Tag Archives: Puritan

Thomas Adams, The Sinner’s Mourning Habit.2 (God will honor us)

15 Friday Oct 2021

Posted by in Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Adams then turns to the phrase in Job, “I abhor myself.” (The ESV has “despise.”) This is a turn in the verse and the sermon which might seem most unwise to us. Adams recognizes that

It is a deep degree of mortification for a man to abhor himself. To abhor others is easy, to deny others more easy, to despise others most easy. But it is hard to despise a man’s self, to deny himself harder, hardest to abhor himself. Every one is apt to think well of himself. Not only charity, a spiritual virtue, but also lust, a carnal vice, begins at home. There is no direct commandment in the Bible for a carnal man to love himself, because we are all so naturally prone to it.

This is considered madness and bad policy. A PhD psychologist writes (I am not going to link to the man, because I am not interested in causing conflict; rather I merely want to raise what is considered a truism), “We know it’s important to love ourselves. But what does it really mean to love and care for yourself?”

What then is meant by abhorring oneself? This is admittedly a strange idea. And in what way could Adams be advocating this is a spiritual good? He admits this is strange, “for a man to abhor himself, this is a wonder.”

But then he phrases the matter differently, and in a manner which may sound more comprehensible:

He that doth not admire himself is a man to be admired.

Adams begins to pick apart self-admiration,

It is against reason, indeed, that metals should make a difference of men; against religion that it should make a difference of Christian men. Yet commonly reputation is measured by the acre, and the altitude of countenance is taken by the pole of advancement. And as the servant values himself higher or lower according as his master esteems himself greater or less according as his master is, that, as his money or estate. 

The basis for the status is not in the man himself; it is in something outside of him. That is a curious thing: I am great because I have X.  But Adams takes the problem in a different direction: if we are going to be judged by our master, who then is that?

But the children of grace have learned another lesson—to think well of other men, and to abhor themselves. 

That seems odd, but it stems from the fact that we actually know ourselves:

And indeed, if we consider what master we have served, what wages we have deserved, we have just cause to abhor ourselves. What part of us hath not sinned, that it should not merit to be despised. Run all over this little Isle of Man [a human being] and find me one member that should not merit to be despised….Where is the innocency which desires not to stand only in the sight of mercy? There is our worst works wickedness, in our best weakness, error in all. What time, what place, are not witnesses against us?

Some of the language here has its basis in Romans 6:13, “Do not present your members [parts of your body] to sin as instruments of unrighteousness.” And, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness.” (6:16)

In addition, one might balk at the standard for everything being sin: surely it is not that bad. It is not the case that everyone is always as bad as they could be. But rather that nothing is perfect and perfection is the standard. If we are to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love our neighbor as ourselves; and to judge all actions against that standard, we see that we fail. 

The trouble is ontological, not just behavioral. The point is not that we don’t live up; it is even worse: we cannot live up to the standard.  “For by the works of the law no human being will justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” That everyone falls short is the point: it is that God may justify by grace as an act of mercy. 

When we look at ourselves, we have much to loath: we are our own worst enemies. Who would seek to justify the irrationality of humanity. Think of your life and be honest. Think of the causal unkindness; the selfishness and thoughtlessness; not mention worse acts of cruelty. 

Adams draws out the thought of the irrationality of sin. And then addresses another tact, “I do love God.”

That we love God far better than ourselves is soon said, but to prove it is not so easily done. He must deny himself, that will be Christ’s servant ….Many have denied hteir friends, many have denied their kindred, not a few have denied their brotehrs, some have denied their parents, but to deny themselves is a hard task. To deny their profits, to deny their lusts, to deny their reasons, to deny themselves? No, to do all this they utterly deny.

He then ends with this paradoxical promise which is at the heart of repentance and the Gospel:

Thus,

If we despise ourselves

            God will honor us

If we abhor ourselves,

            God will accept us

If we hate ourselves

            God will love us

If we condemn ourselves

            God will acquit us

If we punish ourselves

            God will spare us

Yea thus

If we seem lost to ourselves

            We shall be found on the Day of Jesus Christ.

The Sinner’s Mourning Habit

07 Saturday Aug 2021

Posted by in Job, Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This sermon by Thomas Adams was preached on March 29, 1625, just after the death of King James

The Sinner’s Mourning-Habit

(A habit here means an outfit, the way one dresses in mourning.)

The text given is Job 42:6, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent and dust and ashes.” 

Adams begins with the implicit question, How does God speak to us, what does God do to gain our attention?

Affliction is a winged chariot, that mounts the soul toward heaven; nor do we ever rightly understand God’s majesty as when we are under our own misery….The Lord hath many messengers by which he solicits man….But among them all, none dispatcheth the business surer or sooner than affliction; if that fail of bring a man home, nothing can do it.

God had used affliction to gain the attention of Job and Job’s repentance here in “dust and ashes” is the end of that work. Where we may consider three degrees of mortification: the sickness, the death, and the burial of sin. 

To study God is the way to make a humble man; and a humble man is in the way to come unto God.

Adams comes to the first word of the text, “Wherefore.”  This establishes the basis upon which Job was humbled. Adams sees two elements here: (1) God’s majesty and (2) God’s mercy as the basis for Job’s humility.

As to majesty, “Mathematicians wonder at the sun, that, being so much bigger than the earth, it doth not set it on fire and burn it to ashes: but here is a wonder, that God being so infinitely great, and we so infinitely evil, we are not consumed.”

As to mercy: Meditating upon the mercy of God is the great means to humble us, “nothing more humbles a heart of flesh.”

It is a certain conclusion, no proud man knows God.

Humility is not only a virtue itself, but a vessel to contain other virtues: like embers, which keep the fire alive that is hidden under it. It empieth itself by a modest estimation of its own worth that Christ may fill it….All our pride, O Lord, is from want of knowing thee.

Next words, “I abhor myself. It is a deep degree of mortification for a man to abhor himself.”

He that doth not admire himself is a man to be admired.

He that doth not admire himself

Is a man to be admired

But the children of grace have learned another lesson – to think well of other men, and to abhor themselves. And indeed, if we consider what master we have served, and what wages deserved, we have just cause to abhor ourselves. What part of us hath not sinned that it should not merit to be despised?

He then asks this question, which raises a fascinating psychological question as to the nature of self-centeredness and more particularly the sin-centeredness of human beings. Perhaps this centering upon sin is truly what is at issue in narcissism rather than the bare “self.” Here is Adams’ observation on this point:

That we love God far better than ourselves is soon said; but to prove it is not so easily done. He must deny himself that will be Christ’s servant, Mark viii. 34. Many have denied their friends, may have denied their kindred, not a few have denied their brothers, some have denied their own parents; but to themselves, this is a hard task. To deny their profits, to deny their lusts, to deny their reasons, to deny themselves? No, do to all this they utterly deny.

But this denial of self and abhorrence of the sin which inhabits this is the heart of repentance.

Thus, if we deny ourselves, 

God will honor us.

If we abhor ourselves,

God will accept us.

If we hate ourselves, 

God will love us.

If we condemn ourselves, 

God will acquit us.

If we punish ourselves,

God will spare us. 

Yea, thus if we seem lost to ourselves,

We shall be found in the day of Jesus Christ.

Next, he comes to the words, “I repent.” Rather than explain the nature of repentance, Adams’ goal is to bring us to repentance. He begins by noting that for many the potential for repentance perversely becomes an encouragement to sin. But such thinking is faulty, repentance – true repentance – can never be a basis to encourage sin: “repentance is a fair gift of God.” 

Man’s heart is like a door with a spring-lock; pull the door after you, it locks of itself, but you cannot open it again without a key. Man’s heart naturally locks out grace; none but he that hath the key of the house of David, Rev. iii.7, can open the door and put it in. God hath made a promise to repentance, not of repentance; we may trust to that promise, but there is no trusting to ourselves.

We have no promise that God will grant us repentance, and without repentance there is no reconciliation with God. True repentance does not lie in magic words nor in our natural ability. True repentance is something given and granted by God. 

Nor yet must we think with this one short word, ‘I repent,’ to answer for the multitude of our offenses; as if we, that had sinned in parcels, should be forgiven in gross….Nor is it enough to recount them, but we must recant them….

If we could truly weigh our iniquities, we must needs find a necessity of either repenting or of perishing. 

Shall we make God frown upon us in heaven, 

Arm all his creatures against us on earth? 

Shall we force his curses upon us and ours;

Take his rod, and teach it to scourge us with all temporal plagues; 

And not repent?

Shall we wound our consciences with sin, 

That they may wound us with eternal torments;

Make a hell in our bosoms here, 

And open the gates of that lower hell to devour us hereafter, 

And not repent?

Do we give by sin Satan a right to us

A power over us

An advantange against us: 

And not labor to cross his mischiefs by repentance?

Do we cast brimstone into that infernal fire, 

As if it could not be hot enough, or we should fail of tortures expect we make ourselves our own tormentors?

And not rather seek to quench those flames without penitent tears?

How then will we put off sin? We cannot look to repentance as a remedy to sin if we look to it as an excuse for sin. We start with looking to the end of sin, “If we could see the farewell of sin, we would abhor it and ourselves for it.” Look at the consequence which will flow from the sin: what will happen? How will your conscience stand? 

Finally the phrase, “Dust and ashes.” 

This is a wonderful line, “I have but on stair more, down from both text and pulpit, and this a very low one, ‘Dust and ashes.’”

What keeps us from thinking of this end? 

How may doth the golden cup of honor make drunk, and drive from all sense of mortality. Riches and heart’s ease are such usual intoxications to the souls of men, that it is rare to find any of them so low as dust and ashes.

Dust as the remembrance of his original; ashes, as the representation of his end. Dust, that was his mother; ashes, that shall be the daughter of our bodies.

Dust the matter of our substance, the house of our souls, the original grains whereof we were made, the top of all our kindred. The glory of the strongest man, the beauty of the fairest woman, all is but dust. Dust, the only compounder of differences, the absolver of all distinctions. 

Who can say which was the client, which the lawyer; 

which the borrower, which the lender; 

which the captive, which the conqueror, 

when they all lie together in blended dust?

….

Dust, 

The sport of the wind,

The very slave of the besom [a broom].

This is the pit from whence we are digged, 

And this is the pit into which we shall be resolved.

As he writes later, we are made from dust and live in the empire of dust.

I conclude

I call you not to casting dust on your heads

Or sitting in ashes

But to that sorrow and compunction of souls

Whereof the other was but an external symbol or testimony.

Let us rend our hearts and spare our garments

Humble our souls without afflicting our bodies. Is. lviii.5. 

It is not the corpse wrapped in dust and ashes,

But a contrite heart, 

Which the Lord will not despise. Ps. li. 17.

Let us repent our sins 

And amend our lives;

So God will pardon us by the merits

Save us by the mercies,

And crown us with the glories of Jesus Christ.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 33, Stanza Six

23 Sunday May 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Stanza Six

Oh! Graft me in this tree of life within

The paradise of God, that I may live.

Thy life make live in me. I’ll then begin 

To bear thy living fruits, and them forth give.                                                            40

Give me my life this way; and I’ll bestow

My love on thee, my life, and it shall grow.

Summary: This ends with a prayer to partake of the life of God, to grafted into the “Tree of Life” planted in paradise. He then promises two responses: he will bear “living fruits” and bestow love upon God, which will itself grow.

Notes

Tree of Life: Before we consider the biblical references here to the Tree of Life, there is the question of whence this image of a tree? No tree was explicitly referenced earlier in the poem, although the plain Garden allusions throughout never leave the idea of tree far behind. 

Perhaps the closet reference to a tree earlier in the poem is found in the image of the seed which bears life along here raised to the tree:

Glory lined out a paradise in power

Where e’ery seed a royal coach became                                            20

For Life to ride in, to each shining flower.

Perhaps the particular allusion in Taylor’s mind is from 

Genesis 1:29 (AV)

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat [meat = food].

This contains all of the references to tree and fruit along with seed from earlier in the poem. 

The Tree of Life is an image found in the very beginning and the very end of the Bible. First in the Garden

Genesis 2:15–17 (AV) 

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

It is from that tree that Adam was excluded upon his Fall:

Genesis 3:22–23 (AV) 

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 

It is then only to be found in Paradise Regained:

Revelation 22:1–4 (AV) 

1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits,and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 

Grafted

In a striking image from Paul’s letter to the Romans, he speaks of the Gentiles being grafted into an olive tree, and in this position to gain the promise. The passage itself contains a number of subtleties, but the overall image of grafting lends itself readily to Taylor’s use here:

Romans 11:17–24 (AV) 

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 

The combining of the image of the Tree of Life, and the grafting here make for a striking parallel. I wonder if Taylor ever used this combination of passages in a sermon.

Life This is been discussed above. The human race after the Fall is like a cut flower: it still has some appearance, but the principle of life is gone. For humanity, our life is all derivative. Life is not inherently us but is given by God. Hence, a human cut off from that principle of life has only certain death

Give me my life this way; and I’ll bestow

My love on thee, my life, and it shall grow.

Fruit This has a two-fold reference in this place. By way of image, a tree bearing fruit has us back in Eden and in the New Earth. That is plain enough. 

But Taylor is also speaking of how he will be changed by the infusion of life from God.  But I think the reference here is to Galatians 5 and the ‘fruit of the Spirit’: that is the transformative effect of the Spirit of God in a human life as that human walks in the Spirit.

This must be understood to understand Taylor’s prayer as a prayer of repentance and hope.

One may naively understand the claim of Christians that once one has been redeemed there is an absolute consistent change without variation. The undeniable truth such consistent, absolute change into the standard of Christian conduct easily leads to the conclusion that Christianity is untrue.

But the claim is not to perfect love and holiness as a sort of automatic event. Surely the standard is clear enough, but the manner of life often is not. This fruit of the Spirit is not something obtained irrespective of the human life. Sadly, it is a matter of fluctuation. Taylor is praying from an ebb.

But this poem strikes as peculiarly repentant. The promise at the end of fruit and love is quite similar to the end of Psalm 51, the great repentance of David which ends with a promise of future worship.

Paul says that this fruit is the result of walking in the Spirit (and this is contrasted with influence of the flesh):

Galatians 5:16–24 (AV) 

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 

You will see in verse 22 that at the head of the Spirit’s fruit is “love” – which Taylor promises will abound if he is given this spring of life: thus, fruit and love come together as images (and the Kingdom of God, wherein is the Tree of life).

But this brings us back to what is happening in the poem: 

Taylor is repenting of his misdirected affections. He is placed his love upon something worthless, even contrary to his life, when his direction should be toward God (his good and his life).

This prayer for fruit and love is a prayer for the Spirit’s influence. While it is in this poem clear enough, this point is made very plain in much Puritan writing. For instance, in the (long) quotation from Thomas Manton (below) we can see the same themes of this poem of fruit and life and repentance.  

Taylor was preparing for the Lord’s Table to receive. The motto for the poem “All things are yours whether …. Life” (1 Cor. 3:22). He is seeking to receive life – to be brought beyond condemnation. In the coming to the Table, Taylor is actively seeking the Spirit’s work of communicating Christ to him. He is seeking a renewal of the relationship.

The work of the Spirit in bearing fruit is first the work of the Spirit in sanctification, purging out sin and bringing new life. As Manton writes (and when you see it, Taylor is expressing from the lived experience, the doctrine which Manton is describing):

First, Sanctification. The great work of the Spirit is to be the fountain and principle of the new life of grace within us, or to maintain and keep afoot the interest of Christ in our souls: Gal. 5:25, ‘If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.’ He doth not only begin life, but continueth it, and still actuateth it, enabling us to all the duties thereof. There is having and walking; thence he is compared to a spring or well of living water, that is always springing forth: John 4:14, ‘The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.’ Not only a draught, but a well. They that have any measure of true grace have the Spirit as a fountain to make this grace endure in itself and in its effects. Some have only a draught, a vanishing taste, others a cistern or a pond, that may be dried up; but they that have the Spirit have a well, and a well that is always fresh and springing up and flowing forth till this stream become an ocean, and mortality be swallowed up of life. It is a spring that sendeth forth streams to water the ground about it. As the heart of man sendeth forth life to every faculty and member, and a general relief to all his parts, so doth the Spirit influence all our actions. Now both parts of sanctification are promoted by the Spirit, mortification and vivification, subduing of sin and quickening us to holiness. Mortification is seen in two things—purging out the lusts, or suppressing the acts of sin.

1. In purging out the lusts of it. The Spirit is said to cleanse us, and to purify us to the obedience of the truth: 1 Peter 1:22, ‘Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.’ The Spirit showeth what purity of heart is pleasing to God, and worketh it in us, casting out pride, and hard-heartedness, and malice, and hypocrisy, and sensuality, and all those lusts which defile our hearts, and dispose us to walk contrary to God. It is the contrary principle that sets us a-warring and striving against the flesh.

2. Preventing and suppressing the acts of sin: Rom. 8:13, ‘If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.’ That they may not break out to God’s dishonour and our discomfort. We cannot do it without the Spirit, nor the Spirit without us: Gal. 5:16, ‘This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.’ There is no possibility of getting the power of inbred corruption subdued, or the lusts of sinful flesh curbed to any saving purpose, without the Spirit of God; otherwise lusts will gather strength, and range abroad without any effectual resistance. He warneth us of our danger, and checketh sin. If we would hearken to him, and observe his checks and restraints, sin would not transport us so often beyond the bounds of duty; a man cannot sin so freely as before.

[1.] He doth quicken us to holiness, increasing the internal habits: Eph. 3:16, ‘That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man.’ That we may be fitted for the service of God, for which before we were indisposed to, and prepared to every good work. There is an inward man, holy and gracious qualities infused into the soul, which are so called. These are created by the Spirit of God, and supplied and cherished by him that reneweth strength upon us from day to day, that we may go from strength to strength, and be more able for God’s service. Though a renewed heart be yet continued, yet, as the two olive-trees, Zech. 4:13, dropping into the lamps, and emptying through the golden pipes the golden oil out of themselves; so doth the Spirit of Christ supply an increase of grace to our graces.

[2.] Exciteth to action, and helpeth us and aideth us therein, and inditeth good thoughts, and stirreth up holy motions and desires, besides new qualities, that we may be lively and fresh in God’s service: Ezek. 36:27, ‘I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them:’ Phil. 2:13, ‘For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do.’ Especially in prayer: Rom. 8:26, ‘The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities;’ goeth to the other end of the staff. Clothes do not warm the body till the body warm them, and the body cannot warm them till the soul, which is the principle of life, warm it; so there can be no fervency in prayer without the Spirit, no warmth in the heart. Oh, what a mercy is it that we have an help at hand! the Spirit of God dwelling in our hearts, to relieve us in all our necessities, and quicken us in the ways of God, which else would soon grow wearisome and uncomfortable to us.

Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 21 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 292–293.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 33, Stanza Five

16 Sunday May 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Stanza Five

Life thus abused fled to the golden ark,                                             25

Lay locked up there in mercy’s seat enclosed.

Which did incorporate it whence its sparke

Enlivens all things in this ark enclosed. 

Oh, glorious ark! Life’s store-house full of glee!

Shall not my love safe locked up lie in thee?                          30

Summary: Life, which is something external to the poet, fled from the assault of the “elf” spitting venom. The place of refuge for life was a the “golden ark”, enclosed by the “mercy seat”. And in that place of refuge life flows out as life to all things. This realization turns in a exclamation of the poet that my love should lie locked-up in the very same ark.

The Eternal Power of God At Work - Truth Immutable

Notes:

The Ark of the Covenant (not Noah’s Ark, here) was a golden box in which were placed the two copies of the Ten Commandments, the covenant between God and Israel. On top of that Ark was the Mercy Seat, the place where God would meet Israel and show them mercy:

“The Hebrew word for which “mercy seat” is the translation is technically best rendered as “propitiatory,” a term denoting the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift. The significance of this designation is found in the ceremony performed on the Day of Atonement, held once a year, when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat to make atonement for the sins of the people of Israel (Lv 16). Because of the importance of this covering on the ark and the ceremony associated with it, the Holy of Holies in which the ark was housed in the temple is termed the “room for the mercy seat” in 1 Chronicles 28:11.” Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Mercy Seat,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1441.

To understand Taylor use of the images of the ark, mercy seat, life, Christ, we need to see how these elements were connected in Puritan writing. Without understanding the connections which would have been obvious to Taylor (but would be obscure to others), the poem seems to go in an incomprehensible direction.

If you look more broadly, the image of the mercy seat is not uncommon in the Lutheran writings. It is in places connected to Christ. The connection of Christ and the mercy-seat is rare in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. When I did a search of Calvin (granted these are all Boolean searches, and thus are limited in that manner), the connection of Christ and the mercy seat was not common. In the Puritan writers, particularly in Thomas Boston (an overlapping contemporary of Taylor), the connection of the two images is quite common. 

The connection between Christ and Life is built into the framework of Christian theology.

Life/ Its sparke/enlivens all things:

Life comes from God:

“He is life itself, has life in himself, and is the fountain of life to all the creatures.” Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 1, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 1 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 131. Life is in Christ, “In him was life, and that life was the light of men.” John 1:3

The Church (and thus the poet personally) draws its life from Christ: “The mystery of the church drawing her life out of Christ’s sleeping the sleep of death on the cross.”Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 1, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 1 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 179.

“Whatsoever is excellent in nature, either in heaven or earth, it serves to set forth the excellency of Christ. Why? To delight us, that we may be willing and cheerful to think of Christ; that together with the consideration of the excellency of the creature, some sweet meditation of Christ, in whom all those excellencies are knit together, might be presented to the soul. When we see the sun, oft to think of that blessed Sun that quickens and enlivens all things, and scatters the mists of ignorance. When we look on a tree, to think of the Tree of righteousness; on the way, to think of him the Way; of life, of him that is the true Life.” Richard Sibbes and Alexander Balloch Grosart, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, vol. 3 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson, 1862), 391.

Golden Ark:

“The mercy of God is like the ark, which none but the priests were to meddle with; none may touch this golden ark of mercy but such as are ‘priests unto God,’ Rev. 1:6 and have offered up the sacrifice of tears.” Thomas Watson, “Discourses upon Christ’s Sermon on the Mount,” in Discourses on Important and Interesting Subjects, Being the Select Works of the Rev. Thomas Watson, vol. 2 (Edinburgh; Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co.; A. Fullarton & Co., 1829), 115.

Mercy Seat:

“In that Lev. 16:13, 14, you read of two things: first, of the cloud of incense that covered the mercy seat; secondly, of the blood of the bullock, that was sprinkled before the mercy-seat. Now that blood typified Christ’s satisfaction, and the cloud of incense his intercession.” Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 2 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 274.

Note further that the mercy-seat is also connected to life:

“in like manner, after our great High Priest had offered himself a sacrifice to God in his bloody death, he entered into heaven, not only with his blood, but with the incense of his prayers, as a cloud about the mercy-seat, to preserve by his life the salvation which he had purchased by his death.” Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 1, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 1 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 473.

Life thus abused fled to the golden ark: How did life “flee” to the ark? The concept here relies upon the concept of covenant. Human life exists in God and is given to us. Without that life, we will die. Following the Fall of Adam, we were without life. Life is made available to us again in the covenant. The New Covenant has replaced the ark and mercy seat with Christ (who is prefigured in these things, see Hebrews 9).

Couplet:

The couplet has two elements. First a praise, “Oh, glorious ark! Life’s store-house full of glee!” One aspect of this praise which sounds out of tune is the use of the word “glee.” In our contemporary use glee is an ironic way to refer to happiness – rather than boundless happiness meant by Taylor 

Second, a prayer, a statement of intention: Shall not my love safe locked up lie in thee?     

The point is the re-integration of love and life which has been parted in the Fall. This is a central theme in Augustine: our sinfulness is built around misdirected love. Before the Fall love was rightly directed toward life: God. 

God then seeks to restore that rupture. Life is made available in the covenant, which was first figured in the Ark and Mercy Seat, then in Christ. The poet, seeing a remember for his misdirected love seeks that his love may be re-directed toward the proper goal: life, i.e., God in Christ.

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace 1.22, Conscience

23 Friday Apr 2021

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

CONSCIENCE AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen. 2:16-17

Kuyper begins this chapter with a discussion of conscience. In this opening section he presents two very different concepts of conscience and attributes the modern conscience to be a function of the Enlightenment. 

This discussion of conscience begins with the observation that Adam had no conscience, as we know it. This leads to a discussion of two ways of understanding conscience. In one manner, the newer understanding, conscience is a self-executing faculty which can determine whether a course of conduct is morally appropriate. This faculty as an innate knowledge of what God requires and functions as an “oracle” to our mind.

Functioning in this manner, conscience has an authority independent and over God’s Word. Not raised by Kuyper, but proof of his thesis can be found in the many concessions and transformations of Christian moral behavior and opinion in the world after Kuyper. God’s Word is either rejected or nuanced in such a way as to be meaningless. Any number of examples could be given on the evolution of Christian morality in a number of instances. 

The previous Reformed understanding of conscience before “rationalism was busy trampling faith,”  did not understand conscience as an independent “capacity” but rather as a recurrent reflective mode of thinking. Kuyper identifies three elements of this reflective thought: 

First, it knows the external law of God; the knowledge of good and evil. Second, we have a knowledge of ourselves and our actions. Third, there is a reflexive comparison of our conduct with knowledge of God’s law. He refers to this as a “higher impulse” and pursuant to the impulse we continually reflect on our life in comparison to the law. 

In this respect it then differs from the latter concept of conscience as an independent source of knowledge. 

In this understanding, the conscience is dependent upon the content of the external law which informs and forms the conscience. In looking at some pre-Enlightenment sources, it is possible to see an understanding consistent with Kuyper’s model:

False Rule. 3. Conscience. It is, saith one, my conscience. This is no rule for an upright man; the conscience of a sinner is defiled, Tit. 1:15 conscience being defiled may err; an erring conscience cannot be a rule, Acts 26:9. ‘I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus;’ he who is an heretic may plead conscience; admit conscience to be a rule, and we open the door to all mutinies and massacres; if the devil get into a man’s conscience, whither will he not carry him?

Thomas Watson, “The Upright Man’s Character,” in Discourses on Important and Interesting Subjects, Being the Select Works of the Rev. Thomas Watson, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co.; A. Fullarton & Co., 1829), 328. Here, he explicitly denies the conscience has any independent moral standard, but it is imported – at the very least one without salvation cannot have a properly functioning conscience. 

There are other uses which are ambiguous on this point, such as Manton’s “That true morality and good conscience cannot be had without the faith of the gospel; so that we are not only better provided, but indeed cannot perform such obedience as is acceptable to God without faith in Christ.” Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 17 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 429. The trouble for the unbeliever is the inability to pacify the conscience because he cannot live right. This raises the question, why does the unbeliever have any pangs of conscience if he is ignorant of the law?

Thomas Boston goes further and writes: “This moral law is found, 1. In the hearts of all men, as to some remains thereof, Rom. 2:15. There are common notions thereof, such as, That there is a God, and that he is to be worshipped; that we should give every one his due, &c. Conscience has that law with which it accuses for the commission of great crimes, Rom. 1 ult. This internal law appears from those laws which are common in all countries for the preserving of human societies, the encouraging of virtue, and the discouraging of vice. What standard else can they have for these laws but common reason? The design of them is to keep men within the bounds of goodness for mutual commerce.”Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 2, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 2 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 61.

And similarly by another, “but God hath given both light streaming forth from the word, and he hath given the eye of conscience, that by both these men might come assuredly to know that they are called out of darkness unto light.” James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 6 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 389.

In another place we see the conscience being deceived and thus judging wrongly: “Conscience is sometimes deceived through ignorance of what is right, by apprehending a false rule for a true, an error for the will of God: sometimes, through ignorance of the fact, by misapplying a right rule to a wrong action. Conscience, evil informed, takes human traditions and false doctrines, proposed under the show of Divine authority, to be the will of God.” James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 13.

Edwards occupies an interesting middle position, “Thus natural conscience, if the understanding be properly enlightened, and errors and blinding stupifying prejudices are removed, concurs with the law of God, and is of equal extent with it, and joins its voice with it in every article.” Jonathan Edwards, The Works of President Edwards (Worcester: Isaiah Thomas, Jun., 1808), 442–443. There is a natural conscience which would conform to the law of God, were it enlightened. 

And Luther held to a view that conscience can know of sin but not condemn the man as a sinner, “Zachman writes of Luther’s negative view of conscience: “The conscience can recognize sins (acts), but it cannot of itself, even under the external revelation of the law, acknowledge the person as sinner (nature). The subjective ability to feel oneself a sinner and to sense the wrath of God on sinners is thus a gift of God, and not an ability of conscience.” Justification is solely God’s work ex nihilo, not out of any preexistent salvific matters including human accretions, the murmuring of conscience, etc.” Dennis Ngien, Fruit for the Soul: Luther on the Lament Psalms (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 155–156.

And Calvin, “In like manner, when men have an awareness of divine judgment adjoined to them as a witness which does not let them hide their sins but arraigns them as guilty before the judgment seat—this awareness is called “conscience.” It is a certain mean between God and man, for it does not allow man to suppress within himself what he knows, but pursues him to the point of making him acknowledge his guilt. This is what Paul means when he teaches that conscience testifies to men, while their thoughts accuse or excuse them in God’s judgment [Rom. 2:15–16]. A simple awareness could repose in man, bottled up, as it were. Therefore, this feeling, which draws men to God’s judgment, is like a keeper assigned to man, that watches and observes all his secrets so that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that ancient proverb: conscience is a thousand witnesses.11 By like reasoning, Peter also put “the response11a of a good conscience to God” [1 Peter 3:21] as equivalent to peace of mind, when, convinced of Christ’s grace, we fearlessly present ourselves before God. And when the author of The Letter to the Hebrews states that we “no longer have any consciousness of sin” [Heb. 10:2], he means that we are freed or absolved so that sin can no longer accuse us.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1181–1182.

This brings us on both sides of the Enlightenment. While none of these examples hold the conscience an infallible witness, there is at least a general sense of God’s law.

Oddly, Kuyper’s position in some way is closer to John Locke,  Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Book 1, Chapter 2:

“7. Men’s actions convince us that the rule of virtue is not their internal principle. For, if we will not in civility allow too much sincerity to the professions of most men, but think their actions to be the interpreters of their thoughts, we shall find that they have no such internal veneration for these rules, nor so full a persuasion of their certainty and obligation. The great principle of morality, “To do as one would be done to,” is more commended than practised. But the breach of this rule cannot be a greater vice, than to teach others, that it is no moral rule, nor obligatory, would be thought madness, and contrary to that interest men sacrifice to, when they break it themselves. Perhaps conscience will be urged as checking us for such breaches, and so the internal obligation and establishment of the rule be preserved.

“8. Conscience no proof of any innate moral rule. To which I answer, that I doubt not but, without being written on their hearts, many men may, by the same way that they come to the knowledge of other things, come to assent to several moral rules, and be convinced of their obligation. Others also may come to be of the same mind, from their education, company, and customs of their country; which persuasion, however got, will serve to set conscience on work; which is nothing else but our own opinion or judgment of the moral rectitude or pravity of our own actions; and if conscience be a proof of innate principles, contraries may be innate principles; since some men with the same bent of conscience prosecute what others avoid.

“9. Instances of enormities practised without remorse. But I cannot see how any men should ever transgress those moral rules, with confidence and serenity, were they innate, and stamped upon their minds. View but an army at the sacking of a town, and see what observation or sense of moral principles, or what touch of conscience for all the outrages they do. Robberies, murders, rapes, are the sports of men set at liberty from punishment and censure. Have there not been whole nations, and those of the most civilized people, amongst whom the exposing their children, and leaving them in the fields to perish by want or wild beasts has been the practice; as little condemned or scrupled as the begetting them? Do they not still, in some countries, put them into the same graves with their mothers, if they die in childbirth; or despatch them, if a pretended astrologer declares them to have unhappy stars? And are there not places where, at a certain age, they kill or expose their parents, without any remorse at all?”

This is a very preliminary exercise and I have never really thought the issue through before. I without question concur that the conscience can be informed and deformed, and it is certainly no infallible rule. But I don’t think the issue can settled as easily as before and after the Enlightenment. 

Edward Taylor, Meditation 32, Seventh Stanza

06 Tuesday Apr 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Seventh Stanza

Thou to the cups dost say (that catch this wine)

This liquor, golden pipes, and wine-vats plain,

Whether Paul, Apollos, Cephas, all are thine.

Oh golden word! Lord speak it o’re again

Lord speak it home to me, say these are mine.

My bells shall then thy praises bravely chime.

Summary: The poem ends with the words of God to the poet: This grace you have received and more – “all [these things] are thine”. This final stanza breaks the form of the previous stanzas in that the prayer is found in the fourth & fifth lines, rather than the final couplet: Here he prays that God will repeat the promise, “all are thine.” It then ends with a final promise of future praise.

Notes:

The image here is of one who bestows the feast: God speaks to the cups which hold this grace and he bids them continually be filled with grace. 

Indeed, the entire stanza is about speaking: And since it is God is speaking the words are efficacious (And God let there be light, etc.)

Thou to the cups dost SAY (that catch this wine)

This liquor, golden pipes, and wine-vats plain,

“Whether Paul, Apollos, Cephas, all are thine.”

Oh golden WORD! Lord SPEAK it o’re again

Lord SPEAK it home to me, SAY these are mine.

My bells shall then thy praises bravely CHIME.

This stanza is a plea for God to speak directly to Taylor, “Say, these are mine.”

But there is an interesting shift in the address of the first three lines of the stanza. Poet speaks to and of God speaking

You, God, say to the cups, “All [these things] are thine.” The cups are not something separate from the poet, he does not take up a cup: he is the cup. God blesses the cup – who is the poet – and says to him: All these things are yours.

So far, the emphasis in the poem has been on grace of salvation. But here the scope and breadth of that salvation is made plain: It is not a bare escape from hell but rather a great promise.

Now, there is something interesting in the section of the promise which Taylor selects, the three names Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter). In the passage selected, Paul has been speaking to the Corinthians concerning their fighting one-another under the banner of this or that preacher: Some say they follow Paul, some Apollos, I follow Peter. Paul explains that God does all the work and the ministers are merely those who serve God in his work. Immediately after the passage quoted by Taylor, Paul will go onto state that ministers are “stewards of the mysteries of God.” They are those delivering someone else’s property. 

Thomas Watson, an English Puritan and near contemporary of Taylor, gave this sense of the clause quoted by Taylor:  “Under these words, ‘Paul and Apollos,’ by a figure are comprehended all the ministers of Christ, the weakest as well as the eminentest. ‘Paul and Apollos are yours,’ viz. their labours are for edifying the church. They are the helpers of your faith; the parts of a minister are not given for himself, they are the church’s.” Thomas Watson, The Christian’s Charter of Privileges.

Taylor hiself was a minister. And while I have no idea of how he felt or thought upon the day this poem was drafted (beyond the poem itself), I could see some peculiar encouragement to a pastor in these words. God has redeemed Taylor – God has also given Taylor all things. He has given Taylor the work of other Christian ministers.

But God has also given Taylor for others in this particular capacity. 

And Taylor states that having received this grace from God, he will turn around praise this grace of God, As he hears these words over again, he will in turn chime the praise of God to others. Thus, in a manner, Taylor is taken up into the promise of Paul’s letter. 

This meditation being a preparation for the service which Taylor would lead for his congregation, this promise of “all things are thine” and the promise that he will praise God works out in the fact of Taylor’s ministry.

Moreover, the poem itself answers to this promise to praise God. By writing the poem, Taylor is in fact praising God.

Musical

The accents are interesting: I have marked the irregular lines:

THOU to the CUPS dost SAY (that CATCH this WINE)

This liquor, golden pipes, and wine-vats plain,

WHEther Paul, Apollos, Cephas, all are thine.

OH GOLDen WORD! LORD SPEAK it O’RE aGAIN

LORD SPEAK it HOME to ME,  SAY THESE are MINE.

My bells shall then thy praises bravely chime.

The accents help to direct the attention of the speech. The first line of the stanza accents “Thou”: it gets attention and functions like a greeting. The fourth and fifth lines of the stanza are over-accented. Each word must be said separately and slowly which creates substantial emphasis. This makes sense, because they two lines are the petition of the prayer. The last line is part of the prayer, but it is a promise of future praise, not a request from God. 

The repetition of the phrase, “Lord speak” coupled with the strongly emphasized syllables creates an impassioned plea: Lord, say these words, give me assurance this is true: I know it is so, I just want to hear it again. This is the sort of intensity of the lover saying, “Say you love me again.” Or the pardoned criminal, “Say it again, I can hardly believe I have been freed.”

George Swinnock, The Godly Man’s Picture 1.4c

26 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in George Swinnock, George Swinock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

1. He is laborious in the work of godliness.

a. He makes godliness his chief concern

b. He is diligent

c. He is heedful

d. He is zealous

e. He is careful

This sort of a list should not be read over as if it were mere information. To be properly understood, it is necessary to also ask, “Is this me?” It is also best read with a Bible in one’s hand to check to consider the passages cited.

Thus he that makes religion his business is industrious and laborious in the work of the Lord. 

a. He makes godliness is his chief concern

The heart of his ground, the strength of his inward man, is spent about the good corn of religion, not about the weeds of earthly occasions. 

To prove this point, Swinnock lists six ways in which this chief concern are apparent. I have broken-up this paragraph and have added numbering to make these elements apparent.

i. He makes haste to keep God’s commandments, knowing that the lingering, lazy snail is reckoned among unclean creatures, Lev. 11:30; 

This use of a seemingly unimportant and certainly obscure  element from the law to illustrate a proposition is a characteristic of the English Puritan. The word translated “snail” in the KJV is now understood to refer to a sand lizard of some sort.

ii. and he is hot and lively in his devotion, knowing that a dull, drowsy ass (though fit enough to carry the image of Isis, yet) was no fit sacrifice for the pure and active God, Exod. 13:13. 

iii. He giveth God the top, the chief, the cream of all his affections, as seeing him infinitely worthy of all acceptation; 

This is a proposition that was famously developed by Jonathan Edwards, “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.” Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. Swinnock plainly hopes to stir up affections from the manner of his writing. He does not treat people as merely lacking some generally knowledge: he is constantly seeking to cause the reader to be taken up and to desire these things which he is being encouraged unto.

iv. he is ‘not slothful in business, but fervent in spirit,’ when he is ‘serving the Lord,’ Rom. 12:11. 

v. He believeth that to fear God with a secondary fear is atheism; that to trust God with a secondary trust is treason; that to honour God with a secondary honour is idolatry; and to love God with a secondary love is adultery; 

This is a biting observation. It is our nature that we settle for having some fear, some trust, some honor, some love. That is not merely insufficient, it is dangerous.

vi. therefore he loveth (and he feareth and trusteth and honoureth) ‘the Lord his God, with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength,’ Mat. 22:36, 37.

(vi.) 1. His love to God ‘is a labour of love, as strong as death; the coals thereof are coals of juniper,’ which do not only burn long, (some say twelve months together,) but burn with the greatest heat. 

(vi.) 2. His measure of loving God is without measure.

Illustrations. He here provides two historical illustrations:

The Samseans in Epiphanius were neither Jews, Gentiles, nor Christians, yet preserved a fair correspondency with all: a hypocrite is indifferent to any, never fervent in the true religion.

It is reported of Redwald, king of the east Saxons, the first prince of this nation that was baptized, that in the same church he had one altar for the Christian religion, another for the heathenish sacrifices. The true believer doth otherwise; he that makes religion his work, gives God the whole of his heart, without halting and. without halving.

b. He is diligent:

Set him about any duty, and he is diligent in it. 

He is diligent in his prayer and in receiving the sacraments.

In prayer, 

he laboureth in prayer, Col. 4:12;

he crieth to God, 1 Sam. 7:9;

he crieth mightily, Jonah 3:8;

he poureth forth his soul, Lam. 2:19;

he strives in supplication with God, Rom. 15:30; 

stirs up himself to lay hold on God, Isa. 27:5;

and even wrestleth with omnipotency, Gen. 32:14. 

There is the repetition of the “he” in five short phrases, each backed with biblical support. He then switches the form of phrase to conclude. Not also that the variation between each line is a verb. The verbs are not bare synonyms, but rather each phrase provides more information. When I hear contemporary preachers make an emphasis similar to this they repeat the “he” with a verb, but each line is merely a repetition not an addition.

He then ends with this epigram, which is fit to the previous statement and also is each to remember:

When the mill of his prayer is going, his fervent affections are the waters that drive it. 

The movement of image from water to fire works well:

There is fire taken from God’s own altar, (not the ordinary hearth of nature,) and put to his incense, whereby it becomes fragrant and grateful to God himself. 

He then provides an additional epigram:

His fervent prayer is his key to God’s treasury, and his endeavour is, that it rust not for want of use. 

When he goeth to the sacrament, he is all in a flame of affection to the author of that feast; with desire he desires to eat of the passover. 

He longs exceedingly for the time, he loves the table; but when he seeth the bread and wine, the waggons which the Lord Jesus hath sent for him, oh how his heart revives! 

When he seeth the sacraments, the body and blood of Christ in the elements, who can tell how soon he scents! how fast this true eagle flieth to the heavenly carcase.

c. He is heedful

In this section, Swinnock highlights two aspects of the godly man’s life: hearing and speaking. First, he heeds what he hears from the Word of God. Second, he speaks in such a way that others should do the same. To those who dishonor God, he corrects. But when he is counseling the one who willingly hears, he is gentle:

i) Listening:

At hearing he is heedful; he flieth to the salt-stone of the word with swiftness and care, as doves to their columbaries, Isa. 60:8. As the new-born babe, he desires the sincere milk of the word; and when he is attending on it, he doth not dally nor trifle, but as the bee the flower, and the child the breast, suck with all his might for some spiritual milk, Isa. 66:11; Deut. 28:1; he hearkeneth diligently to the voice of the Lord his God; 

ii) Speaking:

let him be in company, taking notice of some abominable carriage, he will rebuke cuttingly, Tit. 1:13. If he gives his bitter pill in sweet syrup, you may see his exceeding anger against sin, whilst you behold his love to the sinner; he is, though a meek lamb when himself, yet a lion when God, is dishonoured; his anger waxeth hot when men affront the Most High, Exod. 32:19. 

If he be counselling his child or friend to mind God and godliness, how hard doth he woo to win the soul to Christ! how many baits doth he lay to catch the poor creature! you may perceive his bowels working by his very words: how fervent, how instant, how urgent, how earnest is he to persuade his relation or acquaintance to be happy! He ‘provokes them to love, and to good works.’

d. He is Zealous

Set him about what religious exercise you will, and he is, according to the apostle’s words, ‘zealous’ (or fiery fervent) ‘of good works;’ like spring water, he hath a living principle, and thence is warm in winter, or, like Debris in Cyrene,1is seething hot.

As Augustus said of the young Roman, Quicquid vult, valde vult[2]; whatsoever he goeth about that concerns the glory of his Saviour, and the good of his soul, he doth it to purpose. 

Whatever God requires, the godly man will do. 

In this next section, Swinnock makes his argument from the Greek word diōkō. The word is translated as “follow after,” in the KJV. The ESV has “pursue”. It is a very strong word, which as Swinnock notes, is elsewhere translated as persecute or hunt. The idea here is that Paul is chasing after something to catch it. He puts this image to good use when he refers to persecutors as “industrious”:

As Paul saith of himself, ‘I follow after, if that I may apprehend’ Phil. 3:12. The word in the original is emphatical, διώκω, I prosecute it with all my strength and power, that I may attain if it be possible. The word is either an allusion to persecutors, Mat. 5:10–12, for it is used of them frequently; so Piscator takes it. Or to hunters, according to Aretius; take either, and the sense is the same, and very full. 

As persecutors are industrious and incessant in searching up and down for poor Christians, and hauling them to prison; and as huntsmen are up betimes at their sport, follow it all day, and spare for no pains, even sweating and tiring themselves at this their pleasure; so eager and earnest, so indefatigable and industrious was Paul, and so ought every one of us to be (the command is delivered to us, in the same word, Heb. 12:14) about godliness.

The reference to Hebrews 12:14: Pursue [same word, diōkō] peace with all men and holiness without which no one will see the Lord. In short, godliness requires the zeal of a hunter seeking prey or a persecutor seeking to capture another.

e. He is careful

In this section, Swinnock changes the nature of the argument. Rather than speaking first of what this element requires, he begins with the negative image: What is it to not be careful? It is interesting, because such a man willingly presumes upon God and in so doing makes an idol out of God. The God of his imagination is quite similar to the modern default God who cares for me, helps when I need it, and never judges anything. I found this negative portrait quite effect, because it captures presumption. A merely positive statement on all points could have the effect of making the standard sound purely aspirational: we’d all like to be like this. By using the negative at points, Swinnock catches our sloth in its burrow:

A man that minds godliness only by the by, looks sometimes to the matter, seldom to the manner, of his performances. Opus operatum [work working], the work done is a full discharge for him, how slightly or slovenly however it be done. If he stumble sometimes upon a good word, yet it is not his walk; and when he is in that way, he cares not how many steps he treads awry. 

It may be said of him as of Jehu, ‘He takes no heed to walk in the way of the Lord God of Israel with his heart,’ 2 Kings 10:31. 

He makes an idol of the blessed God, (he prays to him, and hears from him, as if he had eyes and saw not, as if he had ears and heard not, as if he had hands and wrought not,) and anything will serve an idol. 

Here he closes out the portrait with sarcasm:

How aptly and justly may God say to him after his duties, as Cæsar to the citizen after dinner, (who, having invited the emperor to his table, made but slight preparation and slender provision for him,) I had thought that you and I had not been so familiar.

What it is to be careful. Here, Swinnock 

But he that exerciseth himself to godliness hath a more awful and serious carriage towards God. The twelve tribes served God ‘instantly day and night,’ Acts 26:7, fervently, vehemently, to the utmost of their power; the word implieth both extension and intension; the very heathen could say that the gods must be worshipped, ἢ ὅλως ἢ μὴ ὅλως, [everything or nothing] either to our utmost withal, or not at all.

1 “Beyond it is the desert, and then Talgæ, a city of the Garamantes, and Debris, at which place there is a spring, the waters of which, from noon to midnight, are at boiling heat, and then freeze for as many hours until the following noon;” Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, ed. John Bostock (Medford, MA: Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, 1855), 1399.

[2] This is a line from Augustine’s Confessions, “Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.” Augustine of Hippo, St. Augustine’s Confessions, Vol. 2, ed. T. E. Page and W. H. D. Rouse, trans. William Watts, The Loeb Classical Library (New York; London: The Macmillan Co.; William Heinemann, 1912), 149.

Edward Taylor, My Shattered Fancy.4

22 Sunday Nov 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

These two stanzas go together. Each stanza begins with “I being graft in thee.” From that follows the nature of the relationship which now exists between the two. The first of these stanzas speaks of the particular relationships which have come into being. The poet primarily takes on the feminine role; the Lord the masculine. Hence he is sister, mother, spouse. Dove is neutral but in the allusion to Canticles, dove is feminine:

Song of Solomon 6:9 (KJV 1900)
9 My dove, my undefiled is but one;
She is the only one of her mother,
She is the choice one of her that bare her.
The daughters saw her, and blessed her;
Yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

The ESV translates “undefiled” here as “my perfect one.”

The one characteristic which is unambiguously male is “son”. But in this context, it is the diminutive position, because the Lord is “father.”

Sister is likewise from Canticles (or Song of Solomon). Before reading this it should be noted that “sister” carries the emphasis of the intense closeness of the relationship is not meant to suggest something untoward:

Song of Solomon 4:9–12 (KJV 1900)
9 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse;
Thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes,
With one chain of thy neck.
10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse!
How much better is thy love than wine!
And the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
11 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb:
Honey and milk are under thy tongue;
And the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.
12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse;
A spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

As for “mother”, one may ask how the poet could be in the position of “mother” toward the Lord. The answer is from the Lord himself. When Jesus’ family heard he was in a house teaching, “his family heard of it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, ‘He is out of his mind.’” Mark 2:20-21.

As the family pressed for admittance, the matter came to Jesus’ attention:

Mark 3:31–35 (KJV 1900)
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

This also being another reference to “sister.”

As spouse:

Isaiah 54:5 (KJV 1900)
5 For thy Maker is thine husband;
The Lord of hosts is his name;
And thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel;
The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

The most extensive discussion of marriage in the New Testament, Ephesians 5:21-33, speaks directly of human marriage and then applies the same to Christ and the church.

I being graft in Thee, there up do stand
In us relations all that mutual are.
I am Thy patient, pupil, servant, and
Thy sister, mother, dove, spouse, son, and heir.
Thou art my priest, physician, prophet, king,
Lord, brother, bridegroom, father, everything.

The relationship of prophet, priest, king are considered to be the formal offices of Christ, as set forth in the Westminster Confession.

It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man,1 the Prophet,2 Priest,3 and King;4 the Head and Saviour of his Church,5 the Heir of all things,6 and Judge of the world;7 unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed,8 and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.9
As for Father, there is the refrain made famous in Messiah:

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV 1900)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
And the government shall be upon his shoulder:
And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In the next stanza on relationship, Taylor says that by being brought into relationship with Christ, he is brought into all of Christ’s relationships. Being in Christ, the relationships an angel has toward Christ are now Taylor’s relationship:
“I thy relations my relations name.”

I being graft in Thee I am grafted here
Into Thy family, and kindred claim
To all in heaven, God, saints, and angels there.
I Thy relations my relations name.
Thy father’s mine, Thy God my God, and I
With saints and angels draw affinity.

The relating of my God-your God, my Father, your Father comes Jesus’s words as he takes leave of Mary Magdalene following the Resurrection:

John 20:17 (KJV 1900)
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And so these two stanzas work out the nature of the new relationships gained by the poet upon his union with Christ. First, there are the transformation of the relationships between himself and Christ; and then the transformation of his relationships to others, because he is in Christ.

It cannot be developed here, but at the Fall in Genesis 3, the totality of relationships between the humans and Creation have fundamentally changed for the worse. But here, in God’s Garden, by being brought into relationship in Christ, there is a complete restoration of relationship between God and human; human and all other creatures.

Edward Taylor, Was there a palace of gold.2

18 Thursday Jun 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

What could possibly motivate God to show grace? And if God were inclined in general to do good, why would he do good to such a one as the poet? This is a central mystery in Christianity as Paul write in Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”  

Christ does not die so that we will be loved. Rather, God loves us first. The cross is provided because God loves us – not so that God will love us. 

This leads to the paradox which Taylor considers: If God does me so much good, why do I return so little?  Love naturally begets love; but the love which Taylor shows to God is nothing compared to the love which God has shown him.

What aim’st at, Lord? That I should be so Cross.

My mind is leaden in thy golden shine.

Though all o’re Spirit, when this dirty dross 

Doth touch it with its smutting leaden line.

What shall an eagle t’catch a fly thus run?

Or Angel dive after a mote int’sun?

What is the intention of God, when Taylor is 

Lead; where God is gold

Dross, filth; where God is Spirit.

What motivation could there be? Why would an eagle waste its time to capture a fly; or an angel chase a speck of dust.

How then can Taylor remedy the trouble? He will take “vengeance” upon himself for his improper response to God’s love. 

And yet, all he can muster is a mismatch: I should have actual tears in my eyes for my wretchedness, but all I can offer is the idea: these words, this poem:

What folly’s this? I fain would take, I think,

Vengeance upon myself: But I confess,

I can’t. Mine eyes, Lord, shed no tears but ink.

My handy works, are words and wordiness.

Earth’s toys wear knots of my affections, nay,

Though from thy glorious self, they stole away.

The trouble is in Taylor’s affections. Affections are deeper word than an emotion; it is the emotion with the matching desire. To love or hate are both affections; but rather than a brief feeling, the affection deeper, more settled. 

Taylor knows that he should love. Then not loving well, he should have sorrow for his sinful lack of love. But he cannot even manage that sorrow. The trouble is his heart is set too fully upon “toys”. 

A “knot” is a bouquet of flowers. The image is the various “toys” being dressed with loving affection.

To understand Taylor, you must understand how Taylor thought:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any many love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

1 John 2:15-16. This does mean a hatred of human beings: there is a command to love human beings. This does not mean destruction of the world. The world is given as a stewardship: it belongs to God, but cared for by us. In John, the “word” means the system of being in rebellion against God. 

You must think of the world like the Witch’s House in Handsel and Gretel: it is made of candy, but it is a trap. Having fully set out the problem, Taylor must 

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.