English Sonnets

[John Nyberg]

Holy Sonnet XIX
by John Donne
Oh, to vex me, contraries meet in one:
Inconstancy unnaturally hath begot
A constant habit; that when I would not
I change in vows, and in devotion.
As humorous is my contrition
As my profane love, and as soon forgot:
As riddlingly distempered, cold and hot,
As praying, as mute; as infinite, as none.
I durst not view heaven yesterday; and today
In prayers and flattering speeches I court God:
Tomorrow I quake with true fear of his rod.
So my devout fits come and go away
Like a fantastic ague; save that here
Those are my best days, when I shake with feare.

 

[John Nyberg]

The above sonnet by Dr. Donne offers insight into his complex personality. He claims to be one in whom “contraries meet” (Romans 7:15) and “inconstancy” be comes “constant habit.”
If we take him at his word, John is much in need of deliverance from the body of death (Romans 7:24). This affliction is not skin deep, but has infected his entire person and produced “profane love”, and “mute prayers.” Donne plays the hypocrite, at one moment daring not to “view heaven”, at the next assailing heaven with “flattering speeches .” . Line 11, I believe, contains the volta: “Tomorrow I quake with true fear of his rod.” God will not be courted with vain contrition motivated by a capricious humor. He will only be approached by those who have learned the pathway of true wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). The balm for his sin sickness is that “fantastic auge” that draws his heart to the fear of God.

 

[philomath]

The above sonnet by Dr. Donne offers insight into his complex personality. He claims to be one in whom “contraries meet” (Romans 7:15) and “inconstancy” be comes “constant habit.”
If we take him at his word, John is much in need of deliverance from the body of death (Romans 7:24). This affliction is not skin deep, but has infected his entire person and produced “profane love”, and “mute prayers.” Donne plays the hypocrite, at one moment daring not to “view heaven”, at the next assailing heaven with “flattering speeches .” . Line 11, I believe, contains the volta: “Tomorrow I quake with true fear of his rod.” God will not be courted with vain contrition motivated by a capricious humor. He will only be approached by those who have learned the pathway of true wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). The balm for his sin sickness is that “fantastic auge” that draws his heart to the fear of God.

This is very well put John. Donne shows us a very stark picture of himself, and it can be very relatable. He see's that his love can often be cold, he fights with the body of death, he can truly say with Paul, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?". Yet he is not unaware of the start of the very next verse: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Those are my best days, when I shake with feare.

I too have found this true, when like Donne my love has been cold. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Yet, one must be careful to not pass by the word "beginning". Mortifying sin is a constant battle this side of eternity, yet we need not despair. We are being conformed more and more into the image of Christ by God's grace.

 

[philomath]

One thing I appreciate about Donne is that he knows he's a sinner and is in utter need of God's grace. Many people will readily admit they're sinners and need some kind of grace, but end up leaving it fuzzy. They don't see their condition rightly. Some may say "I'm a sinner just like anyone else, but at least I dont ______". Some may also say "I'm not perfect, but I'm not that bad." They don't see their condition rightly.

What does Donne say?

"Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me."

"But our old subtle foe so tempteth me,
That not one houre my selfe I can sustaine;
Thy Grace may wing me to prevent his art,
And thou like Adamant draw mine iron heart."

 

[John Nyberg]

I too have found this true, when like Donne my love has been cold

Thanks for bringing out a theme from the poem I passed over. Line 7 is important: “As riddlingly distempered, cold and hot”

I take this to mean Donne is hot and passionate in his fits of sin, yet cold to God. This is man’s natural state, yet the Spirit reverses this through grace. If you have time Jacob I would enjoy continuing this discussion with more examples from Holy Sonnets. I know you have been studying him lately so I think that would be a great direction to continue this thread

 

[philomath]

Thanks for bringing out a theme from the poem I passed over. Line 7 is important: “As riddlingly distempered, cold and hot”

I take this to mean Donne is hot and passionate in his fits of sin, yet cold to God. This is man’s natural state, yet the Spirit reverses this through grace. If you have time Jacob I would enjoy continuing this discussion with more examples from Holy Sonnets. I know you have been studying him lately so I think that would be a great direction to continue this thread

I would be thrilled to continue sharing examples from Holy Sonnets. I had a busier weekend and haven't had the chance to post again until now. I think Donne's Holy Sonnet XV will be a good one for this Lord's Day!

Holy Sonnet XV

Wilt thou love God, as he thee! then digest,
My Soule, this wholsome meditation,
How God the Spirit, by Angels waited on
In heaven, doth make his Temple in thy brest.
The Father having begot a Sonne most blest,
And still begetting, (for he ne'r begonne)
Hath deign'd to chuse thee by adoption,
Coheire to'his glory,'and Sabbaths endlesse rest.
And as a robb'd man, which by search doth finde
His stolne stuffe sold, must lose or buy'it againe:
The Sonne of glory came downe, and was slaine,
Us whom he'had made, and Satan stolne, to unbinde.
'Twas much, that man was made like God before,
But, that God should be made like man, much more.

 

[John Nyberg]

This was indeed a great pick for the Lord’s day. Definitely worth meditating on. It is a great reminder to strive to love God as he ought to be loved, with the whole heart. I enjoyed the line “Coheire to'his glory,'and Sabbaths endlesse rest.” What Adam enjoyed naturally, man must be made to cohere to. The couplet at the end beautifully emphasizes our need for rebirth in Christ. Thanks for sharing!

 

[philomath]

Holy Sonnet V

I am a little world made cunningly
Of Elements, and an Angelike spright,
But black sinne hath betraid to endlesse night
My worlds both parts, and (oh) both parts must die.
You which beyond that heaven which was most high
Have found new sphears, and of new lands can write,
Powre new seas in mine eyes, that so I might
Drowne my world with my weeping earnestly,
Or wash it, if it must be drown'd no more:
But oh it must be burnt! alas the fire
Of lust and envie have burnt it heretofore,
And made it fouler; Let their flames retire,
And burne me O Lord, with a fiery zeale
Of thee and thy house, which doth in eating heale.

 

[John Nyberg]

@philomath

The first line of the above sonnet reminds me of a line from Herbert’s Man.
Donne: “I am a little world made cunningly
Of Elements”

Herbert: “Man is one world, and hath another to attend him.”

It is pretty cool to see the same thought restated by Herbert, who almost certainly read this sonnet himself.

The next lines are important:

“and an Angelike spright,
But black sinne hath betraid to endlesse night
My worlds both parts, and (oh) both parts must die.”

Donne is no Manichean. He recognizes the role of both the material and spiritual element of the human sinner. His “worlds” are two distinct parts, both corrupted by sin. I found the wording “both parts must die” to be especially powerful. Lines 7-8 are nothing short of a masterful metaphor:

“Powre new seas in mine eyes, that so I might
Drowne my world with my weeping earnestly,”

I just love the Flood allusion. I think the final lines speak for themselves. Donne’s world, flesh and spirit, must be burned by God’s purifying fire, or else be liable to judgment. Thanks for sharing Jacob, this poem was a new one for me

 

[philomath]

@philomath

The first line of the above sonnet reminds me of a line from Herbert’s Man.
Donne: “I am a little world made cunningly
Of Elements”

Herbert: “Man is one world, and hath another to attend him.”

It is pretty cool to see the same thought restated by Herbert, who almost certainly read this sonnet himself.

The next lines are important:

“and an Angelike spright,
But black sinne hath betraid to endlesse night
My worlds both parts, and (oh) both parts must die.”

Donne is no Manichean. He recognizes the role of both the material and spiritual element of the human sinner. His “worlds” are two distinct parts, both corrupted by sin. I found the wording “both parts must die” to be especially powerful. Lines 7-8 are nothing short of a masterful metaphor:

“Powre new seas in mine eyes, that so I might
Drowne my world with my weeping earnestly,”

I just love the Flood allusion. I think the final lines speak for themselves. Donne’s world, flesh and spirit, must be burned by God’s purifying fire, or else be liable to judgment. Thanks for sharing Jacob, this poem was a new one for me

Glad to share!

One thing that especially caught me with the flood allusion was line 9:

Or wash it, if it must be drown'd no more:

This reminded me of the Genesis flood narative when God promised: "neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

I think the logical flow of the poem follows in this direction. I'll bolden some of the parts of the poem that I think are connected on this point:

I am a little world made cunningly
Of Elements, and an Angelike spright,
But black sinne hath betraid to endlesse night
My worlds both parts, and (oh) both parts must die.
You which beyond that heaven which was most high
Have found new sphears, and of new lands can write,
Powre new seas in mine eyes, that so I might
Drowne my world with my weeping earnestly,
Or wash it, if it must be drown'd no more:

Donne needs purified, he sees his deep depravity. He see's his utter need to be cleansed. He asks that his world (himself) would be drowned with weeping earnestly. Then he remember's God's promise to never again destroy the earth with flood. So Donne then says "wash it if it can't be drowned".

Some other things that caught my attention while reading through the poem were the two different uses/dimmensions of water and fire: that of judgment, and that of cleansing/refining. Donne ends with these beautiful lines following the latter:

And burne me O Lord, with a fiery zeale
Of thee and thy house, which doth in eating heale.

 

[philomath]

Holy Sonnet VI

This is my playes last scene, here heavens appoint
My pilgrimages last mile; and my race
Idly, yet quickly runne, hath this last pace,
My spans last inch, my minutes latest point,
And gluttonous death, will instantly unjoynt
My body, and soule, and I shall sleepe a space,
But my'ever-waking part shall see that face,
Whose feare already shakes my every joynt:
Then, as my soule, to'heaven her first seate, takes flight,
And earth-borne body, in the earth shall dwell,
So, fall my sinnes, that all may have their right,
To where they'are bred, and would presse me, to hell.
Impute me righteous, thus purg'd of evill,
For thus I leave the world, the flesh, the devill.

 

[John Nyberg]

Nice! I enjoyed Donne’s use of a metaphorical “narrowing” of life. A mile, then a pace, and inch then a point. It reminds me of the biblical admonitions to see our lives as a breath or a vapor compared to eternity.

 

[John Nyberg]

*there is some questionable theology in the poem I am about to share, my response will be critical*

Holy Sonnets XXVIII
SHOW me deare Christ, thy Spouse, so bright and clear.
What! is it She, which on the other shore
Goes richly painted? or which rob’d and tore
Laments and mournes in Germany and here?
Sleepes she a thousand, then peepes up one yeare?
Is she selfe truth and errs? now new, now outwore?
Doth she, and did she, and shall she evermore
On one, on seaven, or on no hill appeare?
*I’ve ommited the rest of the poem due to objectionable content*


I was fascinated by this sonnet for a few reasons. Donne, an Anglican preacher, seems to be disillusioned by the state of the visible church in his time. He writes:

“is it She, which on the other shore
Goes richly painted? or which rob’d and tore
Laments and mournes in Germany and here?”


On the first read, I thought he was simply pining for his former Roman Catholicism, but it almost sounds like he is dissatisfied with both the “richly painted” RCC and the “torn” Anglican/German Protestantism. Is richly painted derogatory? Robbed and torn definitely is. Herbert picks up this theme in The British Church, but comes to a different conclusion.

Herbert writes:

“ She on the hills which wantonly
Allureth all, in hope to be
By her preferr'd,
Hath kiss'd so long her painted shrines,
That ev'n her face by kissing shines,
For her reward.

She in the valley is so shy
Of dressing, that her hair doth lie
About her ears;
While she avoids her neighbour's pride,
She wholly goes on th' other side,
And nothing wears.”

Such is Herbert’s take on the RCC (the hill church) and calvinists/puritans (valley church). Of the Anglican Church he writes:

“A fine aspect in fit array,
Neither too mean nor yet too gay,
Shows who is best.
Outlandish looks may not compare,
For all they either painted are,
Or else undress'd.”

It is clear that Herbert, with his usual wittiness, is making the proud claim that the Anglican Church is dressed “just right”. Neither too gaudy, nor too spare. How very “middle way” of him . To a certain extent, I can sympathize with Herbert’s sentiment. Growing up in an evangelical mega-church, I often found the worship too casual, the administration of the sacraments too cavalier, and the preaching biblically anemic. None of those reasons brought me to the reformed position per se, but they certainly nudged me in that direction.

What I can’t understand is Donne’s cynicism. If he was convicted by his Roman Catholic upbringing, why not move to the other shore? Why not remain in his Popery even if it meant persecution in England? There was no lack of Catholic martyrs in England of which he might take example.

The bigger issue I see in the poem is his use of romantic language in relation to the Church herself (wherever she is). I think scripture gives us warrant to view the church as a mother of sorts, but she remains the Bride of Christ alone. At that point I must say, “Dr. Donne, you’ve overstepped your own metaphor, and grossly missed the mark.”

 

[philomath]

*there is some questionable theology in the poem I am about to share, my response will be critical*

Holy Sonnets XXVIII
SHOW me deare Christ, thy Spouse, so bright and clear.
What! is it She, which on the other shore
Goes richly painted? or which rob’d and tore
Laments and mournes in Germany and here?
Sleepes she a thousand, then peepes up one yeare?
Is she selfe truth and errs? now new, now outwore?
Doth she, and did she, and shall she evermore
On one, on seaven, or on no hill appeare?
*I’ve ommited the rest of the poem due to objectionable content*


I was fascinated by this sonnet for a few reasons. Donne, an Anglican preacher, seems to be disillusioned by the state of the visible church in his time. He writes:

“is it She, which on the other shore
Goes richly painted? or which rob’d and tore
Laments and mournes in Germany and here?”


On the first read, I thought he was simply pining for his former Roman Catholicism, but it almost sounds like he is dissatisfied with both the “richly painted” RCC and the “torn” Anglican/German Protestantism. Is richly painted derogatory? Robbed and torn definitely is. Herbert picks up this theme in The British Church, but comes to a different conclusion.

Herbert writes:

“ She on the hills which wantonly
Allureth all, in hope to be
By her preferr'd,
Hath kiss'd so long her painted shrines,
That ev'n her face by kissing shines,
For her reward.

She in the valley is so shy
Of dressing, that her hair doth lie
About her ears;
While she avoids her neighbour's pride,
She wholly goes on th' other side,
And nothing wears.”

Such is Herbert’s take on the RCC (the hill church) and calvinists/puritans (valley church). Of the Anglican Church he writes:

“A fine aspect in fit array,
Neither too mean nor yet too gay,
Shows who is best.
Outlandish looks may not compare,
For all they either painted are,
Or else undress'd.”

It is clear that Herbert, with his usual wittiness, is making the proud claim that the Anglican Church is dressed “just right”. Neither too gaudy, nor too spare. How very “middle way” of him . To a certain extent, I can sympathize with Herbert’s sentiment. Growing up in an evangelical mega-church, I often found the worship too casual, the administration of the sacraments too cavalier, and the preaching biblically anemic. None of those reasons brought me to the reformed position per se, but they certainly nudged me in that direction.

What I can’t understand is Donne’s cynicism. If he was convicted by his Roman Catholic upbringing, why not move to the other shore? Why not remain in his Popery even if it meant persecution in England? There was no lack of Catholic martyrs in England of which he might take example.

The bigger issue I see in the poem is his use of romantic language in relation to the Church herself (wherever she is). I think scripture gives us warrant to view the church as a mother of sorts, but she remains the Bride of Christ alone. At that point I must say, “Dr. Donne, you’ve overstepped your own metaphor, and grossly missed the mark.”

This is a fascinating poem by Donne and I have some ideas. I don't really see it as cynicism, but as anxiety and wrestling with "what is the church" and "what is catholicity". I can relate to some of the things he asks in this poem, espescially with my experience in the romanist system. I read this poem as being written by a deeply anxious man whose heart is torn and unsettled. Donne ultimately wants Christ and there are multiple voices coming from different directions saying contradictory things, and he's overwhelmed.

Also one thing to consider is Donne was a bit slower/gradual coming to Anglicanism from his recusant romanist upbringing. I'm not sure when he wrote this particular sonnet (or if anyone today knows when it was written). Yet, throughout his writings there are clear examples of biblical, protestant, augustinian (whatever you'd like to term it!) beliefs. You can also find examples of Donne being polemical towards rome throughout his writing. One such example I've read is his satire Ignatius His Conclave. It was an interesting read and quite scathing against rome and the jesuits. It also interestingly had some nasty stuff about John Knox (showing some of Donne's erastian leanings). It had positive things to say about Calvin and Beza, so I believe Donne's issue with Knox was political.

---

Anyways, I think Donne gets to the heart of his poem in the final lines:
...Betray kind husband thy spouse to our sights...
...Who is most trew, and pleasing to thee, then...

His brain is muddled with doubts and anxieties and he just wants to be faithful to Christ. He wants what is most true and pleasing to Christ. Of course we could say: "Donne, we see you want what's most true and pleasing to Christ, but look here! You certainly won't find that in romanism!" True enough, but leaving it at that would not get to the core of Donne's anxieties. Overall what anyone in the same situation as Donne needs is The Gospel. They need the reminder that Christ is for You. Talks of ecclesiology and catholicity are very important, but they will not save us; they will not give us rest. Christ does.

---

As for the terms, "richly painted", "rob’d and tore", "Laments and mournes in Germany and here", here are some thoughts:

I think richly painted certainly could be negative. I'm reminded of "white-washed tomb" and vanity; no actual substance.

"Rob'd and tore", and "laments in Germany and here" could be a few things. In certain circumstances it could be the persecutions and hardships protestants were going through. It could also be the divisions among different protestant groups. I think it's a mix.

---

As for working through Donne's broader question of "where is the church?" I think a line in this part of the poem can help us:

"Doth she, and did she, and shall she evermore
On one, on seaven, or on no hill appeare?"

Seven hills is obviously rome. One hill could be the idea of another church being "the only true one". No hill, I think, has in mind the idea of a broader catholicity. Christs Church is not bound to a certain country/jurisdiction.

WCF 25.1&2

"I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

---

I remember seeing Herbert talk about the CofE being just right in his poem

 

[John Nyberg]

I can relate to some of the things he asks in this poem, espescially with my experience in the romanist system. I read this poem as being written by a deeply anxious man whose heart is torn and unsettled. Donne ultimately wants Christ and there are multiple voices coming from different directions saying contradictory things, and he's overwhelmed.

This was a very thoughtful reply, Jacob. The section I quoted above is a good analysis because it shows how Donne’s poem is relevant to today. Donne had perhaps a handful of ecclesiastical choices… we have hundreds. Did you grow up Roman Catholic?

Yet, throughout his writings there are clear examples of biblical, protestant, augustinian (whatever you'd like to term it!) beliefs.

Agreed! My criticism is isolated to this poem. I have been thinking about this line from him lately:

From VI: “Impute me righteous, thus purg’d of evill,
For thus I leave the world, the flesh, the devill.”

You can also find examples of Donne being polemical towards rome throughout his writing. One such example I've read is his satire Ignatius His Conclave

Interesting! I’ll have to check that work out.

His brain is muddled with doubts and anxieties and he just wants to be faithful to Christ. He wants what is most true and pleasing to Christ.

Rob'd and tore", and "laments in Germany and here" could be a few things. In certain circumstances it could be the persecutions and hardships protestants were going through. It could also be the divisions among different protestant groups. I think it's a mix.

I think the question for him, and for us, is what aspect of the visible church brings most glory to Christ? Is it the outward appearance of a church (the beauty of the building, incense, images, rosaries) or is it the purity of doctrine?

By the way, I feel that I have a greater appreciation and understanding of Donne by reading him with you. Thank you for your insightful comments!

 

[philomath]

This was a very thoughtful reply, Jacob. The section I quoted above is a good analysis because it shows how Donne’s poem is relevant to today. Donne had perhaps a handful of ecclesiastical choices… we have hundreds. Did you grow up Roman Catholic?

Thank you John! In a sense I did, though not purely, throughout much of my adolescence. The most accurate description I can think of for myself at the time would be "a synchretistic baptist with a mixed-religion home life/family". I was not baptized by a roman priest, nor was I ever confirmed into that communion. I never fully accepted the pope as "the vicar of Christ" or the teaching of transubstantiation in those years. Yet for 8 years, I attended weekly weekday romish masses, went up with arms crossed to "receive a blessing" from a priest (I did not, and technically could not, partake of any of their diluted wine and wafers), I prayed to saints, went to auricular confession to a priest, and did "acts of penance". I went to a romanist school (albiet a liberal one), had my mind filled with romish doctrines, hagiographies, and mysticism. I didn't know what I was. I wasn't a romanist in any official sense, yet I certainly thought and acted like one. I dealt for years with immense scrupulosity. There's more I could say, but that's the short and simple explanation of it all. I was bound. But the Lord is gracious and I am not what I once was.

Agreed! My criticism is isolated to this poem. I have been thinking about this line from him lately:

From VI: “Impute me righteous, thus purg’d of evill,
For thus I leave the world, the flesh, the devill.”

That's such a good line from Donne. It's been coming to mind often for me as well. That and:

(V) "And burne me O Lord, with a fiery zeale
Of thee and thy house, which doth in eating heale."

and

(XIV) "Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I
Except you'enthrall mee, never shall be free,".

Interesting! I’ll have to check that work out.

Let me know what you think of it if/when you get around to it! I read it in a physical copy of his collected works since it was harder to find online (I couldn't seem to find it on gutenberg).

I think the question for him, and for us, is what aspect of the visible church brings most glory to Christ? Is it the outward appearance of a church (the beauty of the building, incense, images, rosaries) or is it the purity of doctrine?

By the way, I feel that I have a greater appreciation and understanding of Donne by reading him with you. Thank you for your insightful comments!

Thank you, and same here! It's always a pleasure to read these poets with you. I constantly find things I overlooked!

 

[philomath]

Holy Sonnet XII

Why are wee by all creatures waited on?
Why doe the prodigall elements supply
Life and food to mee, being more pure then I,
Simple, and further from corruption?
Why brook'st thou, ignorant horse, subjection?
Why dost thou bull, and bore so seelily
Dissemble weaknesse, and by'one mans stroke die,
Whose whole kinde, you might swallow and feed upon?
Weaker I am, woe is mee, and worse then you,
You have not sinn'd, nor need be timorous.
But wonder at a greater wonder, for to us
Created nature doth these things subdue,
But their Creator, whom sin, nor nature tyed,
For us, his Creatures, and his foes, hath dyed.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Thank you John! In a sense I did, though not purely, throughout much of my adolescence. The most accurate description I can think of for myself at the time would be "a synchretistic baptist with a mixed-religion home life/family". I was not baptized by a roman priest, nor was I ever confirmed into that communion. I never fully accepted the pope as "the vicar of Christ" or the teaching of transubstantiation in those years. Yet for 8 years, I attended weekly weekday romish masses, went up with arms crossed to "receive a blessing" from a priest (I did not, and technically could not, partake of any of their diluted wine and wafers), I prayed to saints, went to auricular confession to a priest, and did "acts of penance". I went to a romanist school (albiet a liberal one), had my mind filled with romish doctrines, hagiographies, and mysticism. I didn't know what I was. I wasn't a romanist in any official sense, yet I certainly thought and acted like one. I dealt for years with immense scrupulosity. There's more I could say, but that's the short and simple explanation of it all. I was bound. But the Lord is gracious and I am not what I once was.

Helpful information, Philomath.

This comment is an accurate description of the way many Protestants act when they are living in a Catholic culture, and it's also an issue if we send our children to parochial Catholic schools: "I wasn't a romanist in any official sense, yet I certainly thought and acted like one. I dealt for years with immense scrupulosity."

I am far less opposed to cooperation with Roman Catholics than some in the Reformed world. My position is the standard position of Kuyper and the modern pro-life movement, namely, that we can and should cooperate with people of other confessions in the sphere of the civil magistrate. But that position only works if we teach our people our own confessions, and what we believe, and why we are not Catholics.

A significant part of why people leave evangelical Protestantism and become Catholics is that people who compare broad evangelicalism to Catholics who take their faith seriously are going to find things in Roman Catholicism that are far deeper than what they are seeing in their broadly evangelical church where the teaching may be a mile wide and an inch deep.

While I don't know the school you attended, liberal Catholicism that takes its faith seriously enough to send their children to parochial schools is still a high-demand faith compared to some evangelicals. A liberal Catholic answer to the religious questions of a young boy or girl may well be wrong, but I know from experience in the Ozarks that too many evangelical churches have no answer at all for many of the basic religious questions that any of the major Reformation era catechisms made sure to address in Q&A for their children and for adult inquirers.

 

[philomath]

Thank you Darrell. You're exactly right when you say:

But that position only works if we teach our people our own confessions, and what we believe, and why we are not Catholics.

and

I know from experience in the Ozarks that too many evangelical churches have no answer at all for many of the basic religious questions that any of the major Reformation era catechisms made sure to address in Q&A for their children and for adult inquirers.

All too often you will find people in broad evangelicalism that have no clue of the actual differences between protestants and romanists. The type of folks whose heaviest complaint against the roman communion is that they use wine instead of welches. Many do not understand that there is a fundamental disagreement on The Gospel and the nature of salvation. There are fundamental disagreements in numerous areas of religion; things in which, as William Whitaker says in his A Disputation on Holy Scripture, "if one be shaken, nothing can remain sound in the whole fabric of religion".

There is also the problem of outright pelagianism in some sectors of broad evangelicalism. Places that, though they claim The Scriptures, twist them and add their man-made doctrines to them with as much fervor as rome, if not more. Of course, even though such people are in broad evangelicalism, I could not properly call them evangelicals. Putting a finneyite in the same category as The Rev. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones would be an utter falsehood and the height of slander towards the Doctor.

Ultimately, people need to be taught. Point them to The Scriptures. Point them to the major confessions and catechisms of the Reformation era. Point them to later writers who distill those things in ways that are understandable to the average person (aka people who are probably not reading much in the way of early modern english). In short, share the riches of The Reformation with romanists and broad evangelicals alike!

 

[philomath]

Resvrrection.
By John Donne

Moyst with one drop of thy blood, my dry soule
Shall (though she now be in extreme degree
Too stony hard, and yet too fleshly,) bee
Freed by that drop, from being starv'd, hard, or foule,
And life, by this death abled, shall controule
Death, whom thy death slue; nor shall to mee
Feare of first or last death, bring miserie,
If in thy little booke my name thou enroule,
Flesh in that long sleep is not putrified,
But made that there, of which, and for which 'twas;
Nor can by other meanes be glorified.
May then sinnes sleep, and deaths soone from me passe,
That wak't from both, I againe risen may
Salute the last, and everlasting day.

 

[darrellmaurina]

All too often you will find people in broad evangelicalism that have no clue of the actual differences between protestants and romanists. The type of folks whose heaviest complaint against the roman communion is that they use wine instead of welches. Many do not understand that there is a fundamental disagreement on The Gospel and the nature of salvation. There are fundamental disagreements in numerous areas of religion; things in which, as William Whitaker says in his A Disputation on Holy Scripture, "if one be shaken, nothing can remain sound in the whole fabric of religion".

There is also the problem of outright pelagianism in some sectors of broad evangelicalism. Places that, though they claim The Scriptures, twist them and add their man-made doctrines to them with as much fervor as rome, if not more. Of course, even though such people are in broad evangelicalism, I could not properly call them evangelicals. Putting a finneyite in the same category as The Rev. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones would be an utter falsehood and the height of slander towards the Doctor.

Ultimately, people need to be taught. Point them to The Scriptures. Point them to the major confessions and catechisms of the Reformation era. Point them to later writers who distill those things in ways that are understandable to the average person (aka people who are probably not reading much in the way of early modern english). In short, share the riches of The Reformation with romanists and broad evangelicals alike!

Quite welcome.

I'd add that for many broad evangelicals, their problems with Roman Catholicism are ritual and formality in worship.

As Reformed people, we need to be careful in responding to that. We believe in ordered and structured worship, but far too often, our worship services look like Methodists or Presbyterians of the 1950s -- semi-liturgical but "not as much" as the Episcopalians or Catholics, but "more than" the Baptists and Campbellites of the 1950s.

I use the Strassburg liturgy for multiple reasons, partly because it is very simple and I can defend every single item in it as taught in God's Word either by command or example, and partly because of its origins under persecution where it was used by unordained laymen as well as by ordained ministers. In my context in the Ozarks, that avoids the problems of seeking ordination via problematic approaches that might not be recognized by the broader Reformed community and follows the ACTUAL practice of the Waldensians of using laymen under persecution to run churches as pastors in all but name, occasionally (as in maybe once every few years) having a visit by an ordained man to administer the sacraments. I can easily bring in ordained Reformed men when needed for that purpose and it works better to avoid unnecessary problems.

But the main reason I use it is that it is a historic Reformed liturgy that is easily explainable and defensible to both broad evangelicals and to confessionally Reformed people. Not "high church" enough to offend Baptists and requiring explanation of WHY we do certain things which are biblically warranted, but complicated to explain, and clearly part of the Reformed tradition so explainable to confessionally Reformed people who are used to a more liturgical approach than was the practice in the early Reformation. (I'm not attacking the Dutch here, but there are REAL differences between the Dutch liturgy and the earlier practice, and also between the Dutch Reformed and the Scots Presbyterians. I can defend the Dutch approach, but it's a lot harder to do.)

I'm attaching the evening portion of our bulletin from last week so people know what I'm talking about.

 

[darrellmaurina]

There is also the problem of outright pelagianism in some sectors of broad evangelicalism. Places that, though they claim The Scriptures, twist them and add their man-made doctrines to them with as much fervor as rome, if not more. Of course, even though such people are in broad evangelicalism, I could not properly call them evangelicals. Putting a finneyite in the same category as The Rev. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones would be an utter falsehood and the height of slander towards the Doctor.

I want to respond specifically to this as well.

Lloyd-Jones is actually a great example of many things in our approach to broad evangelicals. Highly intelligent, but trained as a medical doctor, not a theologian, he's a stellar example of what a well-taught layman can do when given the tools of catechesis, confessions, and modern exegetical and apologetical literature.

I realize that in his ecclesiastical context, Lloyd-Jones, as a Welsh Calvinistic Methodist, and later a Congregationalist, opposed lay preaching on principle and believed it was essential that he give up his medical practice to become a full-time ordained pastor. I understand why. Reformed men of his era were deathly afraid of swarms of untrained men entering the pulpit and creating major problems, which is exactly what happened in the United States with the Second Great Awakening (and even earlier on the frontier with Campbellites, Methodists, and Baptists -- not the good kind like Whitefield and the Countess of Huntingdon for the Welsh Methodists, and Bunyan and Spurgeon for the Baptists, but the bad ones). The British were seriously worried, and for good reason, that lowering the standards would lead to American problems being imported into Britain.

This is one of several areas where I believe the Waldensian experience has real value to modern Reformed people. Widespread use of well-trained laymen, with a recognition that a ruling elder is the same office as a teaching elder, and encouraging people to maintain their "secular" careers, but insisting on high standards for those who teach.

Ironically, the two most common "cover stories" for Waldensian preachers, prior to the Reformation, were that they were travelling merchants or travelling medical doctors. Lloyd-Jones would have made a great Waldensian, traveling through the poor coal mining regions of Wales and bringing both the gospel and medical help to people who would look to him as a healer of bodies and of souls. Practically speaking, the Waldensian "barbes" (the term for pastors, meaning "uncle," a deliberate avoidance of the Catholics calling their priests "father") who were traveling merchants were more likely to reach the rich, while those who were medical doctors were more likely to reach the poor who had no money to afford a doctor.

Anyway, many of our problems with broad evangelicalism in its Arminian and semi-Pelagian and outright Pelagian forms are due to honest ignorance.

Giving people a catechism with deep roots in Scripture, and that CLEARLY emphasizes personal conversion, can and does work in giving them a theological framework based on clear and obvious Scripture proofs tied with salvation being all of God's grace to us weak and needy sinners.

 

[philomath]

Quite welcome.

I'd add that for many broad evangelicals, their problems with Roman Catholicism are ritual and formality in worship.

As Reformed people, we need to be careful in responding to that. We believe in ordered and structured worship, but far too often, our worship services look like Methodists or Presbyterians of the 1950s -- semi-liturgical but "not as much" as the Episcopalians or Catholics, but "more than" the Baptists and Campbellites of the 1950s.

I use the Strassburg liturgy for multiple reasons, partly because it is very simple and I can defend every single item in it as taught in God's Word either by command or example, and partly because of its origins under persecution where it was used by unordained laymen as well as by ordained ministers. In my context in the Ozarks, that avoids the problems of seeking ordination via problematic approaches that might not be recognized by the broader Reformed community and follows the ACTUAL practice of the Waldensians of using laymen under persecution to run churches as pastors in all but name, occasionally (as in maybe once every few years) having a visit by an ordained man to administer the sacraments. I can easily bring in ordained Reformed men when needed for that purpose and it works better to avoid unnecessary problems.

But the main reason I use it is that it is a historic Reformed liturgy that is easily explainable and defensible to both broad evangelicals and to confessionally Reformed people. Not "high church" enough to offend Baptists and requiring explanation of WHY we do certain things which are biblically warranted, but complicated to explain, and clearly part of the Reformed tradition so explainable to confessionally Reformed people who are used to a more liturgical approach than was the practice in the early Reformation. (I'm not attacking the Dutch here, but there are REAL differences between the Dutch liturgy and the earlier practice, and also between the Dutch Reformed and the Scots Presbyterians. I can defend the Dutch approach, but it's a lot harder to do.)

I'm attaching the evening portion of our bulletin from last week so people know what I'm talking about.

"Liturgy" and "formality" can often be boogeyman words to different broad evangelicals. One thing that always irks me is when people outright reject any type of liturgy as "too much like roman catholics".

Thanks for sharing the Liturgy you use at Hazelgreen! Different historic liturgies (espescially Reformed ones) are always interesting to me. I'll have to look into the similarities and differences between the Strassburg, Dutch, and Scots liturgies. Any resources you'd recommend on the topic?

I want to respond specifically to this as well.

Lloyd-Jones is actually a great example of many things in our approach to broad evangelicals. Highly intelligent, but trained as a medical doctor, not a theologian, he's a stellar example of what a well-taught layman can do when given the tools of catechesis, confessions, and modern exegetical and apologetical literature.

I realize that in his ecclesiastical context, Lloyd-Jones, as a Welsh Calvinistic Methodist, and later a Congregationalist, opposed lay preaching on principle and believed it was essential that he give up his medical practice to become a full-time ordained pastor. I understand why. Reformed men of his era were deathly afraid of swarms of untrained men entering the pulpit and creating major problems, which is exactly what happened in the United States with the Second Great Awakening (and even earlier on the frontier with Campbellites, Methodists, and Baptists -- not the good kind like Whitefield and the Countess of Huntingdon for the Welsh Methodists, and Bunyan and Spurgeon for the Baptists, but the bad ones). The British were seriously worried, and for good reason, that lowering the standards would lead to American problems being imported into Britain.

This is one of several areas where I believe the Waldensian experience has real value to modern Reformed people. Widespread use of well-trained laymen, with a recognition that a ruling elder is the same office as a teaching elder, and encouraging people to maintain their "secular" careers, but insisting on high standards for those who teach.

Ironically, the two most common "cover stories" for Waldensian preachers, prior to the Reformation, were that they were travelling merchants or travelling medical doctors. Lloyd-Jones would have made a great Waldensian, traveling through the poor coal mining regions of Wales and bringing both the gospel and medical help to people who would look to him as a healer of bodies and of souls. Practically speaking, the Waldensian "barbes" (the term for pastors, meaning "uncle," a deliberate avoidance of the Catholics calling their priests "father") who were traveling merchants were more likely to reach the rich, while those who were medical doctors were more likely to reach the poor who had no money to afford a doctor.

Anyway, many of our problems with broad evangelicalism in its Arminian and semi-Pelagian and outright Pelagian forms are due to honest ignorance.

Giving people a catechism with deep roots in Scripture, and that CLEARLY emphasizes personal conversion, can and does work in giving them a theological framework based on clear and obvious Scripture proofs tied with salvation being all of God's grace to us weak and needy sinners.

 

[darrellmaurina]

"Liturgy" and "formality" can often be boogeyman words to different broad evangelicals. One thing that always irks me is when people outright reject any type of liturgy as "too much like roman catholics".

Thanks for sharing the Liturgy you use at Hazelgreen! Different historic liturgies (espescially Reformed ones) are always interesting to me. I'll have to look into the similarities and differences between the Strassburg, Dutch, and Scots liturgies. Any resources you'd recommend on the topic?

Great question.

The Dutch liturgies developed in a separate context from most of the rest of the Reformed world. They would be considered "a bit odd" if it weren't for the reality that by the late 1800s to the mid-1900s, the Dutch had become the main group of Reformed people who fought off the liberals and became the leaders of the English-speaking Reformed world, and also in South Africa.

As we are seeing with Chris Coldwell's posts on @NaphtaliPress regarding Koelman and the holy days, the Dutch not only took a different stance from the rest of the Reformed world on organs and liturgy and the "Christological holy days," they were actually willing to harass and remove ministers from office who taught what would be the standard positions of conservative Reformed people in Scotland, Switzerland, and most other parts of the Reformed world, with the "Reformed Episcopal" movement in Ulster and in England being the only group more liturgical than the Dutch.

The Strassburg liturgy is part of a family of VERY early Reformed liturgies that predate Calvin in Geneva, but which Calvin and the Genevan consistory codified, and which later became known as the Genevan liturgy. It became the standard model used in most of the Continental (i.e., non-British) Reformed churches, except the Netherlands. As for Britain, the Scots were stricter than Calvin. The Episcopalians, for obvious reasons, took the opposite tack, retaining far more of the historic English liturgical practice, which actually was separate from the Roman Rite even before the Reformation, and arguably was a lot less problematic than the old Roman Rite, or the Tridentine Rite that followed it and is now the standard Roman Catholic "traditional liturgy."

This is a side point but it's important when dealing with Reformed people in heavily Roman Catholic countries. Prior to Trent, there were a number of long-accepted liturgies in the West, not just the old Roman Rite. Among the others were the Ambrosian Rite which, in its earliest form, was arguably used by St. Augustine, and the later Mozarabic Rite of Christians in Spain and parts of North Africa. I am not advocating liturgical worship or bishops, but both have a legitimate history in the Reformed world -- think Archbishops Ussher and Cranmer -- and there was a day when Reformed Episcopal people in Spain and some other Spanish-speaking countries were using the Mozarabic Rite because they knew the Roman Catholics couldn't accuse them of being "Protestant Innovators." I believe all of those rites, even the most ancient, go beyond what we can see Scripture or the Church Fathers, though I do grant that liturgical worship developed at a quite early date.

I live in a context where I have to prove to Baptists that being Reformed is biblical. I'm not going to have that discussion around here on the acceptability, or lack thereof, of ancient church liturgies.

If I were living in a heavily Roman Catholic country, I would do one of two things: 1) what I am in fact doing, namely, saying every single thing I do must be backed up by the Bible, and pointing out how different Reformed worship is from Catholic additions to the Bible, or 2) using one of the ancient liturgies and saying, "You can't accuse us of being innovators who turn worship into a circus, a rock concert, or some other form of entertainment."

I don't agree with the Anglicans. My choice is clear. I recognize that others who are Reformed have historically made different choices.

I do think the key is that we need to focus on God-centered worship.

I'd rather see "high church" worship than a rock concert with Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) that masquerades as worship when it is mostly man-centered entertainment. Not all errors are equal, and the Anglican errors, and the Dutch additions (note my use of different words), are less bad than loud drums and soloists in tight dresses screaming into microphones that Jesus is their boyfriend.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to music as entertainment. I'm Italian. I play Italian love songs for my wife, and if I had the money, which I don't, I might start a high-end Italian restaurant with jazz singers singing the traditional favorites of the Italian-American golden era. (Think Sinatra, etc.) There's a place for artistry and beauty and demonstrating one's skills in musical performance.

That place is not church.

 

[philomath]

Great question.

The Dutch liturgies developed in a separate context from most of the rest of the Reformed world. They would be considered "a bit odd" if it weren't for the reality that by the late 1800s to the mid-1900s, the Dutch had become the main group of Reformed people who fought off the liberals and became the leaders of the English-speaking Reformed world, and also in South Africa.

As we are seeing with Chris Coldwell's posts on @NaphtaliPress regarding Koelman and the holy days, the Dutch not only took a different stance from the rest of the Reformed world on organs and liturgy and the "Christological holy days," they were actually willing to harass and remove ministers from office who taught what would be the standard positions of conservative Reformed people in Scotland, Switzerland, and most other parts of the Reformed world, with the "Reformed Episcopal" movement in Ulster and in England being the only group more liturgical than the Dutch.

The Strassburg liturgy is part of a family of VERY early Reformed liturgies that predate Calvin in Geneva, but which Calvin and the Genevan consistory codified, and which later became known as the Genevan liturgy. It became the standard model used in most of the Continental (i.e., non-British) Reformed churches, except the Netherlands. As for Britain, the Scots were stricter than Calvin. The Episcopalians, for obvious reasons, took the opposite tack, retaining far more of the historic English liturgical practice, which actually was separate from the Roman Rite even before the Reformation, and arguably was a lot less problematic than the old Roman Rite, or the Tridentine Rite that followed it and is now the standard Roman Catholic "traditional liturgy."

This is a side point but it's important when dealing with Reformed people in heavily Roman Catholic countries. Prior to Trent, there were a number of long-accepted liturgies in the West, not just the old Roman Rite. Among the others were the Ambrosian Rite which, in its earliest form, was arguably used by St. Augustine, and the later Mozarabic Rite of Christians in Spain and parts of North Africa. I am not advocating liturgical worship or bishops, but both have a legitimate history in the Reformed world -- think Archbishops Ussher and Cranmer -- and there was a day when Reformed Episcopal people in Spain and some other Spanish-speaking countries were using the Mozarabic Rite because they knew the Roman Catholics couldn't accuse them of being "Protestant Innovators." I believe all of those rites, even the most ancient, go beyond what we can see Scripture or the Church Fathers, though I do grant that liturgical worship developed at a quite early date.

I live in a context where I have to prove to Baptists that being Reformed is biblical. I'm not going to have that discussion around here on the acceptability, or lack thereof, of ancient church liturgies.

If I were living in a heavily Roman Catholic country, I would do one of two things: 1) what I am in fact doing, namely, saying every single thing I do must be backed up by the Bible, and pointing out how different Reformed worship is from Catholic additions to the Bible, or 2) using one of the ancient liturgies and saying, "You can't accuse us of being innovators who turn worship into a circus, a rock concert, or some other form of entertainment."

I don't agree with the Anglicans. My choice is clear. I recognize that others who are Reformed have historically made different choices.

I do think the key is that we need to focus on God-centered worship.

I'd rather see "high church" worship than a rock concert with Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) that masquerades as worship when it is mostly man-centered entertainment. Not all errors are equal, and the Anglican errors, and the Dutch additions (note my use of different words), are less bad than loud drums and soloists in tight dresses screaming into microphones that Jesus is their boyfriend.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to music as entertainment. I'm Italian. I play Italian love songs for my wife, and if I had the money, which I don't, I might start a high-end Italian restaurant with jazz singers singing the traditional favorites of the Italian-American golden era. (Think Sinatra, etc.) There's a place for artistry and beauty and demonstrating one's skills in musical performance.

That place is not church.

Thanks for the info!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Apologies up front if I am following a rabbit trail; but I was cited in a post about liturgy is my excuse; and I'm sick still. George Gillespie opposed a 'stinted' (assigned; fixed) liturgy because among other things "(3) It quenches the Holy Spirit, because he gets no employment." On a practical note it takes away from more for the minister to do and adds to more the people do. So I think pt3 shouldn't be dismissed. See https://puritanboard.com/threads/do...ad-to-anglicanism-or-rome.79646/#post-1006462

 

[darrellmaurina]

Apologies up front if I am following a rabbit trail; but I was cited in a post about liturgy is my excuse; and I'm sick still. George Gillespie opposed a 'stinted' (assigned; fixed) liturgy because among other things "(3) It quenches the Holy Spirit, because he gets no employment." On a practical note it takes away from more for the minister to do and adds to more the people do. So I think pt3 shouldn't be dismissed. See https://puritanboard.com/threads/do...ad-to-anglicanism-or-rome.79646/#post-1006462

Not a rabbit trail at all, and I was hoping that despite your illness, you could respond on this. Thank you.

I know the major differences between the major traditions of worship within the Reformed world, but this is an area where I know the history of the modern interactions between the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians -- at least one of which led to a URC minister losing his pulpit and more or less forced into joining the OPC, not to mention the better-known case of GI Williamson being required to leave the Dutch in New Zealand because of his stricter views on worship -- better than I know the theological arguments made by the Scots Presbyterians for their views. Yes, I've read the Westminster Directory and its positions on worship, and I prefer it to the Dutch. But you've read the detailed books from the Puritan era defending the underlying theology of worship and I have not. What I have read is Dutch books defending a view of worship which I view as conceding in practice, though not in theory, to the "normative" principle of worship. That's not what the Dutch would claim and I know that, but it is what they were historically accused of doing, and it's hard for me not to sympathize with their critics.

This is an example of a case in which I prefer Dutch polity but prefer the Puritan view of worship, on which both the Presbyterians and Congregationalists largely though not entirely agreed at Westminster.

Again, thank you for commenting. I tagged you hoping you would do so.

@philomath is asking for resources on historic Reformed liturgies and you are a better person than me to give what he wants.

 

[John Nyberg]

@philomath Thank you for sharing some of your background. Definitely a good example of the importance of catechism. We ought to be zealous to provide a reformed upbringing for our little ones! I am at the sweet point of my life where my oldest two children are becoming more and more literate, we have lately been going over the Nicene creed, trying to instill the basics

Regarding Sonnet XII, it is a wonderful contemplation on the role of nature in the life of a Christian. Donne writes:

“Why brook'st thou, ignorant horse, subjection?
Why dost thou bull, and bore so seelily
Dissemble weaknesse, and by'one mans stroke die,
Whose whole kinde, you might swallow and feed upon?”

Why has God subjected the stronger to the weaker? Why is creation man’s thrall? It makes sense and is proper in the perfected garden context, but man is sinful for:

“Weaker I am, woe is mee, and worse then you,
You have not sinn'd, nor need be timorous.”

I like how Donne turns the slaughter of the bull into a metaphor with the regarding the last lines:

“But wonder at a greater wonder, for to us
Created nature doth these things subdue,
But their Creator, whom sin, nor nature tyed,
For us, his Creatures, and his foes, hath dyed.”

The greatest wonder is the Creator subjecting himself to death at the hands of his creation. Amazing grace, indeed!

 

[philomath]

@philomath Thank you for sharing some of your background. Definitely a good example of the importance of catechism. We ought to be zealous to provide a reformed upbringing for our little ones! I am at the sweet point of my life where my oldest two children are becoming more and more literate, we have lately been going over the Nicene creed, trying to instill the basics

Regarding Sonnet XII, it is a wonderful contemplation on the role of nature in the life of a Christian. Donne writes:

“Why brook'st thou, ignorant horse, subjection?
Why dost thou bull, and bore so seelily
Dissemble weaknesse, and by'one mans stroke die,
Whose whole kinde, you might swallow and feed upon?”

Why has God subjected the stronger to the weaker? Why is creation man’s thrall? It makes sense and is proper in the perfected garden context, but man is sinful for:

“Weaker I am, woe is mee, and worse then you,
You have not sinn'd, nor need be timorous.”

I like how Donne turns the slaughter of the bull into a metaphor with the regarding the last lines:

“But wonder at a greater wonder, for to us
Created nature doth these things subdue,
But their Creator, whom sin, nor nature tyed,
For us, his Creatures, and his foes, hath dyed.”

The greatest wonder is the Creator subjecting himself to death at the hands of his creation. Amazing grace, indeed!

 

[John Nyberg]

On His Blindness
by John Milton

When I consider how my light is spent,
Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my Soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide;
“Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, “God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er Land and Ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.”