This epistle was to be read to all the brethren.  Not only are the common people allowed to read the Scriptures, but it is their duty, and what they should be persuaded to do.  The Word of God should not be kept in an unknown tongue, but transplanted that, as all men are concerned to know the Scriptures, so they may all be able to read them.  The Scriptures should be read in all public congregations, for the benefit of the unlearned, especially.  We need no more to make us happy than to know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

From: Matthew Henry: Daily Readings edited by Randall J. Pederson (Fearn: Christian Heritage, 2009), entry for November 26.  Comment by Matthew Henry on 1 Thessalonians 5:23-28.

For my old friend, Alan P., who may be amused.

Letter 6

On the Presbyterians

The Anglican religion only extends to England and Ireland.  Presbyterianism is the dominant religion in Scotland.  This Presbyterianism is nothing more than pure Calvinism as it was established in France and survives in Geneva.  As the priests in this sect receive very small stipends from their churches, and so cannot live in the same luxury as bishops, they have taken the natural course of decrying honors they cannot attain.  Picture the proud Diogenes trampling underfoot the pride of Plato -  the Scottish Presbyterians are not unlike that proud and tattered reasoner.  They treated Charles II with much less respect than Diogenes had treated Alexander.  For, when they took up arms on his behalf against Cromwell, who had deceived them, they made the poor King put up with four sermons per day, they forbade him to play cards, and they sat him on the stool of repentance, with the result that Charles soon grew tired of being King of these pedants and escaped from their clutches like a schoolboy playing truant.

Compared with a young and lusty French student bawling in Theology Schools in the morning and singing with the ladies at night, an English theologian is a Cato, but this Cato looks like a gay young spark compared with a priest in Scotland.  The latter affects a solemn gait and scowling expression, wears a huge hat, a long cloak over a short jacket, preaches through his nose, and gives the name of Whore of Babylon to all churches in which a few ecclesiastics are fortunate enough to have an income of fifty thousand livres and in which the people are good enough to put up with it and call them Monsignor, Your Lordship, and Your Eminence.

These gentry, who also have a few churches in England, have brought solemn and austere airs into fashion in this country.  It is to them that we owe the sanctification of Sunday in the three kingdoms.  On that day, both work and play are forbidden, which is double the severity of Catholic churches.  There are no operas, plays, or concerts in London on Sunday.  Even cards are so expressly forbidden that only people of standing and what are called respectable people play on that day.  The rest of the nation goes to the sermon, the tavern, and the ladies of the town.

Although the Episcopal and Presbyterian sects are the two dominant ones in Great Britain, all the others are perfectly acceptable and live quite harmoniously together, whilst most of their preachers hate each other with almost as much cordiality as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.

Go into the London Stock Exchange – a more respectable place than many a court – and you will see representatives from all nations gathered together for the utility of men.  Here, Jew, Mohammedan, and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith, and only apply the word “infidel”  to people who go bankrupt.  Here, the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist and the Anglican accepts a promise from the Quaker.  On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue and others for a drink, this one goes to be baptized in a great bath in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that one has his son’s foreskin cut and has some Hebrew words he doesn’t understand mumbled over the child, others go to their church and await the inspiration of God with their hats on, and everybody is happy.

If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of despotism.  If there were two, they would cut each other’s throats.  But, there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.

From: Letters on England by Voltaire; translated from the French by Leonard Tancock (London: Penguin Books, 1980), pp. 40-41.

Voltaire (1694-1778), the pen name of Francois-Marie Arouet, was a French man of letters and a notorious (even for the France of his age) unbeliever.  Voltaire spent three years in England (1726-1729), a country with which he was favorably impressed.  On his return to France, he wrote this work (consisting of 25 letters on various subjects) – with his usual critical eye and sarcastic and ironic sense of humor – to explain to his countrymen what England was like, based on what he had seen and heard, for the purpose of making his readers understand that, at this period, England was a comparatively freer country, politically, socially, and religiously, than France was.  The book, of course, was immediately banned, thus helping to make Voltaire’s point for him.

O Lord, that lends me life/Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness!/For thou hast given me, in this beauteous face/A world of earthly blessings to my soul/If sympathy of love unite our thoughts.

From: King Henry VI, Part II, Act 1, Scene 1 by William Shakespeare.  (King Henry is thanking God for the appearance of Queen Margaret.)

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is the greatest master of the English language the world has yet seen.  He was born the year John Calvin died, and died on the same day as Miguel Cervantes, the author of the novel Don Quixote.

(Hat Tip: www.terryteachout.com)

Man Called Peter, A (1955) C-119m. ***  D: Henry Koster.  Richard Todd, Jean Peters, Marjorie Rambeau, Doris Lloyd, Emmet Lynn.  Moving account of Scotsman Peter Marshall who became clergyman and U. S. Senate chaplain; sensitively played by Todd, with fine supporting cast.  CinemaScope.

From: Leonard Maltin’s Classic Movie Guide, edited by Leonard Maltin (New York: Plume, 2005), p. 346.

Every once in an extremely rare while, Hollywood (especially back in the old days [before 1960]) was actually capable of turning out a film that did not denigrate Christianity.  This was one of those films, and is well worth your time, should you get a chance to see it.

Peter Marshall (1902-1949) is the Scottish-born American Presbyterian pastor portrayed in the film.

Look down, O Lord our God, from the throne of Thy glorious Kingdom; look down upon us and destroy us not, yea, rather deliver us from evil.  From all evil and misfortune, deliver us.  As of old time Thou didst deliver our fathers, deliver us.  In all our straits, deliver us.  From the evils of the world to come, from Thine anger, from being placed on the left hand, deliver us.  Spare us, O Lord.  Have mercy upon us.  Deliver us and never let us be confounded; for the sake of Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Redeemer.  Amen. - Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), Bishop of Chichester, afterwards of Winchester

From: Selina F. Fox, A Chain of Prayer, p. 179.

As this psalm treats of various matters, it is difficult to give an epitome of its contents.  There are, however, two things which the prophet mainly aims at: the exhorting of the children of God to follow godliness and a holy life, and the prescribing of the rule and pointing out the form of the true worship of God so that the faithful may devote themselves wholly to the study of the Law.  Along with these, he frequently blends promises for the purpose of animating the worshippers of God to live more justly and piously and, at the same time, he introduces complaints respecting the impious contempt of the Law, lest they should become tainted by bad examples.  In short, he frequently passes from one topic to another, and prosecutes no one particular subject continuously and, therefore, it will be best to discuss each subject in its proper place.

From: John Calvin’s (1509-1564) introduction to his commentary on Psalm 119.

Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.  (Ruth 4:18-22)

So, Ruth, who was Boaz’s husband, was David’s great-grandmother.

Now, it is not, at all, easy to regard the New Testament as a New Testament.  It is not, at all, easy to regard the good news as new.  Both for good and evil, familiarity fills us with assumptions and associations, and no man of our civilization, whatever he thinks of our religion, can really read the thing as if he had never heard of it before.  Of course, it is, in any case, utterly unhistorical to talk as if the New Testament was a neatly bound book that had fallen from heaven.  It is, simply, the selection, made by the authority of the church, from a mass of early Christian literature.  But, apart from any such question, there is a psychological difficulty in feeling the New Testament as new.  There is a psychological difficulty in seeing those well-known words simply as they stand and without going beyond what they intrinsically stand for.  And this difficulty must, indeed, be very great, for the result of it is very curious.  The result of it is that most modern critics and most current criticism, even popular criticism, makes a comment that is the exact reverse of the truth.  It is so completely the reverse of the truth that one could almost suspect that they had never read the New Testament at all.

From: The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton; reprint (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993 [1925]), pp. 186-187.

5.  Doth not behave itself unseemly.  Erasmus renders it – “Is not disdainful;” but, as he quotes no author in support of this interpretation, I have preferred to retain its proper and usual signification.  I explain it, however, in this way – that love does not exult in a foolish ostentation, or does not bluster, but observes moderation and propriety.  And, in this manner, he again reproves the Corinthians indirectly, because they shamefully set at nought all propriety by an unseemly haughtiness.

From: The Commentaries of John Calvin on the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians by John Calvin.  Comment on 1 Corinthians 13:5a.  First published, in French, in 1546.

Reduced to its simplest terms, the existence of love in a human being means that the eye of the spirit has opened to the sunshine of good.  A man has seen that which is good and, seeing it, has delighted in it.  His delight is acceptance, and what is accepted is a gift; he must ask who is the giver and why should anything have been given to him.  The only answer to that question is love.  He sees that the gift of good can be nothing but the expression of love, and that love itself is greater than any or all of the gifts in which its activity is displayed.  If greater, then more to be desired; and, if he can desire, above all things, the gift of love, if he can truly cast out of his heart all that is contrary to love, then love will be given to him, and he will have power to return it to the giver.  In such fruition of a supreme good there is supreme delight, and the delight itself is radiant, “diffusive of itself,” creative.

From: Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (The Hulsean Lectures for 1938) by John Burnaby (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), p. 310.

John Burnaby (1892-1978) was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.  Henry Chadwick (1920-2008), the translator of Augustine’s Confessions (1991), was of the opinion that Burnaby’s book is, still, the best intellectual biography of Augustine in print.