Month: August 2007

Categories
Preaching Quotations Theological Reflections

Truth and Passion: or, One Thing Leads to Another

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici, Preface

If any one be so lamentable a Critick as to require the Smoothness, the Numbers and the Turn of Heroick Poetry in this Poem; I must tell him, that if he has not read Horace, I have studied him, and hope the style of his Epistles is not ill imitated here. The Expressions of a Poem, design’d purely for Instruction, ought to be Plain and Natural, and yet Majestick: for here the Poet is presum’d to be a king of Law-giver, and those three qualities which I have nam’d are proper to the Legislative style. The Florid, Elevated and Figurative way is for the Passions; for Love and Hatred, Fear and Anger, are begotten in the Soul by shewing their Objects out of their true proportion; either greater than the Life, or less; but Instruction is to be given by shewing them what they naturally are. A Man is to be cheated into Passion, but to be reason’d into Truth.

Dryden is correct and incorrect in the last sentence, depending on how we take him. As a statement of what happens, there is truth in the statement that a man is cheated into Passion (though considered in that journalistic light it seems hardly correct to say that men are reason’d into Truth, considering how rarely that happens). As a statement of the right method of procedure, it may be all right as far as telling you the easy way to raise passions; but that cannot be commended. Now applying this to preaching, I suppose it would scarcely be possible to exaggerate the horrors of sin and hell; and I am convinced it would not be possible to exaggerate the glory of Christ and the majesty of God. And so, when it comes at least to ultimate things, reasoning into truth and inciting into passion ought to go hand-in hand. The reasoning into Truth is the means of inciting into a just and proper Passion. To this may be added some words from J.I. Packer’s article “Jonathan Edwards and the Theology of Revival” in Puritan Papers, v.2: (quoting Edwards Works, v.1:394,391 �London, 1840 edition)

It is sometimes imagined that, because in the pulpit he read a manuscript in a steady, quiet, even tone, and avoided looking at his congregation as he spoke, he did not share the Puritan concern to preach directness, authority and felt power….

But this is a mistake. Edwards knew very well that “the main benefit obtained by preaching is by impression made upon the mind at the time, and not by an effect that arises afterwards by a remembrance of what was delivered.” And when the earnestness and vehemence of Whitefield and the Tennents during the revival of 1740 came under fire from the Latitudinarians, who saw it as a regrettable lapse into “enthusiasm,” Edwards ran to their defense:

I think an exceeding affectionate way of preaching about the great things of religion, has in itself no tendency to beget false apprehensions of them; but on the contrary, a much greater tendency to beget true apprehensions of them, than a moderate, dull, indifferent way of speaking of them…. If the subject be in its own nature worthy of very great affection, then speaking of it with great affection is most agreeable to the nature of that subject… and therefore has most of a tendency to beget true ideas of it. … I should think myself in the way of my duty, to raise the affections of my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected with nothing but truth…. I know it has long been fashionable to despise a very earnest and pathetical way of preaching; and they only have been valued as preachers, who have shown the greatest extent of learning, strength of reason, and correctness of method and language. But I humbly conceive it has been for want of understanding or duly considering human nature, that such preaching has been thought to have the greatest tendency to answer the ends of preaching…. An increase in speculative knowledge in divinity is not what is so much needed by our people as something else. Men may abound in this sort of light, and have no heat…. Our people do not so much need to have their heads stored, as to have their hearts touched; and they stand in the greatest need of that sort of preaching, which has the greatest tendency to do this.

(…)

“His words,” wrote his first biographer, Samuel Hopkins, “often discovered a great deal of inward fervour, without much noise or external emotion, and fell with great weight on the minds of his hearers; and he spake so as to reveal the strong emotions of his own heart, which tended, in the most natural and effectual manner, to move and affect others.” Such a feeling communication of felt truth was, in fact, precisely what the Puritans had had in mind when they spoke of “powerful” preaching.

Perhaps the thread of the quotation has led us rather far astray from where he started with Dryden. I’m sure you all saw how what Edwards says bears on and corrects what Dryden says (is it not remarkable that Edwards is a better guide to preaching than a hurried poet who converted to Roman Catholicism and it would seem almost never revised anything he wrote?). But allow me to fuss briefly at both Packer and Edwards as well as at old Dryden.

Packer may be correct (he certainly knows more about it than I do) that the Puritans thought of a “feeling communication of felt truth” when it came to defining powerful preaching: and I certainly would not wish to suggest that this couldn’t or doesn’t enter in to the constitution of powerful preaching. But when Paul speaks of preaching that was powerful (1 Thessalonians 1:4-6) the power seems measured by the effect, not by the sensations or liberty or emotions of the preacher. In other words, however we define powerful preaching with regard to the preacher, we must not forget that in preaching there is also a congregation to be considered.

And when it comes to Edwards, I must fuss provisionally. I don’t know whether the quotation from him could properly be limited to that time period�as the references to “our people” might suggest�or whether he believes his words to be universally applicable. If the latter is the case, then I do not believe that his words can be accepted without qualification, because there are times when an “increase in speculative knowledge in divinity” is precisely what is needed. Albert Martin has remarked this with regard to Thessalonians 4: in the first two verses Paul attempts to stir them up, because they already know; but in v.13 he instructs them because they need to know. We could also mention that according to Paul there is a zeal that is not according to knowledge. I am not accusing Edwards of denying that, you understand; I simply think it as well to be explicit on that point lest someone should seize on the quote from him and either begin to throw over or justify throwing over instruction for emotional manipulation (which Edwards’ example certainly does not encourage).

Categories
Controversy Quotations

Define “Obscurity”

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici, Preface

I have dwelt longer on this Subject than I intended; and longer than, perhaps, I ought; for having laid down, as my Foundation, that the Scripture is a rule; that in all things needfull to Salvation, it is clear, sufficient, and ordain’d by God Almighty for that purpose, I have left my self no right to interpret obscure places, such as concern the possibility of eternal happiness to Heathens: because whatsoever is obscure is concluded not necessary to be known.

Certainly all true Protestants can join in gladly affirming the first part of Dryden’s statement. The problem then is that it were only too easy to identify any part as obscure, and conclude it unnecessary to be known. But if it is absolutely unnecessary, why is it in Scripture at all? Here is another take on the matter:

G.N.M. Collins, “Knox and the Scottish Reformation” in Puritan Papers, v.2

[Recording a conversation between Knox and Queen Mary]

“Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and other [sic?] interpret in another. Who am I to believe? and who shall judge?” said the Queen.

“Madam,” replied Knox, “ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His Word, and further than that Word teacheth you ye shall believe neither the one nor the other. The Word of God is plain in itself; and if there appears any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrarious to himself, explains the same more clearly in other places.”

Categories
Controversy History Piety Quotations

Reformation, Revival and Appearances

Here are two quotes from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (surely one of the most thrilling speakers to ever have been recorded: go to the ML-J recordings trust web site to see what I mean).

From: “Revival: An Historical and Theological Survey” in Puritan Papers, v.1 (this paper was read in 1959):

…We are told that must not talk about revival because we need reformation first. You cannot have revival, it is said, without prior reformation. You must be right with respect to your doctrine before you have a right to pray for revival. So we must concentrate on reformation alone. [Follows some discussion of the historical relationship between reformation and revival]

…There are people who say, “You have no right to talk about revival, you have no right to expect revival until people become Reformed in their doctrine.” The simple answer is that George Whitefield received his baptism of power in 1737, but did not become a Calvinist in his theology until 1739, when he was out in America. Revival had come to him, and through him to many others, before his doctrine became right. Exactly the same thing happened to Howell Harris in Wales. He had his great baptism of power in 1735, and it was only two or three years later that he came to see the truth doctrinally. Once more, therefore, I would use this argument. If you say that God cannot give revival until first of all we have had a reformation, you are speaking like an Arminian, you are saying that God cannot do this until we ourselves have first done something. That is to put a limit upon God. It is to lapse into Arminian terminology and thinking, and to deny the fundamental tenet of the Reformed position. If you truly believe in the sovereignty of God, you must believe that whatever the state of the church, God can send revival. As a sheer matter of fact, that is what God did in the eighteenth century. There was the church under the blight of deism and rationalism, and generally dissolute in her living. That was true of the clergy and the leaders; and among the Nonconformists there was a deadness resulting from the Arianism that had even infected a man like Isaac Watts. In the midst of such conditions God did this amazing and astonishing thing, even while some of the men He used were still confused in their doctrinal views. It is amazing that any man holding the Reformed position can be guilty of such a contradiction as to say that you cannot have revival unless you have reformation first. Such a man should never speak like that; he has no right to put in conditions. Revival is something that is wrought by God in sovereign freedom, often in spite of men.

And from: “Puritan Perplexities: Lessons from 1640-1662” in Puritan Papers, v.2. This paper was originally read in 1962

…concerned as we all are, or at any rate should be, with a true revival of religion, with a manifestation of the power of Almighty God amongst us, with a shaking and a bringing together of the “dry bones,” with a demonstration of the power of God and an authentication of His most holy word�concerned as we are about that, we must realize that there is nothing more urgently important than that we should examine ourselves. Some kind of reformation generally precedes revival. There are certain conditions in this matter of revival, and God has so ordained it, as history shows us clearly, that before He pours forth His Spirit upon a people, or upon an individual, He first prepares that people or that individual. It is inconceivable that great blessing should be given to a Laodicean, backsliding, or apostate Church without a preliminary work of repentance. It is vital, therefore, that we should address ourselves to this whole problem of the condition and state of the Crhuch in order that we may obey the leading and prompting of the Spirit of God and prepare ourselves for the much longed for and looked for outpouring of His Holy Spirit.

Iain Murray records in his two-volume biography of Lloyd-Jones (I don’t have it with me: I believe it’s the chapter in the second volume called “The Best of Men”) that Lloyd-Jones had a habit of speaking very positively. It is rather remarkable as you read his sermons the number of things than which nothing could be more important! (To be thoroughly fair, though, that concept is often limited with something along the lines of, “in this whole matter of our ______”.) Mr. Murray also remarks that on occasion Lloyd-Jones could argue quite strongly for the impossibility of anyone holding a position, which he might himself have held, and perhaps not even that long previously. From 1959 to 1962 is certainly not a tremendously long time: and yet consider these statements:

1959

If you say that God cannot give revival until first of all we have had a reformation, you are speaking like an Arminian, you are saying that God cannot do this until we ourselves have first done something.

1962

Some kind of reformation generally precedes revival. There are certain conditions in this matter of revival, and God has so ordained it, as history shows us clearly, that before He pours forth His Spirit upon a people, or upon an individual, He first prepares that people or that individual.

1959

If you truly believe in the sovereignty of God, you must believe that whatever the state of the church, God can send revival. As a sheer matter of fact, that is what God did in the eighteenth century. There was the church under the blight of deism and rationalism, and generally dissolute in her living. That was true of the clergy and the leaders; and among the Nonconformists there was a deadness resulting from the Arianism that had even infected a man like Isaac Watts.

1962

It is inconceivable that great blessing should be given to a Laodicean, backsliding, or apostate Church without a preliminary work of repentance.

1959

It is amazing that any man holding the Reformed position can be guilty of such a contradiction as to say that you cannot have revival unless you have reformation first. Such a man should never speak like that; he has no right to put in conditions. Revival is something that is wrought by God in sovereign freedom, often in spite of men.

(Do notice that the quotes are not sets: 1962 quotes contrasts with what is above and below.)

Now this sounds like a pretty frank contradiction. From 1959 to 1962 it would definitely seem that Lloyd-Jones has altered his opinion, or forgotten it, or been seized with a new leading idea. Can there be any doubt that he has drawn different conclusions from the teaching of history? Has he not fallen into what he at one point called Arminian terminology and thinking? But let us engage in a little game: let us do all we can to be medieval and “save the appearances”. Bonus points to anyone who guesses what other medieval practice is being followed here.

Notice a few facts before hooting that you knew that the Doctor’s anti-intellectualism (Carl Trueman’s word) would result in him becoming illogical. First, he states and argues very vigorously that you cannot say that reformation must precede revival. Second, note that reformation in 1959 is conceived of in primarily (not exclusively) doctrinal terms. Third, notice that in 1962 it is Laodiceanism, backsliding, apostasy that is conceived of as an hindrance to revival. When these points are taken into consideration, it is evident that while there is undoubtedly a verbal difference in Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ statements, conceptually the difference may not be so unbridgeably vast. Doctrinal Calvinism is not a necessary antecedent condition for revival, indeed, doctrinal Calvinism would regard that view as quite non-Calvinistic. But moral and spiritual earnestness is necessary to revival: God pours water on those who are thirsty. And if we go further afield in these papers, we discover that in 1959 he spoke of two parts of revival, a stirring up of those who are in the Church (including the conversion of some who merely formal professors), and then a welter of conversions among those who are not. And if we postulate further that in 1962 his usage of the word “revival” had narrowed to that latter part, we may quite easily see that the contradiction is entirely verbal. Thus in 1959, he spoke of revival as including what in 1962 he had come to more narrowly call reformation. Now obviously, one cannot claim that reformation is a necessary antecedent condition to reformation! But even in 1959 he had stated quite vigorously that revival affects the church first of all. So it is a question of definitions: if we think of revival as God awakening a comatose church, then certainly nothing precedes it; if we think of revival as God doing a remarkable work of conversion in the community surrounding the church, then according to Lloyd-Jones in 1959 and 1962, reformation in the church does come before that. We can then distinguish some stages in the Doctor’s vocabulary: in 1959 reformation would be defined as: a return to Calvinism in the doctrinal realm, and revival is a work of God in two stages, one primarily in the church, and the other primarily in expanding the church. In 1962, though, reformation is conceived along the lines of repentance and a return to earnestness, and is thus more closely parallel to the first stage of 1959-definition revival, whereas by 1962 that word has been appropriated to the second part of that remarkable work of God. So I think that we shall not be forced to hypothesize an intervening brain fever or mini-stroke: no, Dr. Lloyd-Jones has simply become more precise in his vocabulary.

Categories
Controversy Practical Notes

Grumbling about Historical Ignorance

This grumble is not about other people’s historical ignorance (or my own).� No, it’s about a tendency to grumble about historical ignorance and not do anything about it.� We are silly creatures: and part of our silliness is that we sometimes feel that if we have grumbled about something we have done something about it.� It is as though we equated grumbling with action, complaining with reformation, querulousness with effort.� It is an easy mistake to make, I think; but in plain terms what this silliness results in is hypocrisy.� Because I may lament my ignorance quite movingly; but the proof that I am ashamed of it is that I take steps to remedy it.

Of course, here too there are pitfalls.� One such pitfall is that we read in the categories of our time.� What would Calvin have said to Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til?� That is not to say that Calvin doesn’t have an epistemology: but it is the wrong way to discover it to try to find out where he comes down on that particular divide.

And a still worse fault is people grumbling about other people’s historical ignorance, while being wildly ignorant themselves. It’s handy in a debate: moan about people’s ignorance of history, find a quote or two online, and you’ve triumphed.� (Here I would like to record that I was once hailed as “quite the source for historical theology” because I read through Calvin’s letters from the council of Ratisbon in order to be able to give an opinion in the discussion about it.� And yet those letters and a lecture I once heard about it were my only sources.� This is no reflection on the gentleman who was so kind as to make this statement: it is a comment on what is perceived as good research.)� Blaming other people for ignorance of topics we are ignorant of is a deeper hypocrisy than indulging in some well-meaning but ineffective lamentation.

So here is a suggestion: before again complaining about historical ignorance, take your best shot at answering a research question from the Matthew Poole project.� Here is a sample, but there are plenty more.

�Hence God is said to have set the beams of the chambers (namely, the upper chambers, as the Saxon rightly translates it) in the waters, Psalm 104:3, and (what is the same) above many waters, Psalm 29:3 (Gregorie�s Notes and Observations 23).� To which Saxon rendering is he referring?

Categories
Literary Criticism Quotations

Art as Instruction

C.S. Lewis reminds us that we should not despise art for having a moral purpose: though of course we are free to despise bad art and to despise bad moral purposes.

Letter to Dom Bede Griffiths, O.S.B., 16 April 1940

I do most thoroughly agree with what you say about Art and Literature. To my mind they are only healthy when they are either (a) Definitely the handmaids of religious, or at least moral, truth � or (b) Admittedly aiming at nothing but innocent recreation or entertainment. Dante’s alright, and Pickwick is alright. But the great serious irreligious art � art for art’s sake � is all balderdash; and, incidentally, never exists when art is really flourishing. In fact one can say of Art as an author I recently read says of Love (sensual love, I mean) �It ceases to be a devil when it ceases to be a god�. Isn’t that well put? So many things � nay every real thing � is good if only it will be humble and ordinate.

Letter to I.O. Evans, 28 February 1949

I’m with you on the main issue � that art can teach (and much great art deliberately sets out to do so) without at all ceasing to be art. On the particular case of Wells I wd agree with Burke, because in Wells it seems to me that one had first class pure fantasy (Time Machine, First Men in the Moon) and third class didacticism: i.e. I object to his novels with a purpose not because they have a purpose but because I think them bad. Just as I object to the preaching passages in Thackeray not because I dislike sermons but because I dislike bad sermons. To me, therefore, Wells & Thackeray are instances that obscure the issue. It must be fought on books where the doctrine is as good on its own merits as the art � e.g. Bunyan, Chesterton (as you agree), Tolstoi, Charles Williams, Virgil.

Categories
Outsourcing

Trueman and the Reformed Use of the Fathers

In general, I like Carl Trueman.� He wrote a blog post at Zack’s request.� He has a sense of humour that is often appealing to me.� Although he has a tendency to say “at the end of the day” rather too frequently, his lectures on John Owen are well worth listening to.
He has written a short note that gives some direction for realizing that the Reformers and the Reformed Orthodox who followed them were not ignorantly dismissive of either the Fathers or the medievals: I might add also that they were not casually dismissive of the pagans, either.

Anyway, follow the link.

Categories
Poetry Practical Notes Quotations

The Unlearned and Unstable

From John Dryden’s Religio Laici

[Of the negative results of Scripture being readily accessible]

‘Tis true, my Friend, (and far be Flattery hence)

This good had full as a bad a Consequence:

The Book thus put in every vulgar hand,

Which each presum’d he best cou’d understand,

the Common Rule was made the common Prey;

And at the mercy of the Rabble lay.

The tender Page with horney Fists was gaul’d;

And he was gifted most that that loudest baul’d:

The Spirit gave the Doctoral Degree:

And every member of a Company

Was of his Trade, and of the Bible free.

Plain Truths enough for needful use they found;

But men wou’d still be itching to expound:

Each was ambitious of th’ obscurest place,

No measure ta’en from Knowledg, all from grace.

Study and Pains were now no more their Care:

Texts were explain’d by Fasting, and by Prayer:

This was the Fruit the private Spirit brought;

Occasion’d by great Zeal, and little Thought.

While Crouds unlearn’d, with rude Devotion warm,

About the Sacred Viands buz and swarm,

The Fly-blown Text creates a crawling Brood;

And turns to Maggots what was meant for Food.

A Thousand daily Sects rise up, and dye;

A Thousand more the perish’d Race supply:

So all we make of Heaven’s discover’d Will

Is, not to have it, or to use it ill.

This is not, I think, a topic that one frequently hears addressed in Protestant circles: and certainly it should not be taken as an argument against the dissemination of Scripture. Yet nonetheless, it is as well to recognize the truth of Peter’s words, that Scripture is wrested to the destruction of the wresters. Abusus non tollit usus: this is not a call to ignorance, to neglect of our Lord’s commandment in John 5:39, or a failure to imitate the noble Bereans. It is a call to make a good use of Heaven’s discover’d Will.

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

Orthodox Apophaticism

P.D. Steeves, �Orthodox Tradition, The� in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

Relying principally on the sixth century writer Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, Orthodox writers insisted that God in his nature is beyond any understanding. Humans can know nothing about the being of God, and therefore all theological statements must be of a negative, or apophactic, form: God is unchanging, immovable, infinite, etc. Even a seemingly positive affirmation has only negative significance; for example, to say, �God is Spirit,� is actually to affirm his noncorporeality. Theology, then, is not a science of God, which is impossible, but of his revelation. That which is known is not necessarily true of God but is what God chooses to disclose, although in that sense it is indeed true knowledge.

[Umberto Eco notes that it is better to call him, �Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and I find that C.S. Lewis uses “Pseudo-Dionysius” in “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”.]

Now the concluding sentence of the quote from Steeves’ article is one that is rather difficult to accept. And if Matthew Winzer and Richard Muller are correct, the reformed scholastics have left us in no need of accepting it. Thus, in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, v.1, p.229 Muller writes:

…the theology of the Reformation recognized not only that God is distinct from his revelation and that the one who reveals cannot be fully comprehended in the revelation, but also that the revelation, given in a finite and understandable form, must truly rest on the eternal truth of God: this is the fundamental message and intention of the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.

Ectypal theology is not archetypal theology: ectypal theology is certainly accomodated theology; but it is nonetheless true theology and speaks truly of God.

Categories
Practical Notes Preaching Quotations

Some Advice to Ministers

From John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews 6:1
It is the duty of ministers of the gospel to take care, not only that their doctrine they preach be true, but also that it be seasonable with respect unto the state and condition of their hearers.
Herein consists no small part of that wisdom which is required in the dispensation of the word. Truths unseasonable are like showers in harvest. It is �a word spoken in season� that is beautiful and useful, Proverbs 25:11; yea, �every thing is beautiful in its own time,� and not else, Ecclesiastes 3:11. And two things are especially to be considered by him who would order his doctrine aright, that his words may be fit, meet, and seasonable:
1. The condition of his hearers, as to their present knowledge and capacity.
Suppose them to be persons, as the apostle speaks, of �full age,� such as can receive and digest �strong meat,� � that have already attained some good acquaintance with the mysteries of the gospel. In preaching unto such an auditory, if men, through want of ability to do otherwise, or want of wisdom to know when they ought to do otherwise, shall constantly treat of first principles, or things common and obvious, it will not only be unuseful unto their edification, but also at length make them weary of the ordinance itself. And there will be no better effect on the other side, where the hearers being mostly weak, the more abstruse mysteries of truth are insisted on, without a prudent accommodation of matters suited unto their capacity. It is, therefore, the duty of stewards in the house of God to give unto his household their proper portion.
(…)
And as it will be a trouble unto him who esteems it his duty to go forward in the declaration of the mysteries of the gospel, to fear that many stay behind, as being unable to receive and digest the food he hath provided; so it should be a shame to them who can make no provision but of things trite, ordinary, and common, when many, perhaps, among their hearers are capable of feeding on better or more solid provision. Again,
2. The circumstances of the present time are duly to be considered by them who would preach doctrine that should be seasonable unto their hearers; and these are many, not here to be particularly insisted on. But those especially of known public temptations, of prevalent errors and heresies, of especial opposition and hatred unto any important truths, are always to be regarded; for I could easily manifest that the apostle in his epistles hath continually an especial respect unto them all. (…) Some important doctrines of truth may, in the preaching of the gospel, be omitted for a season, but none must ever be forgotten or neglected. � So deals the apostle in this place, and light hath been sufficiently given us hereinto by what hath already been discoursed.
(…)
It is only an intellectual perfection, a perfection of the mind in knowledge, that is intended. And this may be where there is not a moral, gracious, sinless perfection. Yea, men may have great light in their minds, whilst their wills and affections are very much depraved, and their lives unreformed.

Categories
Quotations Theological Reflections

And the third day rise again

Here is something very appropriate for the first day of the week, when we remember that Christ has indeed risen.

Leo the Great, On the Lord’s Resurrection

The Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, dearly beloved, does not disagree with this belief [the belief that Christ’s identical body was resurrected], when he says, �even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more.� For the Lord�s Resurrection was not the ending, but the changing of the flesh, and His substance was not destroyed by His increase of power. The quality altered, but the nature did not cease to exist: the body was made impassible, which it had been possible to crucify: it was made incorruptible, though it had been possible to wound it. And properly is Christ�s flesh said not to be known in that state in which it had been known, because nothing remained passible in it, nothing weak, so that it was both the same in essence and not the same in glory. But what wonder if S. Paul maintains this about Christ�s body, when he says of all spiritual Christians �wherefore henceforth we know no one after the flesh.� Henceforth, he says, we begin to experience the resurrection in Christ, since the time when in Him, Who died for all, all our hopes were guaranteed to us. We do not hesitate in diffidence, we are not under the suspense of uncertainty, but having received an earnest of the promise, we now with the eye of faith see the things which will be, and rejoicing in the uplifting of our nature, we already possess what we believe. (…)

Let God�s people then recognize that they are a new creation in Christ, and with all vigilance understand by Whom they have been adopted and Whom they have adopted. let not the things, which have been made new, return to their ancient instability; and let not him who has �put his hand to the plough� forsake his work, but rather attend to that which he sows than look back to that which he has left behind. Let no one fall back into that from which he has risen, but, even though from bodily weakness he still languishes under certain maladies, let him urgently desire to be healed and raised up. For this is the path of health through imitation of the Resurrection begun in Christ, whereby, notwithstanding the many accidents and falls to which in this slippery life the traveler is liable, his feet may be guided from the quagmire on to solid ground, for, as it is written, �the steps of a man are directed by the Lord, and He will delight in his way.