structure over the reality of recipient. Swinnock has been pretty strict about the duty to be done. In the words of the catechism, this is to “Glorify God.” But this duty is not meant to be a drudge: the remainder of the catechism’s answer is to “enjoy Him forever.” Swinnock’s exhortation is not merely do because must; it is do, also, because it will be your joy. 

We fail in godliness often times because it seems joy rests elsewhere. The dour Puritanism of Hawthorne has nothing to Swinnock’s religion. Perhaps the way to square the two is that the one who does not know God cannot enjoy God; and such a one’s outward conduct can only be drudgery, because he must give up the (deceiving) joys of sin and gains nothing in return. I suppose a man would rather have a mirage of water than none at all.

He provides a second exhortation and encouragement, this time he basis upon the Christian’s nature: you were born to greater things than sin:

As a godly man gives religion the precedency of the day, so he gives it the precedency in the day. The Jews, some say, divide their day into prayer, labour, and repast, and they will not omit prayer either for their meat or labour. Grace (as well as nature) teacheth a godly man not to neglect either his family or body; but it teacheth him also to prefer his soul and his God before them both. Seneca, though a heathen, could say, I am greater, and born to greater things, than to be a drudge to, and the slave of, my body. A Christian’s character is, that he is not carnal, or for his body, but spiritual, or for his soul, Rom. 8. It was a great praise which Ambrose speaks of Valentinian, Never man was a better servant to his master, than Valentinian’s body was to his soul.

6. Summary

This is the godly man’s duty, to make heaven his throne, and the earth his footstool. 

This is an allusion to Isaiah 66:1

Thus says the Lord

Heaven is my throne

The earth is my footstool.

It is the exposition which one gives upon those words, ‘Subdue the earth,’ Gen. 1:28, that is, thy body, and all earthly things, to thy soul. 

This is an interesting exposition of the command from Genesis. In context, this plainly applies to giving order to the physical creation, making it a garden. This sort of application is not a “grammatical-historical-literary” exposition. This would be an “analogical” or “spiritual” level of exegesis. 

ANAGOGICAL. This is one of the four senses in which Scripture may be interpreted, viz. the literal, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological. The anagogical sense is given when the text is explained with regard to the end which Christians should have in view, that is, eternal life: for example, the rest of the Sabbath, in the anagogical sense, corresponds to the repose of everlasting blessedness.

Richard Watson, “Anagogical,” A Biblical and Theological Dictionary (New York: Lane & Scott, 1851), 52.

He ends with an argument for the precedence of godliness: the purpose of our life is where we are going. This teleological sense is interesting in how it plays out. There is an attitude that one may ignore this world, because there will be a New Heaven and New Earth; this life thus becomes unimportant. But note what Swinnock said above: godliness entails worship of God, care for our family, attention to our vocation. Godliness entails the manner of living here, but with an eye to the result of that work. It is not an abandonment of the world.

Our earthly callings must give way to our heavenly; we must say to them, as Christ to his disciples, ‘Tarry you here, while I go and pray yonder.’ 

And truly godliness must be first in our prayers—‘Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come,’ before ‘Give us this day our daily bread;’ and first in all our practices—‘Seek first the kingdom of God, and the righteousness thereof, and all other things shall be added to you,’ Mat. 6:33.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 31, Begraced by Glory.5

14 Sunday Feb 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Stanza 5

By me all lost, by thee all are regained.

All things are thus fall’n now into thy hand.

And thou steep’st in thy blood what sin had stained

That th’stains and poisons may not therein stand.

And having stuck thy grace o’re all the same (35)

Thou giv’st it as a glorious gift again.

Summary: The eschatology of Christianity is both personal and universal; it is both in time and beyond time. The time before the Fall is brought forward into eternity. The tree of life which was lost in the Fall in the Garden is in the New Heavens and New Earth. (Rev. 22:2) The rivers of Eden return as the River of Life. (Rev. 22:1) What was had – and lost – is given “as a glorious gift again.” There is also the person eschatology: The damage done by sin is remedied by blood of Christ – which is both a healing gift of grace, and what makes the poet fit to receive grace.

Notes:

By me all lost, by thee all are regained.

This language of “all” comes directly from motto for this poem, “All things are yours .. the world or life or death or the present or the future”. This theme of “all” played a substantial element of Puritan theology. Thomas Watson wrote an entire book on the subject, “The Christian’s Charter.” Often this “all things” is contrasted at length with good which we can have in this world: goods which do not keep. So for instance, George Swinnock, in chapters 14 & 15 of The Fading of the Flesh, contrasts the difference between what is had the graceless and gracious (one who has received grace) in this world and the different between the sinner’s and the saint’s portion in the life to come. 

The all received by grace is not merely the consummation of the world and a life to come. It is a thing present now in this life. 

A passage by Thomas Brooks may help to understand what is regained:

O sirs! if God be your portion, 

then every promise in the book of God is yours, 

and every attribute in the book of God is yours, 

and every privilege in the book of God is yours, 

and every comfort in the book of God is yours, 

and every blessing in the book of God is yours, 

and every treasury in the book of God is yours, 

and every mercy in the book of God is yours, 

and every ordinance in the book of God is yours, 

and every sweet in the book of God is yours; 

if God be yours, all is yours.

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 2 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 66.

All things are thus fall’n now into thy hand.

There is an irony in this line: in the fall all was lost; but now through the reversal of sin and death by Christ suffering death for others sin, and thus the “all” falls into his hands.

And thou steep’st in thy blood what sin had stained

That th’stains and poisons may not therein stand.

There has been an irony in Christian imagery that the blood of Christ washes the sinner clean. A much later song which became well-known through the Salvation Army’s use:

Are you washed in the blood,
In the soul cleansing blood of the Lamb?
Are your garments spotless?
Are they white as snow?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

The perhaps the most direct biblical allusions which line behind this line

Isaiah 1:18 (AV)

18 Come now, and let us reason together, 

saith the LORD: 

though your sins be as scarlet, 

they shall be as white as snow; 

though they be red like crimson, 

they shall be as wool.

There is also the imagery of the sacrifice which runs through the Bible. What is always so strange of these passages is how something can be cleansed with blood? Blood would never make anything clean. 

Taylor explains that the sin which has stained his life is removed by means of the blood shed, because the blood takes the place of the sin stained.  The garment becomes so soaked in blood that there is no room for the poison and stains

There is an implied image of the thing being cleansed being a garment. The image of the garment being cleansed is present in certain rules concerning being unclean, but perhaps is most directly taken from Jude 18, “the garment spotted by the flesh.”

And having stuck thy grace o’re all the same (35)

Thou giv’st it as a glorious gift again.

The restored garment – the restoration of the entire life – is given back to Taylor as a gift. One relationship here is found in the return of the Prodigal Son. The son who has hatefully rebelled against his father and lost his inheritance returns home to hope for the life of a servant is given a glorious robe and invited to a feast. 

This also is similar to the imagery of Pilgrim’s Progress where Christian is given glorious clothing to make his new life. 

Also note that the grace conveys “glory”. The hope of the Christian is glorious, but is also glory:

1 Peter 1:3–9 (AV)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 

6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Thus, while the renovation of the Creation will be glorious, there also will be glory of each individual. We will become glorious. In the Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis wrote, ““the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.” 

Union with Christ

One final note on this stanza is the blood which is graciously given which makes him fit to receive the grace. Blood is as intimate as could exist. Moreover, the life is in the blood. Lev. 11:17. The is this life blood which works the transformation. His identification as being covered in this blood is the gracious condition which makes “all yours.”

Musical:

And thou STeep’Tt in thy blood what Sin had STained

That th’STains and poiSonS may not therein STtand.

And having STuck thy Grace o’re all the Same (35)

Thou Giv’ST it as a Glorious Gift aGain.

The repetition of the sounds as noted, tied these lines together. 

The scansion has some interesting features:

and thou STEEP’ST in THY BLOOD what SIN had STAINED

that TH’STAINS and POIsons may NOT therein STAND

and having STUCK thy GRACE o’re ALL the SAME

THOU GIV’ST it as a GLORious GIFT aGAIN

The accents tracks the alliteration, so that each underscores the other. Thus, the rhythm and the sounds each seek to press the emphasis on meaning of the words. 

Edward Taylor, Meditation 31, Begraced by Glory.5

12 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Grace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Stanza 5:

What e’re we want, we cannot cry for, nay, (25)

If that we could, we could not have it thus. 

The angels can’t devise, nor yet convey

Help in their gold pipes from God to us.

But thou my Lord (heart leap for joy and sing)

Hast done the deed: and’t makes the heavens ring. (30)

Summary: The poet undertakes an interesting distance from himself throughout this poem. First, he has been operating from an interesting psychological point of view because he sees himself addicted helpless to sin and simultaneously sees himself from the outside as some sort of loathsome beast. He is an addict who cannot put down the needle and who in the same moment wretches for the vile creature he has become. 

In this stanza the looks to find some relief, but knows it is impossible:

We e’re want [that is, whatever it is we lack] we cannot cry for.

There is something we need but there is no way to fulfill this need: we cannot even cry for it.

We cannot look to angels, because we need is from God, and angels cannot convey this to us. Only God himself can do so – and has done so. This unwarranted and unobtained benefit is a cause for joy.

Notes:

We cannot cry: Crying out in distress is the refrain of the book of Judges. The people of Israel repeatedly turn to idolatry. In response, God leaves them to their unfriendly neighbors. The Israelites then cry out to God, who in turn says them. In the beginning of chapter 2 (the book is not chronological), the Angel of the Lord “went up from Gilgal to Bochim.” Bochim is a Hebrew word which means “weeping.”  The Angel tells the people that since they have refused to keep their covenant with God, God will no longer hear their cries and defend them. 

Later in Judges 10:14, God again confronts the people who have turned from him. “God and cry out to the gods whom you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress.”

Taylor seems to have an illusion to these passages: I am so deeply embedded in sin that I cannot cry for help. In particular, the end of line 26 underscores this point: our cry – were able to make such a cry would be of no use, “we cannot have it thus.”

The Angels cannot convey: Even though angels are given as “ministering spirits set out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14) there are limits on the help they can convey. 

The degree help needed by Taylor in his state of sin exceeds the assistance of angels. The lack of the human being in the state of sin exceeds some external aid. The language used to describe the condition of sin speaks to an irremediable condition.  

The angels are said to have conveyed the law (Heb. 2:2, “the message declared by angels”). This seems to put something into human hands, but “by works of the law, no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

The “golden pipes” of the angels in end only could convey knowledge of guilt.

But thou my Lord … hast done the deed: This speaks to the work of Jesus who destroyed sin and death, and him who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). 

 Heart leap for joy and sing … “Rejoice in the Lord always and again I will say rejoice.” (Phil. 4:4)

And’t makes the heavens ring: “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Heb. 1:6. 

Psalms 118:23-24

This is the Lord’s doing

It is marvelous in our eyes.

This is the day the Lord has made

Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Musical

What e’re we want, we cannot cry for, nay

If that we could, we could not have it thus.

These lines have an interesting rhetorical structure: A conditional, followed by an unconditional rejection: Whatever it is we need, we cannot have it. And even if we could have it, we cannot. The structure of the clauses is held together by the repetition of the word “we”: we want, we cannot cry, we could, we could. 

This is an example of anaphora: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/anaphora.htm

Edward Taylor, Meditation 31, Begraced with Glory.4

10 Wednesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Sin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Stanza Four:

But that is not the worst: there’s worse than this.

My taste is lost; no bite tastes sweet to me

But what is dipped all over in this dish.

Of rank rank poison: this my sauce must be.

Hell heaven, heaven hell, yea bitter sweet:

Poison’s my food: food poison in’t doth keep.

Summary: I have come to love the Devil’s sauce sin that I cannot enjoy anything without this poison. I love the poison. I am so upside down that I must have sin mixed in with everything I do.

Notes:

This gets at something which was very important in much Puritans were quite interested, the way in which sin both twisted the human being and at the same time created the desire for sin itself:

“The example in Romans 7:8 of Paul, who by his own account, was one of the most morally degenerate men who ever lived (Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13, 15), provides a gateway for Goodwin to understand how no man or woman in a carnal state is free from inclination to all sin. The struggling man in Romans 7 was viewed by the Puritans as a Christian,32 but verse 8 has reference to Paul in his unconverted state. The sin in Paul in this verse is original sin, and original sin produced in him “all manner of concupiscence,” that is, all kinds of covetous lust or desire for things forbidden.33 As Edward Reynolds put it, “It is as natural to the heart to lust, as it is to the eye to see.”34 Self-love, instead of love to God, results from original sin.” Beeke, Joel R.; Jones, Mark. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 279-280). Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.

Jonathan Edwards notes that even though there is such variety in the circumstances among human beings, there is one thing which invariably shows up, sin: 

THE proposition laid down being proved, the consequence of it remains to be made out, viz. that the mind of man has a natural tendency or propensity to that event, which has been shewn universally and infallibly to take place (if this ben’t sufficiently evident of itself, without proof), and that this is a corrupt or depraved propensity.

Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, ed. John E. Smith and Clyde A. Holbrook, Corrected Edition., vol. 3, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1997), 120. And:

The general continued wickedness of mankind, against such means and motives, proves each of these things, viz. that the cause is fixed, and that the fixed cause is internal, in man’s nature, and also that it is very powerful. It proves the first, namely, that the cause is fixed, because the effect is so abiding, through so many changes. It proves the second, that is, that the fixed cause is internal, because the circumstances are so various: the variety of means and motives is one thing that is to be referred to the head of variety of circumstances: and they are that kind of circumstances, which above all others proves this; for they are such circumstances as can’t possibly cause the effect, being most opposite to the effect in their tendency.

193. As Edwards’ explains in his Treatise Freedom of the Will, it is desire that binds the will. And thus this universal tendency to sin is the result of a universal desire. 

What Taylor does so well in this stanza is to couple desire and poison into a single movement: We desire our destruction.  There is an image from Jeremiah which helps here:

Jeremiah 2:23–25 (AV) 

23 How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways; 24 A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her. 25 Withhold thy foot from being unshod, and thy throat from thirst: but thou saidst, There is no hope: no; for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go. 

Taylor does not copy the image, but he does rely upon the concept.

Thomas Brooks provides a closer parallel:

Sin is from the greatest deceiver, it is a child of his own begetting, it is the ground of all the deceit in the world, and it is in its own nature exceeding deceitful. Heb. 3:13, ‘But exhort one another daily, while it is called To-day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.’ It will kiss the soul, and pretend fair to the soul, and yet betray the soul for ever. It will with Delilah smile upon us, that it may betray us into the hands of the devil, as she did Samson into the hands of the Philistines. Sin gives Satan a power over us, and an advantage to accuse us and to lay claim to us, as those that wear his badge; it is of a very bewitching nature, it bewitches the soul, where it is upon the throne, that the soul cannot leave it, though it perish eternally by it.4 Sin so bewitches the soul, that it makes the soul call evil good, and good evil; bitter sweet and sweet bitter, light darkness and darkness light; and a soul thus bewitched with sin will stand it out to the death, at the sword’s point with God; let God strike and wound, and cut to the very bone, yet the bewitched soul cares not, fears no but will still hold on in a course of wickedness, as you may see in Pharaoh, Balaam, and Judas. Tell the bewitched soul that sin is a viper that will certainly kill when it is not killed, that sin often kills secretly, insensibly, eternally, yet the bewitched soul cannot, nor will not, cease from sin.

When the physicians told Theotimus that except he did abstain from drunkenness and uncleanness, &c., he would lose his eyes, his heart was so bewitched to his sins, that he answers, ‘Then farewell sweet light;’1 he had rather lose his eyes than leave his sin. So a man bewitched with sin had rather lose God, Christ, heaven, and his own soul than part with his sin. Oh, therefore, for ever take heed of playing or nibbling at Satan’s golden baits

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 15–16.

And this:

Many long to be meddling with the murdering morsels of sin, which nourish not, but rent and consume the belly, the soul, that receives them. Many eat that on earth that they digest in hell. Sin’s murdering morsels will deceive those that devour them. Adam’s apple was a bitter sweet; Esau’s mess was a bitter sweet; the Israelites’ quails a bitter sweet; Jonathan’s honey a bitter sweet; and Adonijah’s dainties a bitter sweet. After the meal is ended, then comes the reckoning. Men must not think to dance and dine with the devil, and then to sup with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; to feed upon the poison of asps, and yet that the viper’s tongue should not slay them

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 14.

Musical

But that is not the worst: there’s worse than this.

My taste is lost; no bite tastes sweet to me (20)

But what is dipped all over in this dish.

Of rank rank poison: this my sauce must be.

Hell heaven, heaven hell, yea bitter sweet:

Poison’s my food: food poison in’t doth keep.

The r’s and s’s work well together especially in the first line. 
“Worse than this” by itself is not a very promising “poetic” line. But the repetition of “worst/worse” “the worst there’s worse” also works. The next line picks up on these sound but now we the repetition of taste/tastes, and the sounds of “tastes sweet”, where the s’s and t’s: t-s-t-s-t. Line 21 again works on a alliteration: dipped-dish. 

This alliteration within the individual line gives a feel of Anglo-Saxon poetry where alliteration is a primary means to hold a line together

Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, 

monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah, 

(Beowulf)

He uses the very same technique in the remainder of the stanza, but in the last two lines he uses the alliteration to underscore the reversals:

Of rank rank poison: this my sauce must be.

Hell heaven, heaven hell, yea bitter sweet:

Poison’s my food: food poison in’t doth keep.

Hl – hn / hn – hl

P-f/f-p

The word “poison” ties these lines together. 

He marks the transition into this section by means of the repetition of “rank-rank” which slows the movement of the stanza. It is then offset by a colon and the sad, “This my sauce must be.” Note again the m-s/m-s repetition. 

The line, “This my sauce must be” is a rather sad resignation. It reminds me of the tone of Hosea, “Ephraim is joined to idols;/Leave him alone.”

Final note: What is most devasting about the poet’s situation is that there is no rescue from this place. Even though he is destroying himself, he wants to be here. It is like finding someone in a prison and they refuse to leave.

Developing Theological Tools for Biblical Counseling to Evaluate Psychological Propositions

09 Tuesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

(The following is a draft introduction for an article for the Journal of Biblical Soul Care.)

An underlying issue when considering the application and usefulness of any proposition or theory from what is called “psychology” lies with the nature of the theological commitments which make possible or which are inherent in any such proposition of theory. By means of this essay, I hope to begin to provide some tools for the analysis of psychologies. 

To take the simplest example, one must begin with some rather remarkably non-Christian presuppositions and commitments to hold that the psychology of Freud or Jung constitute accurate views of the human being. Indeed, both Freud and Jung (to cherry-pick two examples) require explicit commitments about God to be received as accurate theological constructs. Merely read Freud’s The Future of an Illusion or anything by Jung on the collective unconscious and you will see you are in the midst of a fundamentally non-Christian worldview.

One could easily contend that I do not need to swallow whole Freud’s wish-fulfillment theories of God to find his discussion of the unconscious useful. Nor must I follow Jung into his introduction to the Tibetan Book of the Dead to find something useful in his consideration of the shadow-self and the integration into wholeness. 

But to think that I can lay hold of one proposition and not drag along other commitments is naïve. It is like picking up a twig tangled in web with a spider and her eggs hitching along for the ride. This is not to say that we can never consider an observation made by a non-Christian. But such an interaction requires substantial nuance. 

From a biblical perspective, there must be biblical justification for the use of such “foreign” doctrines.[1]

There are a couple of theories which have been advanced to support such interaction. One theory has been reliance upon the supposed scope of common grace. However, as I have demonstrated in the prior to essays, there is no basis from common grace to support a wholesale appropriate of assured results of modern academic or clinical psychology broadly stated. I proposed a three-tiered structure of various types of psychology, ranging from physiological, sociological observation, and finally clinical theories. I proposed varying degrees of use we could make of this work.

The other major justification for integration[2] is based upon the example of Solomon who unquestionably interacts with traditional wisdom form Egypt in the book of Proverbs.[3]

This interaction of Solomon with non-Israelite wisdom has been raised specifically as a point in the discussion of the “integration” of biblical counseling and secular psychologies. John Hilber, having reviewed the use of “foreign” sources of wisdom in the drafting of his proverbs, made the following conclusions: 

The implications of these examples for the question of integration in counseling are significant. First, some situations call for expertise from specialists within the covenant community, namely, professional counselors. Second, wisdom is creative and often unconventional. Methods of counseling intervention are not limited to those techniques that can be derived explicitly from Scripture. Third, the use of the Bible in counseling is not mandatory in order for the counseling to be “biblical.”[4]

The argument that Solomon’s usage justifies any usage I determine to make is problematic, because it presumes that I have the wisdom of Solomon so as to know what and how to proceed.  Here is selection from another Egyptian sage, what should a wise Christian do with this?

    Trust not a brother, know not a friend,

    Make no (5) intimates, it is worthless.

    When you lie down, guard your heart yourself,

    For no man has adherents on the day of woe.[5]

Do I accept it? Do I reject it because it contradicts the Bible elsewhere? If I reject because it contradicts the Scripture, then what do I do with propositions which are ambiguously related to Scripture. But perhaps this example from Charles Dickens will make the matter more clear. Solomon compares the diligent to the ant. What about bees? Bees certainly are a good example:

‘Thankee, sir, thankee,’ returned that gentleman. ‘And how do YOU like the law?’ ‘A–not particularly,’ returned Eugene. ‘Too dry for you, eh? Well, I suppose it wants some years of sticking to, before you master it. But there’s nothing like work. Look at the bees.’

‘I beg your pardon,’ returned Eugene, with a reluctant smile, ‘but will you excuse my mentioning that I always protest against being referred to the bees?’ 

‘Do you!’ said Mr Boffin. 

‘I object on principle,’ said Eugene, ‘as a biped–‘ 

‘As a what?’ asked Mr Boffin. 

‘As a two-footed creature;–I object on principle, as a two-footed creature, to being constantly referred to insects and four-footed creatures. I object to being required to model my proceedings according to the proceedings of the bee, or the dog, or the spider, or the camel. I fully admit that the camel, for instance, is an excessively temperate person; but he has several stomachs to entertain himself with, and I have only one. Besides, I am not fitted up with a convenient cool cellar to keep my drink in.’ 

‘But I said, you know,’ urged Mr Boffin, rather at a loss for an answer, ‘the bee.’

‘Exactly. And may I represent to you that it’s injudicious to say the bee? For the whole case is assumed. Conceding for a moment that there is any analogy between a bee, and a man in a shirt and pantaloons (which I deny), and that it is settled that the man is to learn from the bee (which I also deny), the question still remains, what is he to learn? To imitate? Or to avoid? When your friends the bees worry themselves to that highly fluttered extent about their sovereign, and become perfectly distracted touching the slightest monarchical movement, are we men to learn the greatness of Tuft-hunting, or the littleness of the Court Circular? I am not clear, Mr Boffin, but that the hive may be satirical.’ 

‘At all events, they work,’ said Mr Boffin. 

‘Ye-es,’ returned Eugene, disparagingly, ‘they work; but don’t you think they overdo it? They work so much more than they need–they make so much more than they can eat–they are so incessantly boring and buzzing at their one idea till Death comes upon them–that don’t you think they overdo it? And are human labourers to have no holidays, because of the bees? And am I never to have change of air, because the bees don’t? Mr Boffin, I think honey excellent at breakfast; but, regarded in the light of my conventional schoolmaster and moralist, I protest against the tyrannical humbug of your friend the bee. With the highest respect for you.’[6]

You see, it is not so simple as it may seem.  

Beginning in this essay the goal will be to take a closer look at the propositions of “psychology” broadly stated and provide tools for detailed evaluation. The criteria I proposed for reliance upon common grace as a basis for interacting with secular psychologies, while useful (I trust) is not sufficient. 

It is the thesis of this examination that our utilization or examination of any “secular” proposition begin with the nature of the theological commitments which make the proposition possible. If that is unclear, and I admit it will take some unpacking, I trust the actual work of examining theological commitments will be made plain as we work through the types of information offered to us by “psychology.”

In proceeding with this examination I will assume familiarity with the previous two essays as proceeding chapters in a long argument concerning the relationship between Biblical Soul Care and the work of other men and women having been done concerning what can broadly be stated as psychology. “Psychology” includes far more than the work of modern “scientific” psychology, and entails a great deal of work done by explicitly Christian thinkers pertaining to pastoral work and theology.

I will examine psychology under the three-tiered categorization which I posited in the previous essay (fully granting all of the limitations of a broadly stated categorization) and will examine the theological commitments in the following areas: Epistemology, Anthropology, Teleology, and Methodology.  The last three make a neat acronym, ATM. I could offer “TEAM”, but that acronym does not follow the levels of analysis which are necessary to make this work properly. The best I could do is EAT’M,  which one can use if it helps!

The Importance of Understanding the Theological Basis for Facts and Observations

Facts are not merely about to picked-up as so many pebbles on the beach. The very decision to look for facts, what facts to look for; the determination of the beginning and ending of a fact as a segregable unit of information; et cetera are all determined by some prior commitment. 

As a practical matter, we rarely consider the nature of our knowledge. We look at the world, draw conclusions, et cetera without intensive thought on the matter. Unless and until we need to communicate with someone who operates on a different basis and with a different set of presuppositions, we do not even need to consider the nature of our knowledge. 

The scope of commitments and the nature of knowledge is not perfectly identical between any two human beings. However, the difficulty in communicating in most instances amounts to slight “misunderstandings.” As we expand the number of differences between any two humans, the degree of difficulty increases. The task of “translation” needs to be further formalized.

We understand this need for translation when it comes to language, moving between Spanish and English, for instance. But we are also aware of the need to engage in the task of cultural translations. 

What I am proposing here is the work knowledge translation as move between a biblical and a non-biblical worldview. If we were to reject every instance of  information which was not expressly derived by those holding a biblical understanding of reality, it would be impossible to function in this world. Yet, if we unquestionably receive all “so-called knowledge” without critical analysis, we will find our souls poisoned by the rankest heresies. 

The Four Basic Issues of Knowledge:

In the essay, “Epistemology and the Mirror of Nature,” Michael Williams lists out four perennial issues concerning the nature of knowledge:

1. The analytical problem. What is knowledge? (Or, if we prefer, what do we, or should we, mean by “knowledge”?) For example, how is (or should) knowledge be distinguished from mere belief or opinion? What we want here, ideally, is a precise explication or analysis of the concept of knowledge.  

2. The problem of demarcation. There are two sub-problems here. The first concerns whether we can determine, in some principled way, what sorts of things we might reasonably expect to know about? Or, as is sometimes said, what are the scope and limits of human knowledge? Do some subjects lie within the province of knowledge while others are fated to remain in the province of opinion, or even faith? Since the aim here is to draw a boundary separating the province of knowledge from other cognitive domains, we call this the “external” boundary (or demarcation) problem. But there is also an internal boundary problem. We may wonder whether we should think of knowledge as all of a piece Or there importantly different kinds of knowledge: for example, a priori and a posteriori knowledge?

3. The problem of method. How is knowledge obtained or sought? Is there just one way, or are there several, depending on the sort of knowledge in question? (Here the problem of method interacts with the internal demarcation problem.) Furthermore, can we improve our ways of seeking knowledge? 

4. The problem of skepticism. Given the existence of seemingly intuitive skeptical arguments, why suppose that knowledge is even possible? 196

We cannot deal with all of these problems in these essays. But what you must understand is that even the very fact of knowledge has become an increasingly difficult problem for everyone.  

Some Examples of How Presuppositions Effect the Content of Knowledge

Let us we perform an experiment and we consider only are searching for something which we can see with our eyes. We flip a switch; a light goes on. Since we have not utilized any mechanism which can “observe” electricity, we have no fact of electricity. And thus we conclude that some magical substance which does not move through physical space causes the light to go on when we flip the switch.

The example is obvious, because we “know” what we are looking for – electricity. But that is the point; it is only when we know what to look for that we can find a thing. A thing which is not sought will not be found. 

Or what of this example involving Jesus:

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,”

Luke 11:14–15 (ESV). Much of the original audience for Jesus’ miracles had difficulty knowing what to make of this man. The fact of the exorcism was not in dispute – the understanding, the meaning of the event was profoundly disputed. In order to understand the event which everyone observed, one must begin with some other body of knowledge, presuppositions which underlay the observed event. Understanding those presuppositions is critical if we are to evaluate the meaning of a report from this exorcism.

Let’s take a look from the perspective of Michael Williams’ four question: If I have been present at the event, what “knowledge” do I actually possess. How can I go about determining what there is to know about this strange circumstance? Do my senses provide sufficient knowledge? How and should expectations or presuppositions fill out my “knowledge.” Should I consult such expectations or should use some other skill? What is the beginning and ending of the “facts” at issue?

Imagine speaking to two different observers. One person says God has visited Israel in the work of this prophet Jesus of Nazareth (his Divinity being an even more difficult matter to comprehend). Today this prophet cast out a demon. A second observer says that Satan is deceiving the people through all manner of lying miracles. If we imagine a more skeptical observer we would have this report: Today a person suffering from a psychosomatic psychological delusion immediately snapped out of his self-inflicted insanity at the suggestion of a remarkably persuasive man.

The different events were the result of three different sets of presuppositions.[7]

Consider this example draw from psychology. A study determines that Finland is the happiest country in the world, and that some aspect of Finnish society causes this happiness.

Happiness is certainly not contrary to the Scripture or orthodox Christianity. Now consider these remarkably different understandings of happiness. The Puritan Thomas Manton writes:

Christians, a man that flows in wealth and honour, till he be pardoned, is not a happy man. A man that lives afflicted, contemned, not taken notice of in the world, if he be a pardoned sinner, oh, the blessedness of that man! They are not happy that have least trouble, but they that have least cause[8].

Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, begins with a series propositions of what makes a person “blessed” (supremely happy): poor in spirit, meekness, sorrow, hunger and thirsting after righteousness, being persecuted. Compare those prerequisites for happiness with this academic conclusion from John Reich, Emeritus Professor at the University of Arizona:

Based on clinical interviews and self-report measures I’ve initiated and studied, I believe that happiness is being aware not only of the positive events that occur in your life but also that you yourself are the cause of these events–that you can create them, that you control their occurrence, and that you play a major role in the good things that happen to you.[9]

I am not here to contend with Dr. Reich. What I merely mean to underscore is that Jesus and John Reich have fundamentally different understandings of what constitutes and causes “happiness.” Thus, when I consider the Finnish report on happiness, I need to understand the basis of what is even meant by “happiness.” 

Or consider perhaps the clearer example a dinosaur bone. In recent years, much to the surprise of the paleontologists who have found them, dinosaur bones and fossils have shown up with remarkably well-preserved soft tissue. In some cases, proteins have been retrieved from the remains. That is the fact. But the meaning of the fact is a point of some contention. Does this mean that the bones are not 65,000,000 years old; or does it mean that the mechanics of tissue preservation have been wrong and that such tissue can does resist the grinding of time? The answer to that question rests upon other foundations and presumptions.[10]

Thus, when we consider some proposition from academic psychology or therapy, we cannot start with the ultimate proposition. Rather, we must understand the theological cradle in which that fact was laid. To start with the wisdom of Amenemope does not help us understand what that wisdom means or even what sayings of the dead sage or even wise. 

We need not necessarily shy away from consideration of the Egyptians’ learning; but also need to as wary of their words as we would a serpent in our arms.

One further example may help here. 

The Arians and the Son is Like the Father: The whole history of this matter can be found any competent church history. Briefly, there were those in the early church (the heretics later known as Arians) who held the Son was like the Father. In Greek, the pertinent word was homoiousios. The church however, at the Council of Nicea, concluded this was wrong: The Son was the same substance as the Father, homoousios. 

For the average pastor busy dealing with the troubles of a congregation the difference between the two: like and the same, separated by a single letter, likely seemed insignificant. Of course the Son is like the Father, it is the nature of sons to be like fathers. But the real issue was whether the Son and the Father were of the same “ousia” (and so that I do not take a topic from which I may never return, I will leave the matter there and direct you to competent theologies). The “average” pastor would most likely not known what he was dealing with. The Arians, who supported the Son is like knew better. As Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes: 

In many ways Arianism was more aware of the nuances of the trinitarian problem than its critics were. It compelled them, in turn, to avoid the oversimplifications to which church theology was prone.[11]

If an average pastor accepted the language of like rather than same, he had set his theology on a disastrous trajectory. The Arians knew what they were doing; but it took work to teach the orthodox what was at stake.[12] A similar problem presents itself when dealing with non-biblical accounts of human psychology. We need to understand precisely what we have before us.

Before we can take hold any “fact,” “conclusion,” or “study,” we first need to understand precisely the nature of what we have before us.

[1] From the perspective of biblical soul care, the counseling of a fellow human being is not merely the mollification of emotions, the easing of pain, the relief of depression. We are not in the therapeutic business of helping people feel better as an end in itself. We have the overarching duty of making disciples. All other things must be subordinated to glorifying God and enjoying him forever. A psychological practice that ameliorated the troubled conscience of an adulterer and left him without repentance would be good therapy and a disaster for soul care. Thus, when we make use of some proposition beyond the bible we must be careful that we do engage in syncretism. 

[2] One could simply decide they would integrate non-Christian and biblical principles into counseling without any particular theory or justification. But, should one seek to justify that use from a biblical perspective, the two options are common grace or the example of Solomon. I have seen variants, but in the end these variants are simply restatements of either of these theories.

[3] See discussions regarding the Proverbs of Amenemope, and Prov 22:22–24:22. See, e.g., “Discovery and Debate Over the Relationship to Proverbs” Richard Halloran, “Amenemope, Instruction of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016);” Rowland E. Murphy, Proverbs, vol. 22, Word Biblical Commentary, “Excursus on the Book of Proverbs and Amenemope” (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 290;  John W. Hilber, “Old Testament Wisdom and the Integration Debate in Christian Counseling,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 411.

[4] John W. Hilber, “Old Testament Wisdom and the Integration Debate in Christian Counseling,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 420 (fn. omitted).

[5] Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–), 136.

[6] Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend. 

[7] Another way in which we could think of these circumstances is under the rubric of “social imaginary,” a term coined by Charles Taylor. He defines this briefly as “the way that we collectively imagine, even pre-theoretically, our social life”. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 146. As he develops this concept it comes to mean that which could conceive to be possible.  My great grandmother, an American Indian born in Texas, taught me that if you cut your hair while the moon was waxing it would grow back better than if you cut your hair when the moon was waning. I cannot even conceive of that being potentially true, but my great grandmother could not conceive of the world operating otherwise.

[8] Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2, “Twenty Sermons” (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 188.

[9] John Reich and Ed Diener, “The Road to Happiness,” Pyschology Today, July 1, 1994, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199407/the-road-happiness.

[10] For a discussion of such issues, begin here: David F. Coppedge, “Evolutionists Gloss Over Implications of Dinosaur Tissue Remains,” Creation Evolution Headlines, December 22, 2020, https://crev.info/2020/12/evolutionists-gloss-over-implications-of-dinosaur-tissue-remains/.

[11] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 200.

[12] A similar sort of naivety is apparent in the relationship of contemporary Christians pastor when they interact with not merely psychology of various sorts, but the contemporary espousals of “critical theory” in its various forms. Even the supposedly well-informed make statements that are either foolish, overly simplistic, or simply cynical deceptions. 

Edward Taylor, Meditation 31, Begraced With Glory.3

06 Saturday Feb 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Literature, Sin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Seen at 107 South Street, NY, NY; https://www.instagram.com/dirtcobain/

Oh! Sad-sad thing! Satan is now turned cook:

Sin is the sauce he gets for every dish.

I cannot bite a bit of bread or root (15)

But what is sopped therein and venomish.

Right’s lost in what’s my right. Hence I do take

Only what’s poisoned by the th’infernal snake.

Summary: Now every experience, everything which the poet experiences has been imbued with sin, which he refers to as “poison” or “venom.”

Notes: That Satan is referred to as a serpent is undisputed. In Genesis 3, the Tempter – although not explicitly referred to as Satan – is referred to as the Serpent, the most crafty of subtle beasts of the field (the field was the world outside the Garden). In Revelation 20:2, Satan is explicitly referred to as “that ancient serpent.”

The imagery of Satan as a cook is interesting and unusual. I cannot find any references to Satan as a cook. But, the image is on point because the original sin was brought about through eating. He did provide a dish for Adam and Eve. 

Use of this image then makes for a fascinating overlay with original sin. That fruit from the Garden has now become an overlay for all subsequent human action. 

All life must be lived in a manner which entails loving God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength. And no action of a human being ever approximates such a level of devotion. It is impossible for post-fall human conduct to ever be perfect. 

This actually makes for a fascinating contrast with the current social mobs which attack any deviancy from orthodox thought and conduct. These mobs allow for zero tolerance, zero grace. But in contrast: Paul persecuted the Church; Peter denied Christ; David committed adultery and murder; et cetera. These are our saints. Taylor will get to the inexplicable grace of God – which so contrasts with the judgment of human beings.

Note also that this is not merely sinful but is poisonous: it is filled with venom. Thus, while it is food and desirable; it is also poisonous and spells my death.

Of special note must be the word “sopped”:

Oh! Sad-sad thing! Satan is now turned cook:

Sin is the sauce he gets for every dish.

I cannot bite a bit of bread or root

But what is sopped therein and venomish.

What is so perfect about the word is not merely the sound, but the meaning. Sin as a sauce has been poured over all of his food. He is not merely content to the sauce as it happens to be on his meat: he next uses bread to sop up all the remainders. What a vicious and brilliant vision of sin. 

Musical: I rather like this stanza.

Look at all the alliteration on “s”: 

Sad, sad, satan, sin, sause, diSh, sopped, venomISH, rightS, lost, 

 The phrase, “Sin is the Sause” is wonderfully balanced in concept, rhythm, and sound

SIN is the SAUCE

The first line SAD SAD THING SATan: the slow beat, the repetition of not merely S, but SA. “Sad thing” is a near rhyme to “Satan”

The third line of the santza switches to B and R and makes for a wonderful contrast to the sibilant S

I cannot bite a bit of bread or root

But

The alliteration draws the words together. The near rhyme of bite-bit, the movement from B to R in Bite, Bit, BRead, Root is brilliant.

Here it is again:

Oh! Sad-sad thing! Satan is now turned cook:

Sin is the sauce he gets for every dish.

I cannot bite a bit of bread or root

But what is sopped therein and venomish.

Right’s lost in what’s my right. Hence I do take

Only what’s poisoned by the th’infernal snake.

George Swinnock, The Sinner’s Last Sentence, 1.4

04 Thursday Feb 2021

Posted by in George Swinnock, George Swinock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Anchor of Hope will then be broken.

Secondly, I shall speak to the properties of this departure from Christ, or loss therein.

In this short chapter he lays out aspects of the loss of Christ for eternity, which will be end of those without godliness. The purpose of this review is create a rationale and desire to pursue godliness, which will be the focus of the treatise. 

This first paragraph is interesting in its ontology: he impliedly gives his understanding of the functioning of the soul.

1. It [the loss of Christ] is spiritual [loss]. It is a loss peculiar to the soul or spirit of man, and a loss of that good that is most suitable to the soul or spirit of man. No mercies are like soul-mercies, Eph. 1:3, and Job 4:4; no miseries are like soul-miseries. 

This proposition is something which is not intuitive for someone reading the work today. The social imaginary is something along the lines of naturalism and materialism. The soul, at best, is a bare conception meant to express our self-awareness. 

He then provides an image to back up his argument. This analogy is unlikely to be persuasive in an age of leveling – perhaps he would have to speak of a celebrity being made unhappy!

For, the nobler any being is, the better that is which advantageth it, and the worse that is that injureth it. It is one thing to relieve or abuse a distressed prince, and another thing to relieve or abuse a distressed subject. The soul of man is the prince, the chief and noblest part of man, and it is principally the subject, as chiefly sensible of this departure. 

What he means here: Since nothing can be actually away from God’s presence (there is no existence apart from God), the soul cannot be apart from God in a spatial sense; there is not some place for the soul to get to. However, there is a psychological distance which can be had. I may be sitting next to you on a bench; but I can be very hard away in terms of “connection.”

It is true the soul cannot depart from God locally, but it can and doth morally here in its affections and conversation. 

Here makes an emphatic argument. Having logically laid out his case, that the spiritual loss of Christ is the greatest loss which can befell one, he here makes an argument to raise an emotional response to the proposition. There is a kind of preacher or teacher who thinks that in spiritual matters what one needs is information. That information conveyed in a dull manner is then understood to have truly expressed what needs to be known.

Such a thought is false. Part of the information is the manner in which the information affects the hearer. A warning given in dull, quiet tones is conveying a meaning contrary to the words: Yes, there is a fire, but it is not really dangerous. Yes you must exit the building, but don’t worry about it.

This is a good display of rhythm and sound to underscore the meaning. I have broken it down into clauses to better see the work. Notice in this paragraph, the repetition of sounds, particularly the first “p” in words. Notice also how the clauses are balanced. Notice the repetition of words at the beginning of clauses to underscore the balance: “Other losses”, “and the portion”; the contrast of words: Pinch-pierceth; practice/pleasure – torment/punishment. Notice how “torment” and “punishment” rhyme to draw the concepts closer together.

How does he construct such a careful argument? First, by much exposure to such structures. There is a part of this which is intuitive, assimilated from much reading and hearing. Part of it is the result of practice and effort. Part of it is from editing and re-writing. A good place to start thinking of this is “Why Johnny Can’t Preach”. 

But that which is now its practice and pleasure, 

will then be their torment and punishment. 

Other losses pinch the flesh, 

but this pierceth the spirit. 

Other losses are castigatory, 

    and the portion of children; 

but this is damnatory, 

     and the portion of devils. 

Here is another stanza, if you will, which again uses rhetorical structures to make the concept clearer and more emphatic. Notice the use of w’s and s’s; the use of r’s and d’s within a line: revive/refresh; dismal/doleful/death/depart.

Ah, how will the soul pine and wither away, 

when it shall take its farewell of that Sun, 

who alone could revive and refresh it! 

What a dismal, doleful death must it undergo, 

when it shall depart from him who is its only life! 

Such a wounded spirit who can bear? 

His last point then draws the whole together: the soul’s greater reality means that the pain I have expressed will be felt more exquisitely, than pain is experienced by the body.

The soul hath more exquisite sense, and more curious feeling, than the body; therefore its loss of its own peculiar suitable satisfying good will cut deep, and fill it with bitter horror.

Next he considers the nature of the departure:

2. It will be a total departure. Here they depart in part from God, but then totally. 

In this world they have departed in part; in eternity there will be no reconciliation. To prove his point, he argues by analogy from the lesser (a departure in this life) to the greater (the eternal departure).  His first argument is from the experience of Cain. The point being that if this is a trial for the wicked in this life, how much more in the life to come.

Here Cain complains, if not allowed God’s presence in ordinances, though he had his presence in many ways of ordinary favour: ‘Behold, thou hast driven me this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid,’ Gen. 4:14. But, alas! Low doth he complain there, where he is wholly deprived of the divine presence in any way of favour; where he hath not the least glimpse of the light of his countenance. 

Next he provdes three examples from the godly, Job, David, Heman. The nature of the argument is that if the temporary departure of God experientially for the godly is such a trial; what must be the eternal despair of those who are eternally distanced from the gracious presence of God? What hellish void must that be?

The partial departures of God have forced sad complaints from them that are godly: Job 13:24, ‘Why hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?’ saith Job. I can bear the withdrawings of men, and their absence; I can bear the strangeness of my friends, and the unkindness of relations, but I cannot bear thy strangeness to me, thy withdrawings from me. ‘Why hidest thou thy face?’ Job, though a strong stout man, able to overcome the strong one, the devil, yet was ready to faint away and die at this. 

David crieth out mournfully at it: Ps. 10:1, ‘Why standest thou afar off, O Lord? why hidest thou thyself in time of trouble?’ 

Poor Heman is distracted, and almost dead with it: Ps. 88:14, 15, ‘Lord, why hidest thou thy face? I am afflicted and ready to die; while I suffer thy terrors, I am distracted.’ 

Here, having given the examples, he explains the nature of the examples. Again this is good practice in preaching. I have sat through many sermons where a number of examples or cross references were read but it was never clear what was the point of these many example? 

If these partial departures, which had much love in them and with them, cast down the friends of God so heavily, oh what will his total departures out of pure wrath cause to his enemies? That world must needs be dolesome and darksome indeed, to whom this Sun is wholly set, and totally eclipsed.

He takes the same point and now recasts it in terms of the sheer duration: forever. It is thus a hopeless state, because it cannot be remedied.

3. It will be an eternal departure. They must leave God for ever. Though it had been spiritual and total, yet if but temporal, there had been somewhat to have allayed their sorrows; but to suffer so great a loss, and that wholly and for ever too, must needs pierce to the quick. 

There is a way in which this argument contains a presupposition. The wicked do not want to see Jesus now – why would he want to see him forever? Because that is the only hope for the despair he faces. Even if that knowledge is now buried under a seared conscience or a dull heart, the proposition remains true. Notice how this is also an ‘altar call’ moment. He is holding out Christ as altogether lovely. In this, notice how rather than merely piling adjectives, he uses pictures: a bridge, a gate, a gulf. These would not have been strange pictures to the original audience. 

The sinner shall see the blessed Jesus no more for ever. He must depart from the tenderest father, lovingest friendship, richest treasure, choicest good, greatest glory, sweetest pleasure, and that for ever: Jude 13, ‘To whom is reserved blackness of darkness for ever.’ 

The sentence once denounced, ‘Depart from me,’ will be like the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered: 2 Thes. 1:8, 9, ‘Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.’ 

The anchor of hope will then be broken, 

the bridge of grace will then be drawn, 

the gate of mercy will then be shut, 

and the gulf between Christ and the wicked never to be passed over.

Again notice the careful construction of the clauses: there is a balance of sound and rhythm. He then proves his point with quotations flow naturally into the structure of his argument.

They may cry out in truth, what the psalmist in unbelief, ‘Will the Lord cast off for ever? will he be favourable no more? Is his mercy clean gone for ever?’ Ps. 77:7, 8. Alas! they are cast off for ever; he will be favourable to them no more. They may roar out in vain, How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? shall I never be remembered? Ps. 13:1.

Finally, this loss can never be remedied in space or time. There is no god from the machine to rescue, because the God of Creation has ruled.

4. It is an irreparable loss, such a loss as nothing can make up. 

He then draws a psychological reserve which may act to protect someone from the full danger of what is faced. Well, there are other good things which I have lost and yet not all was lost. Maybe there was discomfort, but there was not despair. Swinnock takes aim at that reserve:

There are many good things which we may do well without, because the want of them may be supplied by other things; but Christ is the one thing necessary, the one thing excellent, the want of whom no good thing in heaven or earth can make up. 

When the soul departs from Christ it departs from all good, because nothing is good without him, and nothing can be had in the room of him.

He then offers a homely picture. Notice how again and again, he offers a proposition, explains it, illustrates it, and then returns to the proposition with Scriptural support. 

If some kind of food be wanting, another kind may possibly do as well; so if some sort of drugs or herbs for physic be wanting, there may be others found of the same virtue and operation; but if once the soul be sentenced to depart from Christ, there is nothing to compensate this loss. 

He is the Saviour, and indeed the only Saviour, Acts 4:12; he is the mediator between a righteous God and a guilty creature, and indeed the only mediator: 1 Tim. 2:5, ‘For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’