Category Archives: Church History

Puritans on Habit (With a Comparison to Modern Theory)

24 Friday Jan 2020

Posted by in John Owen, Psychology, Puritan, Thomas Brooks, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Below is a section from John Owen’s the Mortification of Sin. In this part, he is providing practical instruction for mortifying sin. What I find interesting about this particular section is the degree to which is matches contemporary habit theory.

A habitual response is driven by a context: in the precise of certain cues, the habit kicks into play:

Within psychology, the term habit refers to a process whereby contexts prompt action automatically, through activation of mental context–action associations learned through prior performances. Habitual behavior is regulated by an impulsive process, and so can be elicited with minimal cognitive effort, awareness, control, or intention. When an initially goal-directed behavior becomes habitual, action initiation transfers from conscious motivational processes to context-cued impulse-driven mechanisms. Regulation of action becomes detached from motivational or volitional control. Upon encountering the associated context, the urge to enact the habitual behavior is spontaneously triggered and alternative behavioral responses become less cognitively accessible.

In this direction, Owen explains that one should learn the circumstances under which the sin takes place and then should build one’s life around avoiding such a circumstance.

 

The SIXTH direction is,—

Consider what occasions, what advantages thy distemper hath taken to exert and put forth itself, and watch against them all.

This is one part of that duty which our blessed Saviour recommends to his disciples under the name of watching: Mark 13:37, “I say unto you all, Watch;” which, in Luke 21:34, is, “Take heed lest your hearts be overcharged.” Watch against all eruptions of thy corruptions. I mean that duty which David professed himself to be exercised unto. “I have,” saith he, “kept myself from mine iniquity.” He watched all the ways and workings of his iniquity, to prevent them, to rise up against them. This is that which we are called unto under the name of “considering our ways.” Consider what ways, what companies, what opportunities, what studies, what businesses, what conditions, have at any time given, or do usually give, advantages to thy distempers, and set thyself heedfully against them all. Men will do this with respect unto their bodily infirmities and distempers. The seasons, the diet, the air that have proved offensive shall be avoided. Are the things of the soul of less importance? Know that he that dares to dally with occasions of sin will dare to sin. He that will venture upon temptations unto wickedness will venture upon wickedness. Hazael thought he should not be so wicked as the prophet told him he would be. To convince him, the prophet tells him no more but, “Thou shalt be king of Syria,” If he will venture on temptations unto cruelty, he will be cruel. Tell a man he shall commit such and such sins, he will startle at it. If you can convince him that he will venture on such occasions and temptations of them, he will have little ground left for his confidence. Particular directions belonging to this head are many, not now to be insisted on. But because this head is of no less importance than the whole doctrine here handled, I have at large in another treatise, about entering into temptations, treated of it.

Compare what Owen writes with this statement from  Psychology of Habit by Wendy Wood and Dennis Runger

One way to change habit cues is through managing exposure. For example, unhealthy eating habits can be curbed by increasing the salience or accessibility of healthy foods (Sobal & Wansink 2007)

Compare also this passage from Thomas Brooks’ Precious Remedies for Satan’s Devices:

It is our wisest and our safest course to stand at the farthest distance from sin; not to go near the house of the harlot, but to fly from all appearance of evil, Prov. 5:8, 1 Thes. 5:22. The best course to prevent falling into the pit, is to keep at the greatest distance; he that will be so bold as to attempt to dance upon the brink of the pit, may find by woful experience that it is a righteous thing with God that he should fall into the pit. Joseph keeps at a distance from sin, and from playing with Satan’s golden baits, and stands. David draws near, and plays with the bait, and falls, and swallows bait and hook with a witness. David comes near the snare, and is taken in it, to the breaking of his bones, the wounding of his conscience, and the loss of his God

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), 13–14.

Irregular and illegal

30 Wednesday Oct 2019

Posted by in Church History

≈ Leave a comment

Written of Whitefield as he began to preach in the fields (quoted in the Divine Dramatist):

Anglican Weekly Miscellany. On May 5 [1739], the paper reported the ominous news of an “extraordinary Itinerant, who lately made a Progress into the Western Parts of England, and some parts of Wales, where, from Tomb-stones, and Market crosses, on Commons and mountains, he preached to vast numbers of ignorant People, and, since his Return, in a wide Place near a Building which would suit him better. This is a method quite as new with us, as it is irregular and illegal.”

I wonder if they understood the irony:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

Matt5.1

Richard Sibbes, Sermon on Canticles 5:2 (e)

18 Wednesday Sep 2019

Posted by in Fear, fear of God, Fear of the Lord, Puritan, Richard Sibbes, Song of Solomon, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Sibbes ends the sermon with the observation that to be “awake” is a “blessed state”. It is to be in a state of holy communion with God in Jesus Christ and thus is a “happy” condition.

Since a “waking” state is blessed state, that provokes the question, How am I be in waking state. As he puts it:

Quest.How shall we do to keep and preserve our souls in this waking condition, especially in these drowsy times?

If 17thCentury England was a “drowsy time”, what would Sibbes say about the current world?

He provides a series six answers:

Consider the importance of being awake

Stir up the exercise of faith

Pray for the presence of the Spirit

Stir up a godly fear

Keep company with other Christians

You will see that these answers concern both private and public actions. His application concerns our thoughts, our affections, our behavior. We must be considered with both our physical and our spiritual environment. In short, he prescribes a general way of life:

First, must consider the importance of staying awake:

Ans. 1. Propound unto them waking considerations.

He develops this answer in three parts. The first consideration is our need for remaining awake. He begins with the observation that we fall asleep because is not sufficient reason to stay awake (in these drowsy times).  What then will give us good reason to stay awake:

To see, and know, and think of what a state we are now advanced unto in Christ; what we shall be ere long, yet the fearful estate we should be in, if God leave us to ourselves! a state of astonishment, miserable and wretched, beyond speech, nay, beyond conceit! [conceit means conception, idea]

We fall asleep because we lose sight of the blessing of being awake. Only when we become drowsy do the things of this world increase in their appeal:

We never fall to sleep in earthly and carnal delights, till the soul let its hold go of the best things, and ceaseth to think of, and to wonder at them.

To sharpen this consideration, Sibbes asks us to consider the shortness of life:

Make the heart think of the shortness and vanity of this life, with the uncertainty of the time of our death; and of what wondrous consequent†it is to be in the state of grace before we die.

This consideration has special consideration for us today since it was written by a man 400 years dead. When we hear this from one who is alive, death seems distant. But when the speaker has already died.

Finally, a judgment is coming and when that judgment comes we will be wholly dependent upon the grace of God:

The necessity of grace, and then the free dispensing of it in God’s good time, and withal the terror of the Lord’s-day, ‘Remembering,’ saith St Paul, ‘the terror of the Lord, I labour to stir up all men,’ &c., 2 Cor. 5:11.

Indeed it should make us stir up our hearts when we consider the terror of the Lord; to think that ere long we shall be all drawn to an exact account, before a strict, precise judge. And shall our eyes then be sleeping and careless? These and such like considerations out of spiritual wisdom we should propound to ourselves, that so we might have waking souls, and preserve them in a right temper.

Second, he counsels us to stir up faith. He makes a couple of related points here. First, faith is a grace which keeps the spiritual life awake. Without faith, there will be no other life. Second, the heart of man, our identity, our soul is conformed to that which it perceives. That is the nature of human beings being in the image of God, we are reflective creatures:

The soul is as the object is that is presented to it, and as the certainty of the apprehension is of that object.

When the soul perceives God by grace, the greatness of the object conforms and enlivens the soul and keeps it awake.

He then counsels how to stir up the soul in faith. Consider the end of all things:

When a man believes, that all these things shall be on fire ere long; that heaven and earth shall fall in pieces; that we shall be called to give an account, [and that] before that time we may be taken away—is it not a wonder we stand so long, when cities, stone walls fall, and kingdoms come to sudden periods? When faith apprehends, and sets this to the eye of the soul, it affects the same marvellously. Therefore let faith set before the soul some present thoughts according to its temper. Sometimes terrible things to awaken it out of its dulness; sometimes glorious things, promises and mercies, to waken it out of its sadness, &c.

When we are in ease, consider the dangers which reside that estate:

When we are in a prosperous estate let faith make present all the sins and temptations that usually accompany such an estate, as pride, security, self-applause, and the like. If in adversity, think also of what sins may beset us there. This will awaken up such graces in us, as are suitable to such an estate, for the preventing of such sins and temptations, and so keep our hearts in ‘exercise to godliness,’ 1 Tim. 4:7; than which, nothing will more prevent sleeping.

Third, he counsels that we,

Pray for the Spirit above all things. It is the life of our life, the soul of our soul. What is the body without the soul, or the soul without the Spirit of God? Even a dead lump. And let us keep ourselves in such good ways, as we may expect the presence of the Spirit to be about us, which will keep us awake.

Fourth, keep our mind and affections filled with “light” that we may be awake. This is similar to Paul’s counsel:

Philippians 4:8–9 (ESV)

8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

The principle here articulated is that we will avoid dissonance and conflict in the matters upon which we dwell and the life we lead. We will want there to be a consistency with our thoughts, our attentions and our behavior.

What makes men in their corruptions to avoid the ministry of the word, or anything that may awake their consciences? It is the desire they have to sleep. They know, the more they know, the more they must practise, or else they must have a galled conscience. They see religion will not stand with their ends. Rich they must be, and great they will be; but if they suffer the light to grow upon them, that will tell them they must not rise, and be great, by these and such courses.

Conversely, a mind filled with light will desire light, “A gracious heart will be desirous of spiritual knowledge especially, and not care how near the word comes.”

In short, we will continue on the direction in which we have begun by sheer heart-inertia. “Sleep is a work of darkness. Men therefore of dark and drowsy hearts desire darkness, for that very end that their consciences may sleep.”

Fifth, he counsels to stir up the fear of God.

Ans. 5. Labour to preserve the soul in the fear of God: because fear is a waking affection, yea, one of the wakefullest. For, naturally we are more moved with dangers, than stirred with hopes. Therefore, that affection, that is most conversant about danger, is the most rousing and waking affection. Preserve therefore the fear of God by all means. It is one character of a Christian, who, when he hath lost almost all grace, to his feeling, yet the fear of God is always left with him. He fears sin, and the reward of it, and therefore God makes that awe the bond of the new covenant.

He makes this a distinguishing feature of Christian maturity, “One Christian is better than another, by how much more he wakes, and fears more than another. Of all Christians, mark those are most gracious, spiritual, and heavenly, that are the most awful and careful of their speeches, courses, and demeanours; tender even of offending God in little things.”

But it is not merely fear of correction; it is a fear of loss:

 He is afraid to lose that sweet communion any way, or to grieve the Spirit of God. Therefore, always as a man grows in grace, he grows in awfulness, and in jealousy of his own corruptions.

We must exercise steady consideration of our dangers so that we maintain a godly fear. In particular, we should fear those sins which are most likely to affect us personally:

Those that will keep waking souls, must consider the danger of the place where they live, and the times; what sins reign, what sins such a company as they converse with, are subject unto, and their own weakness to be led away with such temptations. This jealousy is a branch of that fear that we spake of before, arising from the searching of our own hearts, and dispositions. It is a notable means to keep us awake, when we keep our hearts in fear of such sins as either by calling, custom, company, or the time we live in, or by our own disposition, we are most prone to.

Here is a true observation: we are each fit for particular sins. We may be fit by disposition, situation, habit, experience. Any number of social and psychological factors may dispose us to some particular sin, but we do have particular sins:

There is no Christian, but he hath some special sin, to which he is more prone than to another, one way or other, either by course of life, or complexion. Here now is the care and watchfulness of a Christian spirit, that knowing by examination, and trial of his own heart, his weakness, he doth especially fence against that, which he is most inclined to; and is able to speak most against that sin of all others, and to bring the strongest arguments to dishearten others from practice of it.

Sixth and finally, we must be careful of our company:

Ans. 6. In the last place it is a thing of no small consequence, that we keep company with waking and faithful Christians, such as neither sleep themselves or do willingly suffer any to sleep that are near them.

We will be encouraged either to wake or sleep by the company we keep. We are greatly influenced by our company, therefore, we must keep the right company. He provides a list tailored to his immediate audience. It is interesting to consider how different and how similar he exhortation sounds:

Certainly a drowsy temper is the most ordinary temper in the world. For would men suffer idle words, yea, filthy and rotten talk to come from their mouths if they were awake? Would a waking man run into a pit? or upon a sword’s point? A man that is asleep may do anything. What do men mean when they fear not to lie, dissemble, and rush upon the pikes of God’s displeasure? When they say one thing and do another, are they not dead? or take them at the best, are they not asleep? Were they awake, would they ever do thus? Will not a fowl that hath wings, avoid the snare? or will a beast run into a pit when it sees it? There is a snare laid in your playhouses, gaming houses, common houses, that gentlemen frequent that generally profess religion, and take the communion. If the eye of their souls were awake, would they run into these snares, that their own conscience tells them are so? If there be any goodness in their souls, it is wondrous sleepy. There is no man, even the best, but may complain something, that they are overtaken in the contagion of these infectious times. They catch drowsy tempers, as our Saviour saith, of those latter times. ‘For the abundance of iniquity, the love of many shall wax cold,’ Mat. 24:12. A chill temper grows ever from the coldness of the times that we live in, wherein the best may complain of coldness; but there is a great difference. The life of many, we see, is a continual sleep.

He then cautions against leisure:

Let us especially watch over ourselves, in the use of liberty and such things as are in themselves lawful. It is a blessed state, when a Christian carries himself so in his liberty, that his heart condemns him not for the abuse of that which it alloweth, and justly in a moderate use. Recreations are lawful; who denies it? To refresh a man’s self, is not only lawful, but necessary. God know it well enough, therefore hath allotted time for sleep, and the like. But we must not turn recreation into a calling, to spend too much time in it.

The trouble with permissible things is that we easily become careless, not seeing the danger:

Where there is least fear, there is most danger always. Now because in lawful things there is least fear, we are there in most danger. It is true for the most part, licitis perimus omnes, more men perish in the church of God by the abuse of lawful things, than by unlawful; more by meat, than by poison. Because every man takes heed of poison, seeing he knows the venom of it, but how many men surfeit, and die by meat! So, many men die by lawful things. They eternally perish in the abuse of their liberties, more than in gross sins.

Sibbes concludes with excellency of being awake:

We will conclude this point with the meditation of the excellency of a waking Christian. When he is in his right temper, he is an excellent person, fit for all attempts. He is then impregnable. Satan hath nothing to do with him, for he, as it is said, is then a wise man, and ‘hath his eyes in his head,’ Eccles. 3:4. He knows himself, his state, his enemies, and adversaries, the snares of prosperity and adversity, and of all conditions, &c. Therefore, he being awake, is not overcome of the evil of any condition, and is ready for the good of any estate. He that hath a waking soul, he sees all the advantages of good, and all the snares that might draw him to ill. Mark 13:37. What a blessed estate is this! In all things therefore watch; in all estates, in all times, and in all actions. There is a danger in everything without watchfulness. There is a scorpion under every stone, as the proverb is, a snare under every blessing of God, and in every condition, which Satan useth as a weapon to hurt us; adversity to discourage us, prosperity to puff us up: when, if a Christian hath not a waking soul, Satan hath him in his snare, in prosperity to be proud and secure; in adversity to murmur, repine, be dejected, and call God’s providence into question. When a Christian hath a heart and grace to awake, then his love, his patience, his faith is awake, as it should be. He is fit for all conditions, to do good in them, and to take good by them.

And his conclusion:

Let us therefore labour to preserve watchful and waking hearts continually, that so we may be fit to live, to die, and to appear before the judgment seat of God; to do what we should do, and suffer what we should suffer, being squared for all estates whatsoever.

 

 

Richard Sibbes, Sermon on Canticle 5.2(c)

12 Thursday Sep 2019

Posted by in Love, Puritan, Richard Sibbes, Song of Solomon, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The next two observations on the text by Sibbes considers the persistence of the Christian life being grounded in the love of God. The first observation, which derives from the imagery of waking and sleeping, is that while the Christian may stumble, the Christian will never completely fall:

 Obs.1. ‘My heart waketh.’ God’s children never totally fall from grace.

First, he looks to an image in Isaiah 6:13:

Though they sleep, yet their heart is awake. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the church and children of God, Isa. 6:13, saith, ‘It shall be as a tree, as an oak whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves.’ Though you see neither fruit nor leaves, yet there is life in the root, ‘the seed remains in them.’

The imagery of Isaiah applies most directly to Israel as a whole. Sibbes notes the context, “speaking of the church and children of God” (here, “church” is being used to refer to the people of God prior to the New Covenant). Thus, he is not misusing the text exegetically but rather using the image as illustrative.

Sibbes next  applies the principle to an individual, Peter. (In making a reference the book of First Peter, I am surprised that Sibbes did not also reference 1 Peter. 1:23). Peter denied Jesus on the night of his arrest and trial, and Peter did not utterly fall away (as did Judas, who would not born of a “living hope”):

There is alway a seed remaining. It is an immortal seed that we are begotten by. Peter, when he denied his Master, was like an oak that was weather-beaten; yet there was life still in the root, 1 Pet. 1:3,Mat. 26:32, seq.For, questionless, Peter loved Christ from his heart. Sometimes a Christian may be in such a poor case, as the spiritual life runneth all to the heart, and the outward man is left destitute;

Sibbes then draws an analogy to a city ravaged in war:

as in wars, when the enemy hath conquered the field, the people run into the city, and if they be beaten out of the city, they run into the castle. The grace of God sometimes fails in the outward action, in the field, when yet it retireth to the heart, in which fort it is impregnable. ‘My heart waketh.’

Sibbes then applies the principle more directly to the issue, the outward failure and inward perseverance

When the outward man sleeps, and there are weak, dull performances, and perhaps actions amiss, too, yet notwithstanding ‘the heart waketh.’ As we see in a swoon or great scars, the blood, spirits, and life, though they leave the face and hands, &c., yet they are in the heart.

We have been wounded and appear dead, but our life has not yet left:

It is said in the Scripture of Eutychus, ‘His life is in him still,’ though he seemed to be dead, Acts 20:9. As Christ said of Lazarus, John 11:4, so a man may say of a Christian in his worst state, His life is in him still; he is not dead, but sleeps; ‘his heart waketh.’

This doctrine is contested. There are some who would say that one who falls has “lost his salvation”. There have been questions throughout the church among those who spoke of losing one’s salvation as to whether salvation could ever be regained; or even whether the regained salvation could merit heaven or only a purgatory. Sibbes anticipates that objection and contends this doctrine is consistent with Scripture:

 Obs.2. This is a sound doctrine and comfortable, agreeable to Scripture and the experience of God’s people. We must not lose it, therefore, but make use of it against the time of temptation. There are some pulses that discover life in the sickest man, so are there some breathings and spiritual motions of heart that will comfort in such times.

Those who speak of a lost salvation, put the continuance of salvation in human effort. Sibbes rightly places the provision and maintenance of salvation not in the human recipient but in the God who gives salvation:

These two never fail on God’s part, his love, which is unchangeable, and his grace, a fruit of his love; and two on our part, the impression of that love, and the gracious work of the new creature. ‘Christ never dies,’ saith the apostle, Heb. 7:25. As he never dies in himself, after his resurrection, so he never dies in his children. There is always spiritual life.

Sibbes then goes to the “use” of the doctrine. By the way, this insistent reference to the “use” of a doctrine was a hallmark of Puritan preaching. It demonstrates that the purpose of doctrine is not for some hypothetical future theology exam, but rather for living. This particular doctrine brings “comfort”. The doctrine provides a comfort because the our unfailing relationship with God is not based upon us but upon God: God engenders this love which provokes love in us; and love never fails:

This is a secret of God’s sanctuary, only belonging to God’s people. Others have nothing to do with it. They shall ever love God, and God will ever love them. The apostle, 1 Cor. 13:8, saith, ‘Love never fails.’ Gifts, you know, shall be abolished, because the manner of knowing we now use shall cease. ‘We see through a glass,’ &c., ‘but love abideth,’ 1 Cor. 13:12. Doth our love to God abide for ever, and doth not his love to us, whence it cometh? Ours is but a reflection of God’s love.

Richard Sibbes, Sermon on Canticles 5.2(b)

11 Wednesday Sep 2019

Posted by in Puritan, Richard Sibbes, Song of Solomon, Thankfulness, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Based upon those observations, Sibbes then turns to the application of that idea: If it true that Christians will live with two contrary principles, with desires in conflict; and yet Christians will not ultimately be overcome and lose that gracious principle which flows from the work of the Spirit of God in our lives; how then should we live? Sibbes counsels (1) thankfulness, that God will continually show mercy to us; and (2) let us use the knowledge of our frailty and persistence of temptation, to keep a close eye upon our lives.

First, thankfulness:

 Whence, for use, let us magnify the goodness of God, that will remain by his Spirit, and let it stay to preserve life in such hearts as ours are, so prone to security and sleepiness.

That is an interesting observation about human psychology: use our thankfulness, extoling the goodness of God, because that will cause us to persevere. The knowledge that God will continue to show goodness to us, will cause us to continue to persevere in the goodness of God. It is an interesting that our worship of God will cause us to continue in the experience of the goodness of God.

He then comes to specific instances of God’s goodness. First, to think of how God was willing to do us good when there was no gracious principle in us, at the time of our salvation:

Let it put us in mind of other like merciful and gracious doings of our God for us, that he gave his Spirit to us when we had nothing good in us, when it met with nothing but enmity, rebellion, and indisposedness.

And also to consider the goodness of God in the Incarnation:

Nay, consider how he debased himself and became man, in being united to our frail flesh, after an admirablenearness, and all out of mercy to save us.

Second, when we look to ourselves, let us take care and look to the Devil’s persistence in seeking to exploit our fraility:

Use. 2. If so be that Satan shall tempt us in such occasions, let us enter into our own souls, and search the truth of grace, our judgment, our wills, our constant course of obedience, and the inward principle whence it comes, that we may be able to stand in the time of temptation.

Sibbes then gives examples of this self-servicing (he calls it a “reflect act”):

What upheld the church but this reflect act, by the help of the Spirit, that she was able to judge of the good as well as of the ill? Thus David, ‘The desires of our souls are towards thee,’Ps. 38:9; and though all this have befallen us, yet have we not forgotten thy name, Ps. 44:20. This will enable us to appeal to God, as Peter, ‘Lord, thou knowest I love thee,’ John 21:15. It is an evidence of a good estate.

 

Book Review: The Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture: What the Early Church Can Teach Us. Author: Michael Graves

19 Friday Jul 2019

Posted by in Church History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Graves explains the purpose of the book:

The present book aims to describe what Christians in the first five centuries of the church believed about the inspiration of Scripture. I will do this by identifying various ideas that early Christians considered to be logical implications of biblical inspiration. In other words: What is true of Scripture as a result of its being inspired? What should divine inspiration cause us to expect from Scripture?

The most common text used to understand the doctrine of inspiration of scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV)

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This was also the text used by the early Church to speak of inspiration, but the early interpreters put the accent in a different place than our contemporaries:

It is interesting to note, however, that early Christian interpreters did not invest as much energy as modern Christians have in working out a precise definition of the term “God-breathed” (theopneustos). Rather, for the Church Fathers the most important term in this passage is ōphelimos, which means “profitable” or “useful.”

Using this as an organizing principle, Graves then goes through 20 means by which early Christians read the Scripture in such a way as to be profitable. There are four chapters which lay out the means by which Scripture was read so as to be profitable. The second chapter begins the detailed analysis and speaks of five ways in which the Scripture could be “useful”. For it was useful for “instruction”. Scripture is useful because it provides examples to follow.

The third chapter concert the spiritual and supernatural dimensions of Scripture. This chapter includes four aspects of the supernatural dimension, which includes the famous four-fold meaning or use of Scripture:

John Cassian used Proverbs 22:20 to identify three senses beyond the literal sense, bringing the total number of senses to four: the “literal” sense (history — things past and visible), “tropology” (moral explanation), “allegory” (prefiguring another mystery), and “anagogy” (pointing to heavenly realities). Cassian’s system was passed on to the Middle Ages and ultimately became the well-known medieval “four senses of Scripture,” which are summarized nicely in the following epigram quoted by Nicholas de Lyra (d. 1349): “The letter teaches events, allegory what you should believe, morality teaches what you should do, anagogy what mark you should be aiming for.” The Church Fathers’ belief that Scripture has more than one sense converged with numerous other beliefs that they held, such as that Scripture is useful for instruction, and that all Scripture teaches a unified message. The concept of a higher sense provided some helpful theological tools for the early church but also generated problems.

The fourth chapter concerns “modes of expression” in the Scripture; the fifth, historicity and facility of scripture; and the sixth, agreement with the truth.

Each of the 20 topics discussed begins with a clear statement of the principle. Graves then puts the interpretative principle in the context of both the Greco-Roman and Jewish history of interpretation. Having clearly stated the principle and putting it into historical context, Graves then gives multiple examples of the use of the principle by Christian interpreters, often putting the interpreters into tension with other writers (and sometimes showing development by an individual Christian interpreter).

He then ends each section with a his evaluation of the usefulness of this interpretative principle for the contemporary church. These sections are irenic, humble and quite useful.

The book does precisely what it claims to do. It provides numerous primary source references (which makes it possible to “check his work”). The writing is clear. Even though he is dealing with a technical subject (how to read a text), he never devolves into needless jargon. You don’t need a seminary education to follow his argument; however, the work is not frivolous or breezy.

All in all I found the work very useful and would recommend it to anyone wishing to learn more on this subject. For what he aims to do, I could not image that one could better execute the project.

The Conclusion of the Apology of Theophilus of Antioch

18 Saturday May 2019

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Church History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here. 

Theophilus concludes his defense and advocacy of Christianity by an appeal to (1) its historical veracity; and (2) its antiquity.

He begins this section of the argument as follows:

But I wish now to give you a more accurate demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in uncertainty. For some, maintaining that the world was uncreated, went into infinity;1 and others, asserting that it was created, said that already 153, 075 years had passed.

1 i.e., tracing back its history through an infinate duration.

 Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 116.

Theophilus then works through the then-current theories on the age of the earth, and various events (he spends much time comparing various understandings of the time of the Flood and also the Israelites in Egypt).  In each case, he contends that the Biblical understanding of the time period and events is correct.

First, he goes the basis for the biblical positions:

It behoved, therefore, that he should the rather become a scholar of God in this matter of legislation, as he himself confessed that in no other way could he gain accurate information than by God’s teaching him through the law. And did not the poets Homer and Hesiod and Orpheus profess that they themselves had been instructed by Divine Providence? Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately: who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world.

Theophilus of Antioch,  116. That is, since they demonstrated the divine nature of their speech by means of predictive prophecy and coherence in doctrine, they should be trusted when they speak of other things which are far more debated (the ancient history of the world).

He compares the biblical accounts with the accounts of poets and philosophers; for instance:

From what has already been said, it is evident that they who wrote such things and philosophized to so little purpose are miserable, and very profane and senseless persons. But Moses, our prophet and the servant of God, in giving an account of the genesis of the world, related in what manner the flood came upon the earth, telling us, besides, how the details of the flood came about, and relating no fable of Pyrrha nor of Deucalion or Clymenus; nor, forsooth, that only the plains were submerged, and that those only who escaped to the mountains were saved.

Theophilus of Antioch,  116. He then compares the ages of the events set forth in the Bible with the dates for various Greek law givers and poets; and notes that the Biblical account begins before Greek history. This is a relative sort of argument. He does not try to argue that the Biblical accounts go earlier than every other potential account — just earlier than the Greek accounts:

These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true.

 Theophilus of Antioch,  120. He concludes thus

But the Greeks make no mention of the histories which give the truth: first, because they themselves only recently became partakers of the knowledge of letters; and they themselves own it, alleging that letters were invented, some say among the Chaldæans, and others with the Egyptians, and others again say that they are derived from the Phœnicians. And secondly, because they sinned, and still sin, in not making mention of God, but of vain and useless matters. For thus they most heartily celebrate Homer and Hesiod, and the rest of the poets, but the glory of the incorruptible and only God they not only omit to mention, but blaspheme; yes, and they persecuted, and do daily persecute, those who worship Him. And not only so, but they even bestow prizes and honours on those who in harmonious language insult God; but of those who are zealous in the pursuit of virtue and practise a holy life, some they stoned, some they put to death, and up to the present time they subject them to savage tortures. Wherefore such men have necessarily lost the wisdom of God, and have not found the truth.

Theophilus of Antioch, 121. The relative argument is appropriate here, because he is merely contending against a particular man in a particular place. He is not attempting to respond to every possible argument, but he is responding to a particular argument. Why would anyone abandon Helenic Religion and Philosophy for Christianity:

Since, then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men’s hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian,1 and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable2 to God. For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him.

Theophilus of Antioch, 89. His argument has been to clarify what Christians do believe; and to demonstrate the immorality and absurdity of Greek thought; the elevation of Biblical thought; its morality and antiquity. This argument was antiquity was important in apologetics for the early church. For instance, Clement of Alexandria makes a detailed argument based upon the antiquity of Christianity:

On the plagiarizing of the dogmas of the philosophers from the Hebrews, we shall treat a little afterwards. But first, as due order demands, we must now speak of the epoch of Moses, by which the philosophy of the Hebrews will be demonstrated beyond all contradiction to be the most ancient of all wisdom.

 Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 324.   The idea that the Bible explains the antiquity of original revelation — and a corruption of that revelation as it spreads throughout human history is not merely an argument of the early church, but is a matter of current concern:

In arguing for a revelatory ‘single-source’ theory as to both the theological and historical origin of religion and the religions, does the Urgeschichte provide us with any more detail or explanatory ‘mechanism’ as to the pattern of religion that begins with an original divine disclosure but that, due to human sin, and without divine preservation, ends in a derivative religious degeneration and decay as God ‘gives people over’ to idolatry?

Strange, Daniel. Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (pp. 121-122). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Tracing out that argument is well beyond this post. For now, we only note that the argument from antiquity — with an implicit element of corruption/derivation (Clement’s “plagiarizing”) is still a current concern.

Richard Sibbes, Sermons on Canticles, Sermon 1.9 (On God hearing our prayers)

15 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by in Prayer, Puritan, Richard Sibbes, Song of Solomon, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The question of why does God hear our prayers? There is obviously no obligation in God to hear prayer: God is under no duty to the creature. The creature cannot compel God to hear prayer. The prayers of human beings in the course of history have raised in number of absurd, wicked, hurtful prayers. 

In Psalm 68:18, the Psalmist writes, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the lord will not hear me.” In Proverbs 1, Wisdom warns that the one who will not regard wisdom will not be heard when he prays having suffered the result of refusing wisdom:

Proverbs 1:24–33 (AV)

24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; 25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: 29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: 30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. 31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. 32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. 33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

So we see that the matter of being heard is not automatic. Why then does God hear prayer?

Sibbes gives two reasons: (1) the good in our prayer has been brought about by the action of the Spirit; and (2) God receives as he has chosen us in election. It is God’s good grace toward us, to choose us and to transform us that is the basis for God hearing us.

First: the operation of God

Now God hears our prayers, First, Because the materials of these holy desires are good in themselves, and from the person from whence they come, his beloved spouse, as it is in Cant. 2:14, where Christ, desiring to hear the voice of his church, saith, ‘Let me see thy countenance, and let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.’ Thus the voice of the Spouse is sweet, because it is stirred up by his own Spirit, which burns the incense, and whence all comes which is savingly good. This offering up of our prayers in the name of Christ, is that which with his sweet odours perfumes all our sacrifices and prayers; because, being in the covenant of grace, God respects whatsoever comes from us, as we do the desires of our near friends, Rev. 8:3.

Second, God receives us in the relationship which He has chosen for us:

And then, again, God hears our prayers, because he looks upon us as we are in election, and choice of God the Father, who hath given us to him. Not only as in the near bond of marriage, husband and wife, but also as he hath given us to Christ; which is his plea unto the Father, John 17:6, ‘Thine they were, thou gavest them me,’ &c. The desires of the church please him, because they are stirred up by his Spirit, and proceed from her that is his; whose voice he delights to hear, and the prayers of others for his church are accepted, because they are for her that is his beloved.

And further:

To confirm this further, see Isa. 58:9. ‘Thou then shalt cry, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt call, and presently he shall say, Here I am,’ &c. So as soon as Daniel had ended that excellent prayer, the angel telleth him, ‘At the beginning of thy supplications the decree came forth,’ &c., Dan. 9:23. So because he knows what to put into our hearts, he knows our desires and thoughts, and therefore accepts of our prayers and hears us, because he loves the voice of his own Spirit in us. So it is said, ‘He fulfils the desires of them that fear him; and he is near to all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth,’ Ps. 145:18. And our Saviour, he saith, ‘Ask and ye shall receive,’ &c., Mat. 7:7. So we have it, 1 John 5:14, ‘And we know if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us.’

First: 

Use 1. Let it therefore be a singular comfort to us, that in all wants, so in that of friends, when we have none to go to, yet we have God, to whom we may freely pour out our hearts. There being no place in the world that can restrain us from his presence, or his Spirit from us, he can hear us and help us in all places. What a blessed estate is this! None can hinder us from driving this trade with Christ in heaven.

I was told by a woman that when she was a child, she was told by an adult, I do not love you. The little girl thought to herself, that is okay. Jesus loves me.

Second, when stop realize what a privilege it is to go to God in prayer, it should stir up our hearts to make use of the privilege:

Use 2. And let us make another use of it likewise, to be a means to stir up our hearts to make use of our privileges. What a prerogative is it for a favourite to have the fare* of his prince! him we account happy. Surely he is much more happy that hath God’s care, him to be his father in the covenant of grace; him reconciled, upon all occasions, to pour out his heart before him, who is merciful and faithful, wise and most able to help us. ‘Why are we discouraged, therefore; and why are we cast down,’ Ps. 42:11, when we have such a powerful and such a gracious God to go to in all our extremities? He that can pray can never be much uncomfortable.

And three: 

Use 3. So likewise, it should stir us up to keep our peace with God, that so we may always have access unto him, and communion with him. 

But this is a privilege which can be lost:

What a pitiful case is it to lose other comforts, and therewith also to be in such a state, that we cannot go to God with any boldness! It is the greatest loss of all when we have lost the spirit of prayer; for, if we lose other things, we may recover them by prayer. But when we have lost this boldness to go to God, and are afraid to look him in the face, as malefactors the judge, this is a woful state.

Sibbes then considers two things which will break the fellowship with God which makes prayer possible. First, there is unrepentant sin:

Now there are diverse cases wherein the soul is not in a state fit for prayer. As that first, Ps. 66:18, ‘If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not regard my prayer.’ If a man hath a naughty heart, that purposeth to live in any sin against God, he takes him for an enemy, and therefore will not regard his prayer. Therefore we must come with a resolute purpose to break off all sinful courses, and to give up ourselves to the guidance of God’s Spirit. And this will be a forcible reason to move us thereunto, because so long as we live in any known sin unrepented of, God neither regards us nor our prayers. What a fearful estate is this, that when we have such need of God’s favour in all estates; in sickness, the hour of death, and in spiritual temptation, to be in such a condition as that we dare not go to God! Though our lives be civil,* yet if we have false hearts that feed themselves with evil imaginations, and with a purpose of sinning, though we act it not, the Lord will not regard the prayers of such a one; they are abominable. The very ‘sacrifice of the wicked is abominable,’ Prov. 15:8.

The second is a refusal to forgive:

Another case is, when we will not forgive others. We know it is directly set down in the Lord’s prayer, ‘Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us,’ Mat. 6:14; and there is further added, ver. 15, ‘If you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you.’ If our hearts tell us we have no disposition to pardon, be at peace and agreement, then we do but take God’s name in vain when we ask him to forgive our sins, and we continue in envy and malice. In this case God will not regard our prayers, as it is said, ‘I care not for your prayers, or for any service you perform to me,’ Isa. 1:15. Why? ‘For your hands are full of blood,’ Isa. 66:1. You are unmerciful, of a cruel, fierce disposition, which cannot appear before God rightly, nor humble itself in prayer. If it doth, its own bloody and cruel disposition will be objected against the prayers, which are not mingled with faith and love, but with wrath and bitterness. Shall I look for mercy, that have no merciful heart myself? Can I hope to find that of God, that others cannot find from me? An unbroken disposition, which counts ‘pride an ornament,’ Ps. 73:6, that is cruel and fierce, it cannot go to God in prayer. For, whosoever would prevail with God in prayer must be humble; for our supplications must come from a loving, peaceable disposition, where there is a resolution against all sin, Ps. 73:1. Neither is it sufficient to avoid grudging and malice against these, but we must look that others have not cause to grudge against us, as it is commanded: ‘If thou bring thy gifts to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift,’ Mat. 5:23. So that if we do not seek reconciliation with men unto whom we have done wrong, God will not be reconciled to us, nor accept any service from us.

There is another reference to the result of a failure to forgive spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 18. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, Jesus tells of a servant who was forgiven much but he himself would not forgive another slave who owed him just a little:

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. 23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. 28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. 29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 

What then was the result for the one who refused to forgive:

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Matthew 18:21–35 (AV). The man was delivered to tormentors until he would forgive. The lord would not hear the prayer of the servant who would not forgive. This is the most dreadful of states.

Sibbes then finishes with an interesting question: How do I know if God hears my prayer?

Quest. How shall I know whether God regard my prayers or not?

Ans. 1. First, When he grants the thing prayed for, or enlargeth our hearts to pray still. It is a greater gift than the thing itself we beg, to have a spirit of prayer with a heart enlarged; for, as long as the heart is enlarged to prayer, it is a sign that God hath a special regard of us, and will grant our petition in the best and fittest time.

2. When he answers us in a better and higher kind, as Paul when he prayed for the taking away of the prick of the flesh, had promises of sufficient grace, 2 Cor. 12:7–9.

3. When, again, he gives us inward peace, though he gives not the thing, as Phil. 4:6, ‘In nothing be careful, but in all things let your requests be made to God with prayer and thanksgiving.’

Obj. But sometimes he doth not answer our requests.

Ans. It is true he doth not, but ‘the peace of God which passeth all understanding guards our hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God,’ Philip. 4:7. So though he answers not our prayers in particular, yet he vouchsafes inward peace unto us, assuring us that it shall go well with us, though not in that particular we beg. And thus in not hearing their prayers, yet they have their hearts’ desire when God’s will is made known. Is not this sufficient for a Christian, either to have the thing, or to have inward peace, with assurance that it shall go better with them than if they had it; with a spirit enlarged to pray, till they have the thing prayed for. If any of these be, God respects our prayers.

The Immutable Mercy of Jesus Christ

18 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by in Hebrews, Puritan, Thomas Adams, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Thomas Adams sermon from the early 17th century.

The sermon is based upon the text, Hebrews 13:8, Jesus, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever.

The most remarkable things about Adams’ sermons lies in the turn of phrase. The substance is excellent, the theology correct. But the real brilliance lies in way he uses words.

In the first section he considers, “The center is Jesus Christ” (to the all of eternity).

The blessed restorer of all, of more than all that Adam lost; for we have gotten more by his regenerating grace than we lost by Adam’s degenerating sin.

When speaking of the matter of the Scripture, Adams gives a description which would put Neo-orthodoxy (which Adams obviously could not know), on its head. There is no Christ above Scripture:

This Jesus Christ is the center this text; and not only this, but of the whole Scripture. The sum of divinity is the Scripture; the sum of the Scripture is the Gospel; the sum of the Gospel is Jesus Christ; in a word, There is nothing contain in the word of God, but God the Word.

Adams has a long section in which he contrasts the unchangeable Jesus Christ with the fleeting, changing world, where even the greatest things will fail us.  In touching on mutability, he considers a topic which was deeply pondered in his age (and a topic which I rarely see considered outside the occasional sermon).

Consider this paragraph about wealth; I can’t imagine it being seriously considered in a business school. (Although as an attorney, I more than once see wealth flee where someone thought it secure):

Wealth is like a bird; it hopes all day form man to man, as that doth from tree to tree; and none can say where it will root or rest at night. It is a like a vagrant fellow, which because he big-boned and able to work, a man takes in a-doors and cherisheth; and perhaps for a while he take pains; but when he spies opportunity, the fugitive servant is gone, and takes away more with him than all service came to. The world  may seem to stand thee in some stead for a season, but at last it irrevocably runs day, and carries with it thy joys, thy goods, as Rachel stole Laban’s idols; thy peace and content of heart goes with it, and thou are left desperate.

Our Master, Christ, is constant. We are inconstant, irresolute — although we are told not to be double-minded men:

The double-minded man is a stranger in his own house: all his purposes are but guest, his heart is the inn. If they lodge there fore a night, it is all; they are gone in the morning. Many motions come crowding together upon him; and like a great press at a narrow door, whiles strive, none enter.

He then turns to the constancy of Christ in contrast to the variability of men. Here he finds a comfort in the perseverance of the saint — because it rests upon the act of God:

If God preordained a Savior for man, before he had either made man, or man marred himself,  — Paul says to Timothy, ‘He hath saved us according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” 2 Tim. 1.9 — then surely he meant that nothing should separate us from the eternal love in that Savior. Rom. viii. 39 Whom he chose before they were created, and when they were lost redeemed, he will not forsake being sanctified.

When he speaks of the continued power of death of Christ to save, he writes,

This is sure comfort to us; though he died almost 1629 years ago, his blood is not yet dry. His woulds are as fresh to do us good, as they were to those saints he that beheld them bleeding on the cross. The virtue of his merits is not abated, though many hands of faith have taken large portions out of his treasury. The river of his grace, ‘which makes glad the City of God,’ runs over its banks, though infinite souls have drank hearty draughts, and satisfied their thirst. But because we cannot  apprehend this for ourselves of ourselves, therefore, he hath promised to send us the ‘Spirit of truth, who will dwell with us’ (John xiv. 17) and apply this to us forever.

And here is the plea for repentance:

Time may change thee, though it cannot change him. His is not (but thou art) subject to mutation. This I dare boldly say: he that repent but one day before he dies, shall find Christ the same in mercy and forgiveness. Wickedness itself is glad to hear this; but let the sinner be faithful on his part, as God is merciful on his part; let him be sure that he repent one day before he dies, wherefore he cannot be sure, except he repent every day; for no man knows his last day….

Thou has lost yesterday negligently, thou losest to-day willfully; and therefore mayest lose forever inevitably. It is just with God to punish two-day’s neglect with the loss of the third. The hand of faith may be withered, the spring of repentance dried up, the eye of hope blinded, the foot of charity lame. To-day, then, hear his voice, and make him thine. Yesterday is lost, to-day may be gotten; but that once gone, and thou with it, thou are dead and judged, it will do thee small comfort that, ‘Jesus Christ is the same forever.’

And the conclusion:

Trust then, Christ with thy children; when thy friend shall fail, usury bear no date, oppression be condemned to hell, thyself rotten to the dust, the world itself turned and burned into cinders, still ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for-ever.’ Now then, as ‘grace and peace are from him which is and which was and this is to come;” so glory and honor be to him, which is, and which was, and this is to come; even to Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.’

The Deadly Sins — First Mentioned

27 Sunday Jan 2019

Posted by in Church History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

The earliest discussion (approximately 495 A.D. in the works of John Cassian) of the “seven deadly” sins were actually eight sins:

the struggle against the eight principal faults, i.e. first, Gluttony or the pleasures of the palate; secondly, Fornication; thirdly, Covetousness, which means Avarice, or, as it may more properly be called, the love of money, fourthly, Anger; fifthly, Dejection; sixthly, “Accidie,”4 which is heaviness or weariness of heart; seventhly, κενοδοξία which means foolish or vain glory; eighthly, pride.

John Cassian, “The Twelve Books of John Cassian on the Institutes of the Cœnobia,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 233–234.