Category Archives: Thomas Manton

Christ’s Eternal Existence, Manton Sermon 1.2

09 Thursday Mar 2023

Posted by in Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

[Next Manton considers at length what is implied by the language of “forgiveness.” Notice that this is not explicitly in the sermon text.  Manton is working with the concepts of redemption and forgiveness and then working out what must be implied within those concepts. He does not merely quote ten verses with the word forgiveness, nor give a definition of forgiveness. Instead he works out the logic of forgiveness being offered by God.]

4.         It remaineth, therefore, that forgiveness of sin is a dissolving the obligation to punishment ….

a.  [He considers first the cause-effect relationship between crime-punishment, one gives rise to the other] …. There can be no punishment without a preceding fault and crime.

[This creates a new implication: if the crime is not present, the cause for the punishment is likewise set aside.] Therefore, if the judge will not impute the fault, there must needs be an immunity from punishment, for the cause being taken away, the effect ceaseth, and the sin committed by us is the meritorious cause of punishment.

[This leads to divine relationship]. If God will cover that, and overlook it, then forgiveness is a dissolving the obligation to punishment.

b. [If I am punished, I cannot be forgiven at the same time. Therefore, the offer of forgiveness implies the absence of punishment.

c.  [He next argues on the character of God. If God tells the truth, then forgiveness must mean an absence of punishment] It would seem to impeach the justice and mercy of God, if he should exact the punishment where he hath pardoned the offence. His justice, to flatter men with hopes of remitting the debt, where he requireth the payment; his mercy, in making such fair offers of reconciliation, when still liable to his vindictive justice. There may be indeed effects of his fatherly anger, but not of his vindictive wrath.

d. [Having considered the logic of the matter he reviews some passages Ps. 32:1, 51:2; Is. 38:17; Jer. 31:34; Micah 7:19, which all speak of God’s extravagant mercy and grace in forgiving and forgetting sin. He takes these passages as metaphorical, and then asks what must be true if these are the metaphors used to describe the forgiveness? It must be complete, which is consistent with analysis of the logic or mercy and forgiveness.]

[What do we take from this first section? He proves the point he raised at first: Forgiveness is not merely an incidental, I was not punished. It is analysis of what must be true if I am forgiven, and can I truly conclude that God offers actual forgiveness. The result is the forgiven sinner knows himself to be free of punishment for sin, even if he may be corrected by this Father.]

Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton), Sermon 1.1

08 Wednesday Mar 2023

Posted by in Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Sermon I

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.—Col. 1:14.

The apostle, in the former verse, had spoken of our slavery and bondage to Satan, from which Christ came to deliver us; now, because sin is the cause of it, he cometh to speak of our redemption from sin: ‘In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.’ Here is—

   I.       The author.

   II.      The benefit.

   III.     The price.

[This is a standard Manton introduction. There is a brief mention of the context for the text. He then provides a breakdown of the text. First, there is the overall break of the text based upon the grammatical structure: Author: “His” Benefit: “redemption” Price: “his blood”. Now he is going to consider the text as a matter of propostional doctrine]

The point is this:—

Doct. That one principal part of our redemption by Christ is remission of sins.

[The statement of a doctrine explicitly someplace in the sermon is common throughout the Puritans.   But having made the statement of the doctrine, there is the necessity of breaking down that proposition. The questions here are similar to the sort questions suggested by Joseph Hall on the subject of meditation https://memoirandremains.com/2015/04/06/how-to-think-about-a-subject-according-to-melanchthon-joseph-hall/

This is the sort of analysis which one will not find in standard exegesis. This is an additional step which asks questions of the text such as “why is this here” “what I am supposed to do with this information”. Many limp sermons tell a proposition and then leave the listener with the question, “So what?” Manton does not just want you to know that Christ has redeemed you. He wants you to know what it means to be redeemed.]

Here I shall show you:—

1. What remission of sins is.

2. The nature of redemption.

3. That remission of sins is a part, and a principal part of it.

[Now begins a very methodical presentation of his information. I have formatted the material to make the outline clear. Manton did not use a Roman I, bold offset heading, for example. Also I have redacted portions of the sermon. The following is an outline with comment.]

I.          First, What remission of sins is. Both terms must be explained—what sin is, and what is the forgiveness of sin.

[A.       What is Sin?]

1.         For the first, sin is a violation of the law of the eternal and living God:

a.         [Proof] 1 John 3:4

b.         [Explanation] God is the lawgiver, who hath given a righteous law to his subjects, under the dreadful penalty of a curse. In his law there are two things—the precept and the sanction.

i.          The precept is the rule of our duty, which showeth what we must do, or not do.

ii.         The sanction or penalty showeth what God will do, or might justly do, if he should deal with us according to the merit of our actions.

iii.        Accordingly, in sin, there is the fault and the guilt.

I.          The fault: that man, who is God’s subject, and so many ways obliged to him by his benefits, instead of keeping this law, should break it upon light terms.

A.         [He brought to sin by] being carried away by his own ill-disposed will and base lusts. [Here a motivation for sin. It comes from within the human being. It is a surely refusal to obey and a desire for something which he was not granted. There is a theory of moral action embedded in this statement. First, human beings are subject to their own subjective determinations, whether thought or desire. Second, it is a desire to act. The bare event is not the sin but the “swerving” from God’s law.

B.         [Therefore, we are culpable] It is a great and heinous offence, for which he becometh obnoxious to the judgment of God.

II.         The guilt: which is a liableness to punishment, [That is, the punishment has been earned and is deserved.]Where there is sin, there will be guilt; and where there is guilt, there will be punishment, unless we be pardoned. [Manton here adds an interesting image: The sin has created guilt which binds us with chains to the punishment. The picture of Morley at the beginning of a Christmas Carol speaking of forging chains in life seems similar] and God looseneth the chains wherewith we be bound.

B.        Secondly, Forgiveness of sin is a dissolving the obligation to punishment, or a freedom, in God’s way and method, from all the sad and woful consequences of sin. Understand it rightly.

1.         It is not a disannulling the act. [God does not disappear the sin.  The sinful event has a historical reality binding upon the actor. Manton holds it is “impossible” for the event to be undone. This raises an interesting question about the nature of sin and history. ] yet that must not be understood as if God would abolish the action, and make it as if it had never been, for that is impossible. [What is removed is not the act but the punishment due to the act.]

2.         [God does not change the moral status of the event. If an event is a sin, it is always a sin, even if forgiven.]  An accused person may be vindicated as innocent, but if he be pardoned, he is pardoned as an offender.

3.         [We must not think that our forgiveness means that we do not deserve the punishment. In fact, we must be clear on this point, because it makes our status as recipients of grace clear to us. [We must still own ourselves deserving the wrath of God, which maketh for our constant humiliation and admiration of grace; so that he that is pardoned still deserveth punishment.’’]

Thomas Manton, The Temptation of Christ, Sermon 1.c

17 Thursday Dec 2020

Posted by in Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The prior post on this sermon may be found here.

Here, Manton ends with the practical application:

III. The good of this to us. 

It teacheth us divers things, four I shall instance in.

1. To show us who is our grand enemy, the devil, who sought the misery and destruction of mankind, as Christ did our salvation. (Matt. 13:19 & 39; John 8:44)

2. That all men, none excepted, are subject to temptations. (If Jesus was not exempt form temptation, than neither shall we)

3. It showeth us the manner of conflict, both of Satan’s fight and our Saviour’s defence.

[1.] Of Satan’s fight. It is some advantage not to be ignorant of his enterprises: …He assaulted Christ by the same kind of temptations by which usually he assaults us. The kinds of temptations are reckoned up: 1 John 2:16, ‘The lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life.’ …

What then shall we do, knowing that we will be tempted and knowing something of how we will be tempted. The answer comes from the way in which Christ defendanted himself

[2.] The manner of Christ’s defence, and so it instructeth us how to overcome and carry ourselves in temptations. And here are two things whereby we evercome:—

(1.) By scripture….

But not as a talisman which is raised to chase off the Devil. That is evident, because the Devil quoted Scripture as part of his temptation. 

It is good to have the word of God abide in our memories, but chiefly in our hearts, by a sound belief and fervent love to the truth.

The Scripture is effective because it is embedded and is an automatic element of our thinking. It sets out an intellectual habit. This leads to the next element of defense noted by Manton:

(2.) Partly by resolution: 1 Pet. 4:1, ‘Arm yourselves with the same mind,’ viz., that was in Christ. When Satan grew bold and troublesome, Christ rejects him with indignation. Now the conscience of our duty should thus prevail with us to be resolute therein; the double-minded are as it were torn in pieces between God and the devil: James 1:8, ‘A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.’ Therefore, being in God’s way, we should resolve to be deaf to all temptations.

He ends with encouragement. This sermon could easily be discouraging: The Devil will assault you. He is powerful and intelligent. If it was merely make sure you remember enough Bible and stiffen you spine, this could easily become a matter of discouragement, because then it would make it seem as the power lay wholly with us. Instead, he sets out the example as proof that we will prevail:

4. The hopes of success. God would set Christ before us as a pattern of trust and confidence, that when we address ourselves to serve God, we might not fear the temptations of Satan. We have an example of overcoming the devil in our glorious head and chief. If he pleaded, John 16:33, ‘In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world;’ the same holdeth good here, for the enemies of our salvation are combined. He overcame the devil in our natures, that we might not be discouraged: we fight against the same adversaries in the same cause, and he will give power to us, his weak members, being full of compassion, which certainly is a great comfort to us.

Having provided a general statement of the case, he proceeds to some particulars. 

Use. Of instruction to us:—

1. To reckon upon temptations. As soon as we mind our baptismal covenant, we must expect that Satan will be our professed foe, seeking to terrify or allure us from the banner of our captain, Jesus Christ. 

He then tallies up the types that immediately give way to temptation and return to “Satan’s camp.”

One type do not renounce Christ. Rather, they merely live as if Christ did not matter.

Now these are the devil’s agents, and the more dangerous because they use Christ’s name against his offices, and the form of his religion to destroy the power thereof; 

A second sort give way in a passive manner. They are not set against Christ in any obvious way; Christ simply does not matter to them.  They

tamely yield to the lusts of the flesh, and go ‘like an ox to the slaughter, and a fool to the correction of the stocks,’ Prov. 7:22 ….

A third sort begin well:

But then there is a third sort of men, that begin to be serious, and to mind their recovery by Christ: they have many good motions and convictions of the danger of sin, excellency of Christ, necessity of holiness; they have many purposes to leave sin and enter upon a holy course of life, but ‘the wicked one cometh, and cateheth away that which was sown in his heart,’ Matt. 13:19. He beginneth betimes to oppose the work, before we are confirmed and settled in a course of godliness, as he did set upon Christ presently upon his baptism. Baptism in us implieth avowed dying unto sin and living unto God; now God permitteth temptation to try our resolution. 

A fourth sort may not fall like the first three, but they will not leave the battle without a battle:

There is a fourth sort, of such as have made some progress in religion, even to a degree of eminency: these are not altogether free; for if the devil had confidence to assault the declared Son of God, will he be afraid of a mere mortal man? No; these he assaulteth many times very sorely: pirates venture on the greatest booty. These he seeketh to draw off from Christ, as Pharaoh sought to bring back the Israelites after their escape; or to foil them by some scandalous fall, to do religion a mischief: 2 Sam. 12:14, ‘By this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme;’ or at least to vex them and torment them, to make the service of God tedious and uncomfortable to them: Luke 22:31, ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat’—to toss and vex you, as wheat in a sieve. So that no sort of Christians can promise themselves exemption; and God permitteth it, because to whom much is given, of them the more is required.

Second, we need to realize that anything can and will be used to temptation, wealth or poverty. We are tempted by ease and affliction.

Third, 

His end is to dissuade us from good, and persuade us to evil. 

On one hand, he 

Dissuade[s] us from good by representing the impossibility, trouble, and small necessity of it. 

He also tempts us to evil:

He persuadeth us to evil by profit, pleasure, necessity; we cannot live without it in the world. He hideth the hook, and showeth the bait only; he concealeth the hell, the horror, the eternal pains that follow sin, and only telleth you how beneficial, profitable, and delightful the sin will be to you:

This quotation is remarkably similar to a passage in Thomas Brooks

Device (1). To present the bait and hide the hook; to present the golden cup, and hide the poison; to present the sweet, the pleasure, and the profit that may flow in upon the soul by yielding to sin, and by hiding from the soul the wrath and misery that will certainly follow the committing of sin. By this device he took our first parents: Gen. 3:4, 5, ‘And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods! Here is the bait, the sweet, the pleasure, the profit. Oh, but he hides the hook,—the shame, the wrath, and the loss that would certainly follow!

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), 12–13.

And again, Manton returns to a note of encouragement to close the entire sermon:

4. While we are striving against temptations, let us remember our general. We do but follow the Captain of our salvation, who hath vanquished the enemy, and will give us the victory if we keep striving: ‘The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,’ Rom. 16:2. Not his feet, but ours: we shall be conquerors. Our enemy is vigilant and strong: it is enough for us that our Redeemer is merciful and faithful in succouring the tempted, and able to master the tempter, and defeat all his methods. Christ hath conquered him, both as a lamb and as a lion: Rev. 5:5, 8. The notion of a lamb intimateth his sacrifice, the notion of a lion his victory: in the lamb is merit, in the lion strength; by the one he maketh satisfaction to God, by the other he rescueth sinners out of the paw of the roaring lion, and maintaineth his interest in their hearts. Therefore let us not be discouraged, but closely adhere to him.

Thomas Manton, The Temptation of Christ, Sermon 1.b

10 Thursday Dec 2020

Posted by in Thomas Manton

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

II. The reasons why Christ submitted to it.

A. With respect to Adam, that the parallel between the first and second Adam might be more exact. … 

Manton draws out a series of parallels here:

And as in other respects, so in this;

 in the same way we were destroyed by the first Adam, in the same way we were restored by the second. 

Christ recovereth and winneth that which Adam lost. 

Our happiness was lost by the first Adam being overcome by the tempter; 

so it must be recovered by the second Adam, the tempter being overcome by him. 

He that did conquer must first be conquered, that sinners might be rescued from the captivity wherein he held them captive. 

The first Adam, being assaulted quickly after his entrance into paradise, was overcome; and therefore must the second Adam overcome him as soon as he entered upon his office, and that in a conflict hand-to-hand, in that nature that was foiled. 

The devil must lose his prisoners in the same way that he caught them. Christ must do what Adam could not do. 

The victory is gotten by a public person in our nature, before it can be gotten by each individual in his own person, for so it was lost. 

Adam lost the day before he had any offspring, so Christ winneth it in his own person before he doth solemnly begin to preach the gospel and call disciples; and therefore here was the great overthrow of the adversary.

2. In regard of Satan, who by his conquest got a twofold power over man by tempting, he got an interest in his heart to lead him ‘captive at his will’ and pleasure, 2 Tim. 2:26; and he was made God’s executioner, he got a power to punish him: Heb. 2:14, ‘That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.’ 

The note on Hebrews 2:14 is interesting, because it is a passage which receives strikingly little comment by preachers or commentators. 

Therefore the Son of God, who interposed on our behalf, and undertook the rescue of sinners, did assume the nature of man, that he might conquer Satan in the nature that was conquered, and also offer himself as a sacrifice in the same nature for the demonstration of the justice of God. 

This argument has affinity with Anslem:

The argument is briefly this: man must render satisfaction, and he cannot do it; but only man ought to, and only God can; hence, God became man in Jesus Christ. “This cannot be done except by a complete satisfaction for sin, which no sinner can make” (ii. 4, 3). “There is no one therefore who can make this satisfaction except God Himself.… But no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction.… If, therefore, as is evident, it is needful that that heavenly state be perfected from among men, and this cannot be unless the above-mentioned satisfaction be made, which no one can make except God, and no one ought to make except man; it is necessary that a God-man make it” (ii. 6, 4 and 5). Christ is God-man, not by conversion of the Divine nature into the human, nor by the blending of the two natures into a tertium quid, but by the co-existence of the two natures in one person (ii. 7). He must be of the race of Adam, in order to make satisfaction for it (ii. 8). Being sinless, He did not need to die (ii. 10). “But there is nothing more severe and arduous that a man can suffer for the honour of God of his own accord, and not as a matter of debt, than death. And a man can in no way more entirely give himself up to God, than when he delivers himself up to death for His honour” (ii. 11, 21). Christ’s death was therefore voluntary, and herein consisted its supreme value: His merits are infinite, hence superabundant and available for man’s rescue. It is then shown “how His death outweighs the number and greatness of all sins” (ii. 14, 1). The merit of His death is derived from the uniqueness of His personality; “because a sin which is committed against His person surpasses beyond comparison all those which can be conceived of apart from His person” (ii. 14, 7). “The life of this Man was so exalted and so precious, that it may suffice to pay what is due for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more” (ii. 17, 40).

George Cadwalader Foley, Anselm’s Theory of the Atonement: The Bohlen Lectures, 1908 (London; Bombay; Calcutta; New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 129–130.

Manton then draws an interesting observation concerning Christ as an example. There is a school which reads all of Christ’s work as solely exemplary. But Manton here states example then merit:

First, Christ must overcome by obedience, tried to the uttermost by temptations; and then he must also overcome by suffering. By overcoming temptations, he doth overcome Satan as a tempter; and by death he overcame him as a tormentor, or as the prince of death, who had the power of executing God’s sentence. 

So that you see before he overcame him by merit, he overcame him by example, and was an instance of a tempted man before he was an instance of a persecuted man, or one that came to make satisfaction to God’s justice.

And how that example can act as a comfort to us: We can trust Jesus:

C. With respect to the saints, who are in their passage to heaven to be exposed to great difficulties and trials. Now that they might have comfort and hope in their Redeemer, and come to him boldly as one touched with a feeling of their infirmities, he himself submitted to be tempted. [Heb. 2:18, 4:15] …..

Christ hath experienced how strong the assailant is, how feeble our nature is, how hard a matter it is to withstand when we are so sorely assaulted. His own experience of sufferings and temptations in himself doth entender his heart, and make him fit for sympathy with us, and begets a tender compassion towards the miseries and frailties of his members.

This also has a hint of Anselm in it: The value of Christ’s obedience was increased because it was given in the face of temptation:

4. With respect to Christ himself, that he might be an exact pattern of obedience to God. The obedience is little worth, which is carried on in an even tenor, when we have no temptation to the contrary, … Now Christ was to be more eminent than all the holy ones of God, and therefore, that he might give an evidence of his piety, constancy, and trust in God, it was thought fit some trial should be made of him, that he might by example teach us what reason we have to hold to God against the strongest temptations.

Thomas Manton, The Temptation of Christ, Sermon 1.a

08 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by in Matthew, Thomas Manton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

SERMON I

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil.—

Matt. 4.1

Jesus Tempted, Giovanni Battista

The first step in exegesis is an examination of the grammatical/logical elements of the text:

This scripture giveth us the history of Christ’s temptation, which I shall go over by degrees.

In the words observe:—

1. The parties tempted and tempting. The person tempted was the Lord Jesus Christ. The person tempting was the devil.

2. The occasion inducing this combat, Jesus was led up of the Spirit.

3. The time, then.

4. The place, the wilderness.

Following this outline of the elements, he proposes an observation of what is to be learned from the text:

From the whole observe:—

Doct. The Lord Jesus Christ was pleased to submit himself to an extraordinary combat with the tempter, for our good.

Next he provides the elements of his sermon, which will be both an examination of the elements and an exhortation based upon the same:

1. I shall explain the nature and circumstances of this extraordinary combat.

2. The reasons why Christ submitted to it.

3. The good of this to us.

Now the examination:

I. The circumstances of this extraordinary combat. And here—

Manton looks at the Who, What, How, When

A. The persons combating—Jesus and the devil, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. It was designed long before. Gen.3:15 ….

B. The manner of the combat. It was not merely a phantasm, that Christ was thus assaulted and used: no, he was tempted in reality, not in conceit and imagination only. It seemeth to be in the spirit, though it was real; as Paul was taken up into the third heaven, whether in the body or out of the body we cannot easily judge, but real it was. I shall more accurately discuss this question afterwards in its more proper place.

He emphasizes that this was a historical reality. Even though it involved at one non-physical being (the Devil), we should not consider spiritual engagements as less real. Next he considers, how did this come about:

C. What moved him, or how was he brought to enter into the lists [who arranged for this combat to take place] with Satan? He was ‘led by the Spirit,’ meaning thereby the impulsion and excitation of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. Luke 4:1.

From this, Manton draws a deduction: 

He did not voluntarily put himself upon temptation, but, by God’s appointment, went up from Jordan farther into the desert.

At this point, Manton begins to draw a lesson. He presumes that the life of Jesus is exemplary for the conduct of our life. This is consistent with Peter’s teaching that Jesus’ conduct [at the passion] is exemplary for our life. 1 Peter 2:21. Paul writes that we are being conformed into the image of Jesus. Col. 3:10. Paul applies this in particular to our response to difficulties. Rom. 8:28-29. And so, Manton’s application in this manner is warranted. 

We learn hence:—

1. That temptations come not by chance, not out of the earth, nor merely from the devil; but God ordereth them for his own glory and our good.

He then provides examples, Job 1:12; Luke 22:31; Matt. 8:31

If we be free, let us bless God for it, and pray that he would not ‘lead us into temptation:’ if tempted, when we are in Satan’s hands, remember Satan is in God’s hand.

2. Having given up ourselves to God, we are no longer to be at our own dispose and direction, but must submit ourselves to be led, guided, and ordered by God in all things. So it was with Christ, he was led by the Spirit continually. Luke 4:1; Romans 8:14.

From the factual conclusions, Manton draws a conclusion as to our conduct:

3. That we must observe our warrant and calling in all we resolve upon. To put ourselves upon hazards we are not called unto, is to go out of our bounds to meet a temptation, or to ride into the devil’s quarters. Christ did not go of his own accord into the desert, but by divine impulsion, and so he came from thence. We may, in our place and calling, venture ourselves, on the protection of God’s providence, upon obvious temptations; God will maintain and support us in them; that is to trust God; but to go out of our calling is to tempt God.

And finally an observation as to human will and the power of God:

4. Compare the words used in Matthew and Mark, chap. 1:12, ‘And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.’ That shows that it was a forcible motion, or a strong impulse, such as he could not easily resist or refuse, so here is freedom—he was led; there is force and efficacious impression—he was driven, with a voluntary condescension thereunto. There may be liberty of man’s will, yet the victorious efficacy of grace united together: a man may be taught and drawn, as Christ here was led, and driven by the Spirit into the wilderness.

Manton now come to when this took place.

D. The time.

1. Presently after his baptism. Now the baptism of Christ agreeth with ours as to the general nature of it. Baptism is our initiation into the service of God, or our solemn consecration of ourselves to him; and it doth not only imply work, but fight. (Rom. 6:13, 13:12 ….).  

Which raises the question of why would Jesus be baptized?

….His baptism was the taking of the field as general; we undertake to fight under him in our rank and place.

What is the connection between the baptism and the temptation? The temptation comes immediately upon the baptism and the Father’s recognition of Jesus as the Son (Mark 3:16-17)

2. Thus many times the children of God, after solemn assurances of his love, are exposed to great temptations.…God’s conduct is gentle, and proportioned to our strength, as Jacob drove as the little ones were able to bear it. He never suffers his castles to be besieged till they are victualled.

Why does the temptation come immediately before his public preaching ministry (his prophetical office):

3. … Experience of temptations fits for the ministry, as Christ’s temptations prepared him to set a-foot the kingdom of God, for the recovery of poor souls out of their bondage into the liberty of the children of God: … Christ also would show us that ministers should not only be men of science, but of experience.

4. The place or field where this combat was fought, the wilderness, where were none but wild beasts: … In this solitary place Satan tried his utmost power against our Saviour.

This teacheth us:—

a. That Christ alone grappled with Satan, having no fellow-worker with him, that we may know the strength of our Redeemer, who is able himself to overcome the tempter without any assistance, and to ‘save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him,’ Heb. 7:25.

b. That the devil often abuseth our solitude. It is good sometimes to be alone; but then we need to be stocked with holy thoughts or employed in holy exercises, that we may be able to say, as Christ, John 16:32, ‘I am not alone, because the Father is with me.’ Howsoever a state of retirement from human converse, if it be not necessary, exposeth us to temptations; but if we are cast upon it, we must expect God’s presence and help.

c. That no place is privileged from temptations, unless we leave our hearts behind us. David, walking on the terrace or house-top, was ensnared by Bathsheba’s beauty: 2 Sam. 11:2–4. Lot, that was chaste in Sodom, yet committed incest in the mountain, where there were none but his own family: Gen. 19:30, 31, &c. When we are locked in our closets, we cannot shut out Satan.

What is to pray without ceasing

04 Friday Dec 2020

Posted by in Prayer, Thomas Manton

≈ 1 Comment

From Thomas Manton’s sermon on 1 Thess. 5:17.

Since to pray “without ceasing” could misunderstood, Manton works the possibilities and then concludes

“This praying without ceasing is to be interpreted of the universality and the frequency of the return of the occasions and opportunities of prayer; and we may be said to do that without ceasing which we do very often. So that though the act of prayer be intermitted, the course of prayer should not be interrupted; for we are to pray at all times, in all conditions, and in all businesses and affairs.”

As for all times means at the least daily

“We need daily bread, daily pardon, daily strength against temptations. Yea, there seemeth to be a double standing occasion; every day in the morning for direction, in the evening for protection; as God appointed a morning and evening sacrifice: Num. 28:4,”

It is also in every condition in which we may find ourslef

“In all estates and conditions, afflicted and prosperous. In an adverse or afflicted estate: James 5:13, ‘Is any among you afflicted? let him pray.’ That gives vent to our sorrow, and turneth it into a spiritual channel. In a prosperous estate we are to pray that we may not forget God.”

And finally prayer is not to spiritual matters alone

“In every business, civil or sacred: ‘In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths,’ Prov. 3:6. In business secular. Abraham’s servant beggeth success in his errand: Gen. 24:12, ‘O Lord God of my master Abraham! I pray thee send me goodspeed this day.’ In matters sacred: 2 Thes. 3:5, ‘The Lord direct your heart into the love of God.’ So that a serious sensible christian seldom wanteth an errand to the throne of grace, and if we be not strangers to ourselves, we cannot be strangers to God.”

Prayer as Desire

04 Friday Dec 2020

Posted by in Prayer, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Thomas Manton in his sermon on 1 Thess. 5:17 (pray without ceasing) defines prayer as desire

“It is an offering up of our desires. Desires are the soul and life of prayer, words are but the body. Now as the body without the soul is dead, so are prayers unless they are animated with our desires: Ps. 10:17, ‘Lord, thou hast heard the desire of the humble.’ God heareth not words, but desires.”

He then further specifies the nature of this offering up of prayer.

First the desire is offered with the right heart.

“These desires are offered unto God, or brought before the Lord in this solemn way: Zeph. 3:10, ‘My suppliants, even the daughters of my dispersed, shall bring mine offering;’ that is, shall reverently express their desires to God. An offering was either a sacrifice, and prayer is a spiritual sacrifices: 1 Peter 2:5,”

The prayer is offered up not on our own account but we come bearing Christ’s name

“They are desires presented in the name of Christ, in whom alone we are acceptable to God: John 16:23, ‘Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.’”

Finally these are agreeable to God

“All our desires must be regulated by his revealed will, and subordinated to his secret will, so far as God seeth it fit for his glory and our good; for upon other terms he is not bound to us.”

Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, 4.1

09 Thursday Jul 2020

Posted by in Freud, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Chapter 4: In Defense of the Analytic Attitude

This chapter concerns Freud’s defense of his analysis. To understand this, Rieff notes two distinct understanding of the “theory of theory”.  First, there was the understanding of theory bringing the human into conformity with reality: “They being what we know them to be, the intellectual and emotional task of life is to make our actions confirm to the right order, so that we too can be right.”  The model is the true paradigm. 

There is a natural inherent order which we seek to understand and then order life. The underlying order the “model” (as Rieff) calls it is the point. There is a final end, and that end is God. 

But there is another understanding of theory which sets out to destroy gods. This sort of theory “arms us with the weapons for transforming reality instead of forcing us to conform to it.” (73) There is no purpose, no final cause. Theory is merely a way of navigating an otherwise incomprehensible universe and mitigating the pain of life. “A good theory becomes the creator of power.” (Ibid.)

It is such a power creating, reality bending theory that produces Freud and Marx. 

At this point, Rieff distinguishes Adler and Jung from Freud. Freud sought merely to set forth a theory which would give on the power to choose to live any sort of life.  He would not “cure” anyone: cure was a “religious category.”  (74) “He merely wanted to give men more options than their raw experience of life permitted them.” (74)

Freud’s mechanism leaves one nowhere: you finally kill off the old gods but there is nothing with which to replace it. Rieff notes that Adler and Jung sought to construct a basis for establishing a new cure on the other-side of analysis despite their attempts. 

The end point was the Genesis 3 promise of the Serpent, “You shall be as gods knowing good and evil.” “Freud risked the correlative implication: that healthy men need no gods.” (76)

This second form of theory and its Freudian aim of a man who no longer needs the consolation of religion or the search of a pre-existing meaning and order in nature leaves man as a carver of his good.

Freud’s concept of a world freed of gods leaves every person the one who decides his own good, which has profound implications for law. In a series of cases, the courts have found this power to create one’s own “meaning” as the basis for constitutional rights: 

The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows: 

[“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.] [At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.] Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573-74 (2003). In the dissent of Lawrence, Justice Scalia wrote:

And if the Court is referring not to the holding of Casey, but to the dictum of its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage, ante, at 13 (“`At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life'”): That “casts some doubt” upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law. 

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 588 (2003). Scalia’s point is that all law defines some sort of public character: it is a “theory” in the first sense referenced above. But in a series of decisions involving human sexuality and procreation, the courts have adopted a Freudian theory of law, in which freedom from the “gods” of any culture can be set aside. 

But such self-carving of happiness does remain a personal decision – however personally the decision is made:

Incorporating the “mystery of life” logic into these spheres deludes individuals into thinking that personal failures in socially important roles only have personal consequences. Society thus lacks the authority to explain how the personal choice of one hurts the wellbeing of others.

In other words, society cannot say whether marriage ensures that children have the benefit of a mother and a father—marriage is whatever a person wants it to be. Society cannot say whether a child suffers from no-fault divorce—divorce is a personal choice. Society cannot say whether a child is raised by parents in a relationship that society needs to survive—relationships are personal.

Should the detriments of a child’s upbringing become a social harm when he takes society’s reins as an adult, that new adult now also lacks the right moral framework to refine social standards for the benefit of his children.  Life’s “mystery” about what crafts and constitutes good conduct thus endures—even when harmful consequences counsel society to encourage some choices over others from reason and experience.

William Haun, “The “mystery of Life” Makes Law a Mystery,” The Public Discourse (July 26, 2013), https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10091/.  The justification for Freud’s freeing men from deformed gods is that the culture simply no longer functions nor does it provide the ability to define character and human good. These commitment therapies are simply outdated. 

Now perhaps when an occasional person behaves along their on lines there is little communal effect. Indeed, even the most prolific murderer or robber will have only limited effect upon a society of any size. But when there is no communal standards for even the most basic means of living, then the results will profoundly damaging. Freud’s theory made constitutional right will not end well when extended to all. 

As Justice Scalia noted, the doctrine applied consistently means there can be no order, which is precisely the duty of law and culture. But, as Freud contends, there is no order to be had. 

I know that an utterly chaotic society would have been a horror to Freud. I have read nowhere that he was a anarchist. But the results of his analytic theory aim in only one direction. Indeed, he felt that Adler and Jung were wrong to try find a new basis for order. 

On the other side is the first understanding of theory, that human happiness and well-being are defined not by ourselves but by God:

Men would be happy with that kind of happiness which is true happiness, but not in the way which God propoundeth, being prepossessed with carnal fancies. It is counted a foolish thing to wait upon God in the midst of straits, conflicts, and temptations: 1 Cor. 2:14, ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ More prejudices lie against the means than the end; therefore, out of despair, they sit down with a carnal choice, as persons disappointed in a match take the next offer. Since they cannot have God’s happiness, they resolve to be their own carvers, and to make themselves as happy as they can in the enjoyment of present things

Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 6 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1872), 7.

Some thoughts on Stoicism

11 Tuesday Feb 2020

Posted by in Thomas Manton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

I read quite a bit of Stoic philosophy and thus realize that it is far more nuanced than simply detachment and reserve. But detachment and reserve; a purposeful attempt to avoid all trouble is the popular form of the concept. A cheaper and American version is to simply avoid all thoughts of something “negative”; which is a kind of ostrich happiness. I will be happy by simply not knowing. We have even medicalized this, so that feeling bad is a disease (and yes, I know there are severe cases of depression which are quite different than merely feeling sadness, loss, and such).

There is a tacit belief among som Christians, that a stoic dullness to trouble; a complete equanimity to all things is a kind of holiness.  If something bad takes place, I should not care. This is matched by a kind of stoicism to trouble as a sign of mental health.

There is much to be said for not being troubled; but that standard alone is insufficient to respond to all things. Should we be untroubled at injustice? She we be untroubled at death of those whom we love? The examples are easy to multiply.

The fault would not be in sorrow, fear, love, anger, et cetera. The trouble is the whether and when of such affections. The trouble as Christianity would have it is not that one expresses some emotion, but rather the question of whether the affection is based upon a true and right understand.  What we need is not a placid soul. What we need are rightly calibrated affections:

In this psalm you find the man of God under divers passions, sometimes of joy, sometimes of sorrow, sometimes of hope and courage, and sometimes of fear. As there is a time for all things in this world, there are several conditions and duties that we run through, and we have affections planted in us that suit with every condition. Religion doth not nullify, but sanctify our affections. Some have vainly thought affections to be an after-growth of noisome weeds in our nature corrupted; whereas they are wholesome herbs, implanted in us by God at our first creation, of great use to grace when rightly stirred and ordered:

Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 8 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1872), 230.

Thomas Manton on the Two Ways of Giving Thanks to God

30 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Thomas Manton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

First, The substance, or act of it, ‘Giving thanks.’ Praise relateth to God’s excellencies, thanksgiving to God’s benefits. There is a twofold thanksgiving—(1.) By way of celebration or commemoration, when we speak of God’s mercies one to another; (2.) By way of invocation, adoration, or worship, when we express them to God himself.

1. A thanksgiving by way of commemoration, when we communicate to others what experience we have had of God: Ps. 22:22, ‘I will declare thy name, unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.’ The name of God is that by which he is made known in his word or works. As we are to propagate to others what knowledge we get of God by his word, so also what we have found of him in his works, how God hath made known his name to us by acts of grace and mercy: Ps. 66:16, ‘Come and hear, all ye that fear the Lord, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul.’ This is one part of the communion of saints, to call upon others to praise God with us, as one bird sets the whole flock a chirping. We are usually barren, vain, foolish in our communications with one another. This celebration and commemoration should be our cure and solace: Eph. 5:4, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐυχαριστία, ‘But rather giving of thanks.’ Speaking to each other of God’s goodness is a christian’s mirth, and a choice remedy against foolish talking, jesting, and other sins. To put down idle and sinful talk, he prescribeth giving of thanks.

2. There is thanksgiving by way of adoration, or direct address to God himself. This is a special part of christian worship, therefore the whole is expressed by it: 1 Cor. 14:16, ‘Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?’ where the whole christian worship is expressed by ‘blessing with the spirit,’ or ‘giving of thanks.’ And thence God is said to ‘inhabit the praises of Israel,’ Ps. 22:3, because he is often magnified and praised by his church: the praises of Israel, that is the subject of it. Yea, it is doctrinally declared by God himself: Ps. 50:23, ‘He that offereth praise glorifieth me.’ The Lord taketh it as an honour to himself when we praise him for his excellencies or bless him for his benefits.

This thanksgiving is an acknowledgment of benefits received to the praise of the bestower.

There is included in it partly notice and observation of what God hath done for us. The contrary is taxed, Isa. 1:3, ‘The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.’ The brute beasts know such as feed them and make much of them, but men take no notice of what great things God hath done for them: Hosea 2:8, ‘For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold.’ Little notice is taken of God’s kindness in the world.

And partly too an esteem of the benefits received; for we cannot give thanks for what we value and prize not. Solomon gave cities to Hiram, but they pleased him not; and therefore he called them Cabul, that is, displeasing or dirty, 1 Kings 9:12, 13, because they stood in low and moorish places. So God vouchsafeth many mercies, but most men are discontented with their portion; the mercies of God please them not: Mal. 1:2, ‘I have loved you, saith the Lord; yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?’ What love is it to be restored to bare hills and mountains, or to be brought home to a wasted land, where they were to begin the world again? On the contrary, they that esteem the effects of God’s love will bless him, and praise him: Ps. 63:3, ‘Because thy loving-kindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.’

They that are affected with mercies received cannot but be affectioned towards the God of their mercies, and therefore will speak good of his name. And partly actual acknowledgment; they excite and stir up their hearts to give God the glory these mercies call for: Ps. 103:1, 2, ‘Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits.’ This acknowledgment, if it be serious, will excite and urge them to make some recompense, as to consider what they may do for God: Ps. 116:12, ‘What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards me?’ And it was Hezekiah’s fault, 2 Chron. 32:25, compared with Isa. 38:9, when he had been sick, and was recovered of his sickness, that ‘he rendered not according to the benefit done him.’ Therefore unless this acknowledgment doth excite us and urge us to honour, please, serve, and glorify God, it is not right. They do anew devote themselves to him upon every eminent mercy.

Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 19 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 417–419.