|
|
Although I have been registered for this blog for some months I must apologise that this is the first time I have got round to posting anything here. I notice that a few people have looked at my profile already so I thought I would give a brief introduction to myself.
I am actually an impostor, having studied Natural Sciences at University, however after graduating I came to my senses and made a switch to the Queen of Sciences. My initial research at Masters level was on Edward Hyde, the Earl of Clarendon, the famous author of the 'History of the Rebellion'. Clarendon, as I am sure many will know, was far from being a Puritan. Through him I gained an interest in seventeenth century Theology and also neo-Stoicism.
My original plan was to pursue a PhD looking into the theology of conscience and duty. However after rather a large number of very small changes my topic has transformed completely and I am now studying Richard Baxter and his Trinitarian Theology.
Baxter is a fascinating figure and seemingly much misunderstood. In academic circles there has been a tendency to attach a large number of contradictory labels to his name, while among Christians although often admired as a pastor his theology is usually treated as an embarrassing lapse. I hope to address some of these issues and to demonstrate the Trinitarian character of Baxter's much vaunted 'Mere Christianity'.
I think that is enough of an introduction for the present. On a personal level I have many sympathies with the Puritans, but as an Anglican and Royalist cannot quite bring myself to agree with their politics...
It is also worth noting that I am fanatical about dogs.
I’ve been meaning to post this for some time: a section-by-section synopsis of Patrick Collinson’s important, detailed history of The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. The book is divided into eight parts, each of which contains three to five chapters.
I've divided the synopsis into four bite-size installments. Of course, if you have the time, I recommend reading the entire thing. In case you missed our 'Conventicle Q&A' with the author, check it out here. Chapters:
- The Church of England and the English Churches
- 'But Halfly Reformed’
- The Beginnings of a Party
 The common view prevailing among the English during the late sixteenth century was that the Church of England—its entire membership—were to be considered orthodox, as long as its doctrine were sound. By contrast, those who were eventually labelled puritans perceived a real difference between themselves and the nominal, lukewarm majority who claimed to be members of the church. Puritans are best distinguished from conformist Anglicans (a term that came into use in a later era), not by their theology, but by their “temperature”: they were “the hotter sort of protestants”, according to one Elizabethan pamphleteer. There were several elements within the church that needed reforming at the beginning of the Elizabethan period. It was in financial disarray, its courts operated with a complexity that defied logic, many of its clergy were unlearned, and most importantly, there were no means in place by which to instill and enforce discipline in the leadership or the laity. In addition, semi-Pelagianism was rife in the populace–a quasi-Protestant set of beliefs one clergyman called “country divinity”. William Whittingham was probably the most prominent leader of the movement at this early phase. He was among those who had spent time in Calvin’s Geneva during the reign of Mary I, and who now sought to bring Genevan influences to bear in the English Church. Some individuals joined the clergy in order to promote reform; others chose to remain outside the episcopal establishment. Many reform-minded ministers began to meet in small groups for mutual edification, after the pattern of the Continental Protestant churches’ presbyterian assemblies. From the beginning, puritan ministers were supported by wealthy gentry who were sympathetic to their cause. Within the queen’s court, the puritans had good friends in Francis Russell, earl of Bedford, and Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester. A number of gentry sent their children to be educated by puritan instructors in the universities. Part Two: The Breach OpensChapters: - ‘So Many Learned and Religious Bishops’
- ‘That Comical Dress’
- London’s Protestant Underground
- The People and the Pope’s Attire
 In the years immediately following Elizabeth’s accession, the English Church’s more progressive, reform-minded bishops were able to interpret the Elizabethan Religious Settlement as they wished. Differences of opinion soon came to the fore, however, in what became known as the Vestments Controversy (1563-67). The queen and her archbishop, Matthew Parker, stipulated that all clergy were to wear the square cap, gown, tippet, and surplice, or be suspended. In March 1565, several refused to comply and were suspended, though before long, most did subscribe. The most obdurate protests came from Robert Crowley, John Philpot, John Gough and Percival Wiburn. The first puritan manifestoes (see one example, right) were printed and disseminated during these years. Both proponents and opponents of vestments appealed to Protestant leaders in Geneva (Theodore Beza) and Zurich (Rodolph Gualter). Beza took a fairly moderate stance, urging dissidents in England to comply with official policy, while continuing to preach against vestments. During the 1560s, a group of separatists and semi-separatists formed in London, in the Minories, Plumbers Hall and other areas. They were led by preachers John Field and Thomas Wilcox, and by other figures who were not affiliated with the state church. In 1567, around one hundred of their number were incarcerated because of their unsanctioned meetings. Many then became full-blown separatists. Puritanism gained a fairly strong foothold among both laymen and -women; the latter, in fact, gave considerable strength to the movement. Puritan layfolk came to refer to themselves as “the godly”. For many of them, the clerical cap and surplice brought memories of the reign of Mary I, still fairly recent, when Catholic bishops and priests supervised the grisly execution of many Protestant martyrs. Negative images of Rome like this helped to foster views sympathetic to puritanism among the populace. Parts 3-4 coming soon . . . Get a copy:
Dear Conventiclers,
I must apologise for my long absence. I have been busy getting married (see this and this: I’m the one in the white dress) and writing various chapters of my PhD thesis.
Those of you who are long-term readers of this blog might remember that rather than studying the Puritans per se, I am studying some nineteenth-century historians who wrote about them. One of my historians, almost entirely forgotten now, although I have mentioned him a few times before on the Conventicle, is called John Stoughton. I think he’s rather interesting. Here’s a short introduction to him (adapted from my first chapter).
John Stoughton was born in 1807 and brought up in Norwich. Two hundred years earlier, he would have lived in a Puritan heartland. He may well have fitted in.
His autobiography, Recollections of a Long Life (1894), reveals a warm-hearted man with an eventful upbringing. His father worshipped in Methodist congregation, but still considered himself to be a Church of England man. His mother was a Quakeress until she married.
Stoughton’s father died when he was a small child, and he spent a lot of his time in his youth visiting Bethel Hospital (a secure psychiatric hospital), where his grandfather was master. His autobiography details the rather gruesome end his grandfather met when one of the patients had an awful aberration, forgetting that the scythe he was holding was supposed to be for mowing the lawn.
When Stoughton was seventeen, he felt a call to Christian ministry, but because of his mixed background had no idea which denomination to choose. After researching different options, he decided that, although no existing church model seemed to fit exactly with New Testament teaching, he felt Congregationalism came closest. This decision set the path for the rest of his life. He left his training as a lawyer and began preparing to be a congregational minister.
This involved moving to London. In the big city, Stoughton became deeply involved with the British and Foreign Bible Society, and was much moved by the members’ love of evangelicals from all denominations, and their reverence for the works of the Puritans (who they saw as theological antecedents of nineteenth-century evangelicals). Stoughton became a co-pastor of a congregational church in Windsor in 1833, and moved to Hornton Street Church, Kensington, in 1844. He was, as I said, chiefly a pastor, but he also nurtured an unquenchable interest in Church History. In 1848, his first volume on the Puritans, Spiritual Heroes, was published. In 1852 he wrote Lights of the World, which included mini-biographies of Bunyan and Baxter, as representative of ‘Spiritual Valour and Victory’ and ‘Earnest Decision’ respectively. At this stage he was rather polemical in favour of the Puritans, and not what might be called an ‘academic’ historian. But as his research progressed so his approach and writing-style developed, and he became increasingly interested in his primary sources. Ten years later, his C hurch and State Two Hundred Years Ago considered ecclesiastical affairs in England from 1660 to 1663. This was followed in 1867 by two volumes on Ecclesiastical History from the Opening of the Long Parliament to the Death of Oliver Cromwell in 1867, and then two more volumes on the history of the Church of the Restoration in 1870. In the end, Stoughton wrote another 5 volumes, moving his Church History forward in time to his own day. By this time he had altogether written 7 full-length volumes on the Puritan era alone, and many pamphlets and shorter works, and was widely respected in British Evangelical circles (both dissenting and Church of England). In 1872 he was given the chair of historical theology at New College (of Independent Dissenters), St John’s Wood, North London. He was also something of a public figure: in 1874 he spoke at the unveiling of the statue of John Bunyan in Bedford; in 1875 he performed a similar honour for the statue of Richard Baxter in Kidderminster. On both these occasions, he was considered a voice of articulate nonconformity. He had various influential friends, including A.P. Stanley, who was Dean of Westminster, an important position within the Anglican Church. Stoughton died in 1897. Shortly afterwards, a biography written by his daughter was published, A Short Record of a Long Life. He has a rather small (and not factually inerrant) article devoted to him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but these days he is almost forgotten. Stoughton played, I believe, a significant role in the ‘recovery’ of Puritanism in Britain in the nineteenth century. As we can see, he was both a prolific and a respected figure in his day. Let’s remember him for these things. Signing off for now, Susan C (was Susan A)
Time and again in my personal conversations with others on the nature of Scripture and other related matters, I’ve found that narratives and propositions are set up as antithetical (on a related point see Helm's Deep). Why should they be? I’m unconvinced that they are so, or that the Reformed Orthodox presented theology in such a way that propositional truths were allowed to trump the Biblical narrative of redemptive history. Both forms were valid ways of communicating the Gospel and the truth of Scripture.
Recently, while reading the outstanding thesis by Henry Knapp entitled, Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth Century Exegetical Methodology (Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002), I came across a quotation from William Perkins which proves the point. In his The Arte of Prophecying, Perkins presents the Gospel in both narrative and propositional forms (pardon the 16th century spelling):
The true Messias shall be both God and man of the seede of Dauid; he shall be borne of a virgin; he shall bring the Gospell forth of his Fathers bosome; he shall satisfie the Law; he shall offer up himselfe a sacrifice for the sinnes of the faithfull; he shall conquer death by dying and rising againe; he shall ascend into heaven; and in his due time he shall returne unto iudgement.
Iesus of Nazaret the Sonne of Mary is such a one:
He therefore is the true Messias.
In this syllogisme the Maior is the scope or principall drift in all the writings of the Prophets: and the Minor in the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles.
(cited in Knapp, 81)
 Thanks to Jay Collier, Director of Publications at Reformation Heritage Books and PhD student at Calvin Theological Seminary, for informing us about Joel R. Beeke's forthcoming book, Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption.
Those familiar with Dr Beeke's superb writings on the Puritans, such as his groundbreaking The Quest for Full Assurance and his resourceful Meet the Puritans, will not want to miss his study on this neglected but important subject.
Below is the publisher's description. Release date is 3 June 2008. You can pre-order now here.
Title: Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption
Author: Joel R. Beeke, Foreword by Dan Cruver
Publisher: Reformation Heritage Books
Cover Type: Hardback
Pages: 134
Description:
The Puritans have gotten bad press for their supposed lack of teaching on the doctrine of spiritual adoption. In Heirs with Christ, Joel R. Beeke dispels this caricature and shows that the Puritan era did more to advance the idea that every true Christian is God’s adopted child than any other age of church history. This little book lets the Puritans speak for themselves, showing how they recognized adoption’s far-reaching, transforming power and comfort for the children of God.
Endorsements:
“Dr. Beeke is well-known for his landmark work setting the record straight on the Puritan doctrine of assurance. Now he comes to our aid again with a superb treatment of the Puritans on adoption. I welcome his expert entry into this important field, and commend his keen insights and careful analysis to all who are interested in knowing ‘what the Puritans really said’ about adoption.”
—Ligon Duncan “In this short but spiritually substantive book, Dr. Beeke—a wise and careful ‘pastor theologian’ in the best sense of both words—introduces us to the Puritans’ comforting and transforming work on spiritual adoption. More than just historically informative, this volume should be warmly welcomed by all Christians who want to learn more about this crucial aspect of our identity as sons of God and joint-heirs with Christ.” —Justin Taylor Contents:
1. Introduction: Correcting a Caricature 2. The Greatness and Comprehensiveness of Adoption 3. Adoption Compared in the Two Testaments 4. What Adoption is Not 5. The Westminster Assembly’s Definitions of Adoption 6. The Transforming Power of Adoption 7. Pastoral Advice in Promoting Adoption 8. The Marks of Adoption 9. Transformed Relationships in Adoption 10. The Privileges and Benefits of Adoption 11. The Responsibilities or Duties of Adoption 12. Motives for Pursuing the Consciousness of Adoption 13. Warning, Invitation, and Comfort Bibliography Scripture Index What are you waiting for? Pre-order the book for a whopping $10 (now that's a bargain, and for a hardback no less!) at Reformation Heritage Books.
'The doctor ecclesiae is certainly permitted to put forth definite theses and formulate them together into a compendium. The theologian must do so using evidence found in Scripture and comparing central themes in Scripture (analogy and typology), and employing the means of conclusions (syllogisms) and the formal tools of the scholastic method. Such compendia, however, should not be collections of abstract dogma, but are to be directed toward practical Christian devotion (doctrina secundum pietatem).
This practical orientation of doctrine also entails an apologetic element: the refutation of errors and the solution of perplexing questions. It also has a pastoral implication: those who learn this doctrine must, to the best of their ability, strive to become people “who are powerful in the Scriptures,” and who thus become heralds of the truth. They themselves must become prophets. As a result, there is the possibility for progression in the knowledge of the faith and in the teaching of the faith.
Moreover, the instructor who desires to remain true to the Scriptures must be careful with the words he uses. He will have to carefully examine, with the aid of philology, and very rationally and soberly, what the text actually says; and his expositions must only employ those words that are provided by the Scriptures themselves. The language of Canaan, the language of the Scriptures, is the instrument for setting forth doctrine. Cocceius emphatically repudiates “the leaven of the sophists”, subtleties of the type that had arisen in many a university theology faculty. Doctrine may not be encapsulated by terms that distort and obscure the original meaning of God’s words, with all their qualities and their richness.'
Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) (Brill, 2001), 125-126.
Rather than saying our blog is on hiatus, I think it would be more awesome, sweet, stupendous, good noble to say that we are on strike. A strike over what, you ask? Not sure. But here are some ideas I have been considering:
1) Until Edinburgh gets a Long John Silvers (or Red Lobster), I choose not to post.
2) Until the *Laudian* media start giving proper coverage to puritans and puritan related blogs, I choose not to post.
3) When all of the anonymous commenters of the entire blogdom write their real name, drop their moral outrage over book reviews and stuff, and say sorry for hijacking posts (I'm looking at you, 'anonymous'), I shall post again.
4) Until someone can give a satisfactory explanation for the dismissal of that Australian dude from American Idol, I shall post no more forever.
5) When Peter Jackson agrees to direct The Hobbit, I shall come down off the mountain (sporting a strike beard) with yet another post about obscure things to be read only by people who already know them.
Right, well I'm just brainstorming here. Until my next post: Power to the ____________ and down with _____________ for a better _______________. Join us as we strike for this.
(See you all when chapter 3 is done.)
Tim
... according to this NY Times article, which documents the recent deaths of two bloggers in the tech field.
But if you've been reading the Conventicle for long, you know we're not in danger of keeling over from a plethora of posts. "What's up with you guys?", some of you may be wondering. I just want to mention two points:
- We've all grown quite busy. Almost all of us have reached our final year of doctoral work (the "writing-up" phase), and one of us is getting married this month! This doesn't mean we've stopped posting for good – only that posts may come less frequently in the months ahead.
- We're in the process of planning a permanent Conventicle site, of which this blog will be only a part. Lord willing, it will provide a comprehensive collection of resources relating to puritan history, theology and spirituality. We hope to get it online by the end of 2008, if not sooner. Watch this space for updates.
Thanks for your patience! We've sincerely enjoyed getting to know the small community of "puritanophiles" who've stopped by on a regular basis here.
From the website of the Calvin Conference 2009 (May 24-27):
"The major scholarly event of the 'Calvin year' 2009 in Geneva, this conference will attempt to take the full measure of John Calvin's historical importance by exploring the extent and limits of his influence across the generations and around the world, from his lifetime until today, in the domains of theology, politics, culture, and social life. Contributions are invited from specialists in any field of specialization on any topic that directly engages with Calvin's real or putative influence, during his lifetime or during the generations following his death.
Each day of the conference will feature both large plenary sessions and numerous smaller panels. Special events are also planned.
Confirmed participants include Irena Backus, Emidio Campi, Olivier Christin, Denis Crouzet, John de Gruchy, André Encrevé, Max Engammare, F.W. Graf, Mark Greengrass, Berndt Hamm, Harro Höpfl, Diarmaid MacCulloch, George M. Marsden, Olivier Millet, Richard Muller, William Naphy, Heinz Schilling, Cornelis van der Kooi, Ernestine van der Wall, Avihu Zakai."
Dr Packer's spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacrament may be revoked.
Read more about it at Fulcrum, Anglican Mainstream, and Lambethconference.net.
To hear from Dr Packer himself on the Anglican situation, search YouTube on St John's Shaughnessy. Let's keep him and others involved in prayer.
Tobias Crisp (1600-1643), whose posthumously published sermons became associated with antinomianism, had argued in a sermon on Isaiah 53:6 that it was not merely sin’s punishment which the Lord laid upon Christ but sin itself, that is, both the guilt and punishment of sin. This was a fairly standard view of imputation among the Reformed orthodox. Liability to guilt and punishment are so interlinked that the imputation of one entailed the imputation of the other. Crisp is in good company here. Consider, however, the following statements by Crisp asserted on the basis of such an imputation.
"Christ himself becomes the transgressor in the room and stead of this person that had transgressed: so that in respect of the reality of being a transgressor, Christ is as really the transgressor as the person that did commit it was a transgressor before Christ took this transgression upon him.” (Christ Alone Exalted, II, 82) Commenting on Christ being made sin in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Crisp was careful to qualify that the Apostle Paul was in no way referring to sin’s pollution of Christ’s essence nor was he suggesting that Christ performed any sinful act. Nevertheless, he insisted that Christ was a transgressor: “the Apostle’s meaning was, that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was. But still he was a transgressor, as our transgressions were laid upon him…” (Christ Alone Exalted, II, 84).
On the other side of the imputation equation, Crisp reasoned, “If you will speak of one completely righteous, you must speak of this person, and know that Christ himselfe is not more righteous than this person is, that that person is not more sinfull then Christ was when hee took their sinnes on him…”; by the one sacrifice of Christ, “he hath perfected them that are sanctified.” (Christ Alone Exalted, II, 90)
Remember that these statements of Crisp were made in his preaching. Owen was, of course, not capable of such unqualified assertions! And so he cautions with his characteristic distinctions.
“When our sin was imputed unto him [Christ], he did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and inherently a sinner; but passively only, and in God’s estimation. As he was made sin, yet knew no sin; so we are made righteous, yet are sinful in ourselves.” (Doctrine of Justification, XVIII)
“To say that we are as righteous as Christ, is to make a comparison between the personal righteousness of Christ and our personal righteousness, — if the comparison be of things of the same kind. But this is foolish and impious: for, notwithstanding all our personal righteousness, we are sinful; he knew no sin. And if the comparison be between Christ’s personal, inherent righteousness, and righteousness imputed unto us, inhesion and imputation being things of diverse kinds, it is fond and of no consequence. Christ was actively righteous; we are passively so.” (Doctrine of Justification, XVIII)
The comparison between Crisp and Owen is not exactly on the same level. Crisp's language is kerygmatic while Owen's is academic and used in the context of theological polemics. Yet if one is to preach imputation with all the cautions of Owen in place, I wonder how might that language sound?
 Here's a fascinating, and I would say typically puritan (pardon the pun) use of two Old Testament types for a New Testament concept, from a discussion by William Perkins on the combat between the flesh and the Spirit in the Christian (Galatians 5:17). I'm interested to hear some feedback – do you think Perkins was over-reaching in using these or not?: "... hereby we are taught to be watchfull in prayer. Watch & pray (saith Christ, &c. for the spirit is ready but the flesh is weak.) Rebecca, when 2. twins strove in her wombe was troubled & said, why am I so? wherefore she went to ask the Lord, namely for some prophet. So when we feele this inward fight, the best thing is to have recourse to God by prayer, and to his word, that the spirit may be strengthened against the flesh.
As the children of Israel by compassing the city Jerico 7. daies, and by sounding rammes hornes overturned the walles thereof: so by serious invocation of Gods name the spirite is confirmed, and the turrets and towres of the rebellious flesh battered." - from Two Treatises, I. Of the nature and practise of repentance. II. Of the combat of the flesh and the spirit (1593), 95-96.I haven't decided whether these are legitimate types for the combat of the flesh and the Spirit, but I do covet the kind of familiarity with Scripture that can recognize such correlations.
"God has a counselor–It's called God. And He consults with nobody but Himself."
- John Piper, speaking on Romans 11:34:
Who has known the mind of the LORD, or who has been his counselor?
"To preach simply is not to preach unlearnedly, nor confusedly, but plainely and perspicaciously, that the simplest which dooth heare may understand what is taught, as if he did heare his name".
- Henry Smith (1560-1591), called 'the silver-tongued preacher' in his day
Just today I found an interesting conference paper by David F. Wright. I thought I would post just a few sections as a tribute to his keen intellect. Volumes more could be written, but this is just a brief snapshot of his contribution to Reformation studies.
In March 2001 Dr. Wright presented "Martin Bucer and the Decretum Gratiani" at the 'Beitrage zum internationalen Symposium' on the interesting issue of Martin Bucer's frequent interaction with canon law (specifically the Decretum Gratiani). At face value, this component of Bucer's reform may suggest a legalism that would strain the philosophical underpinnings of the Reformation itself. But thanks to Professor Wright, we have a clever and nuanced explanation of Bucer's use of canon law. Bucer had a high regard for Scripture, calling it the 'canon of the Holy Spirit'. His highly selective use of canon law showed that he certainly elevated the text of Scripture above the text of the canons. As Professor Wright argues,
When Bucer invokes the Decretum, it is for the most part with some procedure or ordered practice in mind, and hence in connection with the prescriptive of precedent-establishing function of Scripture.
In other words, Bucer was a discerning reader of canon law, not a slave to its interpretations. Bucer sought to identify a 'consensus' position between previous judgements by the 'church' and the contemporary calls for reform. He was what Professor Wright called a 'consensual Reformer'. Although he sought consensus, he was still willing to draw clear lines of difference. Again, Professor Wright helps us:
So [for Bucer] there were popes and there were popes, and papal laws and papal laws, and Bucer is adept at disciminating...Reform was a return to earlier best practice, as documented by the noblest strata of the church's code of good practice.
Professor Wright concludes by reminding readers of the big picture:
Caution should be exercised in typifying this flavour of Reformation [Bucer's use of canon law] as legalistic, partly because among theologians and ecclesiastics who reckon too little with the genius of the Reformed tradition it is a much over-used term, but because also Bucer's fondness for appealing to the Decretum is more pastoral, even evangelistic than judgmental, the style of a churchman, a churchman of all the ages, or at least of as many as he can muster in his support.
Reading Professor Wright's treatment of Bucer reminds me that I have a tremendous way to go in this quest to understand great minds of great men who have gone before. Fortunately, our generation was blessed with a great man like Professor David F. Wright who helped us understand.
(Conference: Martin Bucer und das Recht: Beitrage zum internationalem Symposium, vom. 1. bis. 3. Marz 2001 in der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Emden)
I have just learned of the passing of Prof. David Wright, an eminent scholar of patristic and Reformation history and theology.
From Dr. Larry Hurtado's notice: "Prof. Wright was a distinguished member of academic staff in the School of Divinity/New College, on staff for many years and internationally known for his many scholarly publications, awarded the DD as a higher doctorate for his publications and thereafter a personal chair in Patristic and Reformation Studies."
See also Ligon Duncan's comments and those of Derek Thomas, and hear how Wright helped prevent Carl Trueman from getting a job–from Trueman himself.
... by the puritans. How does my commitment to cultivate a close relationship with the Lord compare with that of Samuel Fairclough, whose biography was included in Samuel Clarke's Lives of Sundry Eminent Persons (1683)?: "None surely can be found who walked in a more constant course of private duties such as Reading, Meditation, Self-examination and Prayer, which four duties he seldom or never divided one from the other; and by a daily performance of them all, he had much of his Conversation in Heaven, and lived in close Communion with God.
The sun is not more true to its time of rising and setting than he was to his stated course of secret Prayer, both Morning and Evening. So soon as he was awake (which was early every Morning till he was very old) he did immediately rise, and prostrate himself at Gods Foot-stool; after which he constantly read some portion of Scripture, upon which he did peruse the best Commentators and constantly (for some time) did meditate thereon, observing the counsel of Pythagoras to his Schollars ... if you will not purifie your food, and ruminate upon [chew] it, don't eat. But having thus digested truth himself, after some time he came down to perform Family worship ..." Here's an echo from a modern voice, John Piper (Brothers, We Are Not Professionals): "Both our flesh and our culture scream against spending an hour on our knees beside a desk piled with papers. It is un-American to be so impractical as to devote oneself to prayer and meditation two hours a day ... Take one of your days off and go away by yourself and pray about how you should pray. Say to yourself right now: 'God help me to do something radical in regard to prayer!' Refuse to believe that the daily hours Luther and Wesley and Brainerd and Judson spent in prayer are idealistic dreams of another era."
NB: My primary intent here is not to glorify the puritans, nor to bring shame upon modern evangelicals, nor to exalt self-discipline for its own sake; it is to glorify God, who alone is worthy of such 'drastic' measures, and who alone provides the |
