• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: Puritan

Zachery Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.7

25 Friday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

      SECOND PART OF CONVERSION

Conversion is a turning and a turning to: turn from sin and turn to God. Before we consider Crofton’s discussion, it must be noted that the sinner turning to God presents a strange situation: God is the judge of sin. What criminal comes to the judge for sentencing?

But there is another aspect to understand the subjective psychology of sin. Sin is by nature a revulsion toward. This is a point which can be lost when we think of sin as violating a law. The law and the governor are distinct entities in our thinking. We can separate the law from any person and conceptualize it as having its own force. We do this because the legitimacy of the law in our political system must be independent of any individual. Neither king nor president are above the law. The law has its own legitimacy. As Rutherford titled his book, “Lex Rex”, The Law is King.

But with God there is no such distinction. The legitimacy of the law is that the law is based in God. The person(s) gives the law its force and legitimacy.

Therefore, when the sinner who truly repents realizes his violation of the law he does not merely seek to cease violating the law, it must entail a cessation of fleeing the source of the law. The one who experiences merely “legal repentance” (as opposed to “gospel repentance”), divorces the law from God. In his book The Whole Christ, Sinclair Ferguson argues that legalism is understanding the law as somehow separate from God.

And so Crofton explains the second step in repentance as  “Reversion to God.—A reception of God. God, and God only, becomes the adequate object of gospel-repentance: man by sin hath his back on God; by repentance he faceth about. All sin doth agree in this, that it is an aversion from God; and the cure of it by repentance must be conversion to God.”

This opens up another way to understand the horror of sin. We could ask, “Why would the failure to do or not do some particular act matter to God?” Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends asks the question this way:

Job 22:1–3 (ESV)

22 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:

            2           “Can a man be profitable to God?

Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself.

            3           Is it any pleasure to the Almighty if you are in the right,

or is it gain to him if you make your ways blameless?

Considered in this manner, he is correct. Why should God care one way or the other when it comes to my sin or obedience. I can neither help nor hinder God.

But if the sin is not a bare violation of an external code, but rather is a personal rebellion against God – a refusal to be in right relationship to God—then the “size” of the sin is shown to be an irrelevant criteria.  It is the lack of the right relating to God that is the issue.

Notice the language, quoted by Crofton, of repentance being a call of God for relationship: “When God calls for true repentance, it is with an “If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me.” (Jer. 4:1.) And when repentance is promised, it is promised that “the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his goodness.” (Hosea 3:5.) And when they provoke one another to repentance, it is with a “Come, let us return unto the Lord;” (Hosea 6:1;) and when provoked by others, it is to “return to the Lord their God.” (Hosea 14:1.)” The section from Jeremiah and the whole of Hosea conceptualize sin in Israel as adultery: the violation of a marriage vow.

There is a kind of cessation of sin which is not repentance. I heard the story of a man who fell into a violently racist crowd. Then, at some point he gave up his hatred and became civil and tolerant. Surely, giving up the violent hatred is good. But merely stopping his hatred did not constitute repentance. Not being a racist does not make one in right relationship with God.

As Crofton writes, “The gospel-penitent turneth not from sin to sin, as do the profane; not from sinful rudeness to common civility, or only moral honesty, as do the civil honest men; but unto piety, acts of religion, unto God. God is the sole object of his affection and adoration.”

Why then would one dare to come to the lawgiver and judge if guilty? Because God is merciful, “The true penitent is prostrate at the feet of God, as him only “that pardoneth iniquity, transgression, and sin;” and pliable to the pleasure of God, as him only that hath prerogative over him.”

That relationship of Creator and creature, which entails so many aspects, lies at the heart of the reconciliation. It is the undoing of the primeval fall: you shall be God knowing good and evil.  With that we lost our position and became absurd. Repentance is then a return to that relationship, “The whole man, soul and body, is bent for God; and pursueth communion with and conformity to God.”

He then works out some implications of this turning to God. It is a return which entails the whole life, thought, affections, behavior. Behavior will entail an obedience which flows from love and willing to suffer loss of all things but God.

A return of the mind: “Not only doth repentance turn us from what is grievous and contrary to God; but unto that which is agreeable and acceptable to God. The mind returneth from the devising of evil, to the review of the mind and will of God.”

A return of the affections: “The will and affections return from all evil, unto a resolution, and ready acceptance of the good and acceptable will of God.” The will is easily and readily turned toward God, because love and desire are turned toward God, “His desires and affections run out to God, and God alone; there is nothing in all the earth to be compared with God, nor any in heaven acceptable to the soul beside God.”

A return of conduct; obedience which flows from love: “A gospel-penitent stands convinced, that “if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him;” (1 John 2:15;) and if any man love any thing better than Christ, he is not worthy of him; (Matt. 10:37;) and so he accounteth all things dross and “dung” in comparison of Christ. (Phil. 3:8.)”

This love of God causes the truly repentant to give the will of God precedence over any competing rule or desire: “The command of God carrieth the truly penitent contrary to the commands of men; nay, corrupt dictates of their own soul.”

The command of God overrules my own soul. A common argument of our culture is “authenticity.” I should be conformed to my own present desires. To act otherwise would be to be dishonest and unauthentic. The true penitent will follow the command of God when it crosses his own desire.

A willingness to even suffer:

Not only doth he believe,

but is also ready to suffer for the sake of Christ:

he is contented to be at God’s carving, as unworthy any thing.

Under sharpest sorrows,

he is dumb, and openeth not his mouth; because God did it. (Psalm 39:9.)

In saddest disasters he complains not,

because he hath sinned against the Lord.

Let Shimei curse him, he is quiet; nay, grieved at the instigations of revenge;

for that God hath bid Shimei curse.

In all his actions and enjoyments, he is awed by, and argueth not against, God.

Conclusion: “So that true gospel-repentance doth not only convince and cast down, but change and convert, a sinner. Sense of and sorrow for sin as committed against God, are necessary and essential parts, but not the whole or formality, of repentance: no; that is a turning from sin, all sin, unto God, only unto God. It indulgeth not the least iniquity, nor taketh up short of the Lord. It stayeth not, with Jehu, at the extirpation of Baal; but, with Hezekiah and Josiah, restoreth the passover, the worship of the Lord.”

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 387–390.

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.6

22 Tuesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

“So that the first part of conversion is a recession from all sin.—” He then proves this with a series of Scriptural citations. Our relationship to sin is one of “departing” (Ps. 34:14, 37:237), ceasing (Is. 1:16), “forsaking” (Is. 55:7), abhorring (Rom. 13:2), and: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Eph. 5:11)

Crofton concludes with the image of political rebellion, “Nay, it is an apostasy from sin, to break league with, and violate all those bonds in which we stand bound to profaneness; and with rage and resolution rebel against the sovereignty of sin which it hath exercised over us.” I have often heard of apostacy from God, but not from sin. And yet, this is quite similar to the image used in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress when Christian is met by Apollyon:

APOL. By this I perceive thou art one of my subjects; for all that country is mine, and I am the prince and god of it. How is it, then, that thou hast run away from thy king? Were it not that I hope thou mayest do me more service, I would strike thee now at one blow to the ground.

CHR. I was, indeed, born in your dominions, but your service was hard, and your wages such as a man could not live on; for the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6:23; therefore, when I was come to years, I did, as other considerate persons do, look out if perhaps I might mend myself.

APOL. There is no prince that will thus lightly lose his subjects, neither will I as yet lose thee; but since thou complainest of thy service and wages, be content to go back, and what our country will afford I do here promise to give thee.

CHR. But I have let myself to another, even to the King of princes; and how can I with fairness go back with thee?

APOL. Thou hast done in this according to the proverb, “changed a bad for a worse;” but it is ordinary for those that have professed themselves his servants, after a while to give him the slip, and return again to me. Do thou so to, and all shall be well.

CHR. I have given him my faith, and sworn my allegiance to him; how then can I go back from this, and not be hanged as a traitor.

APOL. Thou didst the same by me, and yet I am willing to pass by all, if now thou wilt yet turn again and go back.

John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress: From This World to That Which Is to Come (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995).

There is value in this understanding, because it underscores the extent to which sin is not merely a passive state but is an active ruler. To repent is to rebel:

“If we will call on the name of the Lord, and become his subjects, we must recede, rebel against sin, bid open defiance, and proclaim open war against it, notwithstanding all those engagements that lie upon us: “Let him depart [from iniquity],” saith our translation; in the original, αποστητω απο αδικιας, “apostatize from unrighteousness.” (2 Tim. 2:19.)”

Having made the point, Crofton returns again to the proposition that sin makes a demand upon us: “Sin hath an interest in and engagement upon men. By nature they are obliged to follow it; and the whole man is too much devoted to pursue and obey the dictates of lust.”

This is a standard element of biblical psychology, if you will. And, I think it a point which we rarely consider. John Owen speaks about sin being a “law” to the one outside of Christ.

What then is the nature of the turn from sin: He gives three elements: cognitive, affective, behavioral.

First, cognitive, the turn takes place in the mind, “By the apprehension of his mind.—Seeing sin and its sinfulness, he discerns the contrariety of it to the image of God.” The nature of this apprehension is that sin violates the law of God. “By the law, which is, by the spirit of repentance, engraven on his heart, he now knows sin, which he never knew before; he discovereth abundance of evil, in what he deemed exceeding good.” He knows sin violates the law of God.

Second, there is a change in the nature of desire. He turns from sin, “By the alteration of his will and affections.” Crofton here seems to anticipate Jonathan Edwards in seeing the tight connection between affection and will [rather than seeing will as a self-determining force]. Rather than loving the sin or having desire for the sin, he hates the sin:  “David, he hateth “every false way,” and the very workers of iniquity. (Psalm 119:104.)”

Here Crofton wisely concedes that sin does continue even in the repentant. What the repentant do when he sees that he has sinned? “If he be surprised, by the difficulty of his estate, or distemper of his mind, with an act of sin, he loatheth himself because of it.” Here he takes Romans 7 to reference a believer in his struggle with sin [this is a debated point], “with Paul, professeth, ‘I do the things that I would not do.’”

How greatly is sin detested? “Death is desired, because he would sin no more. He would rather be redeemed from his “vain conversation,” than from wrath to come; penitent Anselm had rather be in hell without, than in heaven with, his iniquity.” Thomas Brooks makes a similar point :

“First, Keep at the greatest distance from sin, and from playing with the golden bait that Satan holds forth to catch you; for this you have Rom. 12:9, ‘Abhor that which is evil, cleave to that which is good.’ When we meet with anything extremely evil and contrary to us, nature abhors it, and retires as far as it can from it. The Greek word that is there rendered ‘abhor,’ is very significant; it signifies to hate it as hell itself, to hate it with horror.

“Anselm used to say, ‘That if he should see the shame of sin on the one hand, and the pains of hell on the other, and must of necessity choose one, he would rather be thrust into hell without sin, than to go into heaven with sin,’ so great was his hatred and detestation of sin.”

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.

Third, the repentance is in action: “Into an abstinence from, nay, actual resistance of, sin.” He abstains from sinful conduct. He avoids occasions for temptation. He seeksto reclaim others and is grieved by their sin. He mortifies his “earthly members” (Col. 3:5).  “All his complaint under sorrows is against sin. His care is to be rid of sin; his fear, of falling into sin.”

Here Crofton pauses. Yes, it is true that all the life must be thrown into the revulsion against sin; but that rebellion against sin is always imperfect in us. He is concerned this discussion of leaving sin may leave us fearful for ourselves. “Yet take along with you this cautionary note, that you run not into sinful despair and despondency, in observing your penitent recession from sin.”

Sin is a powerful persistent foe; though beaten it persists. When the allies landed on D-Day, the Nazis fate was sealed and still the war persisted.  “Sin’s existency, and sometimes prevalency, is consistent with a penitent recession and turning from it.—Sin may remain, though it doth not reign, in a gracious soul.”

No one can say that he has no sin and will not sin again.  “Who is there that lives, and sins not? (1 Kings 8:46.) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8.)”

Here is his caveat at length:

“The righteous themselves often fall. Noah, the preacher of repentance to the old world, becomes the sad pattern of impiety to the new world. Penitent Paul hath cause to complain, “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” (Rom. 7:21.) Sin abides in our souls, whilst our souls abide in our bodies. So long as we live, we must expect to bear the burden of corruption. Sin exists in the best of saints, by way of suggestion, natural inclination, and violent instigation and enforcement of evil; and so, taking advantage of the difficulty of our estate, and distemper of our minds, it drives us sometimes into most horrid actions, even David’s adultery, or Peter’s denial of Christ.

“Which of the saints have not had a sad experience hereof? Nor must it seem to us strange; for repentance doth not cut down sin at a blow; no, it is a constant militation, and course of mortification; a habit and principle of perpetual use; not action of an hour or little time, as we have noted before; it is a recession from sin all our days, though sin run after us. If once we be perfectly freed from sin’s assaults, we shake hands with repentance; for we need it no more. So that let it not be the trouble of any, that sin is in them; but let it be their comfort, that it is shunned by them: that you fall into sin, fail not in your spirits; let this be your support, that you fly from, fall out with, and fight against sin.”

What then is the mark of the true repentant? There is a conflict in his life between sin and mortification.  “The true penitent doth evidence the truth and strength of his repentance, by not admitting sin’s dictates without resistance; not acting sin’s precepts without reluctance. When he deviseth evil, his mind is to serve the law of God; and he approveth of that as good. He doeth what he would not: the law in his members rebels against the law of his mind, and leadeth him captive; and therefore he abides not under sin’s guilt or power without remorse. If he be drawn to deny his Master, he goeth out, and weepeth bitterly. He is in his own eye a wretched man, whilst oppressed with a body of corruption. Nay, he retireth not into sinful society without repining; his soul soon thinks he hath dwelt too long “in Mesech,” and “in the tents of Kedar.” (Psalm 120:5.)”

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.3

10 Thursday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

The third conclusion of Crofton concerning repentance is that it is a matter of humiliation. He begins his discuss here:

Sense of and sorrow for sin, as committed against God, are the precursive acts of true repentance.

True repentance, as most divines determine, doth consist in two parts; namely, humiliation, and conversion: the casting down [of] the heart for sin, and the casting off sin: a repenting “for uncleanness,” επι τῃ ακαβαρσιᾳ, (2 Cor. 12:21,) and sin, with grief, shame, and anguish; and repenting “from iniquity,” απο κακιας, (Acts 8:22; Rev. 9:20,) and “from dead works.” (Heb. 6:1.)

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 376. After considering various examples of repentance in Scripture he explains:

So that, according to the expressions of scripture, as well as the experiences of the saints, humiliation of the soul is an essential act, and eminent part, of repentance. And this is that which I in the description do denominate “sense of and sorrow for sin, as committed against God;” thereby intending to note unto you, that the soul must be humbled that will be lifted up by the Lord; and his humiliation doth and must consist of these two parts,—conviction and contrition, sight of and sorrow for sin. (377)

377. This begins with the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction, a recognition that one stands guilty under the law:

For as indeed without the law there is no transgression, so without the knowledge of the law there can be no conviction. Ignorance of divine pleasure is the great obstruction of repentance; and therefore the prince of this world doth daily endeavour to blow out the light of the word, or to blind the eyes of the sons of men, that they may not see and be converted. (378)

He refers to this as the “first part of humiliation”: I stand convicted by the law. It is the personal application which matters here: it is not the knowledge that such and such rule exists, but rather than the law is true and applicable. One could know the law of God and yet still not know conviction. Thus, it must be the Spirit brings to realization, this law applies to me here and now.

The first act of repentance is the falling of the scales from off the sinner’s eyes; the first language of a turning soul is, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6, 18:) (378)

There is more here. Not only does one see the law as applicable, one also sees himself as condemned. Yes, this law applies to me, and I stand condemned:

So that now the soul doth not only assent unto the law as true in all its threats, but applieth them unto himself; confessing [that] unto him belongs shame and confusion, hell and horror, woe and eternal misery; that he knoweth not how to escape; but if God proceed against him, he is most miserable and undone for ever; and so is constrained with anguish of soul to cry out, “What shall I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30.) (379)

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 378.

Now comes the “second part of humiliation”:

The second part, then, of penitential humiliation is contrition, or sorrow for sin as committed against God.—Herein the soul is not only acquainted with, but afflicted for, its guilt; seeth not only that it is a sinner, but sorroweth under, and is ashamed of, so sad and sinful an estate. (380)

This raises a question: Why should sorrow matter? Humans expect sorrow for repentance, because we want an emotional component to know the “I will stop” is real. But why would God seek sorrow?

Sorrow is a component of an actual change of position: the comprehension of guilt under the law is not merely a cognitive recognition (although it is not less). It must entail a real judgment, “this is true and I am guilty.”

A true recognition of guilt would necessarily entail a fear of the guilt and a horror of that God is my judge and adversary:

The stony heart is broken, the adamantine soul dissolved; he rends not his garment, but his heart, and goeth out and weepeth bitterly. He seeth with shame his many abominations; and readeth, with soul-distressing sorrow and anguish, the curse of the law that is due unto him; and considereth, with almost soul-distracting despair, the doleful estate into which his sin hath resolved him: for he seeth God, with whom he is not able to plead, to be highly offended; and therefore must, with Job, confess that he is not able to answer when God reproveth; he is vile, and must lay his hand on his mouth (380)

One aspect of this recognition which makes no sense from the outside is the recognition “I am vile.”  Taken out of its context, it seems perverse. But let us take this from the inside: A human being is created for fellowship with and the blessing of God. We are the image of God and the pinnacle of creation. To be in sin is to be in a drunken stupor. The awakening of conviction is the like the recognition of one awakens in some horrible state, in a crack den, in a garbage heap, in some utterly degrading and disgusting place and thinking, how did I get here.  It is the person who awakens to discover that in his intoxicated state he crashed his car into a van and murdered a family. That is the horror of sin.

Let us continue with the drunk who has killed the children in the drunken crash. We can imagine two men: one who is horrified at the damage he has done and the life that is lost. We can imagine another man angry at the punishment he will face and loss of his own expectations. The moral quality of these two men is quite different.

That is the distinction between true and false repentance.

His sorrow is a sorrow of candour and ingenuity; not so much that he is liable to the lash, and obnoxious to the curse, as that a Father is offended, the image of his God defaced. His grand complaint is, “I have sinned against God;” his soul-affliction and heart-trembling is, “God is offended.”  (380)

Zachary Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.2

09 Wednesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Faith, Puritan, Repentance, Zachary Crofton

The second “conclusion” or introductory point is “The believing sinner is the subject of gospel-repentance.”

First, only a sinner can repent, because repentance is a turning from sin. Thus, before the Fall, Adam could not repent. Repentance “is the work of a transgressor.”

Second, repentance is only the work of one who believes, who is seeking grace. To merely see one’s sin, to merely experience conviction is insufficient make for repentance. The sinner will repent only if he “see[s] a pardon procured for sin committed.”

Faith and unbelief thus stand as the basic components of one’s spiritual life toward God:  “Faith must be the formal qualification of a gospel-penitent, as the very foundation and fountain of true repentance; unbelief is the very ground of impenitency, and lock of obduracy.” That last phrase is great, “lock of obduracy” a lock which cannot be moved or altered.

Faith permits a certain sort of understanding. When faith looks upon its proper object, the sight becomes an argument in favor of seeking the pardon: “Hence it is that the objects of faith become arguments, and the promises of grace persuasions, to repentance.” Faith argues for repentance.

Here he makes an interesting argument, “The approach of “the kingdom of God” is the only argument urged by John the Baptist, and our Saviour, to enforce repentance. (Matt. 3:2; 4:17.)  The Gospels begin with Jesus and John the Baptist saying repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. The text does not record a different basis upon which one is to repent: God is here, repent.

When the cross is seen by faith, it shows the proof of the sight by repentance.

He then enters into the argument of the order of salvation: does faith or repentance come first?

In terms of cause and effect, faith must come before repentance. But in terms of our personal experience, the order is opposite: we repeat and then have the knowledge of our faith.  “In order of sense and man’s feeling, repentance is indeed before faith; but, in divine method and the order of nature, faith is before repentance, as the fountain is before the stream.”

So faith makes plain to the sinner, his state of sin and need for pardon. Faith looks upon Christ. The sight of Christ by faith, draws out repentance because the sight of Christ provokes hope of pardon matched with the knowledge of sin.

Zachary Crofton, Repentance Not to be Repented 1

31 Monday Oct 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachary Crofton

In Puritan Sermons, Volume 5 (James Nichols) we find the sermon of Zachary Crofton, A.M., “Repentance not to be Repented” defines repentance as follows: “Repentance is a grace supernatural, whereby the believing sinner, sensibly affected with and afflicted for his sin as committed against God, freely confessing, and fervently begging pardon, turneth from all sin to God.” (372)

On the first element, a “supernatural grace” Crofton makes a distinction which is not often heard: repentance is the principle animating the action, not the action itself: “it is a habit, power, principle, spring, root, and disposition; not a bare, single, and transient action.” (373) He then furthers this point by adding repentance is distinct “from all penitential acts: sighing, self-castigation, and abstinence from all sinful actions, are fruits and expressions of repentance, but not the grace itself.”

As such, it is easier to understand his insistence that repentance is a supernatural grace given by God. This grace, that is gift of God, causes the human being to act in accordance therewith, “The power and principle is divine; but act and exercise of repentance is human: God plants the root whereby man brings forth fruit worthy repentance.”

The first of Luther’s 95 theses was, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” When thought of as action, the statement seems difficult to understand. However when understood as a principle, a disposition (as is in Crofton), such a life of repentance makes sense, “Repentance is not the work of an hour, or a day; but a constant frame, course, and bent of the soul, on all renewed guilt flowing afresh, and bringing forth renewed acts.” (373)

It is a principle which when exposed to guilty responds with penitential action. It is a relationship to sin of abhorrence.  Notice also that repentance differs from mere guilt at being exposed to the law. Instead, repentance is a supernatural gift of the Gospel:

“Repentance is not the result of purest nature, nor yet the effect of the law; but a pure gospel-grace; preached by the gospel, promised in the covenant, sealed in baptism, produced by the Spirit, properly flowing from the blood of Christ; and so is every way supernatural.” (374)

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

15 Friday Oct 2021

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Thomas Adams

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 memoirandremains in Job, Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Job, Puritan, Puritan Sermons, Repentance, Sermon, The Sinner's Mourning Habit, Thomas Adams

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 memoirandremains in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Edward Taylor, Literature, Meditation 33, poem, Poetry, Puritan, Walking in the Spirit

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 memoirandremains in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Edward Taylor, life, Literarure, Literature, Meditation 33, Mercy Seat, Poet, Poetry, Puritan

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 memoirandremains in Abraham Kuyper

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Calvin, conscience, John Locke, Kuyper, Luther, Puritan

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. 

← Older posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.4
  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.3
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.4
  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.3
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar