Sermon on Justification in Marshall's Gospel Mystery of Sanctification

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
I am presently reading with profit Walter Marshalls 'Gospel Mystery of Sanctification'. I notice at the conclusion of the book there is a sermon on Justification. Although an important sermon, it appears to be an 'attachment' to the book rather than a natural part of his argument.

Does anyone know about the history of this sermon? Did Marshall intentionally include it as part of his argument. Or was it added after he died (I wondered if this was a possibility because the book was not actually published until twelve years after his death).
 
ChatGPT says: "Walter Marshall's sermon, "The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied," was preached in 1642 at the church of Harewood in Yorkshire, England. The sermon was later revised and published in book form in 1692, after Marshall's death, by his friend and fellow Puritan pastor, Samuel Annesley. The first edition was titled "The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification Opened, in Sundry Practical Directions."

The second edition, published later in the same year, included Marshall's original sermon on justification, as well as a preface and notes by Annesley. The title of the second edition was changed to "The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied."

The sermon was widely read and influential among Puritan and Reformed circles, and it continues to be studied and respected today as a classic exposition of the doctrine of justification by faith alone."

It was probably added, as I see the title of the book is "THE Gospel-Mystery OF SANCTIFICATION Opened in Sundry Practical Directions,
Suited especially to the Case of those who labor under the guilt and power
of Indwelling Sin. To which is added a Sermon of Justification."

EDIT: I asked the bot for evidence regarding Annesley's publishing the sermon, and it replied: "
There is strong evidence to support the claim that Samuel Annesley was responsible for publishing Walter Marshall's sermon, "The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied," in 1692.

First, in the preface to the second edition of the book, Annesley specifically states that he was responsible for revising and publishing Marshall's sermon. He writes:

"The ensuing Treatise was never designed by the Author for the Press; but the Reverend Mr. Walter Marshall being dead, and his Friends, being unwilling that so excellent a Piece should be wholly lost, they requested me to peruse his Manuscript, and prepare it for the Press."

This statement from Annesley clearly indicates that he was the one who oversaw the publication of Marshall's sermon.

Second, Annesley was a close friend and colleague of Marshall, and they shared similar theological views. Annesley was also a prominent Puritan pastor and author in his own right, and he was well equipped to handle the task of revising and publishing Marshall's sermon.

Finally, the second edition of the book includes extensive notes and commentary by Annesley, which further supports the idea that he was responsible for the publication. These notes show that Annesley was intimately familiar with the content of the sermon and had carefully considered its implications for Christian theology and practice.

Taken together, these pieces of evidence strongly suggest that Samuel Annesley was responsible for publishing Walter Marshall's sermon, "The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied," in 1692."

SECOND EDIT: I also asked for a source for the Annesley being the writer of the preface, as I could not find such in that work, to which it answered: "
In "The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context," Robert Letham discusses the historical context and theological significance of Walter Marshall's "The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied," including Samuel Annesley's involvement in the publication of the book. Here is a relevant quote from the book:

"Annesley, a prominent Presbyterian divine and father of the future Countess of Huntingdon, was responsible for publishing the work after Marshall's death. He added a preface and some notes, and made alterations to the text to ensure its accuracy. In his preface he highlighted the book's biblical character, its usefulness in the Christian life, and its relevance for contemporary controversies about justification" (Letham, 2009, p. 95)."

THIRD EDIT: I thought perhaps I could put you on the right trail, but every time I probe the bot, it changes some of the information. For instance: "
  • N. H. Keeble's entry on "Marshall, Walter (1628–1680)" in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography notes that the sermon was "probably preached in the 1670s" (Keeble, 2004).
  • In his book "The Doctrine of Justification Through Faith Alone: A History of the Doctrine," author Jonathan Bayes notes that "the sermon was preached at some point in the 1670s, probably in Marshall's own church in London" (Bayes, 2018, p. 153)."
 
Last edited:
"Walter Marshall's sermon, "The Doctrine of Justification Opened and Applied," was preached in 1642 at the church of Harewood in Yorkshire, England.

That would make Marshall 14 years old at the time...
 
The sermon was later revised and published in book form in 1692, after Marshall's death, by his friend and fellow Puritan pastor, Samuel Annesley.
First, in the preface to the second edition of the book, Annesley specifically states that he was responsible for revising and publishing Marshall's sermon. He writes:

"The ensuing Treatise was never designed by the Author for the Press; but the Reverend Mr. Walter Marshall being dead, and his Friends, being unwilling that so excellent a Piece should be wholly lost, they requested me to peruse his Manuscript, and prepare it for the Press."


I don't especially like being such a critic, but I think a warning must be given with regard to the gross misinformation that is so confidently and constantly put out by ChatGPT - as also here. It is apt to do way more harm than good, at least in endeavors like this. In addition to the impossibility of age I previously pointed out,

The 2nd edition of GMoS has nothing by Samuel Annesley. The preface there is taken directly from the 1st edition, which was written by one N. N. - who has never been identified (see the paper linked above by John). One wonders if CGPT is somehow taking the double "n" in Annesley and simply jumping to a wild conclusion. Marshall and Annesley were contemporaries, but I cannot find anything linking them as direct acquaintances. Nor can I bring up the introduction claimed by CGPT in any form or context whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
It's possible. People were not "forever children" back then.

Perhaps, technically, but the intro makes clear that the work came about after an extended period of "many years" of angst after Marshall had matriculated at Oxford. He was also a Presbyterian minister, and I seriously doubt they have ever in their history ordained a fourteen year-old.

Really, that's what you came away with in all this..?
 
Last edited:
I don't especially like being such a critic, but I think a warning must be given with regard to the gross misinformation that is so confidently and constantly put out by ChatGPT - as also here. It is apt to do way more harm than good, at least in endeavors like this. In addition to the impossibility of age I previously pointed out,

The 2nd edition of GMoS has nothing by Samuel Annesley. The preface there is taken directly from the 1st edition, which was written by one N. N. - who has never been identified (see the paper linked above by John). One wonders if CGPT is somehow taking the double "n" in Annesley and simply jumping to a wild conclusion. Marshall and Annesley were contemporaries, but I cannot find anything linking them as direct acquaintances. Nor can I bring up the introduction claimed by CGPT in any form or context whatsoever.
Point taken; I'll do it for my own interest and only post here if I can verify.
 
Point taken; I'll do it for my own interest and only post here if I can verify.

I suppose sometimes it can have value in pointing one in a certain direction, but in my experience more often than not pursuing results has turned out to be fruitless and just an awful time-sink. I am truly stunned at the blatant falsehoods and haphazard concoctions put out by CGPT. I don't think a human could even make some of it up. I've never been a conspiracy theorist, but in some cases this is so extreme that I'm starting to wonder what the real and ultimate intent behind the project really is... Also, see here
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top