Bible Secrets Revealed? A Response to the New History Channel Series (Part 1)

By Michael J. Kruger 11/19/2013

     This past week, the History Channel premiered a new series on the Bible entitled, Bible Secrets Revealed. The first full episode was called Lost in Translation.

     Now, let me say that I really do enjoy documentaries on the Bible. They are usually done with very high quality, contain interviews of some of the world’s top scholars, and often raising intriguing and important questions. But, there are also dangers. Such documentaries run the risk of being overly sensationalistic, one-sided, and ultimately misleading.

     Unfortunately, this new documentary from the History Channel tends to falter at precisely these points. While there are many positives – great production quality and intriguing content – this documentary quickly spins itself into some problem areas.

     Thus, I am starting a new series here on my blog where I will review each new episode of Bible Secrets Revealed as it comes out. In regard to the first episode, Lost in Transmission, it is marked by the following characteristics.

     1. Sensationalistic. Everybody loves a good conspiracy. It is built-in to the human (and particularly American) psyche. We love the idea that the truth has been suppressed for generations only to now be uncovered.

     Unfortunately, the title of this new series feeds this conspiracy craving in all of us, and gives a sensationalistic feel to the whole enterprise. Bible Secrets Revealed. Really? This title implies that secrets have been kept from an unsuspecting public for two millennia (presumably by the church or other Christian leaders), only now to be graciously exposed by these noble scholars. Conclusion: you can trust secular scholars but not the church (or the Bible).

     The sensationalism continues with overstated claims about the issues being “revealed” in this documentary. The narrator claims (with dramatic music in the background):

     Now for the first time, an extraordinary series will challenge everything we think, everything we know, and everything we believe about the Bible.

     To be sure, this documentary is decidedly not doing anything “for the first time,” but I suppose such claims are part of how such documentaries are promoted and sold. Moreover, it should be noted that when it says it will challenge what “we” believe about the Bible, what it really means it will challenge what evangelicals believe about the Bible. No liberal views are being challenged in this series (at least so far). Which leads to the next observation…

     2. One-sided. This sensationalistic impulse naturally leads a documentary to want to prove that the traditional view is mistaken (after all, the traditional view is rather boring and unexciting). Thus, we are not surprised when we quickly realize that this documentary will not even be trying to present a balanced perspective. It is decidedly geared to disprove the Bible.

     This direction is clear from the opening description of the series. The narrator states:

     For centuries, men and women have argued over [the Bible’s] meanings, its lessons, and its historical accuracy. But, has the Bible been translated, edited, and even censored so many times, that its original stories have been compromised by time?

     This is followed by a litany of scholarly quotes (again, with dramatic music in the background) that say the Bible cannot be trusted. Bart Ehrman states, “There are human fingerprints all over [the Bible].” Another scholar says, “It is very dangerous to use the Bible as a proof text for anything.” Elaine Pagels says, “We really don’t know who the people are who put the New Testament together.”

     Does this sound like a video that is trying to present both sides?

     Of course, a video series is not obligated to present both sides, one might argue. Why are they not free to argue for their position? Fair enough. The problem is that the video expressly states to be presenting multiple views! The caveat offered at the very start of the video is:

     This program explores the mysteries of the Bible from a variety of historical and theological perspectives.

     A variety of historical and theological perspectives? One finds this difficult to believe. Almost every view represented in this first video (with a couple of exceptions) is clearly designed to undercut the Bible’s credibility.

     3. Over-stated Historical Claims. Time and time again, this opening installment in this new video series makes historical claims that are partially true, but also a bit misleading. I cannot mention all of these, but here are a few:

     As it pertains to the authorship of the four gospels, the video quotes scholars as absolutely certain that none of these were eyewitnesses. For instance, Candida Moss declares, “We have four gospels written by four different authors, written decades, maybe as long as a century after [Jesus] died, and none of these authors actually met Jesus.” But, this is a level of certainty that is not warranted by the evidence. She offers no indication that there is any scholarly debate about this (and there is), nor does she suggest there is any positive evidence for the traditional authorship of the gospels (and there is).

     As another example, Elaine Pagels declares, “We had Christianity for three-hundred years before we had a New Testament.” But, this is only partially true at best, and downright misleading at worst. Sure, the edges of the canon were not solidified until probably the fourth century, but the core of the canon (around 22 out of 27 books) was fairly well-established by the mid/late second century. Irenaeus, for example, was keen to use these books and to use them as Scripture. On a functional level, he did in fact have a New Testament.

     Incredibly, this documentary then trots out the Constantine-made-the-Bible argument, implying that he used his political power to makes sure the right stories were chosen. However, this absolutely zero evidence that Constantine had any influence/control over the canon of Scripture. This is more of a Dan Brown-Da Vinci Code style argument, than a historical one.

     Mention is made of the long ending of  Mark ( 16:9-20 ) as evidence that Christians made up the resurrection because of  Mark’s shorter ending. But, the documentary shows no awareness that there is good evidence that the long ending of  Mark is actually drawing upon resurrection accounts in the other three gospels (see Kelhoffer’s works), thus showing that the idea of Jesus’ resurrection was not made up due to  Mark’s truncated ending.

     There are more examples that could be added, but this is sufficient to show that this video over-reaches at a number of points when it comes to the historical facts.  Unfortunately, the average viewer, whom videos like this are targeted to reach, would have no basis for knowing this.

Click here to go to source

Bible Secrets Revealed?: A Response to the New History Channel Series (Part 2)

By Michael J. Kruger 11/27/2013

     On a positive note, let me say from the beginning that the accuracy and balance of this latest episode is a substantive improvement over the debut episode. There are even interviews with scholars who disagreed with one another, rather than all sharing the same view.

     That said, there are still a number of places where the documentary makes some claims that are problematic. Let me just mention a few.

     1. God-ordained Genocide? Not surprisingly, the documentary observes the violence in the modern day “holy land” and looks for something to blame. The answer is not surprising: the Bible is to blame. The Bible records God’s command that Israel destroy all the peoples living in the land. Thus, God himself creates a culture of violence in the holy land.

     Of course, this sort of objection against the Bible is not a new one. But, no attempt is made to provide a more balanced perspective. It should be observed that there is no universal command in the Bible for Jews/Christians to go around killing people. Rather, in the conquest of Canaan, God used the Israelite army as agents of his holy judgment. God judges people throughout all the Bible and uses a variety of means (plague, famine, fire from heaven, etc.). Human armies are just another one of those means.

     One might object that the people of Canaan were peaceful and innocent and did not deserve God’s judgment. But, at least according to the biblical rationale itself, all people are deserving God’s judgment (cf.  Rom 3:1-20 ). Moreover, there are good reasons to think that the Canaanite religions were quite wicked, even committed to child sacrifice (cf.  Lev 18:21).

     2. Israelite Exodus Made-Up? Secondly, the documentary goes out of its way to cast doubt on the historical authenticity of the Exodus, arguing that we should be able to find physical/archaeological remains of this event and we do not. It then concludes, “The problem is that our faith tells us one thing and that the facts and evidence tell us something else.”

     But, this whole conclusion is built entirely on an argument from silence. The mere fact that we haven’t found physical evidence of Israel’s desert wanderings is meaningless given how many hundreds of miles of desert we are talking about and the corollary likelihood that such artifacts would be deeply buried.

     Moreover, it should also be observed that we have no physical evidence for the vast majority of historical events. We are aware of most events simply through written historical records. If we affirmed only historical events corroborated by positive physical evidence, we would have very little history left.

     Thankfully, the documentary does interview some evangelical scholars that raise some of these same concerns.

     3. Crusading Christians as the Aggressors? No documentary on the holy land would be complete without trotting out the standard laundry list of Christian atrocities during the Crusades. Now, let it be said that many aspects of these Christian holy wars were downright wrong. No argument there. But, to portray Christians as the militant aggressors against innocent, peaceful Muslims is only a half-truth. For more on this point, see Rodney Stark’s book, God’s Battalions.

     These three misrepresentations combine to serve a larger narrative, namely that Jews/Christians have no real claim on the Holy Land because the Exodus is a myth, and, more than that, the violence in the modern day Holy Land is due to the violent and aggressive teachings of the Bible. And glaringly absent in all of these discussions is any reference to (or condemnation of) Muslim violence in the Holy Land, historically or in the present, or any discussion of similar themed passages in the Koran.

     The payoff of this narrative is clear. If we are to have real peace in the holy land, we need to move away from and beyond our religious commitments (particularly Christian ones). Religious commitments are the problem, not the solution.

     Or, so we are told.

Click here to go to source

Bible Secrets Revealed?: A Response to the New History Channel Series (Part 3)

By Michael J. Kruger 12/06/2013

     This is the third installment of a new series reviewing the History Channel series entitled Bible Secrets Revealed (for others, see here and here). The newest episode is entitled, “The Forbidden Scriptures,” as is definitely one of the most provocative so far. It is designed to argue that certain books were “banned” or “forbidden” from the New Testament.

     This episode makes numerous claims about the development of the New Testament that, once again, prove not to be the whole story. Many such claims were made, but I will only mention a few of the key ones here.

     1. Was the canon just a power-play? This episode repeats the standard narrative that the canon was chosen by men with an agenda trying to preserve the power of the church. The canon is just about politics, we are told.

     Kathleen McGowan makes this point in the video: “There were a group of men with specific agendas determining what would and what would not become canon. And this agenda was about preserving the power of the church.”

     But, there are problems with this sort of claim. One major problem is that there was no unified political or ecclesiastical infrastructures during the first centuries that could have accomplished such a feat. The church had no real political power until Constantine in the fourth century. And, the ecclesiastical structure of the church was quite undeveloped in the earliest stages. Even if a group wanted to force their books on others, it would have been difficult to pull such a thing off.

     What is remarkable is that despite this lack of infrastructure, the church did seemed to have a “core” canon of books that they agreed upon by the middle of the second century. Thus, in the earliest phases of the church there are appears to be a canon of sorts that is decidedly NOT the result of politics.

     There are also problems with referring to apocryphal books as “left out” or “banned”. While such terminology adds to the dramatic nature of the documentary, it is inherently misleading. Such books were not “left out” because they were never “in” to begin with. Take the Gospel of Thomas as an example. It was not “banned” from the canon because it was never a real contender in the first place. It never makes it into any canonical list anywhere. Indeed, when Thomas was mentioned by the church fathers it was most often done to condemn it!

     It should also be observed that Kathleen McGowan is not even a biblical scholar. She is not a professor and has no advanced degrees in biblical studies (not sure she has any degrees in biblical studies). On the contrary, she is a popular novelist committed to discovering the “divine feminine” and believes she is descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

     Why in the world is she being presented as an expert on the NT canon? This raises series questions about the credibility of the History Channel in my opinion. But, the next point may provide an explanation.

     2. Was Mary Magdalene an apostle? Next, the documentary turns to the Gospel of Mary in order to present Mary Magdalene as having the same level of authority as the twelve and to present Jesus as the first feminist. It is then suggested that the the authors of the canonical gospels “suppressed” this story of Mary in order to protect male authority in the church.

     Aside from the fact that this sounds a lot like Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, there are serious historical problems here. For one, there are very few reasons (if any) to think that the Gospel of Mary is representative of authentic Jesus tradition. It is clearly a second-century composition with no credible claim to be an eyewitness account, has been substantially influenced by the canonical Gospels, and is evidently a further development of traditional canonical material. Even Christophter Tuckett declares, “It seems likely that the Gospel of Mary is primarily a witness to the later, developing tradition generated by these [canonical] texts and does not provide independent witness to early Jesus tradition itself.”

     As a result, the Gospel of Mary was so removed from the flow of early Christianity that it was never mentioned by any church father — not in their discussions of canon, nor even in their discussions of apocryphal gospels. Indeed, we would not have known of the gospel if not for the original manuscript discovery at the end of the nineteenth century. Thus we are hard pressed to think that this gospel represents a wide-spread and popular way of thinking in early Christianity.

     3. Was God Married? The documentary appeals to a single inscription found in Egypt where Yahweh is mentioned along with his “Asherah,” presumably referring to the goddess of fertility. The conclusion from this evidence is that the original Israelite religion had a belief in a goddess who is equal in power to Yahweh and then this was purged out later.

     It is at this point that the documentary reaches an all time low. No recognition is given to the fact that this is just a single, obscure inscription that stands over against mountains of evidence that ancient Israel was monotheistic and actually condemned the Asherahs. Moreover, the documentary provides zero textual evidence that the Old Testament text as been “purged” or “edited” in regard to goddess worship. This single inscription is being used to reach outrageous and unwarranted conclusions about the nature of early Israelite religion.

     The simple point is this: There is zero reason to think this inscription is representative of early Israelite beliefs. More likely, it is simply representative of the belief of the single author who wrote it.

     In the end, we are again left with a very disappointing episode. Yes, it was entertaining. It was certainly provocative. Unfortunately, it is simply not not historically accurate. For a History Channel production, that proves to be sadly ironic.

Click here to go to source

Jesus and Logical Fallacies: The False Dilemma

By Lenny Esposito 01/14/15

     There have been many times where I've been speaking to a non-believer who tells me that he would rather place his trust in science and reason than in faith. Versions of this include "facts rather than religion" or "knowledge over ancient belief."

     Such objections are certainly not uncommon today, even though they are completely illogical. Each one exercises a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A false dilemma tries to limit one's choice between only two options when there may be more options available. To use a popular example, imagine a man on trial. As he sits in the witness stand, the prosecutor comes to him and asks, "Is this the first time you've beaten your wife, yes or no?" Of course, either answer to such a question immediately incriminated the man. The third choice of "I have never beaten my wife" is never offered by the prosecutor, which sets the defendant up with only two options, each of which places him in a bad light.

     Why Faith Versus Reason is a False Dilemma

     In the objections above, the ideas of faith, religion, and belief are all positioned as incompatible with science, facts, and knowledge. But the assumption that these are incompatible is itself not true. For example, the multiverse theory is based on certain mathematical beliefs and assumptions. There exists no observational data for other universes, nor will there be given that our universe is a closed system. Therefore, scientists who hold to the multiverse theory are doing so based on certain beliefs and a faith in the models they have constructed. Does that disqualify the multiverse theory from being classified as science? Will those skeptics disavow it because they would rather place their trust in reason? Of course not.

     Similarly, Christianity is based on certain facts, such as Jesus' resurrection from the dead, based on the historical accounts. Christians use arguments to show that the existence of God is a reasonable position to hold. Reason and evidence are the foundation of Christianity, which just like the multiverse model shows that faith and reason are not exclusive but work in concert.

Taking Back Christianese #6: “All Sins Are Equal in God’s Sight”

By Michael J. Kruger 12/13/2013

     This is the fourth installment of a new series reviewing the History Channel series entitled Bible Secrets Revealed. The newest episode is entitled, “The Real Jesus,” and addresses the question of what we can know about the historical Jesus.

     Not surprisingly, the tenor of this latest episode is the same as the other episodes, namely that the accounts of the Bible (in this case, the Gospels) cannot be trusted. This documentary catalogs a number of places where (it claims) the Gospels are simply mistaken. Let’s run through some issues that are raised.

     1. The Virgin Birth. Almost from the start, the documentary brings up the issue of Jesus’ birth and whether he was really born of a virgin. In particular it makes the observation that the virgin birth was only recorded in  Matthew and  Luke’s gospel. If it really happened, wouldn’t it have been included in the other gospels?

     But, this whole line of reasoning is fallacious. First, there are all kinds of events that some gospels record and others do not. That is the nature of historical records – they are inevitably limited and selective. So, the lack of mention by  Mark and  John means nothing.

     But, more than this, the documentary fails to mention that  Mark and  John don’t even have birth accounts! They just don’t tell that part of Jesus’ story. Thus, it is hardly surprising they wouldn’t mention the fact that his birth was of a virgin, when they don’t really mention his birth at all.

     2. The Gnostic Gospels. The narrator mentions the discovery of the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” at Nag Hammadi, Egypt (the most famous of which is Thomas). In an effort to present these gospels are more historically credible than the canonical gospels, he then claims that these manuscripts are older than the oldest copies of the New Testament.

     The problem with this claim is that it is patently false. These manuscripts, written in Coptic, date mostly to the fourth and fifth centuries, whereas we have NT manuscripts from as early as the second century. Once again, one wonders about the historical accuracy of the Historical Channel when mistakes like this are made – mistakes that just happen to be in favor of the more radical version of the historical Jesus.

     3. Teachings of Jesus. At one point the narrator says that we cannot be sure of much regarding Jesus, but we can be sure that he taught ” a profound religious philosophy,” namely he taught about the “divine nature of mankind.”

     What?

     Anyone who has read the canonical gospels knows that Jesus did  NOT in fact teach the humans were divine or that they had the divine inside of them. On the contrary, Jesus often made such claims about himself as the unique, divine son of God.

     If one wants to find a gospel that teaches that we are all divine, then the Gospel of Thomas is the place to turn. Unfortunately, the documentary is once again profoundly mistaken about the nature of the canonical gospels.

     The documentary also works very hard to portray Jesus as a just a spiritual leader working toward the goal of social equality. Jesus is more Martin Luther King than he is son of God. However, no real attention is given to Jesus’ own claims about himself throughout the gospels; claims which simply do not fit with someone only interested in social reform.

     4. Mary Magdalene. Once again, the documentary makes the suggestion that Jesus had a special relationship with Mary and was probably even married to him.

     The problem of course, is that that historical evidence for this claim is so very thin, that even Bart Ehrman argues against it in the documentary. This reveals how very tendentious this claim actually is. When Ehrman is taking the more conservative position, then you know the evidence for the other view must really be lacking.

     5. The Resurrection. Not surprisingly, this episode ends by casting doubt on the resurrection itself. However, I was disappointed by the trite (even flippant) alternative explanations given for the empty tomb. They are just not sufficient to explain the early Christian belief in the resurrection.

     For example, James Tabor argues that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning because Jesus’ followers had simply moved his body to a more permanent location. In other words, the resurrection is explained as just a big misunderstanding.

     But, Tabor leaves a number of important factors unexplained. For one, which of the followers of Jesus would have moved the body? The disciples were hiding, fearing for their lives. The women were coming to anoint him and the body was already gone when they arrived. If Joseph of Arimathea had moved the body, this is surely not something he would have hidden from the disciples. Moreover, how does this account for the resurrection appearances? This explanation simply fails to convince.

     Ehrman argues that the followers of Jesus just began to think they saw him alive and this explains the rapid spread of the resurrection idea. But, this implies the disciples were prone or inclined to see Jesus alive after his death. All evidence is to the contrary. His followers were so crushed by his death that they didn’t recognize him when he was standing right in front of them (e.g., disciples on the road to Emmaus, Mary at the tomb).

     In sum, this episode once again is a mixed bag. It raises a number of intriguing and important questions about Jesus as a historical figure. But, unfortunately, all the “answers” are given with the same objective in mind, namely to undermine the validity of the canonical gospels regarding the person of Jesus.

Click here to go to source

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 141

5 Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness;
let him rebuke me—it is oil for my head;
let my head not refuse it.
Yet my prayer is continually against their evil deeds.
6 When their judges are thrown over the cliff,
then they shall hear my words, for they are pleasant.
7 As when one plows and breaks up the earth,
so shall our bones be scattered at the mouth of Sheol.

The Holy Bible: ESV Reformation Study Bible, Condensed Edition (2017) - Black, Genuine Leather. (2016). (ESV). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Bible Secrets Revealed?: A Response to the New History Channel Series (Part 5)

By Michael J. Kruger 01/06/2014

     This is the fifth installment of a series of posts reviewing the new History Channel series entitled Bible Secrets Revealed.

     The latest episode is entitled, “Mysterious Prophecies,” and examines the role of prophets in the history of Israel and the Church. Did these prophets really predict the future? Were the prophecies true? In particular, the documentary focuses on the prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah.

     This episode raised a number of intriguing issues and was more balanced than some of the prior ones. But, there are still some claims that need to be challenged.

     1. Did the followers of Jesus misuse OT prophecies? Bart Ehrman and other scholars claim in this documentary that the earliest followers of Jesus simply looked into the OT in a desperate attempt to find something that could point to Jesus. Thus, the were just retroactively imposing their own messianic understanding onto OT passages that were never intended to be read this way.

     Now, there is an element of truth in this reconstruction. It is certainly true that the earliest followers of Jesus saw OT passages in a fresh, new way that they never had before. They looked at the OT with a Christo-centric lens and made connections and links that they otherwise might not have made.

     But, this does not mean their understanding of the OT was invalid. The coming of Jesus opened up all sorts of new understandings of the OT – and there is nothing scandalous about this. Moreover, it should be remembered that these messianic interpretations of the OT were not just due to the later disciples, but were initiated by Jesus himself who often claimed to be fulfilling the OT (e.g.,  Luke 4:21; 24:46 ), and even opened up the OT to his disciples in a fresh way ( Luke 24:45 ).

     2. Are promises of eternal life made up just to reduce present-day suffering? The documentary presents the prophetic passages of the Bible, particularly the ones that promise reward and eternal life, as merely a psychological move to alleviate people’s suffering in the present. These texts are not really prophecies, but a way to address people’s most basic need, namely to have hope in the midst of turbulent times.

     The problem with this argument is that it confuses the result of these prophecies with the cause of these prophecies. The fact that prophecies may result in giving people hope in the midst of suffering, is not an adequate argument to prove that the prophecies are themselves caused by people’s need for hope. Indeed, this argument is dangerously close to Karl Marx’s maxim, “Religion is the opium of the masses.” A skeptic is free to have this opinion about religion, but that cannot be substituted for an actual argument.

     3. Was the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius the motivation for the book of  Revelation? One of the strangest suggestion of this documentary is that the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D. was the impetus for John to write the book of  Revelation. However, there is virtually no compelling evidence for this connection. Sure,  Revelation refers to cataclysmic activities, but there is no reason in the text to think that John is referring to a volcanic eruption in his own day. Rather, he is drawing on cataclysmic imagery from the Old Testament in books like  Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and  Isaiah. In other words, the main influence on John’s writing is not the present but the past – he is influenced by the writings of Scripture.

     4. Does  1 Thess 4:16-17 teach that there will be a “rapture”? Curiously, a number of the scholars in this documentary argue that  1 Thess 4:16-17 teaches a “rapture,” namely that Jesus will come back and gather his people to him in heaven. Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman argue that this “rapture” contradicts the book of  Revelation which teaches that Jesus will not bring his people back to heaven but instead will bring a new heavens and a new earth, destroying his enemies at the same time.

     However, it is not at all clear that  1 Thess 4:16-17 teaches a “rapture” where people are taken back up into heaven. In fact, the text nowhere mentions going back to heaven. Instead, it says that Jesus will “descend from heaven.” Yes, the saints will “meet the Lord in the air” (v. 17 ), but this is not Christ taking his saints back to heaven, but rather it is Christ gathering his elect to himself as he descends to bring final judgment. Thus, there is no contradiction between  1 Thess 4:16-17 and the book of  Revelation.

     In the end, this particular episode of Bible Secrets Revealed is marked by a pretty consistent theme, namely an attempt to find a naturalistic explanation for the Bible’s supernatural claims. OT prophecies, we are told, don’t really predict Christ; they are just texts which are manipulated by early Christians. Promises of eternal life, we are told, cannot really be trusted; these are just made up in order to placate the masses in the midst of their sufferings. The trials and tribulations of  Revelation, we are told, are not really going to happen; they are just the musings of a primitive man (John) who was frightened by a volcanic eruption.

     The problem, of course, is that it is not at all clear that these naturalistic explanations are superior to the supernatural ones. They are only persuasive to those who already hold to a naturalistic worldview from the start.

Click here to go to source

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     Chapter 17.

     Use To Bb Made Of The Doctrine Of Providence.

     This chapter may be conveniently divided into two parts:--I. A general explanation is given of the doctrine of Divine Providence, in so far as conducive to the solid instruction and consolation of the godly, sect. 1, and specially sect. 2-12. First, however, those are refuted who deny that the world is governed by the secret and incomprehensible counsel of God; those also who throw the blame of all wickedness upon God, and absurdly pretend that exercises of piety are useless, sect. 2-5. Thereafter is added a holy meditation on Divine Providence, which, in the case of prosperity, is painted to the life, sect. 6-11.

     II. A solution of two objections from passages of Scripture, which attribute repentance to God, and speak of something like an abrogation of his decrees.

     Sections.

     1. Summary of the doctrine of Divine Providence. 1. It embraces the future and the past. 2. It works by means, without means, and against means. 3. Mankind, and particularly the Church, the object of special care. 4. The mode of administration usually secret, but always just. This last point more fully considered.

     2. The profane denial that the world is governed by the secret counsel of God, refuted by passages of Scripture. Salutary counsel.

     3. This doctrine, as to the secret counsel of God in the government of the world, gives no countenance either to the impiety of those who throw the blame of their wickedness upon God, the petulance of those who reject means, or the error of those who neglect the duties of religion.

     4. As regards future events, the doctrine of Divine Providence not inconsistent with deliberation on the part of man.

     5. In regard to past events, it is absurd to argue that crimes ought not to be punished, because they are in accordance with the divine decrees. 1. The wicked resist the declared will of God. 2. They are condemned by conscience. 3. The essence and guilt of the crime is in themselves, though God uses them as instruments.

     6. A holy meditation on Divine Providence. 1. All events happen by the ordination of God. 2. All things contribute to the advantage of the godly. 3. The hearts of men and all their endeavours are in the hand of God. 4. Providence watches for the safety of the righteous. 5. God has a special care of his elect.

     7. Meditation on Providence continued. 6. God in various ways curbs and defeats the enemies of the Church. 7. He overrules all creatures, even Satan himself, for the good of his people.

     8. Meditation on Providence continued. 8. He trains the godly to patience and moderation. Examples. Joseph, Job, and David. 9. He shakes off their lethargy, and urges them to repentance.

     9. Meditation continued. 10. The right use of inferior causes explained. 11. When the godly become negligent or imprudent in the discharge of duty, Providence reminds them of their fault. 12. It condemns the iniquities of the wicked. 13. It produces a right consideration of the future, rendering the servants of God prudent, diligent, and active. 14. It causes them to resign themselves to the wisdom and omnipotence of God, and, at the same time, makes them diligent in their calling.

     10. Meditation continued. 15. Though human life is beset with innumerable evils, the righteous, trusting to Divine Providence, feel perfectly secure.

     11. The use of the foregoing meditation.

     12. The second part of the chapter, disposing of two objections. 1. That Scripture represents God as changing his purpose, or repenting, and that, therefore, his Providence is not fixed. Answer to this first objection. Proof from Scripture that God cannot repent.

     13. Why repentance attributed to God.

     14. Second objection, that Scripture speaks of an annulment of the divine decrees. Objection answered. Answer confirmed by an example.

     1. Moreover, such is the proneness of the human mind to indulge in vain subtleties, that it becomes almost impossible for those who do not see the sound and proper use of this doctrine, to avoid entangling themselves in perplexing difficulties. It will, therefore, be proper here to advert to the end which Scripture has in view in teaching that all things are divinely ordained. And it is to be observed, first, that the Providence of God is to be considered with reference both to the past and the future; and, secondly, that in overruling all things, it works at one time with means, at another without means, and at another against means. Lastly, the design of God is to show that He takes care of the whole human race, but is especially vigilant in governing the Church, which he favours with a closer inspection. Moreover, we must add, that although the paternal favour and beneficence, as well as the judicial severity of God, is often conspicuous in the whole course of his Providence, yet occasionally as the causes of events are concealed, the thought is apt to rise, that human affairs are whirled about by the blind impulse of Fortune, or our carnal nature inclines us to speak as if God were amusing himself by tossing men up and down like balls. It is true, indeed, that if with sedate and quiet minds we were disposed to learn, the issue would at length make it manifest, that the counsel of God was in accordance with the highest reason, that his purpose was either to train his people to patience, correct their depraved affections, tame their wantonness, inure them to self-denial, and arouse them from torpor; or, on the other hand, to cast down the proud, defeat the craftiness of the ungodly, and frustrate all their schemes. How much soever causes may escape our notice, we must feel assured that they are deposited with him, and accordingly exclaim with David, "Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered," (Ps. 40:5). For while our adversities ought always to remind us of our sins, that the punishment may incline us to repentance, we see, moreover, how Christ declares there is something more in the secret counsel of his Father than to chastise every one as he deserves. For he says of the man who was born blind, "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him," (John 9:3). Here, where calamity takes precedence even of birth, our carnal sense murmurs as if God were unmerciful in thus afflicting those who have not offended. But Christ declares that, provided we had eyes clear enough, we should perceive that in this spectacle the glory of his Father is brightly displayed. We must use modesty, not as it were compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden Judgments as to account his will the best of all reasons. [134] When the sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way, when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging, we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to pass a precipitate Judgment on things unknown, and that with greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose rather to suspend our Judgment than incur the blame of rashness, while we petulantly insult the hidden Judgments of God, Judgments which it becomes us to look up to and revere.

     2. No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the providence of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his own Maker, and the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the humility which becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves. With what petulance, too, are we assailed for not being contented with the precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is comprehended, and for maintaining that the world is governed by his secret counsels? As if our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of expression! Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us. But if they refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to what effect Scripture declares, that "his Judgments are a great deep," (Ps. 36:7). For when Moses exclaims that the will of God "is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?" (Deut. 30:12, 13), because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that there must be another hidden will which is compared to " a great deep." It is of this will Paul exclaims, "O! the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:33, 34). It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a deep, but a path in which they can walk safely--a lamp to guide their feet--a light of life--a school of clear and certain truth. But the admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep, because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored. Both views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. "Secret things," saith he, "belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever," (Deut. 29:29). We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to meditate on the law, but to look up with reverence to the secret Providence of God. The Book of Job also, in order to keep our minds humble, contains a description of this lofty theme. The author of the Book, after taking an ample survey of the universe, and discoursing magnificently on the works of God, at length adds, "Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him?" (Job 26:14). For which reason he, in another passage, distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man (Job 28:21, 28). After discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom "is hid from the eyes of all living;" that "God understandeth the way thereof." Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it might be investigated; for "unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom." To this the words of Augustine refer, "As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable," (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27). Therefore, since God claims to himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things,--not that absolute will, indeed, of which sophists prate, when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate his justice from his power, but that universal overruling Providence from which nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof may be concealed. [135]

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Perfect Gift – A Homily for the Third Sunday of Advent

By Msgr. Charles Pope 12/10/2016

     What is the perfect gift? We tend to answer this question more in terms of what we want, but today’s Gospel teaches us that the perfect gift is what God is offering. One of the goals of the spiritual journey is to come to value, more than our latest desire, more than our perceived need—more than all else—what God offers.

     In reviewing today’s Gospel, I am going to take a stance regarding St. John the Baptist that I realize is not without controversy. The Gospel opens with John (who is in prison) sending his disciples to Jesus with a strange question: “Are you he who is to come, or should we look for another?” This is a strange question coming from the one who pointed Jesus out and spoke so powerfully of Him!

     Many of the Fathers of the Church (e.g., John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Theodore of Mopsuestia) interpreted John’s question as a rhetorical one, designed to teach his reluctant disciples to follow Jesus.

     I, however, would like to present a different interpretation: that John’s question is a sincere one, and manifests some puzzlement—even discouragement.

     While some will take offense no matter how many disclaimers I provide, I still insist that I mean no impiety in my interpretation. It is a common biblical stance that even the greatest scriptural heroes are presented in very human terms. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, the judges and prophets, on down to the Apostles are all depicted as humans who are imperfect from the start, who struggle to understand and have perfect faith. Some of them committed great sins—even including murder. One of the most powerful themes of the Bible is that God is able to work with imperfect, struggling human beings and draw them to great sanctity and great accomplishments.

Click here to go to source

Relativity, Relativism, and the Modern Age

By Albert Mohler 11/01/2016

     The intellectual revolution that is shaping American culture began in some sense with four lectures presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in late 1915. The lectures were given by Albert Einstein, who before the end of the year would publish his argument for a general theory of relativity. Those lectures launched an intellectual revolution, and Einstein’s theory of relativity is essential to our understanding of the modern age.

     The one-hundredth anniversary of a scientific theory is not necessarily a matter of great cultural importance. Einstein had developed his special theory of relativity a decade earlier, but his general theory — his special theory extended to the entire cosmos — was breathtaking in its revolutionary power. Einstein replaced the world of Newtonian physics with a new world marked by four dimensions instead of only three. Time, added as a fourth dimension, changed everything.

     Einstein summarized his own theory in these words:

     The “Principle of Relativity” in its widest sense is contained in the statement: The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of “absolute motion;” or, shorter but less precise: There is no “absolute motion.”

     Thus, time, matter, and energy are relative, and not absolute. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Thomas Levenson recently called Einstein’s theory “the greatest intellectual accomplishment of the twentieth century.” The Economist, marking the centennial of Einstein’s lectures, called the general theory of relativity “one of the highest intellectual achievements of humanity.” It is no exaggeration to claim Einstein’s theory as the very foundation of modern cosmology.

     And yet, most modern people — even well-educated moderns — have little idea of the actual theory or of its scientific significance. In everyday life, Newtonian physics serves us very well. Cosmologists may depend on Einstein’s theory in their daily work, but few others do.

     Nevertheless, the cultural impact of Einstein’s theory extends far beyond the laboratory or the science classroom. As the twentieth century unfolded, Einstein’s theory of relativity quickly became a symbol and catalyst for something very different — the development of moral relativism.

     Einstein was not a moral relativist, nor did he believe that his theories had any essential moral or cultural meaning. He recoiled when his theory of relativity was blamed or credited for the birth of modern art (Cubism, in particular) or any other cultural development.

     The philosopher Isaiah Berlin defended Einstein against any such charge: “The word relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial, or doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values.” He continued, “This was the opposite of what Einstein believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were expressed in all he was and did.”

     Fair enough. Albert Einstein was not a moral relativist, and his theory of relativity has nothing to do with morality. The problem, however, is simple — Einstein’s theory of relativity entered the popular consciousness as a generalized relativism. Of course, Einstein is not responsible for the misuse, misapplication, and misappropriation of his theory. But in any event, millions of modern people understood relativity as relativism. And that misunderstanding is one of the toxic developments of the modern age.

     As Walter Isaacson, Einstein’s most important biographer, explains:

     In both his science and his moral philosophy, Einstein was driven by a quest for certainty and deterministic laws. If his theory of relativity produced ripples that unsettled the realms of morality and culture, this was not caused by what Einstein believed but by how he was popularly interpreted.

     That is exactly the issue. Einstein, Isaacson reveals, was an influence on the emergence of relativism as a major theme in modern art, philosophy, and morality, even if that was not his intention at all. In Isaacson’s words, “There was a more complex relationship between Einstein’s theories and the whole witch’s brew of ideas and emotions in the early twentieth century that bubbled up from the highly charged cauldron of modernism.” Historian Paul Johnson gets it exactly right as he describes the cultural impact of Einstein’s theories:

     It was as though the spinning globe had been taken off its axis and cast adrift in a universe which no longer conformed to accustomed standards of measurement. At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism.

     By the middle of the twentieth century, moral relativism was a major influence in the cultural revolutions that reshaped entire societies. Artists, filmmakers, authors, and playwrights were joined by an army of psychotherapists, academics, liberal theologians, and academic revolutionaries — all seeking to reject absolute moral norms and absolute truth and to establish relativism as the new worldview. They were stunningly successful.

     Moral relativism and the rejection of absolute truth now shape the modern post-Christian mind. Indeed, relativism is virtually taken for granted, at least as an excuse for overthrowing theistic truth claims and any restrictive morality.

     And so, Einstein is variously blamed or thanked for a moral revolution he never intended or wanted. The lesson for the rest of us is clear. Not only do ideas have consequences, they often have consequences that are neither foreseen or predicted.

Click here to go to source

Fox's Book Of Martyrs (Chapter 22)

By John Foxe 1563

The Beginnings of American Foreign Missions

Samuel J. Mills, when a student in Williams College, gathered about him a group of fellow students, all feeling the burden of the great heathen world. One day in 1806 four of them, overtaken by a thunderstorm, took refuge in the shelter of a haystack. They passed the time in prayer for the salvation of the world, and resolved, if opportunity offered, to go themselves as missionaries. This "haystack prayer meeting" has become historic.

     These young men went later to Andover Theological Seminary, where Adoniram Judson joined them. Four of these sent a petition to the Massachusetts Congregational Association at Bradford, June 29, 1810, offering themselves as missionaries and asking whether they might expect support from a society in this country, or whether they must apply to a British society. In response to this appeal the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was formed.

     When a charter for the Board was applied for, an unbelieving soul objected upon the floor of the legislature, alleging in opposition to the petition that the country contained so limited a supply of Christianity that none could be spared for export, but was aptly reminded by another, who was blessed with a more optimistic make, that this was a commodity such that the more of it was sent abroad the more remained at home. There was much perplexity concerning plans and finances, so Judson was dispatched to England to confer with the London Society as to the feasibility of the two organizations cooperating in sending and sustaining the candidates, but this scheme came to nothing. At last sufficient money was raised, and in February, 1812, the first missionaries of the American Board sailed for the Orient. Mr. Judson was accompanied by his wife, having married Ann Hasseltine shortly before sailing.

     On the long voyage out, in some way Mr. and Mrs. Judson and Mr. Rice were led to revise their convictions with reference to the proper mode of baptism, reached the conclusion that only immersion was valid, and were reabptized by Carey soon after their arrival in Calcutta. This step necessarily sundered their connection with the body which had sent them forth, and left them wholly destitute of support. Mr. Rice returned to America to report this condition of affairs to the Baptist brethren. They looked upon the situation as the result of an act of Providence, and eagerly planned to accept the responsibility thrust upon them. Accordingly the Baptist Missionary Union was formed. So Mr. Judson was the occasion of the organization of two great missionary societies.

The Persecution of Doctor Judson

     After laboring for some time in Hindustan Dr. and Mrs. Judson finally established themselves at Rangoon in the Burman Empire, in 1813. In 1824 war broke out between the British East India Company and the emperor of Burma. Dr. and Mrs. Judson and Dr. Price, who were at Ava, the capital of the Burman Empire, when the war commenced, were immediately arrested and confined for several months. The account of the sufferings of the missionaries was written by Mrs. Judson, and is given in her own words.

     "Rangoon, May 26, 1826.

     "My beloved Brother,

     "I commence this letter with the intention of giving you the particulars of our captivity and sufferings at Ava. How long my patience will allow my reviewing scenes of disgust and horror, the conclusion of this letter will determine. I had kept a journal of everything that had transpired from our arrival at Ava, but destroyed it at the commencement of our difficulties.

     "The first certain intelligence we received of the declaration of war by the Burmese, was on our arrival at Tsenpyoo-kywon, about a hundred miles this side of Ava, where part of the troops, under the command of the celebrated Bandoola, had encamped. As we proceeded on our journey, we met Bandoola himself, with the remainder of his troops, gaily equipped, seated on his golden barge, and surrounded by a fleet of gold war boats, one of which was instantly despatched the other side of the river to hail us, and make all necessary inquiries. We were allowed to proceed quietly on, when he had informed the messenger that we were Americans, not English, and were going to Ava in obedience to the command of his Majesty.

     "On our arrival at the capital, we found that Dr. Price was out of favor at court, and that suspicion rested on most of the foreigners then at Ava. Your brother visited at the palace two or three times, but found the king's manner toward him very different from what it formerly had been; and the queen, who had hitherto expressed wishes for my speedy arrival, now made no inquiries after me, nor intimated a wish to see me. Consequently, I made no effort to visit at the palace, though almost daily invited to visit some of the branches of the royal family, who were living in their own houses, out of the palace enclosure. Under these circumstances, we thought our most prudent course lay in prosecuting our original intention of building a house, and commencing missionary operations as occasion offered, thus endeavoring to convince the government that we had really nothing to do with the present war.

     "In two or three weeks after our arrival, the king, queen, all the members of the royal family, and most of the officers of government, returned to Amarapora, in order to come and take possession of the new palace in the customary style.

     "I dare not attempt a description of that splendid day, when majesty with all its attendant glory entered the gates of the golden city, and amid the acclamations of millions, I may say, took possession of the palace. The saupwars of the provinces bordering on China, all the viceroys and high officers of the kingdom were assembled on the occasion, dressed in their robes of state, and ornamented with the insignia of their office. The white elephant, richly adorned with gold and jewels, was one of the most beautiful objects in the procession. The king and queen alone were unadorned, dressed in the simple garb of the country; they, hand in hand, entered the garden in which we had taken our seats, and where a banquet was prepared for their refreshment. All the riches and glory of the empire were on this day exhibited to view. The number and immense size of the elephants, the numerous horses, and great variety of vehicles of all descriptions, far surpassed anything I have ever seen or imagined. Soon after his majesty had taken possession of the new palace, an order was issued that no foreigner should be allowed to enter, excepting Lansago. We were a little alarmed at this, but concluded it was from political motives, and would not, perhaps, essentially affect us.

     "For several weeks nothing took place to alarm us, and we wnt on with our school. Mr. J. preached every Sabbath, all the materials for building a brick house were procured, and the masons had made considerable progress in raising the building.

     "On the twenty-third of May, 1824, just as we had concluded worship at the Doctor's house, the other side of the river, a messenger came to inform us that Rangoon was taken by the English. The intelligence produced a shock, in which was a mixture of fear and joy. Mr. Gouger, a young merchant residing at Ava, was then with us, and had much more reason to fear than the rest of us. We all, however, immediately returned to our house, and began to consider what was to be done. Mr. G. went to Prince Thar-yar-wadee, the king's most influential brother, who informed him he need not give himself any uneasiness, as he had mentioned the subject to his majesty, who had replied, that 'the few foreigners residing at Ava had nothing to do with the war, and should not be molested.'

     "The government were now all in motion. An army of ten or twelve thousand men, under the command of the Kyee-woon-gyee, were sent off in three or four days, and were to be joined by the Sakyer-woon-gyee, who had previously been appointed viceroy of Rangoon, and who was on his way thither, when the news of its attack reached him. No doubt was entertained of the defeat of the English; the only fear of the king was that the foreigners hearing of the advance of the Burmese troops, would be so alarmed as to flee on board their ships and depart, before there would be time to secure them as slaves. 'Bring for me,' said a wild young buck of the palace, 'six kala pyoo, (white strangers,) to row my boat;' and 'to me,' said the lady of Woon-gyee, 'send four white strangers to manage the affairs of my house, as I understand they are trusty servants.' The war boats, in high glee, passed our house, the soldiers singing and dancing, and exhibiting gestures of the most joyful kind. Poor fellows! said we, you will probably never dance again. And so it proved, for few if any ever saw again their native home.

     "At length Mr. Judson and Dr. Price were summoned to a court of examination, where strict inquiry was made relative to all they knew. The great point seemed to be whether they had been in the habit of making communications to foreigners, of the state of the country, etc. They answered that they had always written to their friends in America, but had no correspondence with English officers, or the Bengal government. After their examination, they were not put in confinement as the Englishmen had been, but were allowed to return to their houses. In examining the accounts of Mr. G it was found that Mr. J. and Dr. Price had taken money of him to a considerable amount. Ignorant, as were the Burmese, of our mode of receiving money, by orders on Bengal, this circumstance, to their suspicious minds, was a sufficient evidence that the missionaries were in the pay of the English, and very probably spies. It was thus represented to the king, who, in an angry tone, ordered the immediate arrest of the 'two teachers.'

     "On the eighth of June, just as we were prearing for dinner, in rushed an officer, holding a black book, with a dozen Burmans, accompanied by one, whom, from his spotted face, we knew to be an executioner, and a 'son of the prison.' 'Where is the teacher?' was the first inquiry. Mr. Judson presented himself. 'You are called by the king,' said the officer; a form of speech always used when about to arrest a criminal. The spotted man instantly seized Mr. Judson, threw him on the floor, and produced the small cord, the instrument of torture. I caught hold of his arm; 'Stay, (said I,) I will give you money.' 'Take her too,' said the officer; 'she also is a foreigner.' Mr. Judson, with an imploring look, begged they would let me remain until further orders. The scene was now shocking beyond description.

     "The whole neighborhood had collected-the masons at work on the brick house threw down their tools, and ran-the little Burman children were screaming and crying-the Bengalee servants stood in amazement at the indignities offered their master-and the hardened executioner, with a hellish joy, drew tight the cords, bound Mr. Judson fast, and dragged him off, I knew not whither. In vain I begged and entreated the spotted face to take the silver, and loosen the ropes, but he spurned my offers, and immediately departed. I gave the money, however, to Moung Ing to follow after, to make some further attempt to mitigate the torture of Mr. Judson; but instead of succeeding, when a few rods from the house, the unfeeling wretches again threw their prisoner on the ground, and drew the cords still tighter, so as almost to prevent respiration.

     "The officer and his gang proceeded on to the courthouse, where the governor of the city and the officers were collected, one of whom read the order of the king, to commit Mr. Judson to the death prison, into which he was soon hurled, the door closed-and Moung Ing saw no more. What a night was now before me! I retired into my room, and endeavored to obtain consolation from committing my case to God, and imploring fortitude and strength to suffer whatever awaited me. But the consolation of retirement was not long allowed me, for the magistrate of the place had come into the veranda, and continually called me to come out, and submit to his examination. But previously to going out, I destroyed all my letters, journals, and writings of every kind, lest they should disclose the fact that we had correspondents in England, and had minuted down every occurrence since our arrival in the country. When this work of destruction was finished, I went out and submitted to the examination of the magistrate, who inquired very minutely of everything I knew; then ordered the gates of the compound to be shut, no person be allowed to go in or out, placed a guard of ten ruffians, to whom he gave a strict charge to keep me safe, and departed.

     "It was now dark. I retired to an inner room with my four little Burman girls, and barred the doors. The guard instantly ordered me to unbar the doors and come out, or they would break the house down. I obstinately refused to obey, and endeavored to intimidate them by threatening to complain of their conduct to higher authorities on the morrow. Finding me resolved in disregarding their orders, they took the two Bengalee servants, and confined them in the stocks in a very painful position. I could not endure this; but called the head man to the window, and promised to make them all a present in the morning, if they would release the servants. After much debate, and many severe threatenings, they consented, but seemed resolved to annoy me as much as possible. My unprotected, desolate state, my entire uncertainty of the fate of Mr. Judson, and the dreadful carousings and almost diabolical language of the guard, all conspired to make it by far the most distressing night I had ever passed. You may well imagine, my dear brother, that sleep was a stranger to my eyes, and peace and composure to my mind.

     "The next morning, I sent Moung Ing to ascertain the situation of your brother, and give him food, if still living. He soon returned, with the intelligence that Mr. Judson, and all the white foreigners, were confined in the death prison, with three pairs of iron fetters each, and fastened to a long pole, to prevent their moving! The point of my anguish now was that I was a prisoner myself, and could make no efforts for the release of the missionaries. I begged and entreated the magistrate to allow me to go to some member of government to state my case; but he said he did not dare to consent, for fear I should make my escape. I next wrote a note to one of the king's sisters, with whom I had been intimate, requesting her to use her influence for the release of the teachers. The note was returned with this message-She 'did not understand it'-which was a polite refusal to interfere; though I afterwards ascertained that she had an anxious desire to assist us, but dared not on account of the queen. The day dragged heavily away, and another dreadful night was before me. I endeavored to soften the feelings of the guard by giving them tea and cigars for the night; so that they allowed me to remain inside of my room, without threatening as they did the night before. But the idea of your brother being stretched on the bare floor in irons and confinement, haunted my mind like a spectre, and prevented my obtaining any quiet sleep, though nature was almost exhausted.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs

The Continual Burnt Offering (2 Peter 2:1)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

December 16

The Christ is in Court today;
The World and the Flesh deride Him,
Mankind is jury and judge,
And the right of appeal is denied Him.

Who are His witnesses? Whom will He call
To answer for Him in the judgment hall?
The Christ is in Court today,
The World and the Flesh will try Him,

Mankind is jury and judge,
Shall those He hath loved deny Him?
We are His witnesses, ours is the call,
To speak for our Lord in the judgment hall.

--- Annie Johnson Flint