A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship and a Reassessment of John Owen's Theology 9783666550751, 9783525550755, 9783647550756

Citation preview

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in Co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie Anne McKee, Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 29

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Ryan M. McGraw

A Heavenly Directory Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55075-5 ISBN 978-3-647-55075-6 (e-book) Ó 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch Print und digitale Medien GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Historical Introduction and State of the Question . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Puritanism and Public Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 John Owen’s Life in Relation to Worship . . . . . . . 1.4 Owen Scholarship and the Significance of This Study 1.4.1 Thesis, Scope, and Importance . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Method, Sources, and Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

2. Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God . . . . . 2.2.1 Context: “Protestant Scholasticism” and Reformed Orthodoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The Knowledge of God in Owen’s Prolegomena . . 2.2.3 Definitions of True Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Owen’s Contemporaries on True Theology . . . . . 2.3 Communion with the Triune God . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Socinianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Owen’s Trinitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Communion with God in Three Persons . . . . . . 2.3.3.1 Communion with the Father . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.2 Communion with the Son . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.3 Communion with the Holy Spirit . . . . . . 2.4 Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship . . . . . 2.4.1 Communion with the Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Communion with the Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Communion with the Son . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

9

. . . . . . . .

11 11 13 20 27 27 27 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 33 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 39 40 46 48 48 52 58 60 61 66 69 69 71 74

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

Contents

2.4.4 Communion with the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Concluding Observations on Ephesians 2:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Place of Scripture in the Knowledge of God . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The Principium Congnoscendi of Reformed Theology . . 3.2.2 The Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Principle of Worship Elaborated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Interpreting the Law of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Second Commandment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Importance of the Biblical Principle of Worship . . . 3.4 Owen’s Emphases Compared to Those of His Contemporaries 3.5 The Ordinances, Circumstances, and Forms of Worship . . . . 3.5.1 Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4 Vestments and Postures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Apostasy from Chastity in Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Neglecting Public Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Adding Man-Made Ordinances to Worship . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Trusting in the Ordinances of Worship . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76 79

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 81 81 82 84 89 90 92 93 97 101 101 102 104 105 107 108 110 111 115

4. Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Setting our Minds in Heaven During Public Worship . . . . . . . 4.3 Wrong Affections in Public Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 The First Danger : Externalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 The Second Danger : Intellectual Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 The Third Danger : Resting in Ordinances for Righteousness 4.3.4 The Fourth Danger : A Reputation for Devotion . . . . . . . 4.3.5 The Fifth Danger : Superstition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 True Spiritual Affections in Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Exercising Faith, Love, and Delight in God . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Means of Communicating Divine Love and Grace . . . . . . 4.4.3 Experience Leads to Greater Affection . . . . . . . . . . . .

116 116 116 121 122 124 125 126 127 129 129 130 133 136

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Contents

4.4.4 God’s Instituted Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 The Covenant in Reformed Orthodoxy . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Owen’s General Conception of the Covenant . . . . . . . . 5.3 The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The Covenant of Redemption in General . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 The Holy Spirit in the Covenant of Redemption . . . . . . 5.4 Worship under the Mosaic Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Owen on the “Old Covenant” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Worship and the Old Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 New Covenant Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Spiritual Communion with God in New Covenant Worship 5.5.2 Simplicity of New Covenant Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Ministry and Worship: The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Benedictory Nature of the Christian Ministry . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Benedictions in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Categories of Benedictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 The Christian Ministry as Benedictory . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Ministers as Christ’s Gift to the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 The Ministry and Christ’s Humiliation and Exaltation . . . 6.3.2 Extraordinary and Ordinary Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence . . . . . . 6.4.1 The Work of the Pastor and the Gifts of the Spirit . . . . . 6.4.2 The Spirit’s Work in Preaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 The Administration of the Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4 Public Prayer and Imposed Liturgies . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.5 The Work of the Pastor and the Presence of Christ . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

137 138

. .

140 140

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

141 142 151 155 156 161 166 167 175 178 178 182 185

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

187 187 187 188 189 191 195 195 198 199 200 201 204 206 208 210

8

Contents

. . . . .

211 211 212 216 219

8. Appendix: Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 The Question of Images in Reformed Theology . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Basic Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Theological Connections and Implications . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 The Glory of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 The Chamber of Imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

220 220 221 221 222 225 228 230

Works Cited . . . . . . . Works by John Owen . Other Primary Sources Secondary Sources . .

. . . .

232 232 234 245

Index of Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

255

7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Contributions of the Preceding Chapters 7.3 Areas Requiring Further Research . . . . 7.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

Acknowledgements

Studying history on a professional level is a humbling process. Completing a PhD teaches you more about what you do not know (and never will know) than it provides expertise in a field of study. Nothing highlights this fact more than the many people that I have relied on in order to complete this project. I am confident that I have not said the last word on Owen. Others will build on and possibly even correct what I have written at points. However, the light that I have gained would have been impossible without the following people. First place goes to my supervisors for this project, Drs. Mark Jones, Adriaan Neele, and Pieter DeVries. Dr. Jones ordinarily saw my work first, which no doubt made life easier for Drs. Neele and de Vries. I cannot adequately convey my thanks to these men for their time and labors on my behalf. It is a dramatic understatement to say that without their guidance, this work would be of little value. With respect to the topic of my thesis as well as my place in life, I cannot envision a better team of scholars that I could have worked with on this project. During the course of my studies, Dr. Neele also provided a fascinating tour of Yale University that I will never forget. Dr. Jones in particular has become a good friend and I will never be able to repay him adequately for his thorough (and sometimes brutal) criticism of my work and for his good humor in the process. Professor Dolph Britz at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein has been a continual encouragement as well. He has gone above the call of duty as director of the Jonathan Edwards Center, South Africa by keeping in contact regularly and even getting involved in mundane administrative task. He has been a joy to work with and has kept this project going from the beginning. My friend J. Wesley White deserves to be singled out for special thanks. As I struggled as the pastor of a small church in South Carolina to find a doctoral project that I could both afford and pursue without relocation, Wes directed me to Dr. Jones and the University of the Free State. Wes had enrolled in the program, but he recommended that I take his place when he and his wife were expecting the birth of their sixth child. Thank you for the nudge in the right direction.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

10

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Joseph Pipa, president of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, for pushing me to pursue PhD studies. Bill Hill saved me a tremendous amount of time by teaching me how to use sophisticated bibliographic software. I only wish Bill had gotten hold of me before starting this project. Dr. John Fesko has become a good friend and has a mutual love for talking for hours about seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy. John has helped me through conversation as well as through assisting me greatly in finding primary sources. The following people have provided invaluable help with research questions for this project: Dr. Joel Beeke, Dr. Jochen Burgtorf, Dr. Michael Haykin, Dr. Carl Trueman, Mr. Chris Caldwell, Dr. Paul Lim, and Dr. Lee Gatiss. Each of them has shown that when in doubt, it is best to ask questions of smart people. Mrs. Susan “Punkin” Boyd has been a faithful church member and friend to our family. She is also the local librarian in Conway who fulfilled innumerable inter-library loan requests more rapidly than a student could possibly hope for. Thank you on all accounts. My wife Krista has made this research possible in numerous ways. When I did not want to start, she told me that I should. When I wanted to quit, she told me that I could not. When I was excited about my research, she patiently listened to me describe what I was learning (multiple times). Not to mention all of the times that she took care of “the boys” so that I could study more diligently. We have prayed together and lived our lives together before the face of God continually. This has been one of my greatest joys in life and has helped me greatly to persevere in my work. Thank you to our sons Owen, Calvin, and Jonathan for your prayers as well. It always breaks my heart when a PhD acknowledgements page thanks wives and children for sacrificing their husbands and fathers for such a long time. I have not been willing to make such a sacrifice. You have been involved in my work and prayed for my work without sacrificing our “tickle time” and family worship. You are a great gift of God to me. Thank you to the sessions and congregations of Grace PCA in Conway, SC and First OPC in Sunnyvale, CA. You have prayed for me as you watched me sweat, labor, and pray over this project and I hope you have all benefitted from the fruits of these labors. Lastly, I bless the Triune God, for enabling me to labor and to write accurate history in some measure and to work hard for the glory of his name. To borrow the concluding words of William Perkins’ book on worship, “Trin-uni Deo Gloria.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

1.

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

1.1

Introduction

Recent authors have called John Owen one of the greatest theologians England has ever produced.1 His voluminous writings span a wide range of topics including the Trinity, Arminianism, the nature of the atonement, perseverance, justification, sanctification, principles of toleration, Christology, Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, textual criticism, and expositions of Scripture.2 The character of his work is equally diverse. This includes catechisms, sermons, popular devotional works, polemical treatises, and scholarly theological tomes. Owen was an intellectual force of massive impact, who wrote extensively and who covered an astonishing range of topics. Examining and dissecting any aspect of his theology can be daunting. There are a growing number of books, theses, and articles on his life and thought, and he is gradually receiving scholarly attention in proportion to his importance.3 In a recent multi-author work treating theological 1 See Kelly Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), ch. 1. 2 Two major collections of Owen’s Works appeared in the nineteenth-century. The first was John Owen, The Works of John Owen, D.D., ed., Thomas Russell, 21 vols. (London: for Richard Baynes, 1826). The second was Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, ed., William Goold, 24 vols. (London: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850 – 53). I will primarily make use of the Goold edition of Owen’s Works. This is the most complete compilation of his writings, excluding his letters and Oxford orations only. I cite first editions of individual works where available. To avoid confusing competing editions, I will take all citations from Owen’s work on Hebrews from volumes eighteen through twenty-four of the Goold Works. As far as I can tell, this set is identical to Owen’s original publications, with the exception that Goold made the original divisions in the text clearer. Peter Toon has edited and published surviving letters in The Correspondence of John Owen (1616 – 1683): With an Account of his Life and Work, Peter Toon, ed., forward by Geoffrey F. Nuttall (n.p: James Clark & Co. Ltd., 1970). For an English translation of the Oxford orations, see John Owen, The Oxford Orations of Dr. John Owen, Peter Toon, ed. (Linkinghorne: Gospel Communication, 1971). For a chronological list of Owen’s writings, see Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), 179 – 181. 3 A select bibliography of secondary literature on John Calvin spans eleven closely printed

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

12

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

debates in seventeenth-century British Puritanism, nine out of twelve chapters include John Owen as a central figure.4 One challenge in writing historical theology is to distinguish the historian’s interests from the interests of his or her subject. This project seeks to identify some of the central principles that run through Owen’s theology. The broad range of his writings reveals a consistent emphasis on a Trinitarian piety that culminated in public worship as its highest expression. The Savoy Declaration of Faith, which he helped produce, states that the “doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon him.”5 However, few have recognized that his continual emphasis on public worship stood almost on par with his emphasis on the Trinity.6 Fewer still have recognized that he self-consciously intertwined a practical Trinitarianism with public worship. This is true even though some authors have treated his contribution to building a distinctively Trinitarian piety.7 These tendencies result in a partial view of John Owen in his theological context. This research is a preliminary attempt to demonstrate that in Owen’s writings, his Trinitarian theology frequently culminated in public worship as its highest expression. Communion with the Trinity as expressed in public worship both permeates and ties together the entire corpus of his theology. His doctrine of communion with the Triune God was foundational to his theology of public

4 5

6

7

pages. See Richard C. Gamble and Zachary John Kail, “Essential Calvin Bibliography,” in David. W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 2008), 468 – 479. The literature on early figures such as Calvin and later figures such as Jonathan Edwards is overwhelming. By contrast, a nearly exhaustive bibliography of primary and secondary source material related to Owen spans about forty pages. See John W. Tweeddale, “A John Owen Bibliography,” in Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones, The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012), 287 – 328. Michael A. G Haykin and Mark Jones, Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (Göttingen; Oakville, Conn.: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). The exceptions are chapters 5, 7, and 12.. Savoy Confession, 2.3. Cited from A. G. Matthews, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, 1658 (London: Independent Press, Ltd., 1959), 79. The volume includes the full text of the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Institution of Churches, and the Preface, which was likely coauthored by Owen and Thomas Goodwin. It includes a historical introduction by Matthews. Daniel R. Hyde, “‘The Fire the Kindleth all our Sacrifices to God:’ Owen and the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” Ashgate Research Companion, 250: “This lack of scholarship on Owen’s liturgical theology is surprising given the prominence of it in his Works.” However, Hyde does not connect Owen’s liturgical theology adequately to his Trinitarianism. Most notably in Brian Kay’s treatise and in chapter 5 of Kapic’s work. Brian K. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007); Kapic, Communion with God, ch. 5. However, Kay’s thesis looks for a model of private communion with God as Triune. As such, he is more concerned with using Owen as an example of his overall thesis than he is with Owen’s position. The limitation of his work is that he uses Owen as a model for private worship, whereas this thesis will demonstrate that Owen saw public worship as the climax of communion with God in three persons.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Puritanism and Public Worship

13

worship. This is particularly evident in light of his teaching on communion with God, the authority of Scripture, spiritual-mindedness, the contrast between old and new covenant worship, and the ministry. This chapter seeks to establish Owen’s historical context narrowly in relation to public worship. He was an English Puritan whose circumstances in life were intertwined with seventeenth-century English controversies over worship. This material surveys his life in relation to these controversies and will conclude by stating the thesis and justifying the plan of the following chapters. It includes a bird’s-eye survey of Owen’s works as they treat public worship, and it concludes by highlighting the importance of this study for historical theology and its potential contribution to contemporary discussions.

1.2

Puritanism and Public Worship

Owen’s name is forever attached to the notoriously slippery term “Puritan.”8 Carl Trueman argues that due to the difficulty of defining the term, the lack of theological consensus among “Puritans,” and the parochial range of its meaning, it is more helpful to classify Owen as Reformed orthodox.9 This is a valid description of the international context of his theology and theological method. In particular, treating Owen as a Reformed orthodox theologian sheds light upon his Trinitarian theology. Chapter 2 below expands this observation. However, Owen classed himself among the “Puritans.”10 This bears directly on the importance he assigned to public worship. This research examines how he merged his Reformed orthodox Trinitarianism with his Puritan views on public worship. 8 John Coffey noted: “Historians have agonized over its definition.” As cited in Ian Hugh Clary, “Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism,” Puritan Reformed Journal, vol. 2, Num. 1, Jan. 2010, 41. 9 Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007), 5 – 6; The Claims of Truth (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998), 9 – 13. Richard Muller treats the period in which Owen lived as both “Reformed Orthodoxy” and “Protestant Scholasticism.” Orthodoxy describes an author’s relationship to confessional statements of the Reformed faith, and Scholasticism refers to theological method. Following the Renaissance, this method included both continuity with Medieval methodology and heavy emphasis on studying biblical and ancient sources in the original languages. See Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 1:33 – 37, 60 – 78. Hereafter, I will refer to Muller’s work as PRRD. Trueman relies heavily on Muller’s classifications. For the continuity between Medieval theology and Reformed theology, see Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000). For Protestant Scholasticism, see Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (UK: Paternoster, 2005). The article by David Steinmetz outlines the Scholastic method. See “The Scholastic Calvin,” Protestant Scholasticism, 16 – 30. 10 See citations in the treatment below.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

14

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

Treating him as a Reformed orthodox theologian places him in an international context. Treating him as a Puritan theologian highlights his distinctively English emphases.11 This twofold context provides the appropriate backdrop for his conjunction of a practical Trinitarian theology with public worship. It is important to develop a working description of the term “Puritan.” “Description” is more accurate than “definition” in this case, due to the murky origins and elastic use of the term. Scholars have defined “Puritanism” from a variety of perspectives including politics, ecclesiastical relationships, theology and practice, and others. “Puritanism” is defined properly in light of both “Antipuritan” sentiments and of “Puritan” self-image. Owen’s views of this epithet, along with those of his contemporaries deserve particular attention. From Owen’s perspective, maintaining the purity of public worship was at least fifty percent of what it meant to be a faithful “Puritan.” The term “Puritan” often describes a theologically diverse group of people.12 Patrick Collinson notes that “Puritanism” originated as an insult from those whom he calls “Antipuritans.” While “Antipuritan” is a somewhat anachronistic term, Collinson uses it to illustrate that the “Puritan” was an elastic derogatory label that some English theologians attached to perceived opponents. In a marginal note to his theology, Edward Leigh (1602 – 1671) observed, “Puritan in the mouth of a drunkard doth mean a sober man, in the mouth of an Arminian it means an orthodox man, in the mouth of a Papist it means a Protestant, and so it is spoken to shame a man out of all religion.”13 Though the “Puritan” movement itself began sometime in the 1560s, Collinson points out that the term “Puritan” became a popular phrase of contempt in the 1590s.14 The term is an English 11 Patrick Collinson has warned recently against detaching British Reformed theology from the European Reformation. Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson, eds., The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), xxvii-xxxii. However, it is equally problematic to ignore the the local context of British theology. Collinson’s balanced approach seeks to mitigate British exceptionalism without dismissing it entirely (xxxvii). 12 Trueman points to the potentially Arian views of John Milton as an example. John Owen, 5. Nicholas Tyacke has observed, “To some extent, Puritanism has always existed in the eye of the beholder.” Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590 – 1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987),186. 13 Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity : Consisting of Ten Books; Wherein the Fundamentals or Main Grounds of Religion are Opened, the Contrary Errors Refuted, Most of the Controversies Between us, the Papists, Arminians, and Socinians Discussed and Handled, Several Scriptures Explained and Vindicated from Corrupt Glosses (London, 1654), 532. He attributed the citation to Dudley Fenner (1558 – 1587). 14 Patrick Collinson, “Antipuritanism,” in John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 19 – 33. In his book The Antichrist’s Lewd Hat (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 568 – 569, Peter Lake criticized Collinson for postulating a late date for the origins of Puritanism. In The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, 22, Collinson answers Lake by noting that though the Puritan movement did not begin in the 1590s, the popularization of the term at that time had

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Puritanism and Public Worship

15

rendition of the Latin word “Cathari,” which referred to an extreme ascetic group in the Middle Ages.15 It depicted people who abstained from all pleasure and enjoyment in this world.16 The immediate cause of popularizing the label was the response, via stage plays, to a series of tracts written under the name of Martin Marprelate against the English clergy. The vitriolic response to these tracts matched Marprelate’s acidic criticism against the English clergy and liturgy.17 As Peter Lake noted, “Puritanism” is largely defined by the “complex dialectical relationships” between “Puritans” and “Antipuritans.”18 The fact that the label “Puritan” originated with critics further complicates its definition, since terms of reproach are often fluid in their use. Positively, “Puritanism” often describes a common set of characteristics. Due to the fact that “Antipuritans” in the Church of England used the term to refer to anyone critical of their practices, it is hard to collect these characteristics. “Puritanism” included Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and anyone else under the censure of the English clergy. The “Puritans” have been called famously a “Hotter sort of Protestants.”19 John Coffey and Paul Lim suggest at least five traits of the movement. First, “Puritans” were Protestants. Second, they were Calvinistic Protestants. Third, “Puritanism” originated in the English Church and it is defined largely by its relationship to the Church of England. Fourth, the movement led to sects that stood apart from the English Church. Lastly, “Puritan” influences spread beyond English shores.20 The third of these traits is the most relevant to this thesis. Hughes Oliphant Old elaborates the influence that this English context had upon “Puritan” views of worship: While the actual controversies that were raised often seemed to center on such ceremonial details as vestments, the serving of Communion from a table rather than an altar, or refusal of the sign of the cross at baptism, the real concern of the Puritans was

15 16 17

18 19 20

a tremendous influence on popular thinking and heightened the tension between the two groups. For the Cathars, see Malcolm Barber, The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Harlow: Longman, 2000), and, Andrew P. Roach, The Devil’s World: Heresy and Society 1100 – 1300 (Harlow: Longman, 2005). In Worldly Saints: The Puritans as they Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), Leland Ryken argued that this is not an accurate depiction of those who received the label “Puritan.“ See Collinson, “Antipuritanism,” 24 – 25. See also Joseph Black, “The Rhetoric of Reaction: The Marprelate Tracts (1588 – 9): anti-Martinism and the uses of print in early modern England, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 28 (1997), 707 – 725; Kristen Poole, “Saints Alive! Falstaff, Martin Marprelate and the Staging of Puritanism,” Shakespeare Quarterly, 46 (1995), 47 – 75. The tracts have been reprinted under the title, The Marprelate Tracts, 1588, 1589, ed. William Pierce (London: Constable, 1911). As cited by Collinson, “Antipuritanism,” 30. Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), 27. John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, “Introduction,” Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, 2 – 6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

16

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

the deepening of the experience of worship. For them the reformation of the rite was only a means of reforming the inner life of the Christian. It was the reforming of the heart that really interested them, and yet they recognized that outward reforming of the institution of the Church and the forms of public worship was an important means to that end.21

In this respect, “Puritan” describes those who sought to reform the personal piety and the public worship of the English Church. In a sense, “Puritanism” became harder to identify under the Stewart monarchs than under Elizabeth I.22 Prior to this, however, the actions of Archbishop William Laud (1573 – 1645) in the 1630s made reforming public worship an even more prominent feature of “Puritanism.”23 After the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II in 1660, the diverse sects formerly called “Puritans” became “Dissenters” or “Nonconformists.” It is a mistake to define “Puritanism” simply in contrast to “Anglicanism,” as one popular twentieth century author has done.24 Some “Puritans,” such as Edward Reynolds (1599 – 1676) and James Ussher (1581 – 1656), held bishoprics in the Church of England. However, connecting the Church of England and “Puritanism” is a vital point. “Puritans” were people who believed that the Reformation of the Church of England was incomplete. Most early “Puritans” remained within that Church – separatism was rare. Only after many were convinced that lasting reform in the Church of England was unlikely did they begin to separate from the established Church and to emigrate abroad.25 “Pu21 Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, Volume 4, The Age of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdamns Publishing Company, 2002), 252. Old does not specialize in Puritanism and his primary concern in this volume is with preaching as an act of worship, yet his treatment is well researched and his insight into the role of worship in Puritan piety is profound. His treatment of the influence of Protestant Scholasticism upon Puritan preaching and theology is very helpful. See especially pp. 326 – 327. For a scholarly treatment of the manner in which “Puritans” related public worship, family devotion, and the inner life of the individual, see Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 490 – 532. 22 Tom Webster, “Early Stuart Puritanism,” in Cambridge Companion, 61. 23 Laud is addressed below. 24 D. M. Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 54 – 72. For a treatment of popular perspectives of “Puritanism,” see John Coffey, “Puritan Legacies,” in Cambridge Companion, 327 – 345. Coffey refers to his article as “no more than a preliminary sketch” needing further research (333). He cites D. M. LloydJones and J. I. Packer as early leaders of a revival of interest in Puritan literature through the establishment of the “Puritan Conference” and The Banner of Truth Trust (339). Banner of Truth has reprinted the Goold edition of Owen’s works, with the omission of his Latin treatises in volumes 16 and 17. 25 For the connection between Puritan emigrants and Reformed churches in other lands such as Holland, see Anthony Milton, “Puritanism and the continental Reformed churches,” in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Puritanism and Public Worship

17

ritanism” cannot be understood ultimately without reference to efforts to purify the piety and the worship of the Church of England.26 How did the term “Puritan” relate to like-minded Christians in other nations, such as Scotland, the Netherlands, and America, specifically in New England? Although “Puritan” began as a derogatory term, adherents of the movement eventually accepted it.27 This was true beyond English borders. Some have referred to like-minded believers in Holland as the “Dutch Puritans,” due to their emphases on personal piety and their interest in English devotional literature.28 Scottish Presbyterians often accepted the title as well. However, Scottish Presbyterians, though holding much in common with English “Puritans,” cannot be called “Puritans” in precisely the same sense.29 The issue uniting the “Puritans” was not simply a common theology and practice, but a desire to purify the Church of England. For the most part, the Scots simply wanted the English to leave them alone. George Gillespie (1613 – 1648), who was a Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly,30 noted that since the English Church had never enjoyed as thorough a Reformation as the Scots had, it was improper for England to impose “the rotten dregs of Popery” of its liturgy on the more

26

27 28

29 30

Cambridge Companion, 109 – 126; Patrick Collinson, “England and International Calvinism, 1558 – 1640,” in From Cranmer to Sancroft (New York: Hambledon Continuum, 2006), 75 – 100. For Puritanism in New England, see Francis J. Bremer, “The Puritan Experiment in New England, 1630 – 1660,” in Cambridge Companion, 126 – 142; David D. Hall, “New England, 1660 – 1730,” in Cambridge Companion, 143 – 158. Persecution over matters related to public worship often led to immigration. Puritans such as Thomas Goodwin left England for Holland in order to pursue liberty of conscience in matters of worship. See Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680) (Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Owen’s own use of the term and his understanding of his relationship to the Church of England will be dealt with below. This has been evidenced on a popular level by Cornelis Pronk, “The Dutch Puritans,” Banner of Truth, July-August 1976, nos. 154 – 155. See also Joel R. Beeke, “The Dutch Second Reformation (‘Nadere Reformatie’),” in Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service; trans. Bartel Elshout; ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), vol. I, lxxxv-cxi. The theologians of the “Nadere Reformatie” were directly influenced by “Puritans” such as William Perkins and William Ames as well. See Muller, PRRD, I, 66 – 67; Joel R. Beeke and Todd M. Rester, “The Learned Doctor William Ames and A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism,” in William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, trans. Todd M. Rester, Introduction by Joel R. Beeke and Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), xii-xx; Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1972); Dutch Puritanism (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1982). For the complexities of associating Scottish Presbyterians with Puritanism, see Margo Todd, “The Problem of Scotland’s Puritans,” in Cambridge Companion, 174 – 188. For the role of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly and the manner in which their influence has been exaggerated at times, see Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly (Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 2009), 48.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

18

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

thoroughly Reformed Scottish Church.31 William Ames (1576 – 1633) reflected this assumption when he asserted that the Church of England was the first example of “any orthodox church” that imposed human ceremonies upon the people of God in worship.32 He added that in the time of King Edward and in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, many ministers regarded some of the ceremonies that England had recently adopted as “the weeds of popery.”33 As for New England, many “Puritans” migrated to the new world in order to flee persecution and to worship God according to Scripture only.34 American “Puritanism” originated in relation to the Church of England, yet moving across the Atlantic Ocean eventually produced features that were peculiar to an American context.35 Although common concerns linked English “Puritans” to other Reformed Christians, if Collinson is correct that we should understand “Puritanism” in light of “Antipuritanism,” then we should largely reserve the term for those seeking to reform the Church of England or who emigrated elsewhere when hopes for reform failed. This reiterates Coffey’s and Lim’s description of “Puritanism” above.36 This discussion sets the stage for Owen’s place in the “Puritan” movement. His description of the primary task facing English Protestants is revealing in this respect. He preached four undated sermons entitled, “Providential Changes, An Argument for Universal Holiness” in which he summarized the work of continuing reformation in England under two headings. In the first sermon, he argued that the two primary pursuits of Christians should be holiness and godliness. Holiness refers to the principles and practice (doctrine and piety) of the Christian life. Godliness refers to “the worship of God according to the 31 George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland (Orig. Pub., 1637, reprint, Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1992), xxix. For examples of Gillespie’s self-association with the “Puritans,“ see pp. 64, 80, 88, 91, etc. Jane Dawson adds, “Within a few years of the Reformation, the Scots had become convinced that their practices were not merely on a par with other European Reformed churches; in some instances they were better.” James I cited the Scot’s rejection of holy-days as an improvement over Geneva. Jane E. A. Dawson, “John Knox, Christopher Goodman, and ‘the Example of Geneva,’” Reception of Continental Reformation, 133. 32 Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship, or, A Triplication unto Dr. Burgess his Rejoinder for Dr. Morton (London, 1633), Part I, 10. 33 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 15. 34 Francis Bremer notes that many of the early “Puritans” in America believed that they continued to be in communion with the Church of England. See Francis J. Bremer, “The Puritan Experiment in New England (1630 – 1660), in Cambridge Companion, 132. 35 David D. Hall, “New England (1660 – 1730),” in Cambridge Companion, 143 – 156. 36 However, in his work on Samuel Rutherford, Coffey defends associating Scots such as Rutherford with “Puritanism.” He reasons that the Scots possessed “part of the tendency within English speaking Reformed Protestantism” to walk strictly with God in everything. John Coffey, Politics, Religion, and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 17 – 18.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Puritanism and Public Worship

19

appointment and institution of Christ.”37 From their content, it is difficult to determine the time period in which he wrote these sermons. On the one hand, Owen referred to the great blessings of God on the nation and to the great progress of the work of reform. On the other hand, he warned of impending judgment against the sins of neglecting the advantages provided by the gospel.38 When the “Puritans” held power in England, he believed that “holiness” and “godliness” were so widespread that this was a sign that the millennium was near.39 However, the success of the “Puritan” movement and the subsequent sins of the nation ought to move adherents to greater zeal in pursuing holiness and godliness. The term “Puritan” does not occur in these sermons.40 However, if “Puritanism” describes characteristic emphases of a group of English Protestants, then Owen’s reduction of the emphases of reform to these two heads fairly depicts his view of “Puritanism.” In his view, at least half of the task of “Puritanism” had respect to purifying public worship (“godliness”).41 Chapter 2 below will show that communion with the Triune God in public worship was the ultimate goal of the Reformed theological tradition to which Owen and his contemporaries viewed themselves as heirs. Although “Puritanism” is defined variously, the primary features that are relevant to this study are a thoroughgoing personal piety (ordinarily in the context of Reformed orthodoxy)42 coupled with a zeal for external and internal 37 Owen, Works, 9:137. Owen based these distinctions on his understanding of the Greek terms in text. 38 He likely preached these sermons after the English Civil War and the “failure” of the Puritan movement. 39 Owen, Works, 9:151. For Puritan millennial views see Jeffrey K. Jue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586 – 1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism, (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006); Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millenium: Literature and Theology, 1550 – 1682 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000). For a treatment of the millenarian developments from the 1640s to the end of the “Puritan” movement, see Gribben, “Millenialism,” Drawn into Controversie, 83 – 98. 40 The term does not occur often in Owen’s writings. Where “Puritan” appears in his works, he was usually citing the accusations of some opponent to his theology. For some examples see Works, 10:9; 11:495, 497; 14:244 – 245. 41 Tyacke observes that Stephen Marshall (1594 – 1655) preached before the Long Parliament in 1640 and that he set forth “a five point religious indictment of the Caroline regime.” While point 4 addressed the introduction of idolatry and superstitious worship into the English church, Tyacke argued that “only his fifth and final point,” in which Marshall denounced indiscriminate admission to the Lord’s Supper, “suggests a Puritan at heart.” This fails to recognize the central importance that the “Puritans” assigned to the purity of public worship. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 224. 42 For instance, John Goodwin’s Arminian tendencies and Milton’s heterodoxy mentioned above are exceptions to the rule. With respect to the term, “Reformed orthodoxy,” Muller argues that it is preferable to the term “Calvinism” because it more accurately “functions as a historical denominator.” Reformed orthodoxy entails “confessional solidification” of doctrine that characterized “institutionally established Protestantism.” Muller, PRRD, I, 31, 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

20

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

purity in English worship. These two emphases not only lie at the heart of “Puritanism,” but they reflect why public worship was integral to John Owen’s life and theology. If Owen is legitimately called a “Puritan,” then the purity of public worship largely defined who he was. Its dominant place in his theology should not be surprising.

1.3

John Owen’s Life in Relation to Worship

Convictions are often shaped by a combination of historical circumstances and the inherent significance of issues. Doctrine and practices that were important previously may gain a higher degree of prominence and clarity when they are threatened. The subject of the manner of God’s worship held a special place in the Reformed branch of the Protestant Reformation. In a tract with the translated title The Necessity of Reforming the Church, the Genevan Reformer John Calvin asserted that the two most important areas of reform respected the manner in which God should be worshiped, and the means by which a sinner is justified before God – in that order.43 Sinners must be justified before they can worship God, but worship is the goal and purpose of their salvation. Carlos Erie noted that zeal for limiting divine worship strictly to the confines of Holy For a fuller treatment of the relationship between Reformed Orthodoxy in connection to the Protestant Scholastic influence of the Academy, see Richard A. Muller, “The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism: A Review and Definition,” in Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, eds., Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 45 – 64. 43 “Si quaeritur, quibus potissimum rebus stet Christiana religio inter nos, suamque veritatem retineat, has duas non modo summum locum occupare certum est, sed reliquas etiam omnes partes, adeoque totam vim Christianismi sub se comprehendere: ut rite colatur Deus: ut inde salus sibi petenda sit, noverint homines. Iisdem sublatis, Christi nominee gloriemur licet, vana est ac inanis nostra professio. Sequuntur deinde Sacramenta, & Ecclesiae gubernatio, quae sicut ad huius doctrinae conservationem sunt instituta, sic non alio referri debent: nec aliunde aestimari potest, sanctene & ordine, an secus administrentur, nisi quum ad hunc finem exiguntur. Hoc si clarius & familiarius habere quis velit: regimen in Ecclesia, munus pastorale, & reliquus ordo, una cum Sacramentis, instar corporis sunt: doctrina autem illa, quae rite colendi Dei regulam praescribit, & ubi salutis fiduciam reponere debeant hominum conscientiae, ostendit, anima est, quae corpus ipsum inspirat, vividum & actuosum reddit: facit denique, ne sit mortuum & inutile cadaver. Quae hactenus dixi, controversiam inter pios, & recti sanique animi homines nullam habent.” Jean Calvin, Supplex exhortatio, ad invictiss. Caesarem Carolum Quintum, et illustrissimos principes, aliosque ordines, spirae nunc imperii conventum agentes: ut restituendae ecclesiae curam serio velint suscipere. Eorum omnium nomine edita, qui Christum regnare cupiunt, in Ioannis Calvini Noviodunensis opera omnia; in novem tomos digesta (Amsterdam: Apud viduam Ioannis Iacobi Schipperi, 1671), 38. For a translated text, see John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, orig. pub. 1544, trans. Henry Beveridge, 1844 (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), 15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

John Owen’s Life in Relation to Worship

21

Scripture was one of the primary characteristics of Reformed churches.44 This Reformed emphasis on the true worship of God formed the backdrop for the theological tradition in which Owen took part. We cannot avoid the topic of public worship in studying the “Puritans.” Controversies over the proper worship of God and resulting persecution characterized the times in which Owen lived, and they have substantial ramifications for his life.45 While most of the churches in the Reformed tradition from Zwingli onward had sought to limit the ordinances of public worship to what was prescribed in Scripture, the Church of England was largely unique in seeking a middle way between traditional forms of public worship and the simple biblical worship of its Reformed counterparts on the continent.46 Owen was born in 1616. His father, Henry Owen, was a “Puritan” minister who lived in troubled times.47 In the early part of the seventeenth century, many “Puritans” were apprehensive about King James’ friendly relationship with Roman Catholicism. Fearing that the English prayer book retained too many remnants of the worship and theology of Rome, many English Protestants feared that the liturgy paved the way for the resurgence of Catholicism and for the suppression of Protestantism. As a young man, Owen attended Oxford University. While studying for his B.A., he was continually confronted with practices of worship that grated against his “Puritan” upbringing.48 The ordinary routine of study and worship was often interrupted by the various holy days interspersed throughout the academic year. 44 Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Philip Benedict makes the same point, providing a statement from Zwingli that is nearly identical to the one cited by Calvin above. See Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 2 – 3. 45 For a study of the connection between persecution and liberty of conscience and practice in Protestant England, see John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558 – 1689 (Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2000). 46 This was particularly true during and after the reign of Elizabeth I (r.1558 – 1603). For the controversies and fragmentation of the English Church during this time period, see Benedict, Christ’s Churches, 384 – 422. 47 Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), 1. Toon’s work is the only major biography of John Owen. In the Epilogue to Toon’s work, he has surveyed the two eighteenth century biographies of Owen as well as the nineteenth century biography by Andrew Thompson prefaced to the Goold edition of Owen’s works. Toon notes that these earlier biographies focus almost exclusively upon Owen as a Congregationalist leader and theologian and downplay his role as professor at Oxford and his involvement in the politics of his times. Toon, 174 – 178. After Toon’s work, the only biography written concerning Owen is the popular work by R. G. Lloyd, John Owen, Commonwealth Puritan, 1972. This book was never completed due to the death of the author. Crawford Gribben is currently working on a large-scale intellectual biography of John Owen. 48 This upbringing would have instilled an abhorrence of the use of images in worship, the observance of holy-days, kneeling at the Lord’s Supper, and many other practices that were required at Oxford while Owen attended there. See Toon, God’s Statesman, 9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

22

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

The vestments of the English Church were required attire. Moreover, the end of year ceremonies connected to graduation often ended in outright revelry.49 During his later overlapping tenure as Dean of Christ Church (1651 – 1660) and Vice Chancellor of the University (1652 – 1657), Owen attempted to bring reform to the University by continually protesting the imposition of vestments, by simplifying the end-of-year ceremonies, and by enforcing strict discipline within the student body.50 Owen continued as a student at Oxford for several years, but his education was cut short due to his developing conscience with regard to the proper worship of God. After completing his B.A. in 1632, he immediately began work on his M.A. under Thomas Barlow’s tutorship. Under Barlow, he received extensive instruction in ancient languages, literature, and philosophy. Barlow was instrumental in Owen’s early training and Owen latter appointed him to serve the University under his oversight. After completing his M.A. in 1635, Owen was ordained as a deacon and began what would have been a seven-year divinity degree in order to prepare for the ministry.51 It was during the 1630s under the influence of William Laud that the English liturgy was imposed strictly. Laud’s liturgy began to be imposed with rigor by 1637.52 In contrast to former times, the liturgy was now enforced by means of visitors who ensured that local clergy wore proper vestments, used the prayer book, and knelt at the Lord’s Supper. These events made a deep impression upon Owen as a young scholar. As Laud’s reforms were pressed at Oxford, Owen left the University after completing only two years of his seven-year divinity degree.53 Some of the practices that he rejected included “paintings, crossings, crucifixes, bowings, altars, tapers, wafers, organs, anthems, litany, rails, images, copes and vestments.”54 His convictions over the proper worship of God were momentous enough to lead him to sacrifice a standard course of ministerial education and potentially the opportunity to serve in the pastorate. In spite of not completing his ministerial studies, Owen soon came to prominence in both Church and state. Some “Puritan” ministers who could not in good conscience conform to the practices of the established Church became private chaplains. Accordingly, Owen became a house chaplain to Robert Dorner 49 Toon, God’s Statesman, 4. 50 For Owen’s persistent tactics to reform worship during his time at Oxford, see Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter and the Formation of Nonconformity (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011). 51 Toon, God’s Statesman, 6. 52 For Puritan reactions to Laud’s policies, see Tom Webster, “Early Stuart Puritanism,” 55 – 62 as well as the chapter treating the persecutions under Laud in Coffey, Persecution and Toleration. 53 Trueman, John Owen, 2. 54 Owen, Works, 8:28. As cited in Toon, God’s Statesman, 9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

John Owen’s Life in Relation to Worship

23

of Ascot and later to John Lord Lovelace.55 He later pastored churches in Fordam (1642 – 1646) and Coggeshall (1646 – 1649). He gained public recognition when he published his first book, A Display of Arminianism (1642).56 His growing reputation as a theologian eventually led to opportunities to preach before the English Parliament. As Oliver Cromwell gradually gained prominence in the course of the English Civil War, he persuaded Owen (against his congregation’s and his own desires) to leave Coggeshall in order to accompany him as chaplain to Ireland and to seek to reform the University of Dublin.57 In 1651, Cromwell, who was then Chancellor of Oxford University, appointed Owen as Dean of Christ Church and Vice-Chancellor of the University in 1652. He held the latter post until he fell out of favor with Cromwell when he opposed the move to make him king in 1657.58 In 1658, Owen took part in the Savoy Conference, which was designed to draw up a confession of faith and church order for Congregationalist churches. Although nearly two hundred men attended the conference, Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680), Philip Nye (1595 – 1672), William Bridge (1600 – 1670), William Greenhill (1591 – 1671), Joseph Caryl (1602 – 1673), and John Owen were selected to draft these documents.59 Owen likely coauthored the preface to the Savoy Confession of Faith, which defended the need for confessions in general as well as provided the rationale for the need for a confession peculiar to the Congregationalists.60 He was one of the principal architects of the Savoy Confession. The Confession and Declaration of Church Principles not only gave clear definition to Congregationalist principles and practices, but defended their practices of worship. As chapter 22 of the Declaration of Faith indicates, the Savoy divines followed chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (“Of Reli-

55 Toon, God’s Statesman, 10. For a brief account see Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 2. 56 The full original title was, A Display of Arminianism: Being a Discovery of the Old Pelagian Idol Free-Will, with the New Goddess Contingency, Advancing Themselves into the Throne of the God of Heaven, to the Prejudice of His Grace, Goodness, and Supreme Dominion Over the Children of Men, Wherein the Main Errors by Which They are Fallen Off from the Received Doctrine from All the Reformed Churches, with their Opposition in Diverse Particulars to the Doctrine Established in the Church of England, are Discovered and Laid out from their own Writings and Confessions, and Confuted by the Word of God. 57 Toon, God’s Statesman, 30, 36; Ferguson, 7. 58 Toon, God’s Statesman, 50 – 79; Ferguson, 12 – 13. 59 Toon, God’s Statesman,103 – 105. 60 See A. G. Matthews, Savoy Declaration, for a scholarly introduction as well as the full text of the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Church Order. Hunter Powell is currently completing a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University in which he demonstrates that Owen was not likely the single author of the preface, as was previously supposed.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

24

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

gious Worship and the Sabbath Day”) almost to the letter.61 This placed English Congregationalists in close continuity with their Presbyterian counterparts. Following the death of Oliver Cromwell, England was plagued by political turmoil. Oliver’s son Richard was accused of being an ineffective leader and resigned.62 General Monck in Scotland prepared to invade England, and there was a (successful) movement to restore the Stuart monarchy. During this time period, Owen’s primary concern was to preserve the freedom to worship according to the Congregational Way.63 Charles II desired to restore uniformity in worship according to the terms enforced prior to the 1640s. In the 1660s, a series of four acts were passed known as the Clarendon Code.64 The first act renounced the Solemn League and Covenant and required observing communion according to the manner of the Church of England, which included kneeling before the elements. The second was the notorious Act of Uniformity (1662), which required all ministers to submit to Episcopal ordination. Under this act, over 1,900 ministers were ejected from their pulpits. Owen responded the same year by writing A Discourse Concerning Liturgies and their Imposition.65 Furthermore, the Conventicle Act (1664) forbade people to meet in religious assemblies of five or more persons. Owen was prosecuted under this Act in 1665.66 The last act of the Clarendon Code was the Five Mile Act (1665), which forbade pastors from engaging in ministerial activities within five miles of their former charges. Owen 61 The principle of worship is stated in the following manner : “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in holy Scripture.” Cited from Matthews, Savoy Declaration, 104. That which was “prescribed in holy Scripture” was not limited to express chapter and verse statements, but it included practices that “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Savoy Declaration 1.6). Ibid, 77. 62 Some recent research has suggested that Richard was not as ineffective a leader as he has been accused of being. John Peacey in particular has traced Richard’s developing political career and influence prior to becoming Lord Protector in 1658 in order to illustrate the mistake of evaluating Richard’s career in light of selected statements from contemporary critics. John Peacey, “‘Fit for Public Services:’ The Upbringing of Richard Cromwell,” in Patrick Little, ed., Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (Palgrace Macmillan, 2008), 241 – 264. For an additional reassessment of Richard Cromwell, see B. Coward, The Cromwellian Protectorate (Manchester, 2002), 94 – 95. 63 Toon, God’s Statesman, 117. These included: An Account of the Grounds and Reasons on which Protestant Dissenters desire Liberty (London, 1670) and later, A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism (London, 1680). 64 Toon, God’s Statesman, 125. 65 Works, 15:1 – 55. In the preface, Goold seems to assert mistakenly that Owen wrote this work in order to defend the Presbyterians, since Owen himself was in no danger. Given the fact that many of Owen’s Congregationalist colleagues suffered under the Clarendon Code as well as Presbyterians, it is difficult to see how Goold could substantiate this claim. 66 Toon, God’s Statesman, 129.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

John Owen’s Life in Relation to Worship

25

was nearly arrested under this Act in 1681, but was released by a civil magistrate who happened to be passing by when he was detained.67 He was able to continue publishing during this time with the assistance of William Morice, who obtained the necessary licenses.68 In 1667, Owen wrote Indulgence and Toleration Considered: In a Letter unto a Person of Honor, in which he defended the right to worship God upon principles derived from Scripture alone.69 In 1669, he published Truth and Innocence Vindicated, in which he argued that since worship was man’s highest duty, the manner in which God should be worshiped was not a matter of secondary importance.70 These events led him to turn his attention to public worship more intensely than ever. In 1672, Charles II formed a secret treaty with France in which, in exchange for military aid against the Dutch, he promised to profess Roman Catholicism at the earliest convenience. Knowing that this news would not be accepted well by his subjects, Charles sought to appease Nonconformists in his realm by passing the Declaration of Indulgence in the same year.71 In principle, this Act provided relief to Dissenting ministers by allowing them to apply for licenses to preach and to minister to “gathered congregations.” This helped establish Congregational churches in the realm, but it did not ultimately secure freedom of worship to Nonconformists. It was repealed scarcely a year after it was passed. Assaults against Nonconformity continued in law and in print. Notably, Bishop Edward Stillingfleet (1635 – 1699) wrote two works against separation from the established Church.72 A deluge of books appeared in reply, including Owen’s own.73 Following a consistent pattern, his response emphasized the necessity of freedom to worship publicly according to Scriptural principles. Owen suffered far less during these trying times than many of his colleagues did, due primarily to the help of wealthy and influential friends that he made during his public life in the 1650s.74 In 1673, Owen’s small congregation of fewer than forty members merged with the larger London congregation of the recently deceased Joseph Caryl (1602 – 67 Toon, God’s Statesman, 148. 68 Toon, God’s Statesman, 127. 69 John Owen, Indulgence and Toleration Considered: In a Letter unto a Person of Honour (London, 1667). Cf. Works, 13:518 – 540. 70 John Owen, Truth and Innocence Vindicated; in a Survey of a Dicourse Concerning Ecclesiastical Polity, and the Authority of the Civl Magistrate Over the Consciences of subjects in Matters of Religion (London, 1669). Cf. Works, 13:344 – 506 71 Toon, God’s Statesman, 139. 72 The Mischief of Separation, which was originally a sermon, and The Unreasonableness of Separation (London, 1680). 73 An Answer to Dr.Stillingfleet’s Book of the Unreasonableness of Separation (London: Printed for Tomas Pankhurst, 1682), also in Works, 15:375 – 444. Baxter and Howe also wrote books in reply. 74 Toon, God’s Statesman, 149.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

26

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

1673). Owen remained in this work until his death on August 24, 1683. Isaac Loeffs, whom David Clarkson succeded(1622 – 1686) in 1682, assisted him in the ministry. Clarkson later preached Owen’s funeral sermon and he succeeded Owen in his pastorate.75 Robert Ferguson also served as a personal assistant to Owen until Ferguson fled England for Holland in 1682 after participating in a plot to assassinate Charles II.76 Few of Owen’s sermons from this period were printed, but those that have survived often pressed the idea that public worship represented the height of communion with God and Christian experience.77 This shows that his concern for public worship was not merely polemical or even simply a matter of principle, but that, to the end of his days, communion with God through public worship lay at the heart of his theology and ministry. During this pastorate, Owen published many devotional, doctrinal, and expositional books, including his magisterial works on the Holy Spirit and on the Book of Hebrews.78 He was influential as well in helping John Bunyan see Pilgrim’s Progress come to press.79 Owen wrote about communion with the Triune God in public worship while he suffered (albeit mild) persecution due to his non-conformity. In every major stage of his life, the question of public worship remained prominent. In the 75 For this sermon, see “A Funeral Sermon on Dr. John Owen” in The Works of John Owen, D.D. ed. Thomas Russell, vol. 1 (London: for Richard Baynes, 1826), 411 – 422. 76 Toon, God’s Statesman, 156. 77 Toon, God’s Statesman, 158. For examples, see Owen, Works, 9:226 – 227, 290. 78 The first five books of Owen’s massive work on the Holy Spirit were published as, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit: Wherein an Account is Given of His Name, Nature, Personality, Dispensation, Operations, and Effects; His Whole Work in the Old and New Creation is Explained; the Doctrine Concerning it Vindicated from Oppositions and Reproaches. The Nature also and Necessity of Gospel Holiness; the Difference Between Grace and Morality, or a Spiritual Life unto God in Evangelical Obedience and a Course of Moral Virtues are Stated and Declared (London, 1674). Books 6 through 9 of the same work were published subsequently as: The Reason of Faith; or, An Answer unto that Inquiry, Wherefore we Believe the Scripture to be the Word of God;’ with the Causes and Nature of that Faith Wherewith we do so: Wherein the Grounds Whereon the Holy Scripture is Believed to be the Word of God with Faith Divine and Supernatural are Declared and Vindicated (London, 1677); The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God as Revealed in his Word, with Assurance Therein; and a Declaration of the Perspicuity of the Scriptures, with the External Means of the Interpretation of Them (London, 1678); A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer ; With a Brief Inquiry into the Nature and Use of Mental Prayer and Forms (London, 1682); the last two works appeared posthumously as Two Discourses Concerning the Holy Spirit and His Work: The One, of the Spirit as Comforter ; The Other, As He is the Author of Spiritual Gifts (London, 1693). Owen’s work on Hebrews was published in stages from 1668 – 1684. In 1854, William H. Goold reprinted this material as a seven-volume set (the last section of his twentyfour volume edition of Owen’s Works) under the title, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Preliminary Exercitations. The six treatises of preliminary “exercitations” constituted the first two volumes. 79 Toon, God’s Statesman, 162.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Owen Scholarship and the Significance of This Study

27

massive body of his writings, the theme of public worship appears at every turn. As one would expect, the historical circumstances surrounding his life made this subject a pressing concern. Yet as subsequent chapters will demonstrate, his zeal for the public worship of the Church was rooted in a deep-seated conviction that was intimately tied to his practical Trinitarian theology. The historical circumstances of Owen’s life and the frequency with which he mentioned the public worship of God alone validate the need for this study. The manner in which he integrated the theme of public worship into the Trinitarian core of his theology has not received any attention in the secondary literature.

1.4

Owen Scholarship and the Significance of This Study

1.4.1 Thesis, Scope, and Importance Owen’s historical context partly explains the prominent place that public worship occupies in his writings. What stands out about his approach to public worship, however, is how he rooted his treatments of worship in his distinctly Trinitarian concept of the gospel and of piety. This leads to the thesis, scope, and importance of this research. The basic thesis of this study is that John Owen’s doctrine of communion with the Trinity is the foundation of his theology of public worship. A corollary that will stand hand-in-hand with this thesis is that public worship was the climax of his doctrine of communion with God in three persons. After setting forth the scope and plan of this work, its significance should become evident in several ways.

1.4.2 Method, Sources, and Plan This is a work of historical theology. As such, it attempts to represent Owen’s teaching in his own terms and in his own context. The order of the following chapters traces the theological connections that Owen drew between the Trinity and public worship in relation to several major areas of his thought. This introduction constitutes chapter 1. Chapter 2, which is entitled, “Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God,” demonstrates in general that Owen’s doctrine of communion with the Triune God is the foundation of his theology of worship. The thesis of chapter 2 sets forth in brief the thesis of this entire work. In order to understand this assertion properly, it is necessary to examine Owen’s Trinitarian foundation for the knowledge of God, the theological and historical background of his doctrine of communion with each divine person distinctly, and his treatment of the culmination of communion

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

28

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

with God in public worship. Chapter 2 concludes by connecting his views of communion with the Trinity more tightly to public worship by examining his two sermons on Ephesians 2:18.80 He regarded the Trinitarian order of operation in this passage as providing “a heavenly directory” for public worship.81 The analysis will show that this was an important text with respect to his views of the Trinity in general. The topics addressed in subsequent chapters reflect the connections that he made between the Trinity, public worship, and other areas of theology in these two sermons. This material includes a re-evaluation of the purpose of his massive Latin Theologoumena Pantodapa as well as of his Reformed orthodox contribution to Trinitarian theology. Chapter 3 examines Owen’s treatment of the principles governing public worship. In classic formulations of the principles of worship in Reformed theology, authors such as Jeremiah Burroughs (1600 – 1643) and Stephen Charnock (1628 – 1680) commonly began with what the Scriptures said about worship, coupled with a consideration of the spiritual prerequisites for the worshiper.82 However, Owen built his theology of worship directly on his teaching on the knowledge of the Triune God. He believed that the nature of communion with the Trinity in conjunction with Protestant views of the sufficiency of Scripture demanded that Scripture alone determine the character of public worship. On the one hand, he could begin with what the Scriptures required concerning worship. On the other hand, he could just as easily begin with the consequences of personal communion with God, and then move to the external principles of worship that such a relationship with God demands. Communion with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can never be separated from the knowledge of God through Holy Scripture. His formulations of the biblical principles of worship grew naturally out of his views of communion with the Triune God. This is demonstrated by examining his views of worship as spiritual chastity to the Lord Jesus Christ, by his descriptions of the principles of worship set forth in Scripture, by piecing together briefly his description of the external form of the worship service, and by the connection that he drew between apostasy from the gospel and the external form of public worship. Most of this material is taken from Of Communion with God,83 A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God,84 Theologoumena Pantodapa,85 and Apostasy from the Gospel.86

80 81 82 83

“For through him, we both have access, by one Spirit, to the Father.” Owen, Communion with God, 314; Works, 2:269. The approach of Owen’s contemporaries will be referenced in this chapter. John Owen, Of Communion with God, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Each Person Distinctly) in Love, Grace, and Consolation, or The Saint’s Fellowship with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Unfolded (London, 1657). Cf. Works, 2:5 – 274. 84 John Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and Discipline of the Churches of the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Owen Scholarship and the Significance of This Study

29

Owen’s doctrine of communion with the Triune God leads to heavenly or spiritual-mindedness in worship (chapter 4). This does not simply mean that public worship directs one’s attention to heaven, but that public worship is a heavenly transaction between the souls of believers and the Triune God. This aspect of Owen’s teaching illustrates why communion with each person of the Trinity reaches its climax in public worship. This chapter treats his views of the nature of public worship as a heavenly transaction, his directions on delighting in worship, and the contrast between walking by faith and by sight. The reasons why Owen rejected the use of images in public worship is related closely to this subject. However, his views on images are treated in an appendix because this material lacks the direct connection to communion with God as triune that characterizes the chapters of this research. Most of this material comes from Owen’s work on The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded.87 This chapter includes a brief analysis of the religious affections in Reformed orthodoxy. The purpose of chapter 5 is to explain Owen’s views regarding the contrast between communion with God under the old versus the new covenants. He taught that the glory of new covenant worship excelled that of the old covenant because it provides a greater measure of fellowship and communion with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To understand the relationship of Owen’s covenant theology to public worship, it is necessary to look at his Trinitarian view of the covenant of redemption, his treatment of the covenant of works/covenant of grace paradigm, his minority position on the Mosaic covenant, and the heightened communion with God that marks the new covenant. His rejection of imposed liturgies is related closely to his conception of the glory of new covenant worship, which topic concludes this chapter. Owen expounded these themes most extensively in his seven volumes on Hebrews as well as his A Discourse on the Holy Spirit. His covenant theology maps out a cycle that “begins” with the eternal Triune God, unfolds God’s progressive plan in history, and finally leads New Testament, by Way of Question and Answer : with an Explication and Confirmation of those Answers (London, 1667). Cf. Works, 15:445 – 530. 85 Johanne Oweno, Theologoumena Pantodapa, sive, de Natura, Ortu, Progresso, et Studio Verae Theologiae, Libri Sex; Quibus Etiam Originnes et Processus Veri et Falsi Cultus Religiosi, Casus et Instaurationes Ecclesiae Illustriores ab ipsis, Rerum Primordiis Enarrantur ; Accedunt Digressiones de Gratia Universali, Scientarum Ortu, Ecclesiae Romanae Notis, Literarum Origine, Antiquis Literis Hebraicis, Puntatione Hebraica, Versionibus SS. Ritibus Judaicis, Alisque (London, 1661). Cf. Works, 17. 86 John Owen, The Nature of Apostasy from the Profession of the Gospel and the Punishment of Apostates Declared, in an Exposition of Heb. VI. 4 – 6; An Inquiry into the Causes and Reasons of the Decay of the Power of Religion in the World, or the Present General Defection from the Truth, Holiness, and Worship of the Gospel; also, of the Proneness of Churches and Persons of all Sorts unto Apostasy, with Remedies and Means of Prevention (London, 1674). Cf. Works, 7:2 – 259. 87 John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded Declared and Practically Improved (London, 1681). Cf. Works, 7:267 – 497.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

30

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

the believer back to worship the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, chapter 6 turns to Owen’s treatment of the connection between the Christian ministry, public worship, and communion with God. He argued that maintaining intercourse with the Godhead in public worship stands or falls with a proper view of the nature and role of the ministry.88 He consistently pressed this connection in his various works on Ecclesiology and throughout his sermons. Communion with the Triune God in worship occurs primarily in the context of the church. Christ gave ordained ministers as gifts to his church in order to dispense the means of grace. According to Owen, the Christian ministry is designed to produce communion with the Triune God through the ordinances of public worship. In his treatment of “benedictions” in public worship, he argued that Christ designed the ministerial office to be benedictory. Communion with God in public worship cannot be conceived of apart from ordinances administered in the context of a local church. This chapter treats Owen’s description of the purpose of the ministry and the ordinances dispensed by it, with special emphasis on communion with God through the Word, Sacraments, and prayer. This chapter completes the aim of this study by tying together the emphases of each chapter in concert with the overarching thesis. A brief conclusion follows that shows how this research re-evaluates earlier studies on Owen’s theology and points out areas for further study. This chapter outline illustrates the method and approach of this research. This book places Owen in his historical and theological context by critical interaction with both primary and secondary sources.

1.4.3 Conclusion At least three things highlight importance of this subject. First, worship is a central theme that pervades Owen’s works. The secondary literature has largely neglected this fact. Owen’s emphases on public worship and his Trinitarian piety were intimately connected. He did not approach public worship merely by pitting imposed liturgies against the sufficiency of Scripture. Neither did he approach the doctrine of the Trinity only in a polemical context in order to counter the Socinians. He expounded the doctrine of the Trinity in a manner that culminated in public worship, and he treated worship in a self-consciously Trinitarian manner. As far as Owen studies go, there are a few important works on his Trinitarianism as the centerpiece of his theology. The most significant are those 88 Owen, Works, 9:442.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Owen Scholarship and the Significance of This Study

31

produced by Carl Trueman, Kelly Kapic, and Brian Kay.89 However, aside from one published work entitled, John Owen on the Lord’s Supper,90 and one article on Owen on worship,91 few major studies have addressed Owen’s views of worship. Daniel Hyde’s recent article on Owen’s liturgical theology notes the importance of worship to Owen, but it is limited to public prayer and it does not address his Trinitarian piety.92 Trueman provides a carefully researched study of the manner in which the Trinity stood at the center of Owen’s theology.93 Kapic analyzes Owen’s Communion with God, and how human beings interact with God in terms of the ontological and the economic Trinity. However, the only aspects of public worship that Kapic connects to Owen’s view of communion are the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper.94 Brian Kay and Robert Letham connect Owen’s teaching on communion with the Trinity to private worship, but both of them overlook the fact that though he viewed private worship as a prerequisite to public worship, public worship was his ultimate aim.95 Owen made reference to public worship in most of the treatises and sermons included in the Goold edition of his works. This omits a major connection that Owen drew frequently. This study attempts to fill the lacunae in Owen research in this respect. Second, as chapters 2 and 3 demonstrate, Owen’s contribution to seventeenth century discussions of public worship is distinctive. Brian Kay shows in his thesis that it was rare for seventeenth century theologians to root their devotional works in the Trinity.96 While most regarded the Trinity as a fundamental article of the Christian religion, it held little practical or devotional value beyond adoring God for his incomprehensibility.97 Owen’s weaving of the orthodox 89 Each of these works has been cited above. 90 Jon D. Payne, John Owen on the Lord’s Supper (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004). 91 A. Craig Troxell, “Cleansed Once for All: John Owen on the Glory of Gospel Worship in Hebrews,” Calvin Theological Journal 32 (1997): 468 – 479. 92 Daniel R. Hyde, “‘The Fire that Kindleth all our Sacrifices to God,’” Ashgate Research Compantion to John Owen’s Theology, 249 – 270. 93 Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998). Trueman’s work provides an important backdrop for this thesis, even if he is not cited at every turn. 94 Kapic, chapters 5 and 6, respectively. 95 Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 1 – 7. For Letham’s views of Owen see Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and its Significance for Today,” in Where Reason Fails: Papers Read at the 2006 Westminster Conference (Stoke on Trent, UK: Tentmaker Publications, 2006). Daniel Hyde recently completed a ThM thesis on Owen’s liturgical theology with Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, but this thesis does not thoroughly connect his Trinitarianism and his views of public worship. See Daniel R. Hyde, “Of Great Importance and of High Concernment: The Liturgical Theology of John Owen (1616 – 1683),” Th.M. thesis, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, 2010. 96 Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 5. 97 This was certainly not true for later continental theologians who developed a self-conscious Trinitarian piety in response to the Arminian charge that the Trinity had no practical

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

32

Historical Introduction and State of the Question

dogma of the Trinity into every facet of the Christian life was unusual for English authors.98 When Owen approached the subject of public worship in Trinitarian terms, he employed a framework that stood at the base of his entire practical theology. The result was an uncommon integration of Reformed orthodox Trinitarianism into his otherwise common “Puritan” principles of public worship. Owen’s emphasis on public worship was a means by which he inextricably intertwined his “Puritan” piety into his theology. Third, properly understanding the connection between Owen’s Trinitarianism and public worship can complement contemporary discussions of doctrine of the Trinity. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the Trinity in the Western Church.99 This interest includes historical as well as contemporary research. However, in the historical literature, with few exceptions, the development of Reformed Trinitarian theology often leads up to Calvin and then makes a massive leap to Karl Barth.100 Although this thesis is an exercise in Historical Theology rather than Systematic or Practical Theology, the potential value of Owen’s contribution to contemporary discussions is tremendous. His emphasis on the doctrine of the Trinity in the atmosphere of public worship may assist scholars, theologians, and pastors in their concern to bridge the gap between theology and practice. Owen not only provides a self-consciously Trinitarian framework for theological reflection, but he integrated that framework into every area of theology with public worship as his goal.

importance. See Gisperti Voetii, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Prima (Utrecht, 1648), 1:472, who called the Trinity the fundamentum fundamenti. He added that the doctrine of the Trinity was fundamental because it was the foundation of many practical uses, personal holiness, and divine worship (473). 98 A notable exception to this is Owen’s friend and fellow Congregationalist, Thomas Goodwin. See the Works of Thomas Goodwin (Orig. Pub., James Nichol, 1861 – 1866, reprint, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), vols. 1, 4, 5, and 6. Volume 1 explores the Trinity in the context of Goodwin’s exposition of Ephesians 1. Volumes 4 and 5 include several treatises on Christology. Volume 6 is devoted to the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. Throughout these volumes, Goodwin intertwines orthodox Trinitarianism with the Christian life in a manner that is similar to Owen’s. 99 Robert Letham provides a survey of recent scholarship and debates in Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg: P& R Publishing, 2004), 271 – 373. For a broader treatment of contemporary developments in Trinitarian theology, see Peter C. Phan, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 100 This is true for instance, in Edward Siecienski, The Filoque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). I have recently published a chapter highlighting Owen’s doctrinal and practical development of the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed. See Ryan M. McGraw, “John Owen on the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Trinity, the Humanity of Christ, and the Believer,” in Joel R. Beeke and Joseph A. Pipa, eds., The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 267 – 283.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

2.

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

2.1

Introduction

“Puritanism” sought to wed theology to personal piety. One of John Owen’s major contributions to this endeavor is that he taught believers how to hold communion with all three persons of the Godhead. He explicitly conjoined this practical Trinitarianism, however, with Christian experience in public worship. The conjunction of these ideas is the foundation for the thesis that John Owen’s doctrine of communion with God in three persons is the foundation for his theology of public worship. This chapter examines his Trinitarian basis for the knowledge of God, his description of communion with each divine person, and how he applied these concepts to public worship. This material primarily attempts to set the stage for understanding why his views of public worship were distinctively Trinitarian and why public worship was the high point of communion with all three persons. Subsequent chapters show how and why his Trinitarian paradigm tied various threads of his theology into his teaching on public worship.

2.2

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God1

2.2.1 Context: “Protestant Scholasticism” and Reformed Orthodoxy Owen lived in a two-fold context. As demonstrated in chapter 1, he was a “Puritan” theologian; yet he was a “Protestant Scholastic” theologian as well. Paul C. H. Lim noted recently that most scholars have missed the connection between “spirituality” and “scholastic divinity.” This is particularly true in connection to 1 This section has largely been adapted and expanded from my article, “John Owen on the Study of Theology,” The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 6, 2010, 180–195.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

34

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

seventeenth century polemical defenses of the Trinity.2 Owen’s Puritanism highlights his piety and his British context. His context as a “Protestant Scholastic” meant that he was part of a broader international movement of Reformed orthodoxy, especially in connection to the “schools” and the training of ministers.3 This context is particularly relevant as the background for his Trinitarian basis for the knowledge of God. He did not write simply as a British theologian; his theological method and content drew heavily from the international Reformed tradition.4 In this vein, he regarded the true knowledge of God as inherently Trinitarian. His incorporation of the Trinity into his doctrine of the knowledge of God sets the stage for his Trinitarian view of communion with God and its application to public worship. Owen’s Latin Theologoumena Pantodapa is particularly relevant in this connection.5 This was loosely translated into English as Biblical Theology : The History of Theology from Adam to Christ.6 Sebastian Rehnman describes this translation as “of such inferior quality that it cannot be used for serious study.”7 The translator referred to it as “an English interpretation of the Latin text.” It is regrettable that the first English edition of this work does not adhere to the Latin text more closely. The treatment here relies on the original Latin text, but it includes references to the English “interpretation” with corrections when needed. The title of the translation is infelicitous as well, since it leads readers to view the work as a sort of early-modern biblical theology. J. I. Packer translates the original title as: “Theological affirmations of all sorts, or, of the nature, rise, progress, and study, of true theology with digressions on universal grace, the rise of the sciences, marks of the Roman Church, the origin of writing, ancient Hebrew script, Hebrew punctuation, Jewish versions and forms of worship, and other things.”8 Translation issues aside, there is some disagreement regarding the purpose of this volume. Carl Trueman calls it “a major Latin work of covenant theology.”9 However, Richard Muller more plausibly identifies it as a sev2 Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 178. 3 See above for Owen’s tenure as Dean of Christ Church and Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University in the 1650’s under Oliver Cromwell. 4 Andrew Petegree wrote recently of the dangers facing an EEBO generation of scholars. With more English literature available online than the best libraries in the world combined have to offer, scholars can neglect the international Reformed context in favor of English literature only. Andrew Petegree, “Afterward,” Reception of Continental Reformation, 235–236. 5 John Owen, Theogoumena Pantodapa. 6 John Owen, Biblical Theology : The History of Theology from Adam to Christ, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994). 7 Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 2002), 17, fn 3. 8 Owen, Biblical Theology, xii. 9 Carl R. Trueman, John Owen, 5.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

35

enteenth century Protestant Prolegomena.10 Even William Goold mischaracterized this work when he wrote, “The treatise is simply a historical dissertation on the origin and progress of theology, in a spirit thoroughly evangelical, and in a style somewhat remarkable for the power and compass of its Latinity.”11 The analysis below agrees with Muller’s classification. Theologoumena Pantodapa was Owen’s treatment of the methods of scholastic theology. Stephen Westcott argued recently that classing Owen as a “Protestant scholastic” attributes to him a position “that he himself firmly repudiates.”12 Most Reformed theologians verbally repudiated “scholasticism.” However, Westcott fails to recognize that scholasticism had a two-fold meaning in the seventeenth century. On one hand, it referred to theological content. In many cases the Reformed rejected or modified this content significantly. On the other hand, scholasticism meant an academic theological method and system of organization.13 Among others, the influential Dutch theologian, Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1686), explicitly defended the methods of scholastic theology as adapted by the Reformed.14 He distinguished between the ways in which Reformed and Roman Catholic theologians used scholastic methodology. In this sense, scholastic methodology referred to how theological inquiry was conducted in the schools, and to theological organization in conjunction with a codified confessional form of Reformed theology.15 This does not mean that the so-called 10 Muller, PRRD, I, 118. 11 John Owen, The Works of John Owen D. D., ed., by William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1862), 17:2. 12 Stephen P. Westcott, By the Bible Alone!: John Owen’s Puritan Theology for Today’s Church (Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media and Press, 2010), 593. This is a popular work on Owen’s theology and it usefully illustrates the common misconception of “Protestant scholasticism.” The author confuses scholastic method with scholastic content. He contends that scholasticism inherently involves elevating reason above faith via the Medieval synthesis between nature and grace (602). Popular historical theology often suffers from a lack of accurate research and scholarly rigor. Ironically, such rigor characterized Owen’s own theological method. Contra Westcott, Paul Lim states that Owen was “assuredly known more for his Protestant Scholasticism then for ecstatic spiritual discourse.” Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 193. 13 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 34–37. Also see David C. Steinmetz, “The Scholastic Calvin,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Bletchney, UK: Paternoster, 2005), 19–21. 14 Gisbertus Voetius, “De Theologia Scholastica,” in Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum (Utrecht, 1658), 1:12–29. 15 For more detail on the questions related to this subject, see Eef Dekker and Willem J. Van Asselt, Reformation and Orthodoxy : An Ecumenical Enterprise (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001); Willem J. Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); and Paul Helm, “Westminster and Protestant Scholasticism,” in J. Ligon Duncan, ed, The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century : Volume 2 (Geanies House, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), 99–116.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

36

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

Protestant scholastics rejected medieval theological content wholesale. It meant that these writers shared points of continuity and discontinuity with medieval scholasticism. Thus writers like Owen often used authors such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)16 positively yet critically, both with regard to method and to content. The question at hand and the context determined the extent to which traditional scholasticism was appropriated and modified.17Andreas Hyperius (d. 1564) viewed the apostle Paul’s teaching on justification as an example of scholastic theology. In his view, the distinction between scholastic and popular theology was rooted in Scripture examples that involved weighty (graviores) and subtle matters that included some disputation (disputationes).18 While Owen did not write a systematic treatment of theology in a single volume, his methodology belonged to the mainstream of Reformed theology, both in Britain and throughout Europe. This is particularly evident in Theologoumena Pantodapa, in which he partly intended to correct and modify “scholastic” definitions and approaches for his own theological purposes.19 In this respect, he is a “Protestant scholastic.” Even with his modifications and criticisms of contemporary methodology at points, he falls within the range of “Protestant scholasticism,” which was not a monolithic movement.20 The analysis below demonstrates that we must not overstress the contrast between Owen’s seemingly historical method and the traditional loci method of theology. His theological method, though bearing his own peculiar stamp, stood in basic continuity with his contemporaries. Scholasticism was a theology “of the schools.”21 It gave Reformed theologians and pastors a clear system of theological organization and the tools necessary to establish truth and to dismantle error. One clear instance of this was the disputatio method, which was common to the Middle Ages and to the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods. On the surface, Owen’s writings abound with this method, both in his “academic” as well as his “popular” works.22 Along with

16 See below for Owen’s use of Aquinas. For Owen’s dependence on Aquinas for the doctrine of the knowledge of God, see Carl R. Trueman, “The Necessity of the Atonement,” in Drawn into Controversie, 217–221. 17 Though writing in the early twentieth century, Herman Bavinck’s comments on the relation between scholastic method and content help clarify this discussion. He notes that scholastic theology goes beyond mere positive statements of doctrine in that it seeks both to defend these doctrines and to show their interconnectedness. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grands Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:145. 18 Andreas Hyperius, De formandis concionibus Sacris seu de Interpretatione, scripturarum populari libri duo,Una cum Rerum & Verborum indice locupletissimo (Basileae, 1563), 4. 19 Owen, Theologoumena, 1–5. On page four, he cited Buxtorf for support. 20 For diversity of emphasis among Protestant Scholastics, see Muller, PRRD, 1:41 21 Voetius, “Theologia Scholastica,” 1:12. 22 For instance, see Owen’s partial use of Aristotelian fourfold causation in his popular work, Of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

37

other “Protestant scholastics,” he used Aristotelian categories freely. This does not mean that he and others accepted Aristotle’s metaphysics or ethics wholesale, but that he adapted Aristotelian categories and distinctions as tools with Reformed content imported into them.23 Luther, whose writings include vitriolic attacks against both medieval Scholasticism and Aristotle, did not hesitate to use Aristotle’s fourfold causation.24 This illustrates the point that attributing a scholastic method to men such as Owen, or identifying a heavily modified use of Aristotle, by no means implies that they adopted wholesale scholastic (or Aristotelian) content. There is a similar distinction between two uses of the term philosophy among Reformation and Post-Reformation theologians. On the one hand, philosophy referred to the humanities, such as logic and rhetoric. On the other hand, philosophy often included metaphysics and ethics as derived from reason apart from Scripture.25 Medieval theology, particularly following the lead of Aquinas, sought to harmonize truths derived from nature with truths derived by grace via God’s revelation in Scripture.26 While not disjoining revealed truth either in nature or in grace, the Reformed frequently refused to view philosophy as a proper source for theological knowledge due to the depravity of the mind of man as fallen.27 Thus, the doctrine of sin became an important aspect of Protestant

23

24

25 26 27

the Mortification of Sin in Believers; The Necessity, Nature, and Means of it: With a Resolution of Sundry Cases of Conscience Thereunto Belonging, Works, 6:85. See especially Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998), esp. 29–44, who addresses Owen’s use of Aristotle at length. In a later article, he accuses those who import Aristotelian content into Protestant appropriations of Aristotle of being guilty of the “root fallacy.” Trueman, “A Small Step Toward Rationalism: The Impact of the Metaphysics of Thommaso Campanella on the Theology of Richard Baxter,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 188, 193. See also R. Scott Clark, “The Authority of Reason in the Latter Reformation: Scholasticism in Caspar Olevian and Antoine de le Faye,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 126. Muller consistently refers to this as a “Christian Aristotelianism.” However, Owen’s contemporary, Francis Cheynell, could openly and explicitly adopt the content of Aristotelian metaphysics when it suited him. See Francis Cheynell, The Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: or, The Blessed Doctrine of the Three Coessential Subsistents in the eternal Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct Subsistences, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead (London, 1650), 4. Lowell C. Green, “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 279. The same is true of Calvin who, in his comments on Eph. 1:5, used fourfold causation in order to expound Paul’s teaching about salvation. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians, in, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, n.d., reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), XXI, 200. So with Owen’s friend, Thomas Goodwin, whose comments mirror Calvin’s closely. Goodwin, Works, 1:75. Green, “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism,” 277. For an introduction to Aquinas’ thought, see Josef Pieper, Guide to Thomas Aquinas, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991). For this reason, Owen’s younger Dutch contemporary, Herman Witsius (1636–1708), wrote, “Lampidia Theolgiae fluenta, ex sola Sacrarum Literarum fonte derivanda, nullis, vel anti-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

38

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

theological Prolegomena.28 This meant that in “Protestant scholasticism,” philosophy was viewed positively when referring to developing proficiency in the humanities, but it was often treated negatively in relation to truth, metaphysics, and ethics. For this reason, Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666) wrote that Gentile theology was unworthy of the name and that it led invariably to diabolical worship.29 This reinforces the assertion that “Protestant scholasticism” represents a Reformed adaptation of the methods of the day without invariably implying appropriation of theological content.30 Owen’s practice of theological reflection and his assertions concerning theological method must be understood in the international context of “Protestant scholasticism,” with which he was conversant.31 As noted above, he argued vigorously that many perversions in theology resulted from overusing Scholastic and extra-biblical terminology and from over-dependence on Aristotle. This does not mean that he was not a “Protestant scholastic.” Instead, he reflected the concerns of “Protestant scholasticism” to adopt a method of formulating a theology that honored Scripture and that was consistent with Reformed orthodoxy. Owen desired a more thorough revision of the use of terms than most of his contemporaries.32 While frequently justifying extra-biblical

28

29 30

31 32

quioris, vel novitiae, Philisophiae impuris laticibus sordidentur.” Hermanni Wisti, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei cum Hominibus, Liberi Quattuor; Editio Secunda, Multis a Mendis Repurgata, ac Plurimis in Locis ab Auctore Aucta et Emendata (Leeuwarden: J. Haganaar, 1885), [9]. Pages in the “Dedication” are unnumbered in the original text. Francis Cheynell once again serves as a contrast to this view of philosophy. He asserted that he “prized” philosophy because it was subservient to divinity and because truths that are selected out of philosophy are nothing more than natural theology. Cheynell, The Divine Triunity, 1–2. Muller, PRRD, 1:108. This is why in book 1, chapter 5 of Theologoumena, Owen began to address “theologica naturalis, post ingressum peccati.” Theologoumena, 21. “Natural theology” was altered following mankind’s fall into sin, making supernatural revelation and the regeneration of the Spirit necessary for true theology. Johannes Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae (Utrecht, 1663), 3. In this regard, James T. Dennison, Jr. incorrectly asserts that Turretin’s attempted synthesis of reason and revelation was “classical” due to the fact that it bore resemblance to Aquinas’ synthesis of nature and grace. James T. Dennison, Jr., “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and the Dawn of the Enlightenment,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 252. Martin I. Klauber more correctly observes the radical shift in the Reformed attitude toward reason and the use of natural theology with the rise of the Enlightenment, which implicitly brought a substantial shift in the manner in which Protestants sought to establish the truth claims of Christianity apologetically. Martin I. Klauber, “Theological Transition in Geneva from JeanAlphonse Turretin to Jacob Vernet,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 266. See also Muller, PRRD, 1:122, 141, 146, and 160ff. It is noteworthy that Witsius, who berated the “schoolmen” in the same manner as his Reformed orthodox contemporaries, criticized Jacob Arminius for lacking “scholastic accuracy” (akribeia scholastica). Oeconomia Foederum, lib. II, cap. VII, sec. X, p. 158. Muller, PRRD, 1:153, comments on Owen in particular. Comparing Owen’s earlier and later works on justification indicate that there may have been a gradual shift away from using extra-biblical terminology in his writings.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

39

terminology where appropriate or necessary, he desired to reduce these terms to a minimum. The fact that he criticized aspects of the method that he had studied at Oxford does not mean that he wanted to sever himself from the methodology of the schools. If anything, he sought to modify it by closing the gap between academic and practical theology.33

2.2.2 The Knowledge of God in Owen’s Prolegomena In Protestant scholasticism, the knowledge of God was a question of Prolegomena.34 Sixteenth and seventeenth-century Reformed Prolegomena was built upon two principa. The Triune God was the pricipium essendi (“principle of being”), and the Scriptures were the pricipium cognoscendi (“principle of knowledge”).35 With regard to the principium essendi, God was conceived of in a twofold manner : in his essence and in his personhood. For instance, Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644), began his theology with thirteen chapters on Scripture as the principium cognoscendi (115 pages in two columns), and then moved immediately to an extensive treatment concerning God and the names of God .36 Following the common method at the time, Maccovius moved from the unity of God in his names and attributes generally before treating the Trinity in particular. As Muller notes, this procedure did not sever discussions of the Trinity from the doctrine of God generally speaking, but this was the first step in treating the doctrine of God, who is distinctly triune. In this connection, he adds, “One of the great errors of modern writers has been their claim that the Reformers did not emphasize the doctrine of the Trinity sufficiently and that the Protestant 33 For the distinction and relationship between the theology of the schools and popular theology in “Protestant scholasticism,” see Donald Sinnema, “The Distinction Between Scholastic and Popular : Andreas Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 127–144. 34 Muller defined prolegomena as, “The introductory section of a treatise or system of thought in which basic principles and premises are enunciated…. The prolegomena are also the place where the discipline of theology itself is defined.” Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995), 248. 35 Muller, PRRD, 1. It is helpful to note that Muller’s four-volume work is an extended treatment of Reformed orthodox Prolegomena. The first volume treats Prolegomena generally. The second delves more deeply into the doctrine of Scripture (pricipum cognoscendi). Volumes 3 and 4 address the doctrine of God (pricipum essendi) in detail in terms of the divine essence and attributes as well as the Trinity, respectively. See, Dictionary, 245. 36 Johannis Maccovii, Loci Communes Theologici: Ex omnibus eius, quae extant, Collegiis, Thesibus per Locs Comm. Disputatis, Manuscriptis antiquis, recentoribus uniquaqe solicite conquisitis, collecti, digesti, aucti, Indice Capitum, Rerumque locupletati; edition postrema (Amsterdam, 1668), 1–115.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

40

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

scholastics devalued the doctrine of the Trinity because of an emphasis on the essence and attributes of God.”37 In spite of his awareness of Muller’s work, Robert Letham has ignored Muller’s caution in his recent essay on Owen’s Trinitarianism.38 The unity of God demands that all of God’s works ad extra are undivided. The distinction of divine persons requires that every work of God terminates on one person particularly.39 Among fallen people, another consideration is vital: true knowledge of God is impossible without supernatural revelation. Scripture is the foundation of the true knowledge of God. The theological complement of this idea is that God is the foundation of all being. The material below shows that Owen regarded the Scriptures as insufficient for knowing God without the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. In addition, the knowledge of God is inherently Trinitarian, albeit with a special emphasis upon knowing God in Christ. He argued that “true theology” involves both revelation from and communion with all three persons of the Godhead. This involves the rebirth of the mind resulting in the transformation of the entire person. His Trinitarian views of the knowledge of God are foundational, both to his treatment of communion with God and his application of these principles to public worship.

2.2.3 Definitions of True Theology Owen defined “true theology” both by negation and by affirmation. Negatively, “true theology” is not a science. “Science” is knowledge based upon deductions derived from principles agreed upon by reason. However, “theology” is known only by “God revealing God.”40 This was a common view but not a uniform one. Leonard Rjissen wrote, “As a disposition (habitualiter), theology is a science (scientia). As a system (systematice), it is the doctrine of divine truth that leads to godliness and salvation of men (Tit. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:13).”41 As demonstrated above, Owen taught that since man’s fall into sin, philosophy and reason among the 37 Muller, PRRD, 4:145. 38 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” 186, 197. At the very least, Letham needs to interact with Muller’s arguments, which he does not do in this essay. 39 See below. For a treatment of particular divine persons as the terminus of the works of God, see Muller, PRRD, 4:267–269. 40 Owen, Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. II, 5–6; Biblical Theology, 8. Similarly, Cheynell wrote, “This incomprehensible God, who is of himself and for himself, cannot be made known to his creatures but by himself.” The Divine Triunity, 11. 41 Leonard Rijssen, A Summary of Elenctic Theology, trans. and introduction by J. Wesley White (unpublished ThM thesis, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), 1. Emphasis original.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

41

unregenerate have distorted (rather than discovered) “natural theology.”42 Therefore, since theology is concerned with the knowledge of God, it is not a science like other human sciences. This contradicts Owen’s Oxford tutor, Thomas Barlow, who wrote, “Theology (or Divinity) is a science or prudence containing our knowledge of God, and our duty, and the worship due to him.”43 While not rejecting Barlow’s instruction on the study of theology, Owen desired to define true theology in a way that highlighted more clearly its unique status among other studies. He argued that scholastic debates as to whether or not theology is a science or an art, theoretical or practical, had sometimes unnecessarily clouded the question with Aristotelian categories.44 He did not reject these categories wholesale, but he curtailed them in light of Scripture. Because theology depends on God’s work on the mind of fallen man creating submission to his revealed will in Scripture, its methods cannot be identical with those of common sciences.45 Even in reference to exclusively theological uses of the term “science,” he asserted strongly : “Certainly none of the ends of evangelical theology are served by theological science.”46 The reason was that “theological science” employed definitions and methods common to all sciences. He contended that if theology did not exist in a category of its own, then it distorted “true” or “evangelical theology.” This echoed the concerns of Aquinas and, more recently, William Ames.47 This resulted from the inherently practical nature of true theology. 42 This does not mean that Owen did not use natural theology. See Trueman, “The Necessity of the Atonement,” 222. Natural theology was impossible for the unregenerate, but the regenerate could use it freely. 43 Thomas Barlow, The Genuine Remains of that Learned Prelate, Dr. Thomas Barlow, Late Bishop of Lincoln (London, 1693), 1. This is the opening sentence of “Directions to a Young Divine for his study of Divinity, and Choice of Books.” This lengthy letter predominantly stresses tools for studying the Old and New Testaments as well as sorting through scholastic and Catholic authors on divinity. It gives special attention to works defending the church of England and refuting Rome. The last section (67–71) teaches its reader how to form a reading list by using papal indices of banned books. 44 Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. II, 5; Biblical Theology, 7. 45 Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. II, 5–6; Biblical Theology, 8 46 Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. III, 466; Biblical Theology, 608. 47 Aquinas denied, in one sense, that theology was a science, on precisely the same grounds stated by Owen: “Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit scientia. Omnis enim scientia procedit ex principiis per se notis. Sed sacra doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei, qui non sunt per se noti, cum non ab omnibus concedantur, non enim omnium est fides, ut dicitur II Thessalon. III. Non igitur sacra doctrina est scientia.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (n.p.: 1274), Q. 1, Article 2, cited from corpusthomisticum.org. He immediately added that theology may be considered to be a superior science based on revelation from God. “Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum.” Similarly, William Ames (1575–1633) wrote, “Fidem dico, non scientiam, non opinionem, quas inter consistit fides intinque reducta. . . . Non scientia, quia non ex pricipiorum et causarum evidentia certa, sed ex authoritate et apsudeia

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

42

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

Owen’s denial that theology is a science was closely coupled with his assertion that theology is impossible for the unregenerate.48 The truths of God are foolishness to the natural man. Anyone who denied natural inability in theological studies was in danger of denying the gospel. Natural men can study science; only spiritual men can study theology. The knowledge of God that Owen had in view included the revelation of the Spirit in the Scriptures, as well as the illumination of the Spirit in believers.49 This line of argumentation was rooted in his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2:5–7.50 The personal work of the Spirit in the sinner in producing the true knowledge of God paves the way for Owen’s treatment of communion with the Trinity as a necessary component of theological studies. In Communion with God, which he wrote while teaching at Oxford in 1657, he stated: And all this is spoken in opposition to unbelievers, with whom he hath no communion. These know nothing of the mind of Christ as they ought: ‘The natural man receiveth not the things that are of God,’ 1 Cor. ii.14. There is a wide difference between understanding the doctrine of Scripture as in the letter, and a true knowing of the mind of Christ. This we have by especial unction from Christ, 1 John ii.27, ‘We have an unction from the Holy One, and we know all things,’ 1 John ii.20.51

48 49

50 51

dicentis.” Guilliame Amesii, Desceptatia Scholastica de Circulo Pontifico, et eorum Omnium Akadzalepsia qui in Scripturis non Aquiescunt; Item Eiusdem Dsiquitationes Theologicae, de Lumine Naturae et Gratiae, Praeparatione Peccatoris ad Conversionem, Adoratione Christi Mediatoris, Ac Denique Orationes Duae, Antehac noe Editiae, Quibus Subiecta est, D. Esteii Oratio, de Certitudinie Salutis (Amsterdam, 1644), 7. William Schweitzer has recently made similar observations concerning Jonathan Edwards. William M. Schweitzer, God is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (London: T& T Clark, 2012), 85–86. For Owen’s treatment of the work of the Spirit in Scripture and in believers resulting in the knowledge of God, see John Owen, The Reason of Faith, or an Answer unto that Inquiry, Wherefore we Believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, With the Causes and Nature of that Faith Wherewith we Do, Wherein the Grounds on which the Holy Scripture is Believed to be the Word of God with Faith Divine and Supernatural, are Declared and Vindicated (London, 1677). As a compliment to this work, his Causes, Ways, and Means argues that while discipline and human learning are useful and even necessary in studying Scripture, only the Holy Spirit can give true spiritual understanding of them. Synesis Pneumatike, or the Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God as Revealed in His Word, with Assurance Therein; and a Declaration of the Perspicuity of the Scriptures, with the External Means of the Interpretation of Them (London, 1678). See below for similar emphases among the Reformed Orthodox, such as Witsius, Mastricht, and Hoornbeeck. Theologoumeana, lib. I, cap. II, 7; Biblical Theology, 8–9. Owen returned to a significant treatment of this and similar passages in book 3, chapter 4. His assertions are intimately tied to and rooted in his exegesis of Scripture. John Owen, Communion with God, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Orig. pub., NY: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), II, 120; John Owen, Of Communion with God, the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly; In Love, Grace, and Consolation; or, The Saints Fellowship with the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost Unfolded (Oxford, 1657), 135. Hereafter, I will cite the Goold edition

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

43

Theology is not properly ranked among human sciences because it does not originate from the principles of human reason and it is not possible for unregenerate minds. Positively, Owen made the following affirmations concerning “true” or “evangelical theology.”52 True theology regards God himself, his works, revealed will, and manner of worship, together with the future rewards and punishments of men.53 Objectively, this revelation from God is given to Christ by the Father, and from Christ to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit.54 At least three features of these definitions are noteworthy. First, God is both the originator and the end of “true theology.” The scope and purpose of theology in Owen’s definitions harmonize with the common Protestant emphasis that theology is both theoretical and practical.55 Second, his definition is based on a distinctly Trinitarian view of revelation that results in communion with all three persons of the Godhead. This is expanded below. Third, Christ is the central figure with respect to knowing God. Christ is the deposit of divine revelation from the Father and he, in turn, communicates the knowledge of God to human beings through the Spirit. Owen’s emphasis on the Christ-centered knowledge of God becomes clear in analyzing his work on Communion with God.56 It is noteworthy that he wrote Communion with God a few years prior to Theologoumena Pantodapa. This work anticipates his later definitions of theology, and Theologoumena includes at least one explicit reference to Communion with God.57 Comparing his definitions of “true theology” with his definition of communion with God illustrates the interrelatedness of these concepts:Now, communion is the mutual communication of such good things as wherein the persons holding communion are delighted, bottomed in some union between them. . . . Our communion, then, with God consisteth in

52

53 54

55 56

57

by Works and volume number and the original publication of Owen’s works under their short titles. Owen used “true theology” and “evangelical theology” as synonyms. This reiterates the fact that book 6, which bears the title “Evangelical Theology,” is not his attempt at New Testament “biblical theology.” It is his attempt to define theology as a discipline and to prescribe what is necessary to its study. Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. 3, 12–13; Biblical Theology, 16–17. Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. II, 462–463; Biblical Theology, 602. “Revalatio autem haec voluntatis divinae, a Patre Christo data, atque ab illo per Spiritum Sanctum cum Apostolis suis aliisque, in usum totius Ecclesiae communicate, Theologiae ista Evangelica, prout in abstracta sumpta doctrinam divinam denotat, quam summus enarraturi.” See Muller, PRRD, 1:95ff. See below. This emphasis on the knowledge of God through Christ alonewas common among Puritans and Reformed Orthodox theologians. For instance, Thomas Goodwin noted that even from the standpoint of God’s eternal election, predestination, and acceptance of sinners, “Jesus Christ hath contracted all the love of God to himself” and that he then communicates that love to believers. Goodwin, Works, 1:94. Theologoumena, 492; Biblical Theology, 643. Compare to Owen’s treatment of communion with God in terms of receiving the personal revelation of each Person in the Godhead. Communion with God, chapter 2, pp. 6–15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

44

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

his communication of himself unto us, with our returnal unto him of that which he requireth and accepteth, flowing from that union which in Jesus Christ we have with him.58

Owen’s associate, David Clarkson, similarly observed that communion with God was grounded in moral, conjugal, and mystical union with God through Christ. Union leads to a “reciprocal community” in which believers and God hold good things in common. This produces “familiar converse” between believers and God, which is communion with God proper.59 Later in Theologoumena, Owen made the connection between “true theology” and communion with God explicit.60 Thus far, Owen’s emphases are on par with those of other Protestant scholastics. However, his contemporaries and forerunners often stated the purpose or end of theology, without including communion with the Trinity in its definition.61 Under Owen’s construction of “true theology,” the revelation of God to the mind through Scripture and the revelation of God to the heart by the Spirit are inextricably intertwined. For this reason, he asserted that Theologiae Evangelicae must be defined as the rebirth of the mind of man by the Holy Spirit.62 Richard Byfield wrote similarly, “A double revelation of the Spirit is absolutely necessary to the discerning of the things of this salvation; the one of the Holy Ghost inspiring the prophets and apostles to preach and write them; the other, of the same Holy Ghost as he is the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation, enlightening the eyes of our understanding to know them, when in and by the Word they are declared to us, 1 Cor. 2:10. Eph. 1:17–18.”63 Theology under the traditional designation of “a discourse concerning God” does not go far enough.64 Theology does not merely encompass what God reveals to man, but it includes what God expects from man, by means of what he has done in man.65 This is why the rebirth of man’s mind by the operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary to make 58 Works, 2:8; Communion with God, 4, emphasis original. 59 David Clarkson, “Believers’ Communion with the Father and the Son,” Works, 3:166. 60 Theologoumena, 475; Biblical Theology, 618–619. “Ut peccatores iterum communionem cum Deo Sanctissimo assequerentur, institutio ab ipso est haec nova Theologia, illud antea fuse provabimus.” 61 For important works on Prolegomena from this period, see Muller, PRRD, 1:109ff. 62 “mentis hominis per Spiritum Sanctum renati.” Theologoumena, 487. Westcott brings out Owen’s idea, but he translates this phrase loosely as, “the rebirth of the human personality by the operation of the Holy Spirit.” Biblical Theology, 636. Owen regarded the rebirth of the mind as the seat of God’s work in regeneration. See Kelly Kapic, Communion with God, for Owen’s “faculty psychology. 63 Richard Byfield, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law, 60. 64 For a treatment of Protestant definitions of theology, see Muller, PRRD, 1:152–164. The fact that Owen shared the concerns of his contemporaries is apparent from Muller’s numerous citations. 65 Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. III, 467; Biblical Theology, 609.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

45

true theologians. In turn, the purpose of “true theology” is to worship God for his grace in the salvation of sinners.66 In short, “true theology” consists in a personal knowledge of God through union with Christ.67 Notice that there are both objective and subjective aspects of Owen’s definitions of “true theology.” Objectively, “true theology” is a revelation from the Triune God. Subjectively, “true theology” is a personal communication from God to the human soul by the work of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, “true theology” is a spiritual gift or charisma.68 The ascension of Jesus Christ is the foundation for bestowing spiritual gifts and graces, and the Holy Spirit is Christ’s “great legacy” to his church.69 On the basis of Ephesians 1:17–18, he observed that true theology is a gift from the Father through Christ. The Holy Spirit is the gift given insofar as he is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.70 Such knowledge is not produced by humanly derived systems of thought. The “mystery” into which the Spirit initiates believers is communion with all three Persons of the Trinity.71 Human sciences fall under the realm of the “general operations” of the Spirit. Theology is a spiritual gift that is given to man only through Christ as the Mediator between God and man. Owen’s definitions of the “true theologian” are correlative to his definitions of “true theology.” Theology cannot be ranked among other sciences because it cannot be derived from the common principles of fallen man.72 The “true theologian” must have new principles and restored faculties in order to know God.73 The “true theologian” is one who does not merely know about God, but who knows God personally. In this sense, the term “theologian” refers to true believers, and not only to those pursuing formal theological education.74 A man cannot study for the ministry in order to preach for the salvation of souls unless 66 67 68 69

70

71 72 73 74

Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. IV, 475; Biblical Theology, 619. Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. VI, 488; Biblical Theology, 638. Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. VI, 489; Biblical Theology, 638–639. See Owen, Works, 3:25; John Owen, Pneumatologia, or A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, Wherein an Account is Given of His Name, Nature, Personality, Dispensation, Operations, and Effects; His Whole Work in the Old and New Creation is Explained; the Doctrine Concerning it Vindicated from Oppositions and Reproaches; the Nature also and Necessity of Gospel Holiness; the Difference Between Grace and Morality, Spiritual Life unto God in Evangelical Obedience and a Course of Moral Virtues, are Stated and Declared (London, 1674), 9. Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. VI, 491; Biblical Theology, 642. “Nam a Patre hoc donum est per Christum. Datur autem Spiritus Sapientiae et Revelationis.” In his translation, Westcott gives the impression that “the spirit of wisdom and revelation” is simply equivalent to “true theology.” However, Owen more properly had the Holy Spirit himself in view, thus bringing out the Trinitarian nature of the knowledge of God more explicitly. Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. VI, 491–492; Biblical Theology, 642–643. Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. II, pp. 5–6. Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. II. Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. IX, 521–534; Biblical Theology, 685–703.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

46

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

he first becomes a “true theologian” by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why Owen incorporated into his Prolegomena the topic of the subjective work of the Spirit in the heart of the pastor-theologian. With regard to the sources of theology, the knowledge of God, the nature of the Scriptures, and other similar subjects, he believed that only regenerate persons could understand and pursue the study of theology successfully.75

2.2.4 Owen’s Contemporaries on True Theology On this point, Herman Witsius made similar observations. He wrote, “By a theologian, I mean one who, imbued with a substantial knowledge of divine things derived from the teaching of God himself, declares and extols, not in words only, but by the whole course of his life, the wonderful excellencies of God and thus lives entirely for his glory.”76 Witsius’ primary assertion was that a true theologian must add practical piety to theoretical knowledge of the truth. Owen might have taken issue with the word, “add.” In his view, “true theology” involves communion with God and all that this entails. The “true theologian” is one who enjoys communion with God through Jesus Christ, and who walks with God. The task of theological study is not to add practical to theoretical knowledge, but to commune with God, which is by definition both theoretical and practical. For Owen, while theory and practice remained distinct conceptually, his definitions removed the possibility of understanding Christianity in terms of merely believing a body of truth and living a consistent life. Christianity is communion with the Triune God; Christianity is “true theology ;” and the Christian alone is a “true theologian.” The practical import of this refinement is that it is impossible for the “true theologian” to study, teach, preach, or write

75 Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. IV, 474; Biblical Theology, 618. 76 Herman Witsius, On the Character of a True Theologian, trans. John Donaldson, ed. J. Ligon Duncan, III (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 27. The original Latin text of this work is found in Hermanii Witsii, Miscellaneorum Sacrorum, Tomus Alter (Amsterdam, 1695), 664–680. I am indebted to Arie de Reuver for locating this source. See Arie de Reuver, Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages through the Further Reformation, trans. James A. de Jong (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 265. The manner in which we are exhorted to study the Scriptures in Westminster Larger Catechism question 157 approaches Owen’s description of the “true theologian” as well: “The Holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Trinitarian Basis for the Knowledge of God

47

about theology without a doxological purpose that is readily apparent from beginning to end.77 The significance of his treatment of the study of theology is further illustrated by comparing him with William Ames (1575–1633). The first line of Ames’ Marrow of Theology begins with the words, “Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God.”78 Owen’s definition of communion with God, however, indicates that there are certain aspects of theology that remain “practical” while not directly involving “living,” at least in the sense of personal conduct. The typical discussion of the “theoretical” and “practical” aspects of theology breaks down to some extent under his definitions. His idea of communion with God makes these two ideas less distinct. In terms of communion with the Triune God, what is typically referred to as “theoretical” knowledge is intensely practical because it involves personal knowledge of and delight in God. If “theoretical” knowledge were not accompanied by delight in fellowship with the Triune God, then Owen excluded such knowledge from theology altogether. On the other hand, knowledge or belief can be “practical,” in the sense of leading to practice, without involving communion with God at all. In this sense, communion with the Triune God is both the foundation for and the goal of theological knowledge. One final comparison with Johannes Hoornbeeck usefully summarizes Owen’s teaching on the relationship between the theoretical and practical knowledge of God. Near the end of Theologoumena Pantodapa, Owen commended Hoornbeeck,79 Voetius,80 and few others. When we compare Hoornbeeck’s and Owen’s Prolegomena, there are remarkable similarities. Given Owen’s reference to him, there is possibly some dependence or at least a common source of influence. In brief, Hoornbeeck taught that theology was more practical than speculative, yet in such a manner that the practical is always set

77 Peter Van Mastricht (1630–1706) would later emphasize the same point in his TheoreticoPractica Theologia. For an analysis of Mastricht’s work, see Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706: Reformed Orthodoxy : Method and Piety (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 78 William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 77. The original is “Theologia est doctrina Dei vivendi.” See William Ames, Medulla S. S. Theologiae, Ex Sacra Litteris, earumque, Interpretibus, Extracta, et Methodice Disposita, third edition (London, 1629), 1. For the profound influence of Ames’ definition on subsequent theologians, see Muller PRRD, 1:155. This definition was largely borrowed from Ramus and Perkins. Ibid., 113. The standard work on Ames is Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972). 79 Theologoumena, 519, lib. VI, cap. 8; Biblical Theology, 681–682. Though Owen cited Hoornbeeck’s work on the Trinity, the citation indicates a general familiarity with this author. 80 Theologoumena, 522; Biblical Theology, 687. Book six, chapter 9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

48

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

within the speculative.81 Theology comes from God and is to the glory of God. True theology is not doctrine and practice added to one another, but doctrine that is inseparable from practice (1 Tim. 6:3; Rom. 11:36; 2 Tim. 3:17).82 One of the first questions among scholastics is whether theology is theoretical or practical. Some have referred to it as purely speculative, others as purely practical. Still others affirmed that theology is theoretical and practical, while others taught that it is neither.83 In effect, Hoornbeeck did not like any of these options, instead affirming that while the speculative should certainly be distinguished from the practical, only knowledge wedded to practice constitute true knowledge.84 Scripture supports the position that theoretical theology is always practical (Jn. 13:17; 1 Cor. 13:1–3; Jas. 2:17; Tit. 1:1; 1 Tim. 6:3). There is no theological knowledge and no faith without practice.85 Lastly, theology is for the benefit of the church.86 The only element in which Owen went beyond Hoornbeeck was in explicitly wedding this theoretical/practical knowledge of God to communion with God as distinctly triune. It is remarkable how consistently Owen wove his Trinitarian views of the knowledge of God into his practical theology. As the following chapters show, this is evident particularly in his theology of worship. This means that in order to represent him accurately, any treatment of his thought must be distinctively Trinitarian and doxological.

2.3

Communion with the Triune God

2.3.1 Socinianism Paul Lim argued recently that polemic theology played a large role in John Owen’s and Francis Cheynell’s development of Trinitarian piety.87 In order to establish that Owen’s doctrine of communion with the Trinity is the foundation of his theology of public worship, it is important to examine briefly his relation to English Socinianism and, more extensively, his treatment of the Trinity in its own right. The movement that came to be known as Socinianism was named after the Italian, Faustus Socinus (1539–1604).88 Faustus purportedly learned 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae, 5–6. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae 4. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae 7. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae 8. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae 13. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae 16. Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 214–215. For a brief survey of this controversy, see Joel M. Heflin, “Omnipotent Sweetness? Puritanism

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

49

from his uncle, Lelio, that the Father was the only truly divine person.89 Socinus’s followers proceeded on the premise that Scripture alone was the only source of true theology and that its proper interpretation is limited by the capacities of human reason. In practice, Socinian authors ruled out the Trinity as a logical absurdity prior to examining the text of Scripture. They argued that since there is no single place in which the Scriptures clearly teach the Trinity, and because three persons in one essence is logically absurd, then the doctrine of the Trinity could not be true. Fearing persecution in Italy, Socinus fled to Poland for refuge.90 Socinianism grew rapidly in Poland and eventually spread to Holland. From Holland, Socinianism eventually made inroads into England. Socinianism gained ground in England during the 1640’s primarily under the influence of John Biddle (1615–1662). Biddle was likely responsible for translating the Polish Raccovian Catechism into English.91 This became the primary standard of Socinian theology. In addition to this translation, Biddle wrote his own works defending Unitarian views of the Godhead.92 These events led to the gradual spread of various English strands of anti-Trinitarianism. This spawned

89 90 91

92

Versus Socinianism,” in Puritan Reformed Journal, vol. 1, number 2, 64–95. Dixon’s work is particularly full in its treatment of English Socinianism in particular. See more below. Two standard works on the history of Socinianism are E. M. Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945), and H. John McLachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951). Sarah Mortimer has recently written a thorough reassessment of the development and effects of English Socinianism on the use of reason in English religion. Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). For the Socinian controversy as it related to Goodwin and Owen in particular, see Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 69–71. The church in Geneva eventually cleared Laelio of heresy charges, but Faustus clearly continued to propagate anti-Trinitarian views. See Muller, PRRD, 4:76–79. For Polish Socinianism, see Stanislaw Kot, Socinianism in Poland: The social and political ideas of Polish Antitrinitarians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, trans. Earl Morse Wilbur (Boston: Starr King Press, 1957). See The Raccovian Catechisme: wherein you have the substance of the confession of those churches, which in the kingdom of Poland and the Great Dukedome of Lithuania, and other provinces appertaining to that kingdom, do affirm, that no other save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that one God of Israel, and that the man Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of the Virgin, and no other besides, or before him, is the only begotten Sonne of God (Amsterdam: For Brooer Janz, 1652). Biddle wrote extensively in order to disseminate his anti-Trinitarian views. In the late 1640’s, he wrote two important works that sparked controversy in England. These are XII arguments drawn out of the Scripture, wherein the commonly received opinion touching the Holy Spirit is clearly and fully refuted, to which is prefixed a letter tending to the same purpose, written to a member of Parliament (London, 1647), and, A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity, According to the Scriptures (London, 1648). As demonstrated below, the work of primarily relevance in the study of John Owen is ATwofold Catechism: the one simply called a Scripturecatechism; the other, a brief Scripture-catechism for children, composed for their sakes that would fain be meer Christians, and not this or that sect (London: J. Cottrel, for R. Moone, 1654).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

50

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

vigorous disputes that spilled over into the next century. Socinianism became a polemic slur that was leveled against anyone who was suspected of holding unorthodox views of the Trinity.93 Among several responses to the Socinian threat in England, Francis Cheynell’s (1608–1665) work was among the more important. His first response, The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianisme,94 was commissioned by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, of whom he was a member. His later work, The Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,95 continued to defend the doctrine against opponents, but shifted to a more positive approach.96 In the same year that Cheynell published this later book, Owen signed his name to commend a short anti-Socinian work by Samuel Eaton (1597–1665).97 During his tenure at Oxford, the powers that be asked Owen to write a work refuting Socinianism. In response, he produced the massive Vindicae Evangelicae.98 Biddle and the Raccovian Catechism were his primary targets. He proceeded to dismantle the first part of Biddle’s Twofold Catechism line by line. A full examination of English Socinianism and Owen’s role in confronting it is beyond the scope of his research.99 What is important is that he wrote about the 93 Dixon notes that the term was at times more emotive than descriptive. See Nice and Hot Disputes, 39. 94 Francis Cheynell, The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianisme together with a plaine discovery of a design of corrupting the Protestant religion, whereby it appears that the religion which hath been so violently contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents) is not the true pure Protestant religion, but an hotchpotch of Arminianisme, Socinianisme and popery (London, Samuel Gellibrand, 1643). 95 Francis Cheynell, The Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; or, the blessed Doctrine of the three Coessential Subsistences in the Eternall Godhead (London: T. R. and E. M., 1650). 96 For the importance of Cheynell due to his role in the Westminster Assembly as well as the time in which he lived, see Dixon, Nice and Hot Disputes, 47–60. See also Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 69–70. For the practical concerns associated with Cheynell’s Trinitarianism, see Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 174–181. 97 Samuel Eaton, The Mystery of God Incarnate, or The Word Made Flesh cleered up; or, A Vindication of Certain Scriptures Produced to Prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ, from the corrupt glosses, false interpretations, and sophistical argumentations of Mr. John Knowles, who denies the Divinity of Christ; Also, Certain Annotations and Observations upon a Pamphlet entitled, A Confession of Faith Concerning the Holy Trinity, According to the Scriptures (London, 1650). The last mentioned work in the title refers to Biddle’s 1648 publication. 98 Owen, Vindicae Evangelicae, or the Mystery of the Gospel Vindcated and Socinianism Examined, in the Consideration and Confutation of a Catechism Called, “A Scripture Catechism,” Written by J. Biddle, M.A., and the Catechism of Valentinus Smalcius, Commonly Called “The Raccovian Catechism” (London, 1655); Works, 12:1–590. For the history of this time period and Owen’s role at Oxford, see chapter 1 above. 99 Dixon explores the English context further. The primary weakness of his approach is that when he considers Socinianism in the 1640’s and 50’s, most of the authors that he relies upon are “Puritans.” However, in his treatment of the 1690’s, he has imperceptibly shifted pri-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

51

Trinity in a heavily polemical context. As demonstrated below, this makes his positive contribution to Trinitarian theology and piety all the more significant. He engaged in the battles over Trinitarian orthodoxy in his day, but these battles do not sufficiently explain the extent to which he wove the Trinity into his entire theology. If, as Dixon contends, the Trinity was largely abstracted from soteriology by the end of the century, then for Owen the Trinity was at the center of soteriology. His polemical context explains his interest in the Trinity in part, but his “Puritan” emphasis upon personal piety and worship shaped his Trinitarian theology in a profoundly positive direction.100 For this reason, the next section treats his views on the Trinity primarily in terms of positive statement.101 marily to Episcopal authors. This skews some of his conclusions. For instance, he argues that compared to authors such as Francis Cheynell, later writers appear to be more arid and detached from the concerns of soteriology. However, this was one of the primary complaints that “Puritan” authors would have had against some of their Episcopal counterparts in the 1640’s as much as in the 1690’s. The comparison is unequal. This comment holds true for Dixon’s dependence upon the Book of Common Prayer as a primary indicator of Trinitarian piety as well. If the Book of Common Prayer is a primary indicator of the presence of a Trinitarian piety, then in theory, “Puritans” such as Owen would not have room for such practical Trinitarianism at all, since they rejected the prayer book. Dixon’s work is one of the few major examinations of Trinitarian theology in the seventeenth century, which makes it an important work. The book suffers greatly from ignoring Muller, whose treatment is one of the only other major studies in the field and which was published prior to Dixon’s. For a recent and more full-orbed study, see Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled. 100 See chapter 1 above for the meaning of the term “Puritan.” Dixon’s narrative gives the impression that the 1640’s were characterized by a vibrant Trinitarianism that permeated soteriological concerns, followed by a steady decline in which those who defended the doctrine gradually detached the Trinity from Christian life and salvation. However, as chapter 5 below shall demonstrate, the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption actually became more explicitly Trinitarian during this time period. In Reformed orthodoxy, the Covenant of Redemption came to encompass the entire scheme of redemption. Therefore, this was not only a move toward making only one doctrine more explicitly Trinitarian but every aspect of soteriology that is subsumed under this doctrine. This is precisely the same period in which Dixon presents a steady decline. Perhaps the apparent discrepancy lies with the authors chosen for comparison, as noted above. The reader wonders whether or not he chose Puritan authors during the time of the English Civil War because they were then the primary players on the scene, but later ignored them when they became the “losers.” 101 Even in his polemical work, Owen noted that defending true doctrine against error was a means to an end. His concern for genuine piety and the experience of communion with God meant that his rejection of error never fell short of positive statement. Without doctrine gripping the heart, it is of no value: “What am I the better if I can dispute that Christ is God, but have no sense or sweetness in my heart from hence that he is a God in covenant with my soul? What will it avail me to evince . . . that he hath made satisfaction for sin, if, through my unbelief the wrath of God abideth on me, and I have no experience of my own being made the righteousness of God in him? …Will it be any advantage to me, in the issue, to profess and dispute that God works the conversion of a sinner by the irresistible grace of his Spirit, if I was never acquainted experimentally with the deadness and utter impotency to good, that opposition to the law of God, that is in my own soul by nature, with the efficacy of the exceeding greatness of the power of God in quickening, enlightening, and bringing forth the fruits of obedience in me….Let us, then, not think that we are any thing the better for our

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

52

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

2.3.2 Owen’s Trinitarianism As one would expect by its full title, Owen’s treatise on Communion with God is his most significant treatment of communion with God as triune.102 Although he does not always refer explicitly to historical terminology and definitions, his work is squarely rooted in biblical and historical Trinitarianism.103 Owen’s definition of communion is couched in covenantal terms. As noted above, he defined communion as “the mutual communication of such good things as wherein the persons holding that communion are delighted, bottomed upon some union between them.”104 In order for communication to occur between God and man, both parties must delight in the good things that they share. His definition of communion with God entails a covenant relationship in which God has sovereignly promised to be the God of his people and to dwell in their midst. conviction of the truths of the great doctrines of the gospel, for which we contend with these men, unless we found the power of the truths abiding in our own hearts, and have a continual experience of their necessity and excellency in our Standing before God and our communion with him.” Vindiciae Evangelicae, 68–69; Works, 12:52. 102 In light of this, it is peculiar that Trueman has given so little attention to this work in his treatment of Owen’s Trinitarianism. Trueman’s emphasis lies upon Owen’s doctrine of the Trinity and the manner in which it pervaded his theology. However, as Communion with God illustrates, Owen was concerned with weaving his Trinitarian theology to a thoroughgoing piety. In light of the section above on the Trinitarian knowledge of God, these two concepts were inseparable in his estimation. 103 While Owen’s treatment of communion with the Trinity was distinctive in the extent to which he developed and applied the concept, his doctrine of the Trinity was standard among the Reformed orthodox. Most seventeenth century English treatments of the Trinity were written in a polemical context (see below). For some examples, see John Downame, The Summe of Sacred Divinitie (London, n.d.); James Durham, A Commentarie upon the Book of Revelation, Wherein the Text is Explained, the Series of Several Prophecies Contained in that Book, Deduced and According to their Order and Dependence upon Each Other ; the Periods and Succession of Times, at, or About Which, these Prophecies, that are Already Fulfilled, Began to be, and Were More Fully Accomplished, Fixed and Applied According to History, and Those that are yet to be Fulfilled, Modestly, and so far as it is Warrantable, Enquired into; Together with Some Practical Observations, and Several Digressions, Necessary for Vindicating, Clearing, and Confirming Many Weighty and Important Truths (Edinburgh: 1658), 6–19; Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity : Consisting of Ten Books; Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion are Opened, the Contrary Erours Refuted; Most of the Controversies Between us and the Papists, Arminians, and Socinians, Discussed and Handled; Several Scriptures Explained and Vindicated from Corrupt Glosses (London, 1654), 132–135, 204–215; William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole, or Creed of the Apostles, According to the Tenor of the Scriptures, and the Consent of the Orthodoxe Fathers of the Church (Cambridge, 1595), 25–31; Matthew Poole, Blasphemoktonia, the Blasphemer Slaine with the Sword of the Spirit, or, a Plea for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, Wherein the Deity of the Spirit of God is Proved in the Demonstration of the Spirit, and Vindicated, and Against the Cavils of John Biddle, by an Admirer and Worshiper of the Trinity in Unity (London, 1653). 104 Owen, Works, 2:8; Communion with God, 4. See chapter 5 below for the relation of Owen’s covenant theology to communion with the Trinity in public worship.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

53

The communion of the saints with the Triune God in glory is both the goal and the pattern of their communion with him on earth.105 Explicitly pointing to the covenantal nature of communion, he wrote, “It is then, I say, of that mutual communication in giving and receiving, after a most holy and spiritual manner, which is between God and the saints while they walk together in a covenant of peace, ratified in the blood of Jesus, whereof we are to treat.”106 The only way that sinners can walk in joyful communion with God is through the finished work of Christ as the Mediator of the covenant. The “union between them” consists in believer’s union with the Lord Jesus Christ.107 At least two important historic Trinitarian concepts lie at the heart of Owen’s doctrine of communion with God and, thus, at the center of his doctrine of communion with God in public worship. The first is a Latin phrase: opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa.108 The second is a Greek term, perichoresis, or its Latin equivalent, circumincessio.109 These expressions are inter-related, though distinct. The first is roughly translated “the external works of the Trinity are undivided.” Perichoresis describes the idea that the persons in the Godhead interpenetrate or permeate each other.110 Put together, all three persons act 105 See Muller on theology in via. PRRD, 1:260–266. Similarly, Suzanne McDonald concludes, “There is therefore a soteriological trajectory and transformational continuum between beholding the glory of God by faith now and beholding it by sight in eternity.” “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: John Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 143. 106 Works, 2:9; Communion with God, 5. Owen’s covenant theology and its implications for worship shall be treated below under the chapter entitled “New Covenant Worship.” 107 For the central role of union with Christ in Owen’s theology, see Kelly Kapic, Communion with God. See also Georger Hunsinger, “Justification and Mystical Union with Christ: Where Does Owen Stand?” in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 199–211. 108 This phrase is frequently attributed to Augustine. For a treatment of Augustine’s views on the Trinity, see Letham, Trinity, 184–200. Significantly, Edward Leigh introduced his treatment of the Trinity with this principle. Edward Leigh, Body of Divinity, 205. 109 Popularized by John of Damascus (d. 740). See Letham, Trinity, 240–241, 307. Douglas Kelly points out that John of Damascus did not “coin” this term, but that it was present in the Church as early as Athanasius. Douglas F. Kelly, Systematic Theology Volume One: The God Who Is: The Holy Trinity (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2008), 489–493. While it is beyond the scope of this research to examine the controversy between the West and the East over the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed, this was an important matter for the Reformed Orthodox. For a historic treatment and brief defense of the clause by a Reformed Orthodox writer see,Iacobi Usserii Armichani, De Romanae Ecclesiae Symbolo Apostolico Vertere, Aliisque Fide Formulis, in Prima Catechesi et Baptismo Proponi Solitis Diatriba (Oxford, 1660), 24–26. The filioque doctrine is of greater importance for Owen’s treatment of the operation of the Spirit in his Pneumatologia. See Works 3:92, 116–118, 162, 190–191, 195–196, etc. 110 Interestingly, Owen appears to express regret that terms like this were multiplied and introduced, even though he affirmed the doctrine in question. He refers to “the barbarous term of ‘mutual circumincession’” and favors the Greek term, emperichoresis, because it

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

54

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

simultaneously in every action of God in the created world (ad extra) and the three persons, though personally distinct, are absolutely inseparable. Edward Leigh distinguished between God’s essential acts in which all three persons work simultaneously ad extra, God’s opera propria that determine the inter-Trinitarian relationships among the persons, and the appropriate acts (appropriata) of each person distinctly in every work of God.111 Perichoresis is the foundation of the opera trinitatis principle in that the persons operate simultaneously because they interpenetrate one another. The importance of these terms will become apparent below. Owen recognized the necessity of employing extra-biblical terms at times in order to expound biblical concepts: “And herein, as in the application of all other divine truths and mysteries whatever, yea, of all commanded duties, use is to be made of such words and expressions as, it may be, are not literally and formally contained in the Scripture; but only are, unto our conceptions and apprehensions, expository of what is so contained.” 112 In the first chapter of Theologoumena Pantodapa, he made the same affirmation about extra-biblical terminology, with the added warning that the church should use such language only when historical precedent or the need for precise definition necessitates it.113 Unnecessarily piling up extra-biblical terms was a primary cause of the errors that had crept into medieval scholasticism. While he did not explicitly use either of these terms in Communion with God, both concepts provide the basis for the work.114 In the first chapter, Owen’s primary concern was to avoid dividing the persons of the Godhead. Recognizing this fact is particularly important, since the purpose of the book was to establish the distinct communion that believers enjoy with each divine person. He was concerned both with distinct communion with each person in the Godhead and with the traditional western concern not to divide the works of the Trinity.115 He who denies the full deity or the eternally distinct personality of any of the three persons denies the entire Trinity. Those who deny the deity of the Son deny the

111 112

113 114 115

appears in Jn. 10:38 and 14:10. Vindiciae Evangelicae, Works, 12:73. This hesitancy to multiply extra-biblical terminology is common in Owen’s writings. What is interesting is that he had no such qualms concerning the use of the opera trinitatis terminology. The latter terminology appears far more frequently in Owen’s works and seems to have held a higher position in his Trinitarian theology. Edward Leigh, Body of Divinity, 205. For opera appropriata, see Muller, PRRD, 4:267–269. Owen, Works, 2:379; A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, As also of the Person and Satisfaction of Christ; Accommodated unto the Capacity and Life of such as may be in Danger to be Seduced: and the Establishment of the Truth (London, 1669), 30. Owen’s defense of a limited use of extra-biblical terminology in Trinitarian debates was common in the seventeenth century. See Philip Dixon, Nice and Hot Disputes, throughout. Theologoumena, lib. I, cap. I, 1–3. For explicit use of opera trinitatis, see Works, 3:93, see also 66–68. The backdrop of Owen’s vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity was the ongoing battle between the Puritans and the Socinians. See above.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

55

deity of the Father, since the term “Father” is meaningless without reference to a Son.116 This means that the eternal generation of the Son is essential to the eternal identity of the first person in the Godhead as Father. In Owen’s thought, communion with God as three persons is the ultimate aim of the gospel. Man was made in the image of God. As such he was created in order to know and to worship God.117 As a sinner, man cannot enjoy fellowship with his Creator. This was why the Father sent his Son to be born of a woman and made under the Law, that through the suffering of death he might bear the curse of the Law for his people (Gal. 4:4–5). He then poured forth the Holy Spirit in their hearts so that they could call upon God as Father and be restored to fellowship with God and worship him acceptably. When believers enjoy fellowship with one person in the Trinity, the other two persons are never excluded. The three persons permeate or interpenetrate one another (perichoresis) and the works of the three persons in human history are undivided (opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa). Christ’s incarnation is one of the clearest illustrations of these observations. The Son of God became incarnate. Neither the Father nor the Spirit took on a true body and a reasonable soul.118 However, the Father sent the Son (Gal. 4:4) and the Holy Spirit effected the conception of the Son’s human nature (Lk. 1:35).119 This distinction of persons and unity of operation applies to every work of God ad extra, from creation to consummation. In this way, Owen laid the foundation for personal communion with each person in the Trinity distinctly, while never excluding or neglecting the other two persons.120 For Owen, the unity and diversity within the Godhead was more than a matter of theological precision. The unity and diversity within the Godhead was the foundation of his piety and, consequently, of his theology of worship.121 116 Works, 2:382; Brief Declaration, 40. “Whoever denies Christ the Son, as the Son, that is, the eternal Son of God, he loses the Father also, and the true God; he hath not God. For that God which is not the Father, and which ever was, and was not the Father, is not the true God.” Similarly, Cheynell wrote, “Moreover, if the Father have not a divine and eternal Son how is he a divine and eternal Father?” The Divine Triunity, 54. Emphasis original. 117 For the vital importance of man as the image of God in Owen’s soteriology, see Kapic, Communion with God, 35–66. See Also, Suzanne McDonald, “The Pneumatology of the ‘Lost’ Image in John Owen,” in Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 71, No. 2, Fall 2009, 323–336. 118 See Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 21. 119 Owen, Works, 3:162ff; Pneumatologia, 131ff. 120 Owen explains the dynamic behind the unity of the works of the divine Persons ad extra in Works, 2:268–269; Communion with God, 313–314. 121 Brian Kay asserts that although there was a strong devotional strain among the English Puritans and their formulations of the Trinity were careful and orthodox, “classic Puritan manuals of devotion failed to appropriate these emphases when it came to prayer and meditation….John Owen stands in contrast to this tendency of his peers, building into the heart of his devotional model a doctrine of the Trinity that reflects characteristics of earlier Reformed scholastics.” Brian K. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

56

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

The fact that both Latin and Greek formulations of the Trinity lie behind Owen’s work on Communion with God deserves further comment. The origin of the “opera trinitatis” phrase is attributed to Augustine, who is criticized in contemporary discussions of the Trinity for stressing the unity of God at the expense of the three persons.122 Brian Kay argues that Owen emphasized the three persons in the Trinity in a manner that was, to some extent, contrary to Augustine.123 He largely follows an article by Alan Spence on this point.124 While Kay persuasively criticizes Spence’s nearly modalistic reading of Augustine, he does not seem to recognize properly Owen’s continuity with Augustine. Robert Letham argues that there is a distinctively “eastern” feel to Owen’s Trinitarianism, resulting from his emphasis on the distinct work of each divine person.125 It is interesting in this connection that in one of the few places where Owen explicitly cited the opera trinitatis principle, he attributed the phrase to Athanasius and to Basil the Great, both of whom were Greek fathers.126 He frequently appealed to the Father as the “fountain of the deity.”127 However, rather than

122 123 124 125

126 127

of God in Western Devotion (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), 5. Interestingly, Dixon cites the best-selling devotional work of Lewis Bayly as proof for the way in which the Trinity pervaded Puritan piety and prayer. Dixon, Nice and Hot Disputes, 9. Kay makes the exact opposite point. Kay seems to have consulted the main text and table of contents of Bayly’s work instead of his prayers, in spite of the comment cited here. However, it is certainly striking that Owen’s friend and colleague, Thomas Goodwin, in his sermons on Ephesians 1:3–14, notes that while the text may be and often is divided according to the three persons of the Trinity, he chose to organize the text in terms of two aspects of God’s eternal decree. Goodwin, Works, 1:96–98. As subsequent chapters will demonstrate, Owen continually pressed communion with the Triune God into most of what he wrote. It is a striking contrast that instead of pressing communion with the Trinity in an obvious passage, Goodwin presented an extended defense of his Supralapsarianism. For instance, see Colin E. Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 2003), 38–42. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 108–109. Alan Spence, “John Owen and Trinitarian Agency,” in Scottish Journal of Theology, 43.2: 157–173. Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and its Significance for Today,” in Where Reason Fails: Papers Read at the 2006 Westminster Conference (Stoke on Trent, UK: Tentmaker Publications, 2006), 18–20; The Holy Trinity, x; “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” Ashgate Research Companion, 196. Works, 3:93; Pneumatologia, 68–69. Letham wrote elsewhere, “Owen is not so much an innovator as a brilliant synthesizer.” Repeated verbatim in “‘John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” Ashgate Research Companion, 190. Owen, Works, 3:19, 43, 60, 92, 94, etc. These citations include language such as, “the fountain and original of the Deity” (43), “fons et origio Trinitatis” (60), and “fons et origio Deitatis” (94). On page 197, he explained this idea in terms of Christ receiving His personal subsistence by means of the Father communicating to Him “the whole entire divine nature.” In other words, the thought of receiving personal subsistence from the Father and an eternal communication of the deity of the Father are inseparable. This topic, the divine order of subsistence, actually pervades the whole of Owen’s work on the Holy Spirit, but it is most concentrated in the first two hundred pages or so. In volume 4, he gave the following

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

57

viewing this as favoring the eastern tradition over the western tradition, it is probable that Owen gleaned the best material from both traditions.128 His emphases may have been “eastern” in some respects, but he did not hesitate to rely heavily on western authors, including Augustine as a prominent figure.129 This fact lies on the surface of Communion with God. To take two examples from the section treating communion with the Son, Owen relied heavily upon a passage treating the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) to expound the nature of communion with Christ.130 Later, under the section treating communion with the Spirit, Owen further expanded why it is that when believers worship one divine person, they necessarily worship all three. The reason is not simply rooted in the summary : “The person of the Father is the eternal fountain of infinitely divine glorious perfections; and they all are communicated unto the Son by eternal generation. In his person absolutely, as the Son of God, they are all of them essentially ; in his person as Godman, as vested with his offices, they are substantially, in opposition unto all types and shadows; and in the glass of the gospel they are accidentally, by revelation, - really, but not substantially, for Christ himself is the body, the substance of all.” Works, 4:169. The Father is the origin of an eternal communication of what are, in the case of creatures, the incommunicable attributes of deity to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. With respect to the Son in himself, this means that He is God equal with the Father. With respect to His office as Mediator between God and man as well as His work as the revealer of the Father, He sets the deity on display according to His offices. Owen’s contemporary, James Durham, limited the Father to being the origin of the personal subsistence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but not of the divine nature. Durham, Revelation, 8. By contrast, Edward Leigh wrote, “The personal property of the Father is to beget, that is, not to multiply his substance by production, but to communicate his substance to the Sonne. The Sonne is said to be begotten, that is, to have his whole substance from the Father by communication.” In like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the substance of the Father, through the Son. Body of Divinity, 206. On page 210, he noted that there was some diversity among Reformed divines over this point. Perkins stated emphatically that there was no communication of divinity from the Father to the other two persons, but that he communicated personhood only. Perkins, Apostle’s Creed, 28. Significantly, Owen’s friend and co-laborer, Thomas Goodwin, wrote that the Son was “begotten of the substance and essence of the Father” (Works, 1:26). Thomas Manton noted likewise that the Father was “the fountain of the divinity.” Thomas Manton, Sermons Upon John XVII, in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 10:186. There was some diversity in the Reformed tradition on this matter. See below for more detail. 128 Letham wrote, “Owen is not so much an innovator as a brilliant synthesizer.” Where Reason Fails, 11. However, he added, “Owen still has difficulties with the persons, betraying his western roots” (19). He argues that the Eastern approach has “greater merit” by beginning with the three persons in the economy of salvation. The bulk of Brian Kay’s theses, however, insists that this is exactly where Owen began his discussion of the Trinity. This is clear from the design of Communion with God. Owen pervasively wove discussions of the unity of the persons in their operations together with discussions of communion with each Person distinctly. For Owen’s western Trinitarianism, see Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth, throughout. Trueman repeatedly addresses the opera trnitatis principle while Letham almost exclusively assesses Owen in terms of perichoresis. 129 For the prominence of Augustine in Owen’s writings, see Trueman, John Owen, 11–12. Jones has noted that the same was true of Goodwin. Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 59. 130 Works, 2:94–106; Communion with God, 104–119. See Works, 3:195–197.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

58

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

common deity of the three persons, but the unity of operation within the Godhead.131 This view reflects the emphases of the East and West simultaneously.

2.3.3 Communion with God in Three Persons Owen made it virtually impossible to think of God and to worship him as anything less than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This emphasis is reminiscent of Gregory of Nazianzus (329–389) who wrote: “No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illuminated by the splendor of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one.”132 However, as noted above, the extent to which Owen treated communion with each divine person was somewhat distinctive. While all of the Reformed orthodox noted the importance of the Trinity as a fundamental article of religion, few dealt with the Trinity in terms of personal piety in their devotional literature. Under his treatment of “Effectual Calling,” Herman Witsius noted that when believers are called into union with Christ, they enter into communion with an undivided Trinity.133 Witsius, however, confined this observation to one paragraph, with only passing allusions to communion with the Trinity resurfacing later. Owen devoted an entire book to that which Witsius addressed in a single paragraph. In the English context, while sharing a common theology and a common thirst for personal piety, the “Puritans” were not uniform in the emphases of their devotional theology.134 Two examples will illustrate. Thomas Watson’s (1620–1686) Heaven Taken by Storm teaches people how to press into the kingdom by “violence,” yet there is little material about the help of the Holy Spirit in doing so and almost nothing about communion with Christ in his person and work. Watson completely bypassed the question of the work of the Triune God in justification, and he did not adequately connect sanctification to the work of Christ or to the Holy Spirit.135 George Swinnock (1627–1673) wrote 131 132 133 134

Works, 2:268–269; Communion with God, 313–314. Gregory Nazianzen, Orations (PG 36:417), as cited by Letham, Trinity, 164. Witsius, Oeconomia Foederum, lib. III, cap. V, 240. In his Memoirs of the Westminster Divines, James Reid drew my attention to Richard Byfield’s (1598–1664) work, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law. See James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 1:164. This work explains redemption accomplished and applied in terms of the work of all three divine persons. Byfield originally preached the work in a series of sermons designed to protect his congregation from false teaching. However, while Byfield explained the gospel in Trinitarian terms, he did not elaborate on a theory of communion with all three persons, as Owen did. 135 Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, or, The Holy Violence a Christian is to put forth in the pursuit after glory (London, 1669).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

59

The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith. This work is more explicitly evangelical in tone than Watson’s book. It presents the gospel by driving sinners to despair because of their sin, and then directs them to faith in Christ, repentance, and hope in heaven. It is surprising, however, that while Swinnock stressed knowing both the Father and the Son, the person and work of the Holy Spirit is virtually absent.136 By contrast, chapters 1 and 7 of Owen’s popular work on The Mortification of Sin root sanctification in union with Christ. In both of these sections, he roots personal holiness in the Father’s plan, union and communion with the Son, and the powerful operation of the Spirit. As subsequent chapters illustrate, Owen stands out in his self-consciously Trinitarian approach to Christian experience. Although all three divine persons are active in every work of God, a distinct aspect of this work is assigned to each person. Communion with the Father is characterized primarily by love. Communion with the Son places special emphasis on grace. Communion with the Holy Spirit stresses fellowship with all three persons, and the resultant comfort that comes to believers. Following Jesus’ description of the Spirit as “another comforter” (John 14:15), Owen chose the word “comfort” to summarize his distinctive work. The Spirit is a comforter because he is the bond of fellowship or communion with the Father and the Son. Though Owen followed the traditional order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the bulk of his work on Communion with God is devoted to communion with the Son in grace. Owen was a Trinitarian theologian, but he was a Christ-centered theologian also.137 Similarly, James Durham noted that although the Book of Revelation rested upon the doctrine of the Trinity, its focus was distinctively Christcentered. He then gave eight reasons why true Trinitarianism should always lead to a Christ-centered emphasis.138 Building on his definition of communion as consisting of a mutual delight in good things by both parties that is grounded in some union between them, he explored the specific nature of communion with each divine person. His teaching on this point establishes the heart of his views on public worship. 136 George Swinnock, The Fading of the Flesh and the Flourishing of Faith, or, One Cast for Eternity, with the only way to throw it well. As also the gracious person’s incomparable portion (London, 1662). 137 For Owen’s Christology, see Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of Christology (London: T& T Clark, 2007), and, Richard Daniels, The Christology of John Owen, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004). See also Richard A Muller, “A Note on ‘Christocentrism’ and the Imprudent use of Such Terminology,” in Westminster Theological Journal, 68:2 (Fall 2006), 254ff. Muller’s concern is against treating Christocentrism as a central dogma of Reformed Theology. I am not contending that Owen taught that this was a central dogma in Reformed Theology, but that it was an emphasis that permeated every part of theology and preaching. 138 Durham, Revelation, 12–14.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

60

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

2.3.3.1 Communion with the Father Calling on God as Father is the greatest privilege of the gospel.139 When John stated that “God is love” in his first epistle (1 John 4:8), the Father was particularly in view: “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.”140 In his treatise on the glory of the gospel, Richard Byfield entirely bypasses Owen’s point that this text singles out the Father. This is true even though he mentions all three persons in the title of his work and he expounds the Father’s love only pages earlier.141 This illustrates Owen’s consistently Trinitarian self-consciousness in his writings. Sending Jesus Christ to die for his people was the ultimate proof of the Father’s love. Apart from Christ, no one can receive the Father’s love. In Christ, believers have no warrant to doubt his love. For Owen, this was a pastoral matter : “Yea, as your great trouble is about the Father’s love, so you can no way more trouble or burden him, than by your unkindness in not believing it.”142 However, few Christians are assured of the Father’s love. According to Owen, too many believers seek to discern the Father’s love apart from union with Jesus Christ. Such people treat faith in Christ as one thing and the Father’s love as though it were unrelated. His orthodox Trinitarianism bore practical fruit in this connection. Since the works of the Trinity are undivided, believers must view the Father’s love through the lens of faith in the Son’s finished work.143 Believers hold communion with the Father by receiving and knowing his love through Jesus Christ and by loving him in return. The Father’s love is actually the highest revelation of the gospel.144 No one should expect to know the Father’s 139 This thought permeates his treatise on the work of the Holy Spirit in prayer. John Owen, A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, With a Brief Enquiry unto the Use of Mental Prayer and Forms (London, 1682). 140 Owen, Communion with God, 17–18; Works, 2:19–20. 141 Richard Byfield, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law, 58–59. 142 Owen, Communion with God, 19; Works, 2:21. 143 Owen, Communion with God, 40; Works, 2:39–40. See Communion with God, 27. The Puritans in general have been accused of placing too little emphasis on the doctrine of adoption. For a treatment of this subject, see Joel R. Beeke, “Transforming Power and Comfort: The Puritans on Adoption,” in Anthony T. Selvagio, ed., The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Wayne R. Spear (Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 2007), 63–105. This is one of the first major studies on the Puritan doctrine of adoption. Beeke expanded this article into a book entitled Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008). In both the article and the book, Beeke interacts at length with Owen’s doctrine of adoption. 144 Owen, Communion with God, 17; Works, 2:19: “This is the great discovery of the gospel: for whereas the Father, as the fountain of the Deity, is not known any other way than as full of wrath, anger, and indignation against sin, nor can the sons of men have any other thoughts of him (Rom. i. 18; Is. xxxiii. 13, 14; Hab. i. 13; Ps. v. 4–6; Eph. ii. 3), - here he is now revealed peculiarly as love, as full of it unto us; the manifestation whereof is the peculiar work of the gospel, Tit. iii. 4.” Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) used almost this exact language regarding

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

61

love apart from faith in the person and work of Christ. If God had not created anything, then he would still be love. God manifested love eternally and necessarily among the three persons of the Godhead. The love of God toward sinners through Christ is astonishing. In order to illustrate the priority of ascribing love to the Father, Owen asserted boldly that the love of the Father compared to the love of Christ is as the sun itself compared to the rays of the sun.145 The love of Christ passes knowledge, but Christ’s love flows from the Father’s love. It was God the Father who so loved a world defiled by sin that he gave his only begotten Son to save those who believe [John 3:16]: “When the soul sees God, in his dispensation of love, to be love, to be infinitely lovely and loving, and rests upon and delights in him as such – then hath it communion with him in love.”146 This emphasis on the Father as the origin of the works of God ad extra harmonizes with Owen’s assertion that the Father is fons deitatis, as noted above. Edward Leigh likewise noted that the internal and irreversible order of subsistence in the eternal Godhead results in an irreversible order of operation in God’s works ad extra.147

2.3.3.2 Communion with the Son In a 274–page book (Goold edition), the section on communion with Jesus Christ occupies 183 pages. This shows where Owen placed his emphasis.148 In a similar vein, the Westminster Larger Catechism couches the entire application of redemption (or, ordo salutis) in terms of union and communion with Christ in grace and in glory.149 In addition to this material from Communion with God, Owen treated the person and work of Christ extensively in the Christological treatises in volume one of his Works, the books expounding Christ’s work in volumes ten and eleven, and the two introductory volumes to his work on Hebrews. His emphasis on union and communion with Christ spill over into his

145 146

147 148 149

the “discovery” of the Father’s love in Christ. See Richard Sibbes, The Works of Richard Sibbes, 4:328. Owen, Communion with God, 26–27; Works, 2:27. Owen, Communion with God, 19; Works, 2:24. Consider also, “If the love of a Father will not make a child delight in him, what will? Put this to the venture: exercise your thoughts upon this very thing, the eternal, free, and fruitful love of the Father, and see if your hearts be not wrought upon to delight in him. I dare boldly say, believers will find it as thriving a course as ever they pitched upon in their lives. Sit down a little at the fountain, and you will quickly have a farther discovery of the sweetness of the streams. You who have run from him, will not be able, after a while, to keep at a distance for a moment.” Works, 2:36. Leigh, Body of Divinity, 206. Paul Lim argues from (among other factors) the structure of Communion with God that “it is arguably true that John Owen’s Trinitarian theology hinged on his Christological formulation.” Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 187. Westminster Larger Catechism, 65–90.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

62

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

writings as a whole. The Christological segment of Communion with God exemplifies his teaching as a whole in its experiential focus. The backdrop of Owen’s description of communion with Christ in grace is an allegorical exposition of the Song of Solomon. He regarded this book as primarily elaborating the intimate relationship between Christ and his Church.150 Letham mistakenly assumes that Owen’s allegorical exegesis of the Song of Songs was his primary basis for stressing communion with the three persons. This misses the larger treatments of the place of the Trinity in devotion in Owen’s theology.151 He first established the reality of communion with Christ. This communion is rooted firmly in the idea that the only mediator between God and men is fully God and man in two distinct natures and one person. Faith alone is the instrument through which believers hold communion with Christ. This is comparable to the relationship between a bridegroom and his bride.152 In the midst of this treatment, he included two “digressions” that could stand as treatises by themselves. These consist in the excellence of Christ’s person as fully God and fully man and what it means that Christ is the wisdom and the power of God to salvation.153 This material falls under the heading of Christ’s “personal grace.” Richard Byfield called this “the grace of personal union.”154 “Personal grace” refers to the beauty and glory of Christ’s divine-human person. Brian Kay virtually omits Owen’s lengthy treatment of communion with Christ in “personal grace” from his analysis of Communion with God. This is odd because Kay’s work places such heavy emphasis on union with Christ as an essential element of “Trinitarian spirituality.” Owen stressed the “personal grace” of Christ as the means of emphasizing union with Christ. He established the idea that without union with Christ in “personal grace,” there is no context in which to understand communion with Christ in “purchased grace.” This follows the pattern of union and communion in the Westminster Larger Catechism as mentioned above. Only union with Christ’s person provides for applying “purchased grace” to sinners. In his well-known work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (vol. 10), Owen used the concept of personal union with Christ in the covenant of grace to explain how his work on the cross perfectly accomplished atonement for the elect without actually justifying them until they come

150 The common Christological reading of the Song of Solomon was noted in chapter 1. For Owen’s exposition of the Song of Solomon in Communion with God, see the analysis of Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 193–200. 151 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” Ashgate Research Companion, 196. 152 Owen, Works, 2:54–59; Communion with God, 58–64. 153 Works, 2:59–117; Communion with God, 64–132. 154 Richard Byfield, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law, 73.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

63

into union with Christ through the covenant of grace.155 The distinction and inseparable connection between personal and purchased grace as well as union and communion with Christ was standard in Reformed orthodoxy. For example, Mastricht noted that union and communion with Christ is the foundation of applying all of the benefits of redemption and that union is the basis of communion.156 Believers hold communion with God by virtue of a spiritual union with the God-man. In an indescribable manner, those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ hold a mystical communion with the Triune God on the basis of union with Christ.157 This means that Kay has omitted fifty percent of the Reformed orthodox formula that undergirds Owen’s theology of communion with God. Owen added that Christ cannot redeem his people through his incarnation alone. He must pay the penalty for their sins by his atoning death, and he must perform the obedience required by the holy character and law of God.158 This is what Owen called “purchased grace.” This “purchase” refers to Christ “buying back” people consigned to destruction under God’s wrath on account of the infinite debt incurred by their sins. This discussion of “purchased grace” includes a defense of Christ’s “active obedience,” by which Christ’s righteous life and character is imputed to his people.159 The benefits procured by Christ are summarized in justification and sanctification. This does not exclude adoption, as we will see below. In justification, sinners are pardoned and declared righteous in God’s sight for the sake of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them

155 For a more balanced treatment of Owen’s views on union with Christ, see chapter 4 of Kapic’s Communion with God. See also Edwin E. M. Tay, “The Priesthood of Christ in the Atonement Theology of John Owen (1616–1683),” PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2009, 178–184. 156 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 789: “In hac divina constitutione fundamentum haret omnis communionis cum Christo.” Also, “Redemptionis applicatio non dispensator, nisi per unionem et communionem cum Christo” (790). 157 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 791: “Quid sit union cum Christo? . . . quod sit mystica illa relatio, per quam uniti cum Christo ius aquirunt ad omnes illas benedictiones, qua in ipso preparantur.” (Trans: “What is union with Christ? . . . That it is a mystical relation, by which we are united with Christ and acquire the right to all his blessings, which are provided in him.”). 158 See Richard Byfield, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law, 21–26. 159 Owen, Communion with God, 181–187; Works, 2:159–164. For John Owen’s views on justification, including the “active obedience” of Christ, see Carl R. Trueman, John Owen, 101–121; and “John Owen on Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for us in Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2007), 81–98. For a defense that the Westminster Assembly included the active obedience of Christ by good and necessary consequence, see Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Drawn into Controversie, 31–51. Strange attempts to explain the changes between Westminster and Savoy as well (31).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

64

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

and received by faith alone.160 Sanctification refers primarily to the gradual process by which the saints are made holy in practice through the mortification of sin and the vivifying work of the Holy Spirit.161 Though sanctification is a work of the Spirit, it comes through union with Christ.162 Owen argued that the sanctification of believers by the Spirit is connected to Christ in at least three ways. “Meritoriously,” he purchased the Spirit for them. “Efficiently,” believers draw strength from Christ’s death in order to mortify the flesh. Representatively, they will as surely put their sins to death as Christ is dead to the power of sin.163 Since Christ died to the power of sin and rose to newness of life, those in union with Christ have “meritoriously” died to sin’s power and have risen to walk in newness of life. In other words, the Spirit not only gives actual power to mortify sin in individual instances, but Christ merited sanctification for believers by his death in order to create in them a disposition to mortify sin.164 Owen closed the section on communion with Christ in purchased grace by highlighting adoption. Adoption concerns the Father primarily, yet Christians receive the title of sons through union with Christ. The adopted sons are such due to their union with the natural Son. Christ’s work procures adoption, but it is rooted in union with his person.165 Owen stressed a distinctively corporate dimension to the believer’s communion with Christ. At times the soul feels Christ’s absence. This was what the

160 See Savoy Declaration, 11.1. In the course of his ministry Owenshifted his views from the hypothetical or consequent necessity of the atonement to its absolute necessity. See Tay, “Priesthood of Christ,” 236–245; Trueman, “The Atonement,” Drawn into Controversie, 206–213. 161 See Savoy Declaration, 13. 162 Owen listed four causes of sanctification: the Holy Spirit is “the principal and efficient cause,” Christ’s work is “the meritorious procuring cause,” and “faith and affliction” are two distinct instrumental causes. Owen, Pneumatologia, 382–394; Works, 3:436–450. 163 “We are crucified with him meritoriously, in that he procured the Spirit for us to mortify sin; efficiently, in that from his death virtue comes forth for our crucifying; in the way of a representation and exemplar we shall assuredly be crucified unto sin, as he was for our sin.” Owen, Mortifcation of Sin, Works, 6:85. 164 For further detail on the idea of two-fold sanctification, see Works, 3:370, 432, 497, 517, 540, 545, 551–556. 165 Jones argues that unlike Owen, Goodwin connected adoption to Christ’s person rather than to his work. Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 156. However, it is more accurate to state that Owen connected adoption to union with Christ’s person in a way that could not be realized apart from Christ’s work. Minus the Supralapsarian overtones of Goodwin’s treatment, he and Owen are in basic agreement on this point: “So this grace to be God’s adopted son, is first intended and founded upon his being God’s natural Son; and then after that was intended, what is the fruit of Christ’s merit, namely justification founded upon his obedience.” Goodwin, Works, 1:81.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

65

Puritans called “spiritual desertion.”166 In addition to seeking Christ in private, believers must seek him particularly in public worship: This, then, is the next thing that the soul addresses itself unto in the want of Christ: when it finds him not in any private endeavors, it makes vigorous application to the ordinances of public worship; in prayer, in preaching, in administration of the seals, doth it look after Christ. Indeed, the great inquiry the souls of believers make, in every ordinance, is after Christ.167

The order of private communion with God followed by public communion does not reflect an order of ultimate importance (see below). The point is that when the soul feels Christ’s absence in private, the public ordinances of worship are the best remedy. The primary objective of public worship is communion with Christ. At the same time, Christ’s people experience his presence more powerfully in public than in private exercises. For this reason, Owen’s contemporary and frequent opponent, Richard Baxter (1615–1691), urged his readers to choose public worship on the Lord’s Day even at the expense of private worship, if necessary : My judgment is, that in those places where the public worship taketh up almost the whole day, it is no sin to attend upon it to the utmost, as to omit all family and secret exercises, as cannot be done without omission of the public. And that where the public exercises allow but little time at home, the family duty should take up all that little time, except what some shorter, secret prayers or meditations may have, which will not hinder family duties. . . . the Lord’s Day is principally set apart for public worship, and the more private or secret is, as it were, included in the public. . . . it is turning God’s worship into ceremony and superstition, to think that you must necessarily put up the same prayers in a closet, which you have put up in the family or church, when you have not time for both.168

This did not negate the necessity of personal union and communion with Christ. However, when God’s people gather together in the name of Christ, laying hold of the Father by his grace, Christ is present in a special sense. Owen and Baxter agreed that public worship was the best means of promoting communion with 166 For examples of Puritan treatments of “spiritual desertion,” see William Bridge, A Lifting up for the Downcast, orig. pub. 1649, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; Timothy Rogers, Trouble of Mind and the Disease of Melancholy, orig. pub. 1706, reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002; Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax, in, The Works of Richard Sibbes (orig. pub. 1862–1864, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 33–101. Also see Gisbertus Voetius and Johannes Hoornbeeck, Spiritual Desertion, trans. John Vriend, ed. M Eugene Osterhaven, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003. 167 Owen, Communion with God, 146; Works, 2:130. 168 Richard Baxter, The Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day, in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (orig. pub: London, 1846, reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000), 3:901. Emphasis added.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

66

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

Christ. In addition, when believers gather in Christ’s presence, they must frame their worship exclusively according to his law. When they do not do so, they commit adultery against Christ, who is their husband, by rebelling against his authority.169 Without communion with Christ in grace, there is no communion with the Father or with the Spirit. Believers must come into communion with God in a way that is comparable to (though not identical) as that in which the divine Son holds communion with the human nature in one person.170 Christ must atone for the sins of his people and impute his obedience to them. Because he is the natural Son of God, believers are the adopted children of God by virtue of their union with him. Because the Son received the Holy Spirit without measure [Jn. 3:34],171 his people hold communion with the Spirit by measure. In short, in Christ, God blesses his adopted children with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places [Eph. 1:4]. Christ did everything necessary for their salvation. The Christian contributes nothing. Unless men and women have communion with Christ in grace, all is lost. To summarize Owen’s teaching, while the love of the Father is the high point of worship, the grace of Christ is the starting point of worship. 2.3.3.3 Communion with the Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit occupied a significant place in Owen’s thought.172 He believed that his work on the Spirit, which occupies over one thousand closely printed pages in the Goold edition of his works (volumes three and four), was one of his primary contributions to theology.173 Believers primarily hold communion with 169 See chapter 3 below. Owen illustrates such spiritual infidelity to Christ preeminently via Roman Catholic worship. Owen, Communion with God, 169–170; Works, 2:150. 170 In Pneumatologia, Owen drew explicit parallels between incarnation and regeneration. Pneumatologia, 172; Works 3:207. 171 See Owen, Pneumatologia, 140; Works, 3:172. 172 For a recent treatment of Owen’s teaching on the Spirit, see Kelly M. Kapic, “The Spirit as Gift: Explorations in John Owen’s Pneumatology, The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen, 113–140. 173 Owen, Works, 3:7, 22. See Sinclair B. Ferguson, “John Owen on the Holy Spirit,” in John Owen: The Man and his Theology. Geoffrey Nuttall observed, “When John Owen, in the preface to his Pnematalogia, declares, ‘I know not any who ever went before me in this design of representing the whole economy of the Holy Spirit,’ he is neither ignorant of, nor antagonistic to, the work of the early Fathers. Indeed, he explicitly combines the ‘the suffrage of the ancient church’ with the “plain testimonies of the Scripture’ and ‘the experience of them who do sincerely believe’ as the foundation on which ‘the substance of what is delivered’ securely rests. . . . What is new, and what justifies Owen in his claim to be among the pioneers, is the place given in Puritan exposition to experience, and its acceptance as a primary authority, in the way indicated in the passage just quoted. The interest is primarily not dogmatic, at least not in any theoretic sense, it is experimental. There is theology, but, in a way which has hardly been known since St. Augustine, it is theologia

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Triune God

67

the Spirit in comfort. This results from the Spirit’s work in applying the work of redemption to God’s elect. As with every blessing from the Triune God, God’s people receive the comfort of the Spirit through faith in the promises of Scripture. Believers must endeavor to retain the Spirit’s comforts. The Spirit is the bond of fellowship or communion with all three persons. Believers enjoy communion with the Father and the Son through depending on the Spirit’s work.174 In chapter three of his treatment of communion with the Holy Spirit, Owen listed nine characteristics of this fellowship. First, the Spirit teaches believers, both internally and externally, and he brings to their remembrance those things that Christ has taught them (John 14:26).175 Second, the Spirit glorifies Christ in the hearts of his people (John 16:14): “He reveals to the souls of sinners the good things of the covenant of grace, which the Father hath provided, and the Son purchased.”176 Third, the Spirit sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts (Rom. 5:5): “What we have of heaven in this world lies herein.”177 Fourth, he bears witness to our adoption within ourselves (Rom. 8:16). As the Son pleads our case in heaven, so the Spirit intercedes in our hearts. Fifth, the Spirit seals us (Eph. 1:3; 4:30), stamping God’s character upon us, ratifying that we are his, and marking us for his own safe-keeping. Sixth, the Spirit is the earnest, or down payment, of our possession in heaven (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13–14): “The full inheritance promised is the fullness of the Spirit in the enjoyment of God. . . . Having given us so many securities without us, - his word, promises, covenant, oath, the revelation and discovery of his faithfulness and immutability in them all, - he is pleased also graciously to give us one within us, Is. lix, 21, that we may have all the security we are capable of. What can more be done?”178 Again, our present enjoyment of communion with the Holy Spirit is of the same nature, though not of the same degree, of our enjoyment of God in heaven: “So much as we have of the Spirit, so much we have of heaven in its perfect enjoyment, and so much evidence of its future fullness.”179 Clarkson made a similar statement with

174 175

176 177 178 179

pectoris.” Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience, with a new introduction by Peter Lake (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 7. Owen, Communion with God, 320; Works, 2:274: “If the Spirit of God dwell not in you, if he be not your Comforter, neither is God your Father, nor the Son your Advocate, nor have you any portion in the gospel.” “The life and soul of all our comforts lie treasured up in the promises of Christ. They are the breasts of all our consolation. Who knows not how powerless they are in the bare letter, even when improved to the uttermost by our improvement of them, and meditation on them? as also how unexpectedly they sometimes break upon the soul with a conquering, endearing life and vigor? Here faith deals peculiarly with the Holy Ghost.” Communion with God, 276–277; Works, 2:239. Owen, Communion with God, 277; Works, 2:239. Owen, Communion with God, 278; Works, 2:240. Owen, Communion with God, 284; Works, 2:245. Owen, Communion with God, 288; Works, 2:246.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

68

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

reference to communion with the entire Godhead: “God is most glorified in heaven. To have communion with God is to be in heaven. This is the gate of paradise, and puts us into the suburbs of heaven.”180 Seventh, the Spirit anoints us (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 John 2:20, 27) for conviction, sanctification, and consolation. Eighth, adoption comes by the Spirit. We are adopted to the Father, in the Son, and by the Spirit.181 Ninth, the Spirit is the “Spirit of supplication” (Zech. 12:10) because he intercedes for believers in their prayers.182 He enables us to perform prayer as a spiritual duty as well as to engage in prayer as the means of retaining our communion with God.183 One of Owen’s final exhortations in Communion with God was to pray to the Holy Spirit as God.184 In this connection, we must consider the Spirit’s voluntary condescension in being sent from the Father in Christ’s name. This point paves the way for Owen’s Trinitarian construction of the covenant of redemption in chapter five below. We must ask the Father for the Spirit daily through the Son. Such prayer sustains and supports communion with all three persons: And as, in this asking and receiving of the Holy Ghost, we have communion with the Father in his love, whence he is sent; and with the Son in his grace, whereby he is obtained for us; so with himself, on the account of his voluntary condescension to this dispensation. Every request for the Holy Ghost implies our closing with all these. O the riches of the grace of God!185

In Owen’s view, we cannot have communion with the one God without distinct respect to each divine person but we cannot have fellowship with any divine person without holding communion with the other two. Divine perichoresis secures the unity the persons in God’s works, but their personal distinctions require peculiar communion with each person in the application of redemption. David Clarkson too used perichoretic language of interpenetration to describe the communion that the saints had with God.186 The divine persons interpenetrate one another and the saints, though not in exactly the same way. Owen’s views of communion with each divine person were tied intimately to his views of public worship. Early in Communion with God, he asserted that the 180 David Clarkson, “Believers’ Communion with the Father and the Son,” Works, 3:174. 181 This reiterates the Augustinian emphasis that the external works of the Trinity are undivided. We have now seen the doctrine of adoption in relation to all three divine Persons. 182 This passage was the basis for Owen’s work on the Holy Spirit in prayer mentioned above. 183 Owen, Communion with God, 289; Works¸ 2:249. 184 Owen, Communion with God, 317. 185 Owen, Communion with God, 317–318; Works, 2:272. 186 David Clarkson, “Believers’ Communion with the Father and the Son,” Works, 3:166. Later he added, “the intimacy of this union is expressed by inhesion; they are not only united to God, but (if we may use the phrase) mixed with him.” Citing Jn. 17:22. This involves a “mutual inherency.” Citing 1 Jn. 4:16. Works, 3:178–179.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship

69

saints enjoy communion with God in one of two ways primarily : “moral and instituted worship.” “Moral” worship describes immediate acts of devotion that are not tied to external means. These include faith, love, trust, and joy. “Instituted” worship refers to public ordinances of worship appointed by God. Thomas Goodwin made the same distinction under the headings of “immediate” and instituted worship.187 In both cases, Scripture demands that the saints “respect each person respectively” in every act of communion with God.188 The point is that the God who is the object of worship is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Owen’s views of communion with God in public worship were self-consciously Trinitarian because his general concept of communion with God was self-consciously Trinitarian.

2.4

Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship

Owen’s Trinitarianism was the basic rubric of his theology. In connection to his views on worship, he preached two sermons entitled “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” based on Ephesians 2:18 (“for through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father”). These sermons illustrate how his Trinitarian piety informed and culminated in public worship. When Clarkson preached on cultivating communion with God as triune, he omitted public worship as a means.189 Yet when Owen preached on public worship, he did so in terms of communion with all three divine persons. As with Communion with God, he began with communion with the Trinity in general and then proceeded to communion with each person in particular. These sermons include virtually all of the themes covered in the remaining chapters of this research.190 In order to form a clear path for subsequent chapters, this section examines the content of these sermons in detail.

2.4.1 Communion with the Trinity The strength of Owen’s expositions of Scripture lay in his incisive analysis of his text in relation to the overarching context.191 He noted that Ephesians 2:18 does 187 188 189 190 191

Goodwin, Ephesians, Works, 1:18. Works, 2:11; Communion with God, 8. David Clarkson, “Believers’ Communion with the Father and the Son,” Works, 3:181–186. See chapters 1 and 3 for the historical background of English debates over worship. For Owen’s exegetical and theological method, see Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse. This text is highly insightful, though Rehnman at times attempts to fill in too many “gaps” in Owen’s thought with quotes from Turretin and other contemporaries. He does not always

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

70

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

not refer simply to access to God through Jesus Christ, but to Jews and Gentiles sharing access to God through common worship. Old covenant worship divided Jews and Gentiles.192 Removing old covenant ceremonial worship vitiated this liturgical barrier. The gospel removed every internal and external obstacle to uniting Jew and Gentile. The entire Trinity accomplished this reconciliation between God and man and men with each other. The purpose of reconciliation is “access” to the Father, in or through Christ, by one Spirit. In spite of the fears of post-Restoration Church of England clergy that Dissenters represented “radically individualistic religion,”193 Owen placed great value on the corporate communion of the saints with God. All who are called together into a spiritual commonwealth in Christ Jesus are in view. It is significant that public worship serves almost as a presupposition behind Owen’s exegesis here. Public worship is both the highest expression of communion with God and of the communion of the saints.194 Based on this passage, Owen proposed that the true “comeliness” of gospel worship consists in communing with all three persons in the Godhead.195 Communion with God as triune is both the purpose and foundation of worship and its beauty and glory. He argued that spiritual worship under the gospel involves communion with “the whole blessed Trinity.” The unity of the Godhead leads to a general communion with God. However, the passage refers to each divine hypostatikos. This means that every aspect of worship respects each divine person, both jointly and distinctly.196 Owen referred to this as “the great rubric of our service.” By contrast, the only reason that William Perkins gave for acknowledging God’s triunity in worship was that failing to do so turns God into an idol.197 While treating the Trinity as the proper object of worship, he did not explore communion with the persons. This describes Cheynell’s work as well.198 Owen did not only argue that people must worship each divine person, but he promoted communion with each of them both jointly and distinctly. His treatment of the Trinity in worship is qualitatively different than that of such authors such as Perkins and Cheynell. Elsewhere he called Ephesians 2:18 “a heavenly

192 193 194 195 196 197 198

address some of the nuanced differences between Owen and his contemporaries. See also Henry M. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-Century Exegetical Methodology,” PhD dissertation, Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002, and, Barry H. Howson, “The Puritan Hermeneutics of John Owen: A Recommendation,” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001), 351–376. See chapter 5. Paul C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 206. Chapter 6 explores Owen’s practical Trinitarianism and his doctrine of the church. John Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:57. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:57. Perkins, Apostle’s Creed, 30; Idolatry of the Last Times, 5, 63, 106. Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 6–7, 182, 192, 272, but especially 323–378, where he argues for worshiping each divine person in turn.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship

71

directory” for public worship.199 Believers must worship through the Son’s mediation, relying on the strength of the Spirit, calling on God the Father.

2.4.2 Communion with the Father Owen continued with two general observations. First, God is the object of worship. Second, the Father is the object of worship. The name “God” respects all three persons in the Godhead: “God, as God – he who is the beginning and end of all, whose nature is attended with infinite perfection – he from whom a sovereignty over all doth proceed – is the formal object of all divine and religious worship. Hence, divine worship respects, as its object, each person of the blessed Trinity equally, not as this or that person, but as this or that person is God; that is the formal reason of all divine worship.”200 However, as the Father is fons deitatis, he represents the divinity of the entire Godhead.201 Owen noted that each divine person possesses divinity in and of himself (autotheos). He simultaneously called the Father “the fountain of the deity,” and asserted that this did not diminish the full deity of the Son or the Spirit. Since God is triune, true deity never means independent deity. The Son and the Spirit are divine in and of themselves, but always in relation to the Father. Richard Muller observes that these same emphases were present in Western Christianity in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). This council affirmed that each divine person possessed aseity, being God in himself. However, deity is not an abstract principle that they share (a “quaternity”), resulting in a general divine essence that generates or includes three divine persons. He wrote that the Father is “the principium of the Godhead and of the persons as generated or emanated essences.” However, the Son, as eternally begotten by the Father, receives the full substance of the Father, “without any diminution.” In this way, the council taught consistently that each divine person is God of himself, and that the Father communicated eternally both essence and personality to the Son and the Spirit. Muller concludes, “This line of argument will pass directly into the Reformed tradition.”202 Owen’s views support this assertion. The unity and the 199 Owen, Communion with God, 314; Works, 2:269. 200 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:58. On the idea that worship involves all three persons, see James Durham, Revelation, 11ff. 201 See the citations of Owen’s varied terminology above. 202 Muller, PRRD, 4:36–37. Strangely, these distinctions are less clear in Muller’s discussion of the Reformed orthodox teaching in subsequent chapters of this volume. Reflecting some of these concerns, Calvin defended his position against the charge of quaternity. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), Bk. I, ch. 13, sec. 25, vol. I, p. 153.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

72

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

diversity within the Godhead were both in the foreground of his theology of worship. Calvin taught that the Father is the source of the personal subsistence of the Son (and of the Spirit), but that eternal generation does not include an eternal communication of the divine essence. He was willing to call the Father fons trinitatis, but not fons deitatis.203 In this regard, Paul Lim asserts incorrectly that Owen followed Calvin in asserting that the Father was the fountain of the deity.204 While not wanting to oppose historic formulations of the Trinity (such as Nicaea), Calvin presents a purported clarification regarding the doctrine. Mark Jones notes that most Reformed orthodox theologians did not follow Calvin on this point.205 Most recently, Brannon Ellis has argued this point at length.206 The Reformed orthodox understood “God of God” as entailing communication of essence and not simply personal begottenness.207 He explains that they taught that the Father eternally communicated both deity and personality to the Son via eternal generation, yet in such a manner that each person was divine a se ipso. In other words, self-existence is a divine attribute that the Son and the Spirit must possess in order to be equal with the Father. While it appears paradoxical, the Son and the Spirit possess self-existence and personal subsistence through eternal communication from the Father. Without introducing subordination into the Godhead, self-existence, which is incommunicable to the creature, is communicated eternally from the Father to the Son and to the Spirit. This reflects Owen’s implication above that, in the Godhead, deity and personality are distinct but inseparable.208 Jones concludes, “That most of the Reformed orthodox were both “Nicenists” and “Autotheanites” seems to be a fairly accurate description in light of the evidence above.”209 Owen agreed with Calvin that each 203 For example, see Institutes, I, 13, 25. As demonstrated above, Durham and Perkins held a view similar to Calvin’s, while Leigh and others argued that the Father eternally communicated the divine essence to the Son and to the Spirit. 204 Pau C. H. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 190. 205 Cheynell tried hard to reinterpret and reshape Calvin to make him fit the majority view. Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 77. However, he later added, “If the Godhead of the Son were begotten, and the Godhead of the Father were unbegotten, there would be two distinct Godheads in the Father and the Son, the one begotten, the other unbegotten. . . . the subsistence of the Son is begotten, but the divine nature of the Son is unbegotten” (82). While this appears to approximate Calvin’s view at first glance, it is more likely that Cheynell is arguing that the Son does not have a different kind or grade of deity than the Father in his eternal generation. Eternal generation is an eternal communication of both deity and personal subsistence from the Father to the Son. 206 Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 3. 207 Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 111. 208 See also Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 75. 209 Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 116.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship

73

person is autotheos while retaining historic Western Trinitarian terminology and concepts.210 Owen continued by arguing that as the Son alone is “invested with the office of mediation,” and the Spirit “is the comforter and sanctifier of his saints,” “so God the Father is in a peculiar manner the object of faith, and love, and worship.”211 1 Peter 1:21 asserts that we believe in him who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Owen commented, “Christ being considered as mediator, God that raised him from the dead – that is, the Father – is regarded as the ultimate object of our worship; though worshiping him who is the Father as God, the other persons are in the same nature worshiped.”212 His emphasis on perichoresis and opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa comes to the fore here. Believers cannot worship one divine person without worshiping all three, yet worship respects the personal properties of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In Owen’s teaching, the unity and diversity of the Godhead constitutes the devotional atmosphere needed to sustain Christian piety. The order, decency, and glory of worship consist in direct access to God, with special reference to God as Father. Citing Hebrews 10:1, Owen noted that the title “Father” sets worship in a comforting and gracious context: “God on the throne of grace, and God as a Father, is all one consideration; for, as a Father, he is all love, grace, and mercy to his children in Christ.”213 In the same place, he noted that the fact that people do not come to God in this manner “is the ground of all superstitious idolatry in the world.” Such “superstition” included worshiping saints and angels and using images as “outward visible pledges and signs of God’s presence.”214 Using images in particular reflects a defective spiritual communion with the Father : “It is true, they will say it is God alone whom they worship, and whom they intend to draw nigh unto; but I must needs say, that if they knew what it were to do so immediately by Christ, they would be satisfied therewith, and not seek such outward helps in their way as they do.”215 Images

210 Similarly, Cheynell asserted, “And if we should abstract the personality of these uncreated Persons from their divine substance or nature, when we describe them, then we should seem to rob them of their very Divinity even in the description of them.” Cheynell, The Divine Triunity, 69. Emphasis original. 211 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:59. 212 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:59. 213 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:60. He added, “This, I say, adds to the glory, beauty, and excellency of gospel worship. There is not the meanest believer but, with his most broken prayers and supplications, hath an immediate access unto God, and that as a Father ; nor the most despised church of the saints on earth but it comes with its worship unto the glory of God himself.” 214 Chapter 4 below will expand Owen’s polemic against images. 215 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:60.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

74

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

illustrate that all means of worship not instituted in Scripture hinder communion with the Father.216

2.4.3 Communion with the Son The emphasis on communion with Christ in the sermons on Ephesians 2:18 parallel the focus of Communion with God. Just as the Son is the only means of holding communion with the Father, so the Son is the only means of bringing acceptable worship. Citing Hebrews 10:19–20,217 Owen concluded: “The means of access to God in worship is through Jesus Christ alone.”218 In this sense, he drew a connection between a true conception of the gospel and the proper worship of God.219 A proper relationship to God through Christ means that genuine worshipers neither need nor demand elaborate ceremonies and external beauty. They desire only to come to the Father through the Son. Believers take comfort as well because Jesus entered God’s presence on their behalf (Hebrews. 4:14; 6:19–20). Christ’s work as High Priest is the ground on which believers enter his presence. In other words, Christ’s access to the Father is the basis of believers’ access to the Father : It is an access to God, even the Father, in the holy place not made with hands, on the account of the atonement made, and favor and acceptance purchased, by Jesus Christ, being sprinkled with his blood, and following him, as one that is gone before to provide admittance for us. Here is order and beauty too, if we have either faith or eyes to apprehend or perceive what is so.220

Believers enjoy communion with all three persons of the Trinity in public worship, but the Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation for this fellowship. If Christ is not the centerpiece of communion with God, the gospel falls to pieces and worship is impossible. Without diminishing the glory of the Father or the Spirit, Owen not only set forth a model for a Trinitarian piety, but for a Christ-centered

216 See Savoy Declaration, 22.1. 217 “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say , his flesh.” 218 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:61. 219 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:62–63: “I wonder not at all that men who know not this way – do fix on any kind of worship whatever, rather than once make trial what it is to place the glory of their worship in an access to God, seeing they have no interest in this way, without which all attempts after it would be altogether fruitless and vain.” 220 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:63–64.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship

75

Trinitarianism.221 This was how Owen laid such stress on Christology while simultaneously viewing calling on the Father as the high point of worship. Christ’s work heightens the glory of public worship in three ways. “First,” Owen wrote, “our High Priest bears and takes away all the sinfulness and failings that are in or do accompany the holy worship of his saints.”222 Owen illustrated the role of Christ in beautifying worship by describing what worship would be without him: Yea, and if God should ‘mark what is amiss,’ the guilt of their holy worship is enough to make both it and them that perform it to be forever rejected. But now, here is their relief, here beauty, glory, and order, is recovered to their worship; - Christ, as their High Priest, takes away all the evil, filth, and iniquity of their holy things, so that they may be presented pure, holy, and glorious before God.223

By covering the faulty worship of his people with his blood, Christ preserves the glory of gospel worship. Without communion with Christ in public worship believers would be condemned even for their highest acts of praise.224 Second, wrote Owen, covering our faults is insufficient. Christ must make his people righteous so that they can offer “a sweet savor unto God.” Christ’s imputed righteousness is necessary to worship acceptably.225 In light of such glorious communion with the Lord, external beauty in public worship should become incidental, if not irrelevant. Chapter 3 shows that he taught that external pomp and glory actually militate against communion with God in worship. The third and last point in which the saints have communion with Christ in public worship relates to his heavenly session and intercession. As priest, Christ presents both the persons and the duties of believers before the Lord in their public worship.226 Owen’s arguments agree with his emphasis on adoption in Communion with God. Assurance of adoption sets the tone for worship. This flows from a central focus on Christ’s person and work, creating a Christologically oriented expe221 222 223 224

As above, see Durham, Revelation, 12–14. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:67. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:68. Following Westminster, Savoy states regarding the works of believers: “We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because, as they are good, they proceed from the Spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment” (Savoy Declaration 16.5). 225 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:68: “This makes all their worship glorious indeed. Christ, the High Priest, takes away the iniquity of all failings of them, he adds his own righteousness unto it; and so in his own person offers it on the golden altar (that is, his own self) before the throne of God continually.” 226 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:69.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

76

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

rience of the Father’s love. When believers call God “Father,” they recall that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. This enabled Owen to weave his practical Trinitarian theology into public worship.

2.4.4 Communion with the Holy Spirit In his second sermon on Ephesians 2:18, Owen addressed the Holy Spirit in public worship. He viewed the Spirit’s role as that of tying together every aspect of communion with God in worship and thus adding to the beauty of public worship. The Spirit is the means by which believers worship the Father in the Son. The Spirit makes worship “beautiful and comely” by supplying what is necessary within believers. He enables believers to respect both the matter and the manner of worship required in the Word of God [Isaiah 49:21]. Christ sent the Spirit for this task. Owen strongly connected the work of the Spirit to Christ. This plainly reflects his acceptance of the filioque clause of the Western Nicene Creed, in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 227 It is vital to keep in view that the Spirit invariably works by means of the Scriptures in this matter. The Spirit enables believers to do only what the word of God reveals. He wrote, “There is neither promise nor precept, but the Spirit is given to enable believers to answer the mind of God in them; nor is the Spirit given to enable unto any duty, but what is in the word required.”228 The word is the “moral rule” for believers, while the Spirit is “a real principle of efficacy” enabling them to worship God acceptably. Separating word and Spirit removes a vital link in the chain of communion with God.229 The Spirit enables his people to worship in three ways. First, he provides light from Scripture. Second, he creates grace in the heart to effect saving fellowship with God. Third, he enables his people to worship publicly in a way that glorifies God and profits their souls. With regard to the first need, the Spirit directs us to “the voice of Christ,” which is found in Scripture only. He next reveals Christ’s mind to us as it is deduced from Scripture.230 It follows that human beings cannot 227 For a definitive treatment of the historical development of this statement, see Edward Siecienski, The Filioque, and Douglas F. Kelly, Systematic Theology Volume One, 563–577. 228 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:70. The role of Scripture in worship is the subject of chapter 3. 229 In The Reason of Faith, Owen established the work of the Spirit in connection with the authority of the Word. In Causes, Ways and Means, he addressed the illuminating power of the Spirit in conjunction with the Word. This latter treatise was a natural outworking and complement of the former one. 230 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:71: “As ‘no man can say that Jesus is lord, but by the Spirit,’ – so no man can know the way of God’s house and worship but by

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Communion with the Trinity in Public Worship

77

discover how to worship God without the external revelation of the Bible and the internal power of the Spirit on the mind.231 Second, the Spirit works grace in the heart. His personal assistance is necessary in every prayer, which is the primary act of true religion. Even “all the men in the world” could not compose one prayer that is sufficient for the needs of the saints for even one day.232 This foreshadows Owen’s revulsion to imposed forms of prayer. This is addressed in a subsequent chapter below. He set forth his position on this matter at great length in his Discourse Concerning Liturgies and their Imposition and his arguments against forms of prayer appear even in his anti-Socinian work.233 In agreement with his teaching on the knowledge of God, he regarded man’s sinful condition as necessitating the regenerating work of the Spirit in order to exercise any act of devotion. Forms of prayer usurp the work of the Spirit in prayer, since the Spirit teaches people their wants in prayer, the matter of prayer, and the manner of prayer. Similarly, the Westminster Larger Catechism (182) notes that the Spirit teaches believers “for whom, and what, and how prayer is to be made.” Moreover, Satan’s assaults and indwelling sin in believers means that the Spirit must affect the heart with a true awareness of its needs.234 Christ intercedes for believers in heaven, while the Holy Spirit intercedes in their hearts. Moreover, without the Spirit, God’s promises are a dead letter to sinners, who never appropriate them. The Spirit’s ability to help believers worship is rooted in his deity.235 Thus the Spirit’s divinity and personality makes prayer possible. Third, the Spirit provides the means needed to gather the church for public worship. One way in which he does this is by providing church officers to lead public worship. He does this in a way that glorifies God instead of man and ensures the edification of the congregation.236 According to Owen, the Scriptural passages relating to the gifts of the Spirit mostly refer to church officers.237 He

231 232 233 234

235

236 237

the Spirit; and we see by experience, that those that despise his assistance, rather trust to themselves and to other men for the worship of God than to the word.” Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:72. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:72. Owen, Works, 12:577–581; Vindiciae Evangelicae, 666–672. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:72. He elaborated, “We are of ourselves dull and stupid in spiritual things; and when matters of the most inexpressible concernment are proposed, we can pass them by without being affected in any proportion to their weight and importance. The Holy Spirit deeply affects the heart with its spiritual concernments, works sorrow, fear, desire, answerable to the wants that are discerned, making ‘intercession with sighs and groans that cannot be uttered” (73). Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:73: “The Holy Spirit is essentially God himself, blessed forever in his own person. He comes upon the hearts of the elect, and communicates of his own grace unto them. These graces he enables them to act, exert, and put forth in their worship of God.” Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:74. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:74. See chapter 6 below.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

78

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

added that God never gives men spiritual gifts for their own advantage, but to benefit the church. Because they are the Spirit’s gifts, the preaching of ministers is often more profitable than they intend.238 Ministers have a great responsibility not to abuse their gifts by using them for their own benefits and ends rather than for the profit of the church. However, they should take great comfort from the fact that they are instruments in the Spirit’s hands. He can use them beyond their expectations and in spite of their weaknesses to glorify God and to bless the church. This reiterates that, in Owen’s view, God’s work rather than man’s gives order and beauty to public worship.239 Coming to the Father, in Christ, by one Spirit determines the kind of uniformity needed in public worship: Here lies the uniformity of gospel worship, – that though the gifts bestowed on men for the public performance of it be various, and there is great diversity among them, yet it is one Spirit that bestows them all among them, and that in the order before mentioned….. This is a catholic uniformity ; when whatever is invented by men under that name reaches but to the next hedge, and, as might be easily proved and evinced, is the greatest principle of deformity and disorder in the world.240

Unity in gospel worship does not reside in in an imposed liturgy, but in the unity that believers share in their common interest in the Holy Spirit. Public worship should reflect this fact in a simplicity that mirrors internal communion with the Spirit. The external characteristics of worship led Owen to consider the place of worship. He insisted that the New Testament asserts three things on this topic. First, he wrote, “It is performed in heaven.”241 Citing Hebrews 10:19, 22 again, he chided, “What poor low thoughts men have of God and his ways, who think there lies an acceptable glory and beauty in a little paint and varnish! Heaven itself, the place of God’s glorious presence, where he is attended with all his holy angels, is the place of this worship.”242 Because the saints have fellowship with God on earth, Clarkson noted, “we might infer that eternal life is not confined to 238 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:76: “And all those gifts are bestowed on men on purpose for the good and edification of others; they are never exercised in a due manner, but they have a farther reach and efficacy in and upon the souls of the saints, than he that is intrusted with them was able to take a prospect of.” 239 “Blessed order, that the gates of hell should not prevail against! Order proceeding from the God of order ; - his own project and appointment! Here is beauty, decency, loveliness.” Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:76. 240 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:77. For a fuller treatment by Owen of the manner in which Word and Spirit are the true principles of unity in the Church, see chapter 4 of his Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Works, 15:104–140. 241 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:77. 242 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:78.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Concluding Observations on Ephesians 2:18

79

heaven.”243 Yet Clarkson restricted his observations to communion with the Father and the Son. Owen consistently connected enjoying heaven on earth to communion with the Holy Spirit. In making his second point, Owen wrote, “The saints are the temple of God, in which God manifests his presence. Grace in the hearts of believers is the stage where public worship occurs. This is a “living stone” in God’s temple with which all “dead stones” of external human invention hold no comparison.244 Owen’s third point asserts that the public assemblies of God’s people are his temple in a special sense [Eph. ii. 21, 22].245 God is present there in a peculiar manner for the sake of his saints. Clarkson explained that God’s presence with individual believers is like a stream, but when they come together for public worship then all of the streams converge to form a river.246 Men often see no beauty in the simple worship prescribed by the New Testament. Owen added that men likewise saw “no form or comeliness” in Christ during his earthly ministry. What matters is that God regards the assemblies of his saints as “a glorious seat of worship.”247 Wherever the church gathers for worship, there the Spirit meets with her and ushers her into the Father’s presence through the Son. The title of Clarkson’s sermon on worship summarizes Owen’s position well: “Public worship to be preferred before private.”248

2.5

Concluding Observations on Ephesians 2:18

It is remarkable how much of Owen’s theology of worship as a whole is contained in his sermons on Ephesians 2:18. It is also remarkable how often he referred to Ephesians 2:18 in his writings. These sermons are rooted in his theology of 243 David Clarkson, “Believer’s Communion with the Father and the Son,” Works, 3:165. 244 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:78. Clarkson, added, “Men’s consecrations cannot make that holy which God’s institutions does not sanctify.” David Clarkson, “Public Worship to be Preferred Before Private,” in The Works of David Clarkson (orig. pub., James Nichol, 1864, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988), 3:188. 245 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:78. 246 “But you will say, Is not the Lord present with his servants when they worship him in private? It is true; but so much of his presence is not vouchsafed, nor ordinarily enjoyed, in private as in public. . . . The Lord has engaged to be with every particular saint, but when the particulars are joined in public worship, there are all the engagements united together. The Lord engages himself to let forth as it were, a stream of his comfortable, quickening presence to every particular person that fears him, but when many of these particulars join together to worship God, then these several streams are united and meet in one. So that the presence of God, which enjoyed in private, is but a stream, in public becomes a river, a river that makes glad the city of God.” David Clarkson, “Public Worship to be Preferred Before Private,” Works, 3:190. 247 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:79. 248 David Clarkson, “Public Worship to be Preferred Before Private,” Works, 3:187–209.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

80

Trinitarian Worship: The Climax of Communion with God

communion with the persons of the Trinity. The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture pervades these sermons as well. Moreover, in the second sermon, he intertwined public worship and ecclesiology by showing the Spirit’s work through church officers to lead the congregation in public worship. He rounded out his treatment with the idea that worship is a transaction with God in heaven. This includes covenant theology and the need for heavenly affections in public worship. These themes correspond almost exactly to remaining chapters of this book. In two sermons, Owen set forth his theology of communion with the Trinity in public worship in seed form. In a sense, public worship is the tie that binds Owen’s Trinitarian piety to every other area of his theology. This reiterates the importance this research. This was largely how Owen conjoined his Puritan piety with his Reformed orthodox theology and Protestant Scholastic method

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

3.

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

3.1

Introduction

The doctrine of Scripture was foundational to Reformed theology. Owen’s views on communion with God in public worship were tied intimately to his views on the knowledge of God through Scripture. His formulation of the biblical principles of worship grew naturally out of his views of communion with God. In addition, his views of communion with God in public worship were intertwined intimately with his Reformed orthodox view of the sufficiency and the authority of Scripture. This will be demonstrated by examining his principle of worship and its grounds, by comparing his Trinitarian emphases to his contemporaries, and by showing the practical outworking of his views through the lenses of the external form of the service and his teaching on apostasy.

3.2

The Place of Scripture in the Knowledge of God

Reformed authors commonly treated the heart in worship with the Scriptural principles governing worship.1 While Owen largely followed this model, his teaching was more explicitly Trinitarian than others. In his view, chastity to Christ as the husband of the church and adhering to a biblical principle of worship were inseparable. He defined chastity to Christ by obedience to his revealed will in Scripture. This is why Owen’s exposition of the Reformed orthodox principle of worship flowed from his views of personal communion with 1 For early examples, see Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, trans. H.I., edited for the Parker Society by Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), 215–237. In decade two, sermon two, Bullinger addresses the internal principle of the worship of God under the first commandment and the external principles of worship under the second commandment. See also Zecharias Ursinus, Explicationum Catecharum (n.p., n.d.), 694–699. See more below.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

82

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

the Godhead.2 William Ames noted as well that as the spouse of Christ, the church must be subject to the will of Christ.3 In principle and practice, public worship reflects the manner in which believers know God through Jesus Christ. Approaching worship in this way enabled Owen to draw his principle of worship out of the two great principia of Reformed orthodox theology : namely, the being of God (principium essendi) and the self-revelation of God (principium congnoscendi). The authority and the sufficiency of Scripture come to the forefront here. The result is that communion with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in public worship can never be separated from the knowledge of God through Scripture. Mastricht (echoing Ames and Perkins) stated, “Scriptura perfecta regula, vivendi deo.” On the same page he noted that Scripture is the only rule that teaches men how to worship God because it is the only rule that teaches them how to live to God.4 This section treats how Owen’s view of worship developed out of his view of Scripture as the principium congnoscendi of Reformed theology. More narrowly, his position regarding worship grew out of the Reformed exposition of the second commandment.

3.2.1 The Principium Congnoscendi of Reformed Theology As the previous chapter demonstrated, Owen viewed communion with God as inherently Trinitarian. The Triune God is the foundation of all being, and his selfrevelation through his word and Spirit, is the foundation of knowing him.5 This means that sinners come to the Father, through faith in Christ, by means of the Spirit “bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man.”6 In classical Reformed theology, the knowledge of God comes through union and 2 Remember the statement of the Savoy Declaration cited above that the “doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon him.” Savoy Declaration, 2.3. 3 William Ames, A Fresh Suit, [11]. Since Ames’s very long preface is not paginated, I will list all references from his preface in brackets below. 4 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, cap. 2:3–4, p. 19. 5 Manton, Works, 10:220; Ames, Medulla, 6; Leigh, Body of Divinity, 5. Leigh treated Scripture as the principium cognoscendi prior to treating the being of God as the principium essendi on the ground that sinners know God through Scripture only. Volume two of Muller’s PRRD is the standard treatment of the foundational nature of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture in the secondary literature. 6 Westminster Larger Catechism, question 4. The statement refers to the means by which believers come to believe that the Scriptures are the word of God. However, the principle of the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with Scripture touches every part of communion with God.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Place of Scripture in the Knowledge of God

83

communion with Christ.7 Owen’s fellow Congregationalist, Jeremiah Burroughs, subsumed the idea of the experimental knowledge of God through union and communion with Christ under the heading of Christ’s office as prophet.8 Reformed writers frequently followed this pattern.9 For instance, the English Presbyterian John Flavel (1627–1691) argued that Christ’s office as prophet relates to the knowledge of God in Scripture in two ways. First, Christ reveals God’s mind to men.10 Second, he opens the understanding of believers to receive the revelation that he gives of the Father.11 Since Christ as prophet fulfills both of these tasks through Scripture, this means that Scripture as the principium congnoscendi operates through an external and an internal principle. In a short Latin Treatise, Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) demonstrated clearly the connection between the Spirit’s workin the inspiration and preservation of Scripture as well as in the hearts of believers: “Verbum est vehiculum Spiritus, Spiritus anima verbi. Spiritus inspirat verbum, et ab eodem Spiritu custoditur.” He added immediately that the Spirit leads believers by the word to the word.12 Manton treated this subject similarly.13 In

7 See William Perkins, A Declaration of the True Manner of Knowing Christ Crucified (Cambridge, 1615). 8 Jeremiah Burroughs (1600–1646), Gospel Revelation in Three Treatises, Viz, The Nature of God, the Excellencies of Christ, and the Excellence of Man’s Immortal Soul (London, 1660), 90–101. See more below. For secondary literature on the relation of union with Christ to the knowledge of God, see Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 175–178; Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration, 125–126. For a recent treatment of the Reformed doctrine of union with Christ in relation to the ordo salutis, see J. V. Fesko, Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–1700) (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). The most serious deficiency of this work is Fesko’s concluding assertion that while union with Christ is the ground of justification, “Correlatively, justification is the legal ground of the believer’s union with Christ” (382. Emphasis original.). He argues this because the eternal pactum salutis included the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by way of decree. However, Reformed orthodox theologians did not use such language and they would have had difficulty understanding the concept. Union with Christ was the ground of justification even in the order of the eternal decree of God. 9 Ames argued that rejecting the sufficiency and the exclusive authority of Scripture in worship assaulted Christ’s offices both as prophet and as king. Ames, A Fresh Suit [12]. Owen implied the same idea in his treatment of Christ’s authority over the church. This will be addressed below. 10 John Flavel, The Fountain of Life Opened, or, A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory (London, 1700), 89–101. Owen’s two treatises cited in the previous chapter on The Reason of Faith and Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God expand both of these points respectively. For an analysis of these works in relation to other Reformed exegetical manuals, see Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 40–50. 11 Flavel, Fountain of Life, 102–115. 12 Richard Sibbes, Antidotum Contra Naufragium Fidei et Bonae Conscientiae, Concio Latine Habita ad Academicos Cantabrig (London, 1657), 68–69. For an extended treatment of Sibbes and his significance in the seventeenth century, see Paul R. Schaefer Jr., The Spiritual Bro-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

84

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

these statements, the Reformed orthodox attributed illumination both to Christ and to the Spirit. It is interesting in this connection that under Christ’s prophetic office, what is ordinarily regarded as pre-eminently the work of the Spirit is ascribed to the Son. As the last chapter noted, the reason behind this was the unity of the work of all three persons and their mutual indwelling. The external and objective aspect of this revelation comes from the Father, through Christ, by the Spirit as he has recorded God’s will in Scripture.14 Flavel added that Christ especially continues to exercise his office as prophet through preaching and not simply through Scripture reading.15 This emphasis resurfaces below in chapter 6. Internally, the Spirit takes the objective revelation from the Father through Christ in Scripture and applies it to the human heart.16 These ideas correspond to the internal and external elements of Owen’s definition of true theology treated in the previous chapter. The knowledge of God through Scripture simultaneously belonged to Reformed prolegomena and to Christology. This was a pneumatological Christology, since Christ as prophet applies the Scriptures by means of the Spirit.17 This highlights the fact that while Reformed prolegomena was the foundation for the system of theology, its principles resulted from that system as well. This is why Muller notes that even though prolegomena appeared first in a system of theology, it was developed last.18 The relationship between the knowledge of God through Scripture to Christology and pneumatology is particularly evident in connection to Owen’s teaching on worship, as shown below.

3.2.2 The Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture Two attributes of Scripture are especially relevant to Owen’s doctrine of public worship. These are the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture. Peter van Mastricht singled out the necessity and the sufficiency of Scripture as under-

13 14 15 16

17 18

therhood: Cambridge Puritans and the Nature of Christian Piety (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 164–217. Manton, Works, 10:198 Flavel, Fountain of Life, 92, 99. Flavel, Fountain of Life, 97. Flavel, Fountain of Life, 102. “Knowledge of spiritual things is well distinguished into intellectual and practical: the first hath its seat in the mind, the latter in the heart.” On pages 104–105, Flavel added that even though the Holy Spirit imparts the knowledge of God to man’s heart, he is, properly speaking, making the prophetic office of Christ efficacious. See John Howe (1630–1705), A Treatise of Delighting in God, From Psalm xxxvii.4, In Two Parts (London, 1674), 19–23. Owen reflected by including two treatises on Scripture in his work on the Spirit, which are cited throughout the discussion above. Muller, PRRD, 1:85.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Place of Scripture in the Knowledge of God

85

girding the entire doctrine of Scripture. He added early in his treatment that fallen man cannot know how to worship God properly without Scripture.19 I have singled out Owen’s treatment of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture because these are the two attributes that he connected immediately to worship. Ames singled out the importance of the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture in relation to worship as well.20 It is noteworthy that Reformed authors commonly wove statements concerning worship into their treatments of the doctrine of Scripture. With regard to the authority of Scripture, Owen asserted two parallel ideas.21 First, the Bible is the only authority in matters of faith and practice.22 Second, the only ground on which people must believe in the authority of divine revelation is the authority of God himself.23 Manton noted likewise, “The saving knowledge of Christ’s person and offices cannot be gotten but by special revelation from God; we must see God as we see the sun, by his own beam and light.”24 However, Manton went a slightly different direction than Owen. Owen chose the authority of God as the only ground of faith. Manton argued that the Spirit convinced men’s hearts through “rational probabilities.” Owen argued that it is the nature of faith to rest on the testimony of another. Faith rests on certainty and not probability. Certainty comes through faith in divine testimony alone and not through rational argumentation. This leaves people with the options of resting either on divine authority or on human testimony and reason as the ground of receiving the authority of the Bible.25 It is significant in this connection that 19 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 17, 19. 20 Ames, A Fresh Suit, [77]. 21 For secondary literature on Reformed orthodox views of the authority of Scripture, see Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 87; Muller, PRRD, 2:340–370; Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 62–79, 189–191. 22 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 2–3; Works, 4:7–8. Savoy Declaration 1.10 states, “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other, but the holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit; into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.” See WSC Q. 2. Interestingly, the corresponding paragraph in the Westminster Confession refers to “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” instead of “the holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit.” It is possible that Savoy wanted to clarify the idea that the Spirit does not continue to impart revelation in addition to Scripture. 23 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 109; Works, 4:70: “We believe the Scripture to be the word of God with divine faith for its own sake only ; or, our faith is resolved into the authority and truth of God only as revealing himself unto us therein and thereby.” See Savoy Declaration 1.5: “The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the Author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” 24 Manton, Works, 10:220. 25 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 80–81; Works, 4:53.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

86

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

authors such as Ames and Mastricht included treatments of faith prior to treating the content of their theological systems.26 This procedure highlighted Owen’s point that faith in divine testimony preceded rather than resulted from the system of theology.27 Making rational arguments rather than God’s testimony the grounds of faith destroys the nature of faith.28 Manton argued that Christians should appeal to “miracles and rational probabilities” to convince unbelievers of the truths of Christian doctrine. He added that by contrast, “this inward witness is proper to believers.”29 Owen stated that while this was “the opinion of some learned men,” yet they must presuppose the internal illumination of the Spirit in order to make these arguments effective.30 Owen objected to resting faith on “rational probabilities.” Manton later added, “Faith is not grounded on sense, but testimony.”31 Even though the Reformed orthodox differed regarding the kind of arguments they used to defend the faith, they rested on similar principles. Therefore, Owen concluded that the Scriptures evidence their own authority, yet they cannot do so in unrenewed minds.32 Owen anticipated that some would say that this position was “irrational” by making the internal work of the Spirit the ground of faith instead of God’s authority speaking through his word. He answered this objection later by arguing that while divine testimony alone was the formal ground for believing in the authority of Scripture, fallen man would never recognize this authority without the Spirit’s illumination.33 The problem does not lie with the self-at26 Ames wrote, “Fides illa vera Christiana, quae locum habet in intellectu, nititur semper testimonio divino, qua est divinum; ita autem recipi nequit, nisi ex pio voluntatis effecu erga deum.” Ames, Medulla, 6. See Mastricht, Theoretica-Practica Theologia, lib. 2, cap. 1, p. 50ff. 27 See Adriaan Neele, Petrus van Mastricht, Part II, chapter 2. 28 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 80–81; Works, 4:53, see p. 63 as well. In his sermon “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open,” he argued that Roman Catholicism grounded the knowledge of God on sight and sense, whereas Scripture teaches that faith is the ground of the knowledge of God. Works, 8:547–548. For similar arguments, see William Whitaker (1548–1595), Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura, Contra Huius Temporis Papistas, Imprimis Robertum Ballarminum Jesuitam, Pontificium in Collegio Romano, et Thomam Stapeltonum, Regium in Schola Duacena Controversiarum Professorum (n.p, n.d.), 281ff. 29 Manton, Works, 10:221. 30 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 80–81; Works, 4:53. 31 Manton, Works, 10:280. 32 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 84–85; Works, 4:55: “This work of the Spirit of God, as it is distinct from, so in order of nature it is antecedent unto, all divine objective evidence of the Scriptures being the word of God, or the formal reason moving us to believe.” Emphasis original. 33 Owen, The Reason of Faith, 7; Works, 4:68: “Wherefore, although no internal work of the Spirit can be the formal reason of our faith, or that which it is resolved into, yet it is such as without it we can never sincerely believe as we ought, nor be established in believing against temptations and objections.” On page 109 (70) he added, “We believe Scripture to be the word of God with divine faith for its own sake only ; or, our faith is resolved into the authority and truth of God only as revealing himself unto us therein and thereby. And this authority

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Place of Scripture in the Knowledge of God

87

testing nature of the word of God, but with the effects of sin on the human mind. For the same reason, Edward Reynolds stated that unconverted people could understand the “grammatical construction” of Scripture, but not its light and beauty.34 He concluded that obedience and holiness are the best means of understanding the Scriptures truly. Owen rooted the authority of Scripture in the authority of God alone. This stems from the fact that all true knowledge of God begins with divine rather than human initiative. In the same vein, Mastricht noted that the authority of Scripture was rooted in the divine authorship of Scripture. 35 He added that Scripture ascribes divine authorship to all three persons in the Godhead.36 The sufficiency of Scripture was the counterpart of its authority . This point stood in stark contrast to the views of certain men such as Archbishop William Laud (1573–1645), who believed that the Church of England could steer a middle course between Roman Catholicism, which made too little of Scripture, and Puritanism, which made too much of it. Laud denied both the sufficiency and the clarity of Scripture.37 From the Reformed perspective, if true knowledge of God and communion with him rests on divine authoritative revelation, then that revelation is the exclusive guide for communion with God. The doctrines and commandments of men always detract from communion with God and cannot add anything profitable to the souls of believers, because faith rests on divine testimony.38 The sufficiency of Scripture pervaded Mastricht’s treatment of the qualities of Scripture. After introducing each characteristic of Scripture, he concluded by asserting that Scripture is enough for believers (“talis autem est Scriptura”).39

34

35 36 37

38 39

and veracity of God do infallibly manifest or evidence themselves unto our faith, or our minds in the exercise of it, by the revelation itself in the Scripture, and no otherwise; or, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ is the reason why we ought to believe, and why we do so, why we believe at all in general, and why we believe anything in particular. And this we call the formal object or reason of faith.” Edward Reynolds (1599–1676), The Sinfulness of Sin, in Three Treatises, 62: “Natural men have their principles vitiated, their faculties bound, that they cannot understand spiritual things, till God have as it were implanted a new understanding in them, framed the heart to attend, and set it at liberty to see the glory of God with open face. Though the veil do not keep out the grammatical construction, yet it blindeth the heart against the spiritual light and beauty of the Word.” Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1.2.10, pp. 20–21. Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1.2.12, p. 21.See also Calvin, Institutes, 1.6.1–4. See Charles Carlton, Archbishop William Laud (London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), 42; Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 192–193. Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament by Way of Question and Answer, With an Explication and Confirmation of Those Answers (London, 1667), 24; Works, 15:455. Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1.2.5, p. 18.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

88

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

Savoy Declaration 1.6 states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”40 In Reformed theology, the attributes of Scripture inform one another. The authority of Scripture makes Scripture necessary, assumes that its basic teaching for salvation and Christian living is clear, and demands that it is both a sufficient and exclusive rule for faith and practice.41 Mastricht listed eight interdependent attributes of Scripture.42 For Owen, Scripture alone can bind men’s consciences in worship because it is the revelation necessary for knowing the Triune God.43 Scripture as the principium congnoscendi with special emphasis on its authority and sufficiency led Owen to describe the Reformed principle of worship in terms of maintaining spiritual chastity toward Christ. He listed three aspects of keeping “chaste” in this relationship. The first was to have no affections that compete with affections for Christ. The second was to cherish the Spirit’s presence.44 The third – and, in his view, most important – lay in “keeping his institutions and his worship according to his appointment.”45 Negatively, the church must introduce nothing into her worship beyond what Christ has appointed. Positively, she must receive and retain every ordinance of worship that Christ appointed. The Savoy Declaration summarizes Owen’s teaching on worship. This summary is the basis for expansion of his principles in the next section below: The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is just, good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (22.1).46 40 The phrase, “good and necessary consequence,” is expanded below under the application of Owen’s principles of worship. For a historical introduction to this principle and its use in the seventeenth century, see Ryan M. McGraw, By Good and Necessary Consequence (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 17–40. 41 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1.2.5, p.. 19. 42 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1.2.14–21, p.. 21. 43 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 26–27; Works, 15:456–457. 44 Owen, Communion with God, 165–169; Works, 2:146–150. 45 Owen, Communion with God, 169; Works, 2:150. Emphasis original. 46 See Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 50: “The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Principle of Worship Elaborated

89

This statement was adopted verbatim from the Westminster Confession of Faith.47 Manton noted also that the light of nature cannot teach fallen man anything about salvation or about the proper worship of God. Salvation and worship are connected because worship is the purpose of salvation.48 As prophet, Christ reveals God to his people by his word and Spirit. Because his word is authoritative and sufficient, it is the exclusive rule for communion with God.49 The principle of worship stated here as rooted in the Reformed orthodox doctrine of Scripture requires further elaboration.

3.3

The Principle of Worship Elaborated

To give shape to Owen’s conception of communion with the Triune God in public worship, it is important to explore how he developed the Reformed principle of 47 The next paragraph is self-consciously Trinitarian: “Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creatures; and since the fall, not without a Mediator, nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone” (22.2). Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith 21.2. Manton noted similarly that the light of nature cannot teach fallen man anything about salvation or about the proper worship of God. 48 Manton, Works, 10:200. See Jean Calvin, Supplex exhortation, 38; John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 15. Carlos Eire noted that the reasons for Calvin’s refusal to compromise in matters of worship has been almost as misunderstood as his views on predestination. Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge University Press, 1986), 254. 49 In Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. IV, cap. 3, p. 333, he tied the role of Scripture in worship to Scripture as the foundation of theology. Owen, Biblical Theology, 434. “Divine revelation is the unique foundation, the sole norm, the only rule of all religious worship, if it is to be acceptable to God. This principle takes the first place in all theology….God has, in no way and at no time, from the foundation of the world, allowed human judgment to give his worship its limits or measure.” Also, “In order that everything be performed duly and in order in his Church, according to the will of God, Christ ordained that his Word, the Scriptures, should be the standard of evangelical worship and the sole rule for judging all matters of faith, obedience, and worship. Anything added over and above his Word is done without his sanction (Matthew 28:18–20). Christ has promised his gracious presence to those gatherings of the Church, through the work of the Holy Spirit, until the consummation of all things (Matthew 28:20; John 14:15–16; John 16:7), and so Christ requires his believers to beg the Father in their prayers for the presence of the Spirit to be their constant companion and guide in the evangelical worship (Luke 12:10; John 3:5–6, 8; 4:24; Romans 7:6; 8:1; 9:13, 26; 15:30; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:8; Galatians 5:16–25; Ephesians 2:18; 4:3; 5:18; Philippians 1:19; 2:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). In Theolgoumena Pantodapa, lib. VI, cap. 7, p. 502; Biblical Theology, 657, he connected Christ’s presence in the Spirit to adhering faithfully to Scriptural requirements regarding worship. Westcott takes considerable liberty in his “interpretation” of this section and omits Owen’s numbered points. Additionally, he removed the reference to the Spirit in Owen’s conclusion, which reads, “Atque ita discipulos suos Dominus Iesus, theologia haec institutos, se atque Patrum suum per Spiritum glorificaturos in mundum emisit.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

90

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

worship. In his view, Scripture forbids all worship that is not appointed by God. On the other hand, it requires worshiping God according to his commands.50 These twin principles illustrate how the Bible is both an exclusive and a sufficient rule for communion with God in public worship. This reflects the Reformed interpretation of the law of God in which every prohibition implies a corresponding command, and vice versa.51 This moves our attention from Owen’s doctrine of Scripture in general to his exposition of the second commandment in particular and the resultant importance of the Reformed principle of worship.

3.3.1 Interpreting the Law of God A prefatory word about the Reformed interpretation of the Ten Commandments is in order. The Reformed believed that the commandments encompassed by implication every sin and duty recorded in Scripture. For this reason, Westminster Larger Catechism 99 sets forth eight principles for interpreting God’s law. Thomas Watson provided a lengthy exposition of these.52 Durham began his work on the Ten Commandments with the attributes of Scripture. He noted that Scripture is excellent, useful, and necessary for sinners. Like Owen, he believed that the Reformed understanding of the law, including the second commandment, grew out of the Reformed view of Scripture.53 Like Watson, he concluded with the common rules for interpreting the law.54 Owen wrote a preface to Durham’s work and to his exposition of the Song of Solomon, showing that he approved of this author. The same principles are found in Episcopal writers, such as Ezekiel Hopkins (1643–1690).55 These principles allow for an extensive application of the second commandment. The Reformed orthodox treated the Ten Commandments as subject headings 50 Owen, Communion with God, 170–171; Works, 2:150–151; Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 42–49; Works, 15:462–465. Most of the first 82 pages (original pagination) of his Brief Instruction expands how and why his principles of worship grew out of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture. 51 See Joseph Allaine, A Most Familiar Explanation of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, Wherein the Larger Answers are Broken to to Lesser Parcels, Thereby to Let in the Light by Degrees into the Minds of the Learners (London, 1682), 75. 52 Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, 270–271. 53 James Durham, The Law Unsealed, or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments, With a Resolution of Several Momentous Questions and Cases of Conscience (Edinburgh, 1676), 1–3. 54 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 8–23. 55 Ezekiel Hopkins, An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, with Other Sermons (London, 1691), 3: “The words are but few, called therefore the Words of the Covenant, the Ten Words; but the sense and the matter contained in them is vast and infinite. The rest of Scripture is but a commentary upon them.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Principle of Worship Elaborated

91

encompassing all sins and duties of the same kind.56 In addition to Owen’s contemporaries, this point builds on earlier authors such as Calvin, who noted, “in each commandment we must investigate what it is concerned with; then we must seek out its purpose.”57 While Reformed orthodox writers expanded the rules for interpreting the Decalogue, they built on a Reformed principle of interpreting the commandments broadly. However, Zecharius Ursinus (1534–1583) included eight rules for interpreting the Ten Commandments, rules that are similar to those codified in the Westminster Larger Catechism.58 The express words of each commandment set forth the most flagrant violation of that commandment.59 Jesus’ interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the Mount, particularly of the sixth commandment, provided a model for interpreting the other nine.60 Murder is the greatest outward manifestation of the sins of like kind. For this reason, Christ included hatred in the heart, harsh words, and reconciliation with a brother under this commandment.61 Every commandment relates to heart, speech, and behavior.62 In addition, it includes a prohibition and a corresponding duty. This means that people can violate divine commandments either by omission or commission. Not adding to God’s requirements and not subtracting from them is included in these principles. Since the first four commandments deal directly with man’s relationship to God, Owen asserted that the primary emphasis of the second commandment was the proper worship of the true God.63 Nature teaches that man must worship God in some outward form and that he must worship in society rather than in private exclusively.64 When the second commandment forbids worshiping God by images, it implies the rule for regulating public worship. The entire word of God teaches people how to worship and obey God, but the second commandment brings his will regarding worship into particular focus.65

56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65

Watson, Body of Practical Divinity, 270–271; Durham, The Law Unsealed, 8. Calvin, Institutes, 375. 2.8.8. Ursinus, See Explicarum Catechorum, 690–692. Durham, The Law Unsealed, 12. Durham, The Law Unsealed, 11. See the proof texts in Larger Catechism 99. Thomas Vincent (1643–1678), An Explicatory Catechism, or, An Explanation of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Glasgow, 1692), 190–197; John Flavel, An Exposition of the Assembly’s Catechism, with Practical Inferences from Each Question (London, 1692), 138–140. Such expansions of the sixth commandment often included lengthy discussions of suicide, or selfmurder as well. Westminster Shorter Catechism 72. Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 5; Works, 15:448; Durham, The Law Unsealed, 7; Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 697–698. Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 6; Works, 15:448–449. Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 9–11; Works, 15:449–450.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

92

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

3.3.2 The Second Commandment Owen’s exposition of the second commandment is relatively brief. However, since his interpretation of the commandment was commonplace, other Reformed writers can supplement the reasons behind his exposition. Making and worshiping images was the highest expression of the violation of God’s instituted worship.66 To support the assertion that this commandment respects making and worshiping images of the true God, Owen cited its expansion in Deuteronomy chapter 4, verses 15 through 18. He argued from this chapter that the commandment concerned worshiping the true God by means of images. Such images demean his glory and disregard his revealed will.67 In his thinking, while worshiping false gods and worshiping the true God by means not prescribed in Scripture are addressed in distinct commandments (the first and the second), yet they are closely related.68 Perkins referred to those who disregarded God’s prescriptions regarding the manner in which he should be worshiped as committing “double” idolatry.69 Ursinus and Polanus similarly linked worshiping the true God properly (second commandment) to honoring God in every aspect of life (first commandment).70 In Theologoumena Pantodapa, after noting that one of the Old Testament words describing idols means “desolation,” “void,” “waste,” or “solitary,” Owen added that God’s people departed from the foundation of theology in two ways: first with regard to the object of worship, and then with regard to the means of worship.71 Breaking the first and second 66 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 62–63; Works, 15:470. “The main design of the second precept is all making unto ourselves any such things in the worship of God, to add unto what he hath appointed; whereof and instance is given in that of making and worshiping images, the most common way that the sons of men were then prone to transgress against the institutions of God.” Emphasis original. 67 Thomas Vincent, Exposition of the Assembly’s Catechism, 131: “Why may we not make use of images for our help in our worshiping of God? Because God hath absolutely forbidden it. Because images are not a real help, but a hindrance of devotion, they tend to lessen God in our esteem, who being the living God, and superlatively excellent, and infinitely removed above all his creatures, cannot without great reflexion of dishonor upon him, be represented by a dead image.” So Perkins, The Idolatry of the Last Times, 18: “So soon as God is represented in an image, he is deprived of his glory, and changed into a bodily, visible, circumscribed, and finite majesty.” The appendix below expands Owen’s teaching regarding images. 68 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 1, 352–353; Biblical Theology, 441. 69 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 13. 70 Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 686Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae, Aliquot Praelectionibus (Basliae, 1597), 94–94, 99. 71 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 1, 352–353; Biblical Theology, 441: “Bisariam autem a pincipio isto Theologico defecerunt Apostata, primo scilicet respect oiejcti cultus, deinde mediorum.” Such references to Hebrew terms point to the fact that Owen did not merely make dogmatic assertions supported by proof texts. Demonstrating this is the burden of Knapp’s “Understanding the Mind of God.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Principle of Worship Elaborated

93

commandments go hand in hand. He applied terms describing outright idolatry to corruptions of the instituted worship of God. This highlights the importance of the principle of Reformed worship. Owen added, “All worship is either human and natural, or else divine and instituted by God himself at his own good pleasure. When apostasy occurs, this latter is usurped by an arbitrary worship system.”72 In the context, he examined Baal worship. Corrupt worship of the true God and worshiping false gods are in the same category. Commenting on Exodus 32:1–5, he observed that even though Aaron did not offer the people another god to worship, yet he led them into great sin (“crimine manifesta”) by introducing arbitrary worship by means of a visible sign (“cultus arbitrarii in signo visbili”) that was contrary to the commandment of God.73 Connecting the first and second commandments in this way ties his exposition to the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture authoritatively reveals the true God as the object of worship and Scripture sufficiently teaches believers how to worship him. Owen’s exposition of the second commandment applied the Reformed doctrine of Scripture to public worship. This means that the Reformed principle of worship was not peripheral in Reformed theology, since it was rooted in the principia of the theological system. This is the primary burden of Eire’s War Against the Idols and it is prominent in Benedict’s Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed.74

3.3.3 The Importance of the Biblical Principle of Worship Owen’s formulation of the Reformed principle of worship held practical consequences for communion with God. Among other things, he taught that the principle defended liberty of conscience. It did so by upholding the exclusive authority of Christ in Christian devotion and by preventing persecution.75 72 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 6, p.. 356; Biblical Theology, 461. The original is “Cultus omnis Divnis vel moralis est aut naturalis, vel ad Dei beneplacitum ab ispo institutus; huius inter Apostatas locum occupat arbitrarius.” The same language appears in Communion with God, 170; Works, 2:150. See also chapter 11 of The Nature and Causes of Apostasy from the Gospel, where Owen connected the corruption of corporate worship to apostasy from the gospel. Works, 7:217–222, and A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 2; Works, 15:448. 73 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 9, p. 376; Biblical Theology, 482. Perkins used the same example along with Jeroboam’s calves and Micaiah’s idolatry in Judges 17. Perkins, The Idolatry of the Last Times, 2. 74 For an older, but still helpful, work on Reformed worship in the context of English Puritanism, see Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Orig. pub., Dacre Press, 1948, reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997). 75 This argument is prevalent in the early part of A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God. See George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, [15].

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

94

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

Correlatively, Ames added that if men were more willing to suffer for the truth, then they would be better enabled by the Lord to understand the truth. He closed his preface by exhorting: “Welcome Christ with his cross, any truth though with trouble. Be willing the truth should fall on any side as worthy to be prized and loved for itself.”76 Owen observed that when the church presumes to add to the “matter and manner” of God’s worship, this leads to persecution against at least some believers. He wrote that this sin “lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.”77 Christ’s authority as Lord of the church is at stake here. These assertions mirror the chapter on “Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience” in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith and worship” (WCF 20.2).78 The Savoy Declaration (21.2) omitted the reference to “faith and worship.” One might presume the omission was intended to strengthen the sufficiency of Scripture by showing that God is not only Lord of the conscience in matters of faith and worship, but in everything. Nevertheless, Westminster significantly singled out faith and worship as matters of particular importance.79 Violating Christian consciences by adding to biblical worship leads invariably to some form of persecution. This is because believers must submit to the authority of Christ alone.80 When others require them to submit to practices that Christ has not commanded, they force believers to suffer for the

76 Ames, A Fresh Suit, [78]. 77 Communion with God, 171; Works, 2:151. Emphasis original. For similar comments on persecution in connection to worship, see Owen, Phronema tou Pneumatou, or The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded, Declared and Practically Improved (London, 1681), Works, 7:430; and A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 32; Works, 15:458. 78 On the thorny question of persecution and toleration in seventeenth century England, see Coffey, Persecution and Toleration. 79 See WCF 1.1. For a treatment by one of the Westminster divines on the role of the Law of God in the Christian life, see Samuel Bolton (1606–1654), The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, or a Treatise Wherein the Rights of the Law are Vindicated, the Liberties of Grace Maintained; and the Several Late Opinions Against the Law are Examined and Confuted (London, 1656). 80 Owen, Communion with God, 171; Works, 2:152. Owen observed here, “The 119th Psalm may be a pattern for this. How doth the good, holy soul breathe after instruction in the ways and ordinances, the statutes and judgments, of God! This, I say, they are tender in: whatever is of Christ, they willingly submit unto, accept of, and give themselves to the constant practice thereof; whatever comes on any other account they refuse. This means that believers must make the true worship of the Triune God one of the primary objects of their diligent study.” For Christ’s Lordship in worship, see A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 11–23; Works, 15:450–455. This is connected closely to his views of new covenant worship. Chapter 5 expands this theme.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Principle of Worship Elaborated

95

sake of upholding his Lordship.81 The supremacy of Scripture in worship protects the honor of God and the consciences of his people. Adding to God’s directions concerning worship usurps Christ’s authority.82 This is particularly the case when the church invents extra-biblical officers.83 The positive role of church officers is the subject of chapter 6 below. Since church officers lead public worship, they have great potential either for good or for evil. Owen argued that Christ’s authority and the church’s good are invariably violated when extra-biblical officers such as bishops are introduced. He added that it is not surprising that when such offices come into the church, free prayer is restricted, preaching is minimized, and the Sabbath is despised.84 The idea is that when the church violates Christ’s exclusive authority in one area, then the violation of other areas follows invariably. Charles Carlton notes that William Laud’s view of episcopal government flowed directly from his view of Scripture. Since Laud did not believe that the Scriptures were sufficient and exclusive in worship and church government, episcopal authority was permissible. In this sense, Puritans and Laudians agreed about the differing consequences of their principles.85 Owen concluded that adding to Scripture in worship results in an “outward show of worship, drawing from Pagan, Judaical, and Antichristian observations.”86 Whether in “public or private,” worship practices going beyond 81 See Eire, War Against the Idols, 260–264. 82 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. IV, cap. 3, pp. 333–334; Biblical Theology, 434: “This same truth teaches that all and every single thing instituted by God in his worship is established by him who has supreme authority, and must be obeyed and honored with all reverence and submission, however much they might seem to be out of harmony with our own reason or appear difficult or unreasonable to human minds….Ordinances are to be observed solely because of the sovereign will of God. The command that nothing shall be added to these belongs to this fundamental legislation and still remains in force. It is firmly rooted in the second command of the Decalogue. Arrogant little humans are very prone to introduce into religious worship figments drawn from their own emotions, and to defend them by specious pretexts (particularly by the use of philosophy and superstition – a fact to which all human experience will testify), and so it pleased God to render this theology absolutely inviolable and sacred for the future by confirming it by the terrible punishment of the first apostates from this command.” 83 See Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 83ff; Works, 15:477–478. 84 Owen, Communion with God, 170; Works, 2:151. 85 Carlton, William Laud, 42–43. In this connection, Tom Webster observed, “The policies of the 1630’s, particularly after Laud was chosen as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, could have been written as an effective list to alienate, shock and anger Puritans and to thoroughly disturb the tense cooperation in the middle of James’s reign.” Tom Webster, “Early Stuart Puritanism,” in Cambridge Companion, 56. 86 Owen, Communion with God, 170; Works, 2:151. “That Jesus Christ might be deposed from the sole privilege and power of law-making in his Church; that the true husband might be thrust aside, and adulterers of his spouse embraced; that taskmasters might be appointed in and over his house, which he never gave to his Church, Eph. iv. 11; that a ceremonious, pompous, outward show of worship, drawing from Pagan, Judaical, and Antichristian ob-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

96

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

Scripture hinder rather than help “communion with Christ.” God’s authority cannot be supplemented without being supplanted; anything apart from Scripture obscures rather than promotes the knowledge of God. Owen concluded his treatment against adding to divine worship by tying together Christ’s authority and liberty of conscience under one great example of persecution. Many English Protestants had fled to New England in order to practice liberty of conscience in worship. This was one the most horrific examples of persecution, in his view. He wrote, “You know how many in this very nation, in the days not long since past, yea, how many thousands, left their native soil, and went into a vast and howling wilderness in the utmost parts of the world, to keep their souls undefiled and chaste to their dear Lord Jesus, as to this of his worship, and institutions.”87 The new world potentially posed great threats. Yet if believers must choose between a safe, familiar, and comfortable home that lacks liberty to worship God properly, and a dangerous unknown land where they can worship freely, then they must choose the latter over the former. Most did not want to leave their homes. A large Congregational church in Boston once solicited Owen to be its pastor. The invitation noted, “We confess the condition of this wilderness doth present little that is attractive, as to outward things” and that “great and many trials accompany it.”88 Owen stayed home. Yet he wrote a letter (with Thomas Goodwin, Nye, Caryl, “and nine others”) to the Congregational churches of Massachusetts urging them to give Baptists liberty of conscience in worship. After a Baptist congregation received an excommunicated member of a Congregational church, the colony of Massachusetts censored all Baptist churches and imprisoned the offenders. Owen and his companions argued that the actions of Massachusetts would harm the cause of Christian liberty in England.89 The option of remaining in a land that persecuted its subjects for exercising liberty of conscience in divine worship was not always pleasant either. Puritans such as Owen would have remembered vividly Laud’s notorious acts of persecution, such as imprisoning Alexander Leighton and William Prynne, putting them in the pillory, whipping them, cutting off their ears, and branding Leighton’s cheeks.90 This illustrates how important worship was to the Puritans. It is significant that in his various treatments of worship, Owen focused on communion with Christ. Christ communicates pity and compassion to the saints

87 88 89 90

servations, might be introduced; – of all which there is not one word tittle or iota in the whole book of God.” Owen, Communion with God, 170; Works, 2:151. For New England Puritanism, see David D. Hall, “New England, 1660–1730,” in Cambridge Companion, 143–158. Toon, Correspondence of John Owen, 135. Toon, Correspondence of John Owen, 145–146. See Carlton, William Laud, 78–79. These events meant that not all Puritans regarded a move to the New World in negative terms. See p. 80.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Owen’s Emphases Compared to Those of His Contemporaries

97

in their trials and temptations in particular.91 Owen treated worship as the prescribed response to Christ’s tender compassion and pity toward believers. In other words, studying biblical worship carefully was not driven by dread of a harsh judge who presses every fault against his subjects. It is a response to a gentle Savior who is full of tenderness to his people. The strict application of Scripture to worship was the necessary response to the grace of the gospel. This stresses how communion with the Triune God was the foundation of Owen’s teaching on worship. The saints worship according to Scripture alone because the saints have communion with God through Scripture only. Adding to or taking away from Christ’s commands concerning worship is, in effect, a form of persecution, since Christians cannot submit to such practices.

3.4

Owen’s Emphases Compared to Those of His Contemporaries

Owen’s teaching stood in line with the Reformed tradition at large.92 However, his distinctively Trinitarian emphasis in public worship set him apart from his contemporaries. Most other authors grounded worship on biblical principles and stressed the importance of the heart in worship. However, these treatments frequently appear to omit the triunity of God. Owen drew connections here that most others did not. Jeremiah Burroughs and Stephen Charnock illustrate this point. Burroughs was a Congregationalist divine at the Westminster Assembly. He is important in connection to because he and Owen shared common friends and because he wrote a major treatise on Reformed worship.93 This book establishes the biblical principle of worship based on an extended exposition of Leviticus 10:1–3.94 Owen called Nadab and Abihu “the first apostates” from the biblical 91 Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2:140ff. 92 I treat Owen’s life in relation to public worship in chapter 1. This includes the importance of the question of worship in the Reformed tradition. See Carlos Eire, War Against the Idols. 93 Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Worship, or, The Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God in General, and Particularly in These Three Great Ordinances: 1. Hearing the Word, 2. Receiving the Lord’s Supper, 3. Prayer (London, 1658). This work was published posthumously by Thomas Goodwin, William Greenhill, Sydrach Sympson, Philip Nye, William Bridge, John Yates, and William Adderly. 94 “Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. And Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what the Lord spoke, saying, By those who come near me I must be regarded as holy ; and before all the people I must be glorified.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

98

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

principle of worship.95 Burroughs argued that the church must limit worship to what God requires.96 This includes inferences drawn properly from Scripture as well as from specific commandments or examples.97 His treatment of the Reformed principle of worship includes the expected “Puritan” emphasis on piety and communion with God.98 His subsequent chapters illustrate what this principle looks like in practice and how believers should prepare their hearts to participate in each element of worship.99 His primary stress fell upon the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer.100 What is conspicuously absent from Burroughs’ treatment of Reformed worship is any consideration of the Trinity. Even in his lengthy treatment of preparing the heart to commune with God in public worship, he treats God generically without reference to the three divine persons. What Owen placed at the forefront and regarded as the highest end of public worship is, at best, relegated to the background in the work of this close associate. The same observation is true with respect to Stephen Charnock. Charnock was an English Presbyterian. He succeeded the well-known Thomas Watson as minister at Cripelgate.101 He provided an elaborate treatment of worship in his massive Existence and Attributes of God.102 This is an extended exposition of John 4:24, in which Jesus tells the woman from Samaria that the Father is seeking those who will worship him “in spirit and in truth.”103 Charnock contended that worship in “spirit” means worshiping God with hearts renewed by the Holy Spirit, which he expounded at length.104 Worshiping in “truth” entailed re95 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. IV, cap. 3, 334; Biblical Theology, 435. 96 Burroughs, Gospel Worship, 5. “In God’s worship there must be nothing tendered up unto God but what he hath commanded, whatsoever we meddle with in the worship of God, it must be what we have a warrant for out of the word of God” (8). 97 Burroughs, Gospel Worship, 9. For a discussion of these principles by seventeenth century authors, see Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship (Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 2007), 59–82. See also Richard A. Muller, PRRD, 2:442–519. One of the most significant Reformed orthodox treatments of the interpretation of Scripture is William Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture (orig. pub. 1588, reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), esp. 402–495. I use the original Latin text in this chapter and the sixteenth century translation. 98 See chapter 1 above. 99 Burroughs, Gospel Worship, chapters 3 through 5, stress the preparation of the heart in worship. 100 Burroughs, Gospel Worship, 8. Note the parallel to the Westminster Standards at this point. 101 For a brief sketch of Charnock’s life and times, see the sketch by William Symington in Charnock, Several Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of God (n.p., Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 1:5–18. 102 Stephen Charnock, Several Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of God (London, 1682). 103 Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:109ff. 104 Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:129ff. While most of the Reformed orthodox

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Owen’s Emphases Compared to Those of His Contemporaries

99

stricting worship to biblical parameters.105 In contrast to Owen’s emphasis, the virtual absence of the Trinity in this lengthy treatise is surprising. Not only is the triunity of God missing in Charnock’s section on worship, but the Trinity is not readily apparent anywhere in his treatise. In addition, in treating the subject of atheism, he argued that denying any “essential attribute” of God rendered one an atheist, yet he made no explicit mention of denying the persons of the Godhead.106 This does not imply that Charnock was not a sound Trinitarian, but it does show that his approach lacked the same systematic rigor that characterized Owen’s treatment of the subject.107 Richard Muller defends Reformed orthodoxy against the charge that it undermined the Trinity by giving more attention to the divine attributes than to the divine persons.108 He contends, on the one hand, that God’s attributes inherently require more space for elaboration and, on the other hand, that the attributes were established first in order to determine what kind of God the Trinity is. While these points are valid generally, Charnock and Burroughs give some credence to the charge of neglecting the Trinity, at least on some occasions. If anything, this shows that while Reformed writers were often consistently Trinitarian in treating the entire system of theology, they did not necessarily carry this emphasis through into other writings where it might be expected. For instance, there is no obvious place in which the famous John Preston (1587–1628) treated the triunity of God explicitly in his work on the divine attributes.109 On the other hand, Richard Stock (1569–1626) intentionally wove the Trinity into his treatment of God’s attributes.110 At the risk of overstating the

105 106 107 108

109

110

understood “spirit” to refer to the worshiper’s heart, many of the church fathers took “Spirit” as referring to the Holy Spirit and “truth” with reference to Christ. See Letham, The Holy Trinity, 415–417. In light of the wide use of the church fathers’ works by Reformed orthodox writers, the shift away from the explicitly Trinitarian exposition of worship in this passage requires further research. The patristic exegesis of John 4:24 largely coincides with Owen’s use of Ephesians 2:18. Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:130–131. Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:47. “Essential attributes“ did not include the persons of the Godhead, since personal properties were not considered attributes of God. However, Charnock is at least thoroughly Christocentric in his treatment of God’s attributes. See Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 59–84. Muller, PRRD, 4:145. Muller’s work is one of the few treatments of the doctrine of the Trinity in Reformed orthodoxy. John Coffey has written of the “magisterial authority” of Richard Muller in shaping the study of Reformed orthodoxy. John Coffey, “A Ticklish Business: Defining Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Puritan revolution,” in David Lowenstein and John Marshal, eds. Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 113. This research is deeply indebted to Muller’s work. John Preston, Life Eternal, or, A Treatise on the Divine Essence and Attributes, Delivered in XVIII Sermons (London, 1633). As seen in chapter 2, George Swinnock taught sinners to trust in Christ and to know the Father, while virtually omitting the Holy Spirit; Thomas Watson exhorted people to press into heaven with little to no mention of Christ or his work. Richard Stock, A Stock of Divine Knowledge Being a Lively Description of the Divine Nature,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

100

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

case, it appears that early Reformed orthodox writers tended to weave the triunity of God into their treatments of the divine essence and attributes, while later Reformed authors treated them as two separate though related subjects. Reformed writers often lacked Owen’s distinctive emphasis on communion with God as triune in public worship. His principle of worship as spiritual chastity to Christ instead of a generic loyalty to God helped maintain this emphasis. Union and communion with Christ comes through Scripture and is maintained by Scripture. The Spirit uses Scripture to unite believers to Christ, and Christ is the only way by which sinners come to the Father. Owen shaped his views of public worship by his Trinitarianism more self-consciously than some of his contemporaries. As noted above, even where Reformed writers such as Perkins and Cheynell connected the Trinity to worship, they treated the Triune God as the object of worship, while Owen pressed communion with the divine persons. In one respect, however, Perkins outstripped Owen on the subject of the Trinity as the object of worship. He began his work on worship by asserting the need to worship God as triune: “For when the Godhead is abstracted from the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, God is transformed into an idol….And the unity of the Godhead is to be adored in the Trinity of persons.”111 He wrote this book to defend Reformed worship against Roman Catholicism. In an early work, Owen noted that the subject of the Trinity was “the only doctrine [that] remained undefiled by the papacy.”112 Similarly, Richard Sibbes wrote that Papists (ponificios) had corrupted every doctrine “excepta doctrina de Trinitate.”113 Perkins, however, concluded that, in word, the so-called Catholic church holds to the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, but that in deed, she denies them by the consequences of her doctrine.114 By distorting the works of the three persons, Rome corrupted both the object and the manner of worship. Without corrupting Reformed worship, however, Burroughs and Charnock neglected the Trinity both as the object of worship and in the manner of worship. In Owen’s view, how believers conceive of and approach the object of worship determines how they worship him.

111 112 113 114

or, the Divine Essence, Attributes, and Trinity, Particularly Explained and Profitably Applied (London, 1641). Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 5. Owen, Works, 1:472 Sibbes, Antidotum, 7 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 10.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ordinances, Circumstances, and Forms of Worship

3.5

101

The Ordinances, Circumstances, and Forms of Worship

It is important to build a picture of how Owen applied his principle of worship. This theme touches the ordinances of the service, the form that they took, and the circumstances in which they occurred. The terminology that Reformed orthodox treatments of worship employed became fairly precise. The primary terms were “ordinances/ceremonies” and “circumstances” of worship.115 The term “ceremonies” was relatively fluid. While it could refer to extra-biblical elements of worship, some in the Church of England used the term synonymously with “circumstances.” A glancing comparison of William Ames’s and George Gillespie’s rejoinders against the English liturgy highlights this fact. Though these works appeared approximately forty years apart, they addressed some of the same opponents, such as J. Burgess, Morton, and T. Hooker. Gillespie used “ceremonies” not only to refer to extra-biblical rites of worship – as Ames did – but to an imposed church calendar.116 “Ceremonies” came to refer to extrabiblical elements of worship, and “ordinances” ordinarily depicted biblical ones. Gillespie, who was a Scottish commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, provided one of the clearest seventeenth century treatments of Reformed liturgical terminology. This section draws heavily from his material.

3.5.1 Ordinances Ordinances referred to those things that made up the substantial parts of worship.117 Ordinances are carefully defined and limited by Scripture, either by express statement or “by good and necessary consequence.” This principle led Gillespie to reject some practices simply on the grounds of human origin: “The urging of these ceremonies as necessary, if there were no more, is a sufficient reason for our refuting them.”118 Some argued that episcopal authority should 115 See Savoy Declaration, 1, 21. 116 Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 20. 117 Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 112. Gillespie structured his work around four claims of his opponents. Those in favor of imposing a liturgy argued that their ceremonies were lawful, expedient, necessary, and indifferent. 118 Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 2–3; Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6; Savoy Declaration 1.6. For the principle of “good and necessary consequence, see George Gillespie, A Treatise of Miscellany Questions: Wherein Many Useful Questions and Cases of Conscience are Discussed and Resolved; for the Satisfaction of Those, Who Desire Nothing More, than to Search for and Find out Precious Truths, in the Controversies of these Times (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1649), 238–245. He stated this principle in the following manner : “That necessary consequences from the written word of God, do sufficiently and strongly prove the consequent or conclusion, if theoretical, to be a certain divine truth which ought

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

102

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

decide what is required in public worship because they could not identify the prescriptions of Scripture. Owen responded, “The persuasion of some, that the Lord hath not prescribed all things wherein his worship is concerned, seems to proceed from a negligence in inquiring after what he hath so prescribed.”119 Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration list the following ordinances of public worship: prayer, the public reading of Scripture, preaching, singing Psalms, and the administration of the Sacraments.120 The Westminster Directory for Public Worship added taking a collection for the poor following the observance of the Lord’s Supper, only in a manner “that no part of the public worship be hindered thereby.”121 In spite of his constant attention to worship, Owen rarely listed the elements of worship explicitly. His catechism on worship and government is an exception. There he listed calling and gathering the church with her officers (a call to worship), “prayer with thanksgiving,” singing Psalms, preaching, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and “discipline and rule of the church collected and [called],” with “sundry duties” that relate to and are subordinate to proper discipline and rule.122 It appears that he believed that the lists of ordinances included in the Reformed confessions established sufficient boundaries.

3.5.2 Circumstances Circumstances of worship indicated anything surrounding public worship without tampering with divinely appointed ordinances. Gillespie provided three clear criteria to identify legitimate circumstances of worship. Circumstances must, first, not be a substantial part of worship, meaning that they must bear no religious significance. Second, circumstances relate to matters that facilitate worship, but that cannot be determined by Scripture. Third, there must be “some good reason” for circumstances, making them necessary in order to carry

119 120 121

122

to be believed, and if practical, to be a necessary duty, which we are obliged unto, jure Divino.” For secondary literature on this principle in seventeenth century theology, see my By Good and Necessary Consequence, 17–40, and Muller, PRRD, 2:497–500. Owen, Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 48; Works, 15:464. Westminster Confession of Faith 21.4, 5; Savoy Declaration 22.4, 5. A Directory for the Public Worship of God, Throughout the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland; Together with an Ordinance of Parliament for the Taking Away of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1646), 26. Rowland Ward notes that this collection accompanied the Lord’s Supper and that it was controverted in some Reformed circles. The Scottish General Assembly of 1648 actually forbade taking a collection during the service. See Muller and Ward, Scripture and Worship, 114.. Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 83; Works, 15:477.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ordinances, Circumstances, and Forms of Worship

103

out the commandments of God.123 In other words, circumstances must be truly circumstantial and have no significance in themselves. Ames argued similarly with varied terminology when he rejected all extra-biblical “significant ceremonies.”124 This excluded anything that carried religious significance that was not divinely instituted. The ceremonies of the Old Testament pointed to spiritual realities in Christ. In Ames’s view, this was the only legitimate use of the term “ceremonies.”125 Gillespie made the same case in terms of transgressing the bounds of circumstances of worship. He approved of Ames’s argument by citing him at this juncture.126 Circumstances must be necessary in order to facilitate worship. Acceptable circumstances of worship included a building to meet in, the time of meeting on the Lord’s Day, and how long such meetings lasted. The building is not sacred but it is needed to keep people from the weather.127 On the other hand, candles not used for lighting and incense did not qualify as circumstances of worship, but they became extra-biblical elements. Ames wrote that “prelates” argued primarily that their ceremonies were “extrinsical circumstances” of worship only and that the church could legislate matters that were indifferent. In his view, the strongest argument that they brought forward for their practices was that they were “things indifferent.” However, the prelates did not demonstrate that their ceremonies were necessary in order to perform biblical elements of worship.128 Later, Ames referred to using “lights” during the administration of the Lord’s Supper as unlawful, and added that using the sign of the cross in worship was as foolish as importing spiritual significance into maypoles and straw.129 Regarding the use of prescribed forms of prayer, Owen noted that his opponents argued that the forms were “only an outward manner and circumstance of it.” Instead of arguing directly that imposed forms of prayer were not circumstances of worship, he insisted that imposed forms destroyed the ordinance of prayer as a spiritual gift, since it removed the need for the gift entirely.130 This implied that forms of prayer were not circumstantial in worship, since they changed the nature of an element of worship. Gillespie made explicit what Owen implied: extra-biblical ceremonies were not “circumstances” of worship.

123 Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 112–115. I am deeply grateful to Chris Caldwell for helping me locate this reference. 124 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 11. 125 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 37. 126 Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 26, 112. 127 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 58–59. He uses the term “ceremony” here as a functional equivalent to the term “circumstance.” 128 Ames, A Fresh Suit, [61–62]. 129 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 16, 17–18, respectively. Tyacke notes that in 1640,Thomas Warmstry complained that churches had introduced “candles in the day time.” Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 241. 130 Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Works, 4:350.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

104

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

3.5.3 Forms “Forms,” was the final term that defined the boundaries of Reformed worship. The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms referred to the Lord’s Prayer as “that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples.”131 In English Reformed theology, forms of worship designated the shape that each element took. For instance, prayer is a required ordinance of worship. The Lord’s Prayer is a form or shape that prayer may take. The Puritans denied that the church had authority to impose set forms of prayer upon ministers.132 This is why people like Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) chose to suffer imprisonment rather than submit to the English Book of Common Prayer.133 Owen distinguished clearly between prayer as a divinely instituted ordinance of worship and the particular form that prayer could take: “Prayer is God’s institution, and the reading of these forms is that which men have made and set up.”134 When the church legislated what Christ had not, then both Christ’s authority and Christian liberty of conscience came under assault. This is reminiscent of the material from the beginning of this chapter. Imposing extra-biblical practices led to enforced uniformity rather than Christian unity.135 This does not mean that Scripture did not regulate the forms 131 Westminster Shorter Catechism 99; Westminster Larger Catechism 186. 132 A Directory for the Public Worship of God, 1–4. Owen’s Discourse Concerning Liturgies and their Imposition treats the subject at greater length. Chapter 6 below will treat the question of liturgies in more detail. 133 Samuel Rutherford, The Letters of Samuel Rutherford, with a Sketch of his Life and Biographical Notices of his Correspondents, by the Reverend Andrew Bonar, D.D (n.p., 1891). A large portion of these letters reflect Rutherford’s experience while in prison on account of rejecting English ceremonies in worship. A few representative examples illustrate this fact. Letter 86 (pp. 181–183) singles out his refusal to submit to the English ceremonies in worship as the primary reason for his imprisonment. Letter 91 (193–194) points to kneeling at the Lord’s Supper as an example of English idolatry. Letter 107 (220–222) provides an example of the internal turmoil that men such as Rutherford experienced while in prison. For Rutherford’s personality and his theology as a whole, see Coffey, Politics, Religion, and the Brittish Revolutions, and, Guy M. Richard, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2008). 134 Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Works, 4:339. Emphasis original. Owen added that the church derived a pretense for composing forms of prayer on the ground that Christ gave the Lord’s Prayer as a set form of prayer. He replied that we have neither promise nor command that the Spirit should continue this work in the church. Ministers must pray using divinely given spiritual gifts just as they must preach using their gifts. While teaching at Oxford, some accused Owen of refusing to pray the Lord’s Prayer in public worship. He denied the charge vigorously. See Toon, God’s Statesman, 58. 135 Owen frequently tied worship to the nature of toleration and Christian unity. For examples, see Indulgence and Toleration Considered: in a Letter unto a Person of Honor (London, 1667), Works, 13:519–540; A Peace Offering, in An Apology and Humble Plea for Indulgence and Liberty of Conscience; By Sundry Protestants Differing in Some Things from the Present Establishment About the Worship of God (London, 1667), Works, 13:543–578; and A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and Unity ; with the Occasions and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ordinances, Circumstances, and Forms of Worship

105

of the elements of worship. Thus the Westminster Directory of Worship included sample prayers without prescribing the exact words that the minister should use.136 The reason for proceeding thus was to direct ministers how to administer divine ordinances properly, without requiring anything beyond God’s revealed word.137 While noting the value of directives for prayer, Owen stated that he preferred not to publish such sample prayers lest people should abuse them by using them as forms of prayer.138 The difference between a directory of worship and an imposed liturgy is that a directory guides ministers along biblically regulated lines, while a liturgy prescribes the precise words that they must use. Strangely, the only apparent exception to this rule was restricting singing in worship to the book of Psalms. Philip Benedict observed, “Only in Hungary did hymns other than the Psalms comprise a regular part of Sunday worship proper, until many churches reintroduced original hymns in the early eighteenth-century.”139

3.5.4 Vestments and Postures One area that illustrates Owen’s views on the application of the Reformed principle of worship is the use of clerical vestments. Vestments were a sore spot for the Puritans.140 While men with good intentions advocated vestments, Owen argued that good intentions amounted to nothing without a biblical command: Augustine considers that Gideon’s mantle is mentioned only as typical of a greater whole, and that a complete set of priestly robes were manufactured by him to entice the worship of God to his own city. If so, his zeal is to be commended, but it was misguided and had an evil outcome. These things were instituted against the express will of God, even though there was no wish to desert God completely.141

136 137 138 139

140 141

Reasons for the Present Differences and Divisions About Things Sacred and Religious (London, 1672); Works, 15:59–185. For Owen’s views on toleration, see John Coffey, “John Owen and the Puritan Toleration Controversy, 1646–59,” Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen, 227–248. A Directory for the Public Worship of God, 4, 8–18. A Directory for the Public Worship of God, 4. Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Works, 4:347. Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 496. Michael Haykin and Jeffrey Robinson outline theological debates over hymn singing among seventeenth century Particular Baptists. Michael A.G. Haykin and Jeffrey Robinson, “Particular Baptist Debates About Communion and Hymn Singing,” Drawn into Controversie, 296–307. On the Vestiarian controversy, see Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 246–248, and John Craig, “The Growth of English Puritanism,” The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, 36–38. Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V. cap. 10, p. 383; Biblical Theology, 486. In a sermon he expressed objections to the use of vestments on the basis of Christ’s work as High Priest. He noted, “And it is also considerable, what the Holy Ghost requireth in them who should come

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

106

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

Even though the Reformed respected Augustine greatly, Owen did not hesitate to criticize him when he transgressed biblical bounds with respect to worship. His judgment contains a charitable tone, but his assertion remains that a flawed principle or application of worship hinders communion with God. His tone sharpened when criticizing the Church of England: “In worship, their paintings, crossings, crucifixes, bowings, cringings, alters, tapers, wafers, organs, anthems, litany, rails, images, copes, vestments – what were they but Roman varnish, an Italian dress for our devotion, to draw on conformity with that enemy of the Lord Jesus?” This kind of worship made “all our articles of religion speak good Roman Catholic.”142 Gillespie similarly pointed to “[the] cross, kneeling, surplice, Holy Days, bishoping, etc,” which God did not see fit to appoint in his word, and which he did not leave to human discretion.143 As indicated in chapter 1, Ames noted that the Church of England was the first example of “any orthodox church” that imposed human ceremonies on the church.144 While the English church was confessionally Reformed in soteriology, as Philip Benedict observed, “the half-Reformed rituals at once placed [the Church of England] in a distinctive position in relation to Europe’s other Reformed churches and made it singularly unstable.”145 When Owen was Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, he registered a petition yearly to revoke the clerical vestments. He never achieved his goal, but his cocked hat and Spanish boots were a silent protest against what he regarded as an extra-biblical imposition.146 This did not mean that principle stood over against sincere piety in worship. Reverence for God in worship required biblically approved postures:

142 143 144 145

146

nigh to worship God under the guidance and conduct of this merciful high priest. Is it that they have such vestments and ornaments in their admission? No; but faith, and sanctification, and holiness, are the three great qualifications of these worshipers.” “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:64. The comment is based upon an exposition of Hebrews 10:21–22. As noted above, Edward Reynolds connected these same qualities to the proper interpretation of Scripture. Reynolds, The Sinfulness of Sin, 62. Owen, “A Vision of Free and Unchangeable Mercy,” Works, 8:28. Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, [15]. Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 15. For the continuities and discontinuities between the Church of England and the international Reformed community, see Patrick Collinson, “England and International Calvinism, 1558–1640,” in From Cranmer to Sancroft (New York: Hambledon Continuum, 2006), esp. pp. 90–100. Collinson stresses the role of the Thirty-Nine Articles in English theology as well as the Arminian question, but he neglects the role of worship in relation to this question. Benedict corrects this omission by making worship central to his treatment. Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, 231. The most extensive treatment of the identity of the Church of England in relation to other Reformed churches is Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity. His conclusion is somewhere between Collinson’s and Benedict’s. See Peter Toon, God’s Statesman, 73; Tim Cooper, “Owen’s Personality : The Man Behind the Theology,” Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 219–223.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Apostasy from Chastity in Worship

107

Moral worship requires the subjection of the soul to God in faith, hope, and love, and the yearnings of such souls are expressed in invocations, prayers, pleas, and solemnly sacred appeals to the divine power, thought of as being present and seeing and directing all things. Such worship may be manifested in bowings of the knee, prostrations of the body, adorations, and other outward indications of the inner exercise of the soul. In all of these ways, idolaters chose to pay religious honors to Baal.147

Not only must those who worship God adopt a God-honoring posture of heart and body, but they should not offer such gestures to any other. “Idolaters” paid homage to Baal by bowing the knee, prostration, prayer, etc. By implication, it is idolatrous to perform these acts before anything other than God. Bowing before a cross, praying to saints, and adoring the elements of the Lord’s Supper are idolatrous distortions that are on par with Baal worship. However, bringing a loyal and faithful heart to the Triune God in worship was so important that Owen added, “Where persons walk before God in their integrity, and practice nothing contrary to their light and conviction in his worship, God is merciful unto them, although they order not every thing according to the rule and measure of the word.”148 The Reformed principle of worship expressed itself in divinely appointed ordinances of worship. These ordinances occurred in “circumstances” that were as necessary as they were incidental to the content of biblical elements of worship. In turn, worshipers participated in the ordinances of worship in forms that were biblically appropriate and approved. It was necessary to maintain these distinctions in order to promote communion with the Triune God in public worship. However, as the next section demonstrates, while a biblically regulated worship service was necessary for true communion with God, it was not sufficient by itself.

3.6

Apostasy from Chastity in Worship

We saw that Owen’s principle governing public worship depicts communion with all three persons of the Trinity as reaching its high point in divinely instituted worship. In his work on Apostasy from the Gospel, he highlighted the

147 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 6, p. 356; Biblical Theology, 461. 148 Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Works, 4:347. He noted that even though imposed forms of prayer were unlawful, yet true believers could still have communion with God through them. This did not remove the responsibility to conform worship to Scripture. The fact that God still blessed his people through means that were otherwise unlawful was proof of the mercy of God rather than of the value of such means.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

108

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

need to engage the heart in public worship.149 This section brings this chapter back full-circle to how communion with God shaped the nature of public worship. Positively, a heart loyal to Christ demands right principles and practices of worship. David Clarkson observed that because communion with God is the goal of worship, “A saint will use no means but what the Lord prescribes and approves.”150 Negatively, neglecting or abusing the biblical principle of worship was one of the primary causes of apostasy, both for churches and for individuals. This connection between worship and apostasy illustrates the link between spiritual communion with God and biblical worship. Chapters 11 and 13 of his book on Apostasy address the means of neglecting biblical worship.

3.6.1 Neglecting Public Worship Neglecting public worship entirely leads to apostasy because worship defines the reason for which the church exists. Public worship is not only the unique duty of the church, but it is her primary duty. Whatever else the church does, if glorifying God in public worship is not her chief concern, then she has become idolatrous and is on the road to apostasy.151 Thomas Watson observed likewise that becoming weary with divine ordinances was one of the chief means of driving God’s presence from the church.152 Both “the being and the well-being of the Christian church consist in and depend upon that observing and doing of all whatsoever He hath commanded in the worship of God.”153 It is equally necessary for Christ to regulate the manner in which his people worship him. If Christ did not appoint a perpetual rule for public worship after abolishing Old Testament worship, then he either would have left the church with no public worship, or left the manner of worship up to the dictates of men. In Owen’s view, both options “are highly blasphemous.”154 Falling away from the instituted worship of the gospel is no less fatal than 149 The same note appears in Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 80–82; Works, 15:476–477. 150 David Clarkson, “Believers’ Communion with the Father and Son,” Works, 3:168. 151 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:218. “All other duties of the gospel may be performed by men in their single capacities, if there were no such thing as a church on earth. And those churches do exceedingly mistake their duty, and every end of their being, which make it not their principal business to take care of the due celebration of that worship which the Lord Christ has appointed.” 152 Thomas Watson, Paramuthion, or, AWord of Comfort for the Church of God (London, 1662), 26–27. 153 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:218. 154 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:218.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Apostasy from Chastity in Worship

109

falling away from its doctrine and its holiness.155 This happens either by neglecting Christ’s commands or by adding to them.156 Those who do not set apart the entire Lord’s Day for worship are guilty of neglecting worship as well.157 Strangely, though public worship pervades Owen’s lengthy treatise on the Sabbath, his usual Trinitarian emphasis is deficient.158 While Owen is less explicitly Trinitarian in his book on the Sabbath, Cheynell included Sabbath keeping in the application in his Divine Triunity.159 In addition, some rejected the Sacraments and maintaining a regular ordained ministry.160 Owen likely had the Quakers in view.161 In these instructions he aimed at preserving communion with the Triune God. He tied together here chastity to Christ, communion, and the Christian ministry. This research includes chapters that correspond to each of these subjects. Neglecting public worship is more subtle than it at first appears. Owen listed several signs of negligence. The first sign is simple neglect. This happens for two reasons. “The principal reason . . . which compriseth all the others” is that Christ’s appointed ordinances do not correspond to the kind of faith and obedience that men profess.162 He observed, “the ordinances of the gospel are representations of the things which we believe, and means of the efficacy of their conveyance unto us.” The Lord’s Supper exemplifies this principle. If people do not believe that they must be saved by Christ’s death alone, then they either see no need to observe the Supper, which exercises faith in Christ, or they distort its meaning entirely.163 When faith is doctrinally unsound, then the form of worship will match the content of faith.164

155 156 157 158

159

160 161 162 163

Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:219. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:219. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:219. Owen, Exercitations Concerning the Name, Original, Nature, Use and Continuance of a Day of Sacred Rest. Wherein the Original of the Sabbath from the Foundation of the World, the Morality of the Fourth Commandment, with the Change of the Seventh Day Are Enquired into. Together with an Assertion of the Divine Institution of the Lord’s Day, and Practical Directions for Its Due Observation (London, 1671). “God doth upon such days take us wholly off from our own business, that we might make it our only business to serve and enjoy God by maintaining an holy communion with God in Christ by the effectual working of the Holy Ghost for a whole day together, that we may in the close of day attain the end of our Sabbath service which is a rest of complacency, sweet content, and full satisfaction in the arms and bosom of a Father, a Savior, and a Comforter ; this, this is to enjoy the Christian Sabbath.” Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 399. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:219. For the Quaker rejection of ordinances, see Nuttall, Holy Spirit, 99–101. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:219. Compare to the two objects of faith treated in “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:551–555. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:219–220. He concluded, “Where the faith of the gospel is forsaken, the ordinances of worship must be so too, and all instituted divine

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

110

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

The second reason for neglecting Christ’s ordinances is that people lack the spiritual light needed “to obtain communion with God in Christ” through instituted worship.165 Gospel ordinances are vehicles (animae vehicular) designed to bring sinners into communion with God. This is why there should be little external pomp and glory in public worship under the New Testament.166 Three things are necessary to hold communion with Christ in worship. Believers must submit to his authority in his institutions. They must then place their faith in his promises to strengthen them through his appointed ordinances. Lastly, “we must understand in some measure the mystical relation that is between the outward symbols of the ordinance and the Lord Christ himself, with his grace represented thereby, wherein the nature, use, and end of the institutions are contained.”167 In the sacraments this “mystical relation” has been referred to as the “sacramental union” between the sign and the thing signified.168 Chapter 6 below addresses Owen’s views on Christ’s special presence in the Supper ; however, believers hold mystical communion with the Triune God in every ordinance of worship when they exercise faith in Christ while using them. When worshipers have no spiritual light, they neglect or replace Christ’s ordinances. In this regard, neglecting Christ’s ordinances in public worship is a symptom of apostasy rather than a cause of it.

3.6.2 Adding Man-Made Ordinances to Worship The second major sign of apostasy is adding to the simplicity of worship with man-made ordinances. This occurs in various degrees, but in the case of the Roman Catholic church, “it is wholly perverted.”169 There is not a single ordinance of God in which she has not destroyed both its nature and its use. Rome had added even to biblically mandated ordinances, such as the sacraments. This bold statement raises the question of Owen’s view of Roman Catholic sacraments. The overwhelming majority of Reformed authors still accepted Rome’s baptism. The Scots Confession of Faith (1560), however, rejected it precisely on

164 165 166 167 168 169

service be neglected, or other things be found out that may suit unto the imaginations whereunto men are turned aside.” See the appendix on images. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:220. For Owen’s covenant theology, see chapter 5 below. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:221. Westminster Confession 27.2; Savoy Declaration 28.2; Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, lib. 7, cap. 3, pp. 908–909 (paragraphs VIII-IX). Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:221.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Apostasy from Chastity in Worship

111

the grounds that Owen lists here.170 Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) rejected Rome’s baptism because it had many defects in cause, effects, subjects, and adjuncts.171 Since Owen wrote little about baptism, it is unclear what his position was. Owen’s primary evidence that Rome had lost the experience of communion with God in gospel worship – like the Israelites in the wilderness (Ex. 32:1ff) – was the introduction of images into the church.172 This adds the significant thought that if communion with the Triune God requires believers to love public worship and to seek to frame worship according to Christ’s commands alone, then it is equally true that little love for public worship and the biblical principles governing it is a sign of imminent apostasy from Christ. This places an exclamation point upon the inseparable connection between communion with God and the principles of public worship.

3.6.3 Trusting in the Ordinances of Worship Apostasy through trusting in the ordinances of worship took up an entire chapter in Owen’s treatment.173 There is greater danger of apostasy from the gospel where the proper biblical standards for worship are upheld than where they are neglected. This may appear surprising initially in light of Owen’s heavy stress on the external form of worship. However, people are prone to trust in external forms instead of delighting in communion with the Triune God. Without jettisoning the importance of biblical principles and ordinances, communion with the God is always the goal and motivation behind true worship.174 This reiterates the point that for a Puritan theologian such as Owen, orthodoxy without personal piety is not true theology. Owen desired to prevent misunderstanding. Faith and spiritual communion with God agree with restricting the manner of worship by Scripture. Believers must exercise their graces more diligently in properly using ordinances of worship than in any other area of Christian obedience.175 This was not due solely 170 The Scots Confession of Faith, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983), 3:472–473. 171 Franciscus Gomarus, “Disputatio XXXIII: De Baptismi Sacrae Scripturae, et Ecclesiae Romanae Repugnatia,” Opera Theologica Omnia, Maximum Parta Posthuma: Suprema Authoris, Vountate a Discipulis Edita (Amsterdam, 1644), 105 172 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:222. See the appendix at the end of this work. 173 Chapter 6 treats external means of grace in public worship in more detail. 174 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:249. 175 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:250. “Again; there is not any thing in the whole course of our obedience wherein the continual exercise of faith and spiritual wisdom, with diligence and watchfulness, is more indispensably required than it is unto the due use and improvement of gospel privileges and ordinances; for there is no other part of our duty

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

112

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

to the danger of abusing public worship. Communion with the Triune God reaches its highest expression in worship. This demands spiritual diligence. Spiritually thriving Christians know best how to profit from public worship and how to enjoy communion with C hrist in it. Because public worship is the chief means of communion with God, it is the primary means of Christian growth. This is why the proper use or neglect of public worship is one of the primary indicators of spiritual health or decay.176 Thomas Manton stressed the same point under the heading of treating God as holy in worship. He noted that believers must worship God in a holy state (through faith in Christ), that they must come with holy hearts, that they must converse with God in a holy manner, and that they should leave worship with greater holiness than that with which they came.177 The subtle danger is that when people practice what is right in worship, they take satisfaction in performing their duty to God rather than in experiencing fellowship with him through obedient worship.178 This was how Owen made communion with the Triune God both the foundation for public worship and its goal. The danger of trusting in ordinances is subtle and takes several forms. First, some trust in spiritual gifts over spiritual graces.179 Saul in the Old Testament and Judas in the New had the gifts of the Spirit, but they did not have the graces of the Spirit needed for salvation. Owen added, “It is therefore greatly incumbent upon all those who have received of these spiritual gifts to take care that they be enlivened and acted by especial grace; for if they are not careful, they will give them a pretence and apprehension of what they have not, and set a greater luster upon what they have than it doth deserve.”180 Human depravity leads people to be more satisfied in the gifts God gives rather than in the God who gives the gifts. This emphasis on spiritual gifts ties in a topic that appears consistently with Owen’s teaching on communion with God in public worship; this is the subject of chapter 6 below. Second, it is dangerous to have too high an opinion concerning one way of worship. It is dangerous to trust in the way that one worships, even if it is the right way. Pride and contempt toward others exposes and accompanies this

176

177 178 179 180

whereon our giving glory to God and the eternal concern of our own souls do eminently depend.” Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:250. He argued that proper use of the ordinances of public worship are those things “in which spiritual intercourse the actings of our spiritual life principally do consist, and whereon, by consequence, its growth doth depend. It is therefore certain that our growth or decay in holiness, our steadfastness in or apostasy from profession, are greatly influenced by the use or abuse of these privileges.” Manton, Works, 10:296–299. Nuttall noted a similar emphasis in Richard Sibbes and others. See Nuttall, Holy Spirit, 91–92. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:251. See volume 4. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:252.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Apostasy from Chastity in Worship

113

fault.181 Owen had in view Protestants persecuting other Protestants through civil power regarding the proper mode of worship. His practice in this regard varied slightly in the 1650s under the Cromwellian Settlement, but overall, Owen was far more tolerant than most other English theologians.182 Every church is responsible to worship God with a good conscience. When any church despises others whose conscience differs in matters of worship, this is a sign that that church has become conceited and has lost sight of the fact that obeying Christ in worship is designed to promote communion with God.183 He argued that the devotional goal of worship tempers believers’ attitudes toward those in other communions.184 There were, however, limits to Owen’s toleration. As Coffey observes, “For Owen…fundamental theological error had no rights. Owen’s toleration was for godly Trinitarian Protestants, in all their ecclesiastical diversity ; it did not extend to Socinians or Catholics (though Jews were perhaps another matter).”185 His exhortation to toleration did not mean that the manner of worship was unimportant or that diverse practices were virtuous. It meant that doing the right things in a wrong spirit was not faithfulness to Christ, but was a sign of potential apostasy from the gospel. Several signs indicate the sin of trusting in external forms of worship. The first is neglecting private worship.186 Public worship is the high point of communion with God, yet without private worship, public worship is hypocrisy : “when men are satisfied, as unto religious worship, with that which is public or in communion with others, so as to countenance themselves in a neglect of the duties of their private retirements, they are in a high road to apostasy.”187 This reiterates the point made in chapter 2 that while public worship is the greatest means of communion with God, public worship cannot exist without personal 181 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:252. “Having an apprehension that they alone have attained unto the right way of gospel worship and the administration of its ordinances, and that, perhaps, on such accounts as wherein they are eminently deceived, they begin first greatly to value themselves, and then to despise all others, and, if they can, to persecute them.” 182 For Owen’s teaching on the role of magistrates in religion, see John Coffey, “John Owen and the Puritan Toleration Controversy,” Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen, 240–243. 183 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:253. Owen warned, “Wherefore, although we ought greatly to prize and to endeavor after the true order of the church of Christ, the purity of worship, and regular administration of ordinances, yet let us take heed that we prize not ourselves too much on what we have attained; for if we do so, we shall be very apt to countenance ourselves in other defects thereby, which will certainly bring us into spiritual sickness and declension.” 184 John Coffey, “John Owen and the Puritan Toleration Controversy,” Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen, 244. 185 John Coffey, “John Owen and the Puritan Toleration Controversy,” Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen, 246. 186 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:253. 187 Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:253.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

114

Chastity in Worship: The Spiritual and Scriptural Principles of Worship

communion with God. Second, some people are self-deceived who boast in the external form of worship yet indulge in unrepentant secret lusts. Third, others appear to delight in public worship, but live openly loose and careless lives.188 These factors result from resting in the ordinances of public worship instead of knowing God through them. Pretended zeal for worship can replace godliness. Owen concluded these warnings with the following summary that deserves to be cited in full: Wherefore, the sum of this direction is, that if we would be preserved from the prevalency of the present apostasy, we must have a strict regard unto our principles and practices with respect unto the privileges of the church and ordinances of gospel worship. If we neglect or despise them, we cast off the yoke of Christ, and have no grounds to look for his acceptance of us or concernment in us. It is but folly for them to pretend a hope in his mercy who despise his authority. And if, on the other hand, we so rest in them as to countenance ourselves in any of the evils mentioned, we shall succeed into their room who, under the name and pretense of the church and its privileges, fell into an open apostasy from Christ and the gospel; for the same causes will produce the same effect in us as they did in them. There is a middle way between these extremes, which whoso are guided into will find rest and peace unto their souls; and this is no other but an humble, careful, conscientious improvement of them unto all their proper ends.189

Positively, there are four sure signs of using instituted worship properly. First, public worship should make people’s hearts better. The godly are grieved when this does not happen. Second, ordinances bring worshipers nearer to Christ and his benefits. Third, public worship makes believers more watchful in performing all other duties. Fourth, attending public worship strengthens believers to suffer for the sake of Christ’s name.190 These positive signs lie at the heart of communion with the divine persons examined in chapter 2. Communion with the persons of the Trinity is the foundation and the aim of public worship. Though lacking Owen’s Trinitarian focus, Clarkson wrote similarly, “Ordinances are in [the saint’s] account empty cisterns, till the Spirit of God fill them…the word is a dead letter unless the quickening Spirit enliven it.”191 Owen wove his practical Trinitarianism into his teaching on public worship in such a way that the one informed and promoted the other.

188 189 190 191

Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:253–254. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:254. Owen, Apostasy from the Gospel, Works, 7:254–256. David Clarkson, “Believers’ Communion with the Father and Son,” Works, 3:171.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

115

Conclusion

3.7

Conclusion

It is almost astonishing how frequently Owen pressed the importance of regulating public worship by Scripture. In most of his books and at every stage of life, he exhorted his readers to limit divine worship to the prescriptions of the Bible. The principles governing public worship were not peripheral for him. Not only was communion with the Triune God at the heart of his theology and piety, but he inextricably intertwined this idea with the manner of public worship. God revealed himself in a Trinitarian manner. Communion with him is the purpose of Scripture and Scripture is the only source of genuine knowledge of God. Therefore, communion with God in public worship must be directed exclusively by the commandments of Scripture. Communion with God was both the foundation for and the goal of Owen’s principle of worship. By building his teaching on worship on communion with the Godhead, he carried the two principia of Reformed theology consistently into various aspects of his theology. This spiritual communion with a spiritual God takes place in the affections. This is the subject of the next chapter.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

4.

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

4.1

Introduction

Owen’s doctrine of communion with the Triune God in public worship is tied closely to his teaching regarding heavenly or spiritual-mindedness. This does not mean simply that public worship directs believers to think about heaven, but that public worship is a real transaction with God in heaven. This chapter highlights why Owen’s doctrine of communion with God in three persons found its high point in public worship. This is because public worship is the primary place where believers exercise their spiritual affections toward God. His views of the nature of public worship as a heavenly transaction and his prescriptions regarding the manner in which the saints should delight in worship demonstrate these things. Under these two heads, Owen’s distinctly Trinitarian cast to public worship is always in view.

4.2

Setting our Minds in Heaven During Public Worship

According to Owen, believers experience communion with the Triune God in public worship primarily in the realm of spiritual affections. In his view, the affections were not a distinct faculty, but a subset of the faculty of the mind.1 In this respect, the affections did not refer to the actions of the mind, such as study and meditation, but to the bent or inclination of the mind.2 These affections 1 Owen, Grace and Duty, 6; Works, 7:270. 2 Jonathan Edward later defined the affections as “no other, than the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul.” The Religious Affections in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online (New Haven: Yale University, 2008), 2:96. While Edwards treated the understanding and the affections as two distinct faculties, the point of common ground is that both Owen and Edwards regarded the affections as an inclination in the soul that affects its other faculties. The introductory essay by Paul Ramsey to the Yale edition of the Religious Affections mentions that “Edwards drew upon the works of sixteen other authors” (2:52).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Setting our Minds in Heaven During Public Worship

117

involve delighting in God himself in and through all spiritual things.3 True affections toward the three persons of the Godhead are the root of spiritual communion with God in public worship. For this reason, Owen gave extensive attention to the exercise of true and false religious affections in public worship. His work on The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded included two chapters devoted exclusively to this subject.4 The fact that he included two chapters on public worship in this treatise gives further support to the high importance that he placed upon the question of public worship. While it was common among Reformed orthodox writers to treat the need for proper spiritual affections in treatises on public worship, it was not as common for them to treat extensively the subject of public worship in a treatise on spiritual affections. For example, Jeremiah Burroughs wrote a treatise on Earthly-Mindedness coupled with another work on Conversing in Heaven and Walking with God. This two-part work largely coincides with the material that the previous chapter examined from Owen’s book on apostasy as well as with his treatment of heavenly-mindedness, as we become evident below. This makes Burroughs’s omission of a practical Trinitarian emphasis in public worship more significant However, in his treatment, Ramsey made no reference to Edwards’s use of Owen, though I have found three explicit references to Owen in this work (2: 250, 372, 475). See below for further interaction with these references. 3 “Spiritual affections, whereby the soul adheres unto spiritual things, taking in such a savor and relish of them wherein it finds rest and satisfaction, are the peculiar spring and substance of our being spiritually minded.” Owen, Grace and Duty, 177–178; Works, 7:395. Emphasis original. Compare to Charnock, who blends the affections together into the notion of possessing true understanding and includes the whole man in worship: “Worship is an act of the understanding, applying itself to the knowledge of the excellency of God and actual thoughts of his majesty, recognizing him as the supreme Lord and governor of the world, which is natural knowledge; beholding the glory of his attributes in the Redeemer, which is evangelical knowledge.” This involves the whole spirit of man. Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 141. Owen’s predecessor and successor at Oxford, Edward Reynolds, treated the understanding and the will as the primary faculties of the soul, with the affections serving as a bridge between them that belonged partly to both faculties. Edward Reynolds, A Treatise on the Passions and Faculties of the Soul, With the Several Dignities and Corruptions Belonging Thereunto (London, 1658), 896, 1104–1105. Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 31 (“What is effectual calling?”) reflects the view of Reynolds, who was a member of the Assembly, by singling out the mind and the will as the two primary faculties of the soul. The pagination in Reynold’s work is somewhat confusing since it is appended to a volume by Reynolds entitled Three Treatises on the Vanity of the Creature as well as to his sermons on Hosea 14, which completed the labors of Jeremiah Burroughs on Hosea 1–13. The treatise on the faculties of the soul begins on p. 895. At first glance, Reynold’s faculty psychology stands in contrast to that of Owen, who in this treatise treated the primary faculties as the understanding and the affections, with the will as a subordinate aspect of the affections. In spite of this apparent contrast, Kelly Kapic has noted that Owen often varied in his delineation of the faculties of the soul. See Kapic, Communion with God, 53 footnote 91. 4 Chapters 14–15. John Owen, Phronema tou Pneumatou, or, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded, Declared and Practically Improved (London, 1681), 220–253; Works, 7:416–445.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

118

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

as standing in contrast to Owen’s views.5 More akin to Owen’s emphases on the affections in worship, William Perkins observed that the foundation of true worship is in our hearts and that we must know God as triune and as he stands in a saving relationship to us.6 Owen tended to include treatments of public worship wherever they fit logically into his writings.7 This highlights his continued preoccupation with this subject along with his stress on communion with God as triune. Owen’s treatment of spiritual affections in public worship is in harmony with his Puritan conception of the Christian life.8 Worship according to the precepts of Scripture is essential to communion with God in public worship, but it is not sufficient for such communion. This reflects the general structure and argument of Owen’s book in that he taught that God always begins by instructing the human mind (Part I), but that knowledge in the mind is insufficient without engaging genuine spiritual affections (Part II). Worshipers must have proper spiritual affections that lift up their souls to heaven through God’s ordinances. While the latter part of the previous chapter of this thesis introduced these themes negatively under the concept of apostasy, this section develops them positively by describing public worship as a spiritual transaction between the souls of believers on earth and the Triune God in heaven in the realm of the spiritual affections. Owen’s conception of the spiritual affections must be understood in the context of Reformed orthodoxy and Puritan piety.9 The material below shows that the high point of Owen’s treatment of a heavenly minded life revolved 5 Jeremiah Burroughs, Two Treatises of Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, The First, of Earthly-Mindedness, the Second Treatise, of Conversing in Heaven and Walking with God (London, 1656). I will cite Reformed orthodox works on spiritual affections and heavenly-mindedness throughout the treatment below. For the commonness of treating the spiritual affections in treatises on worship in the seventeenth-century, see Burroughs, Gospel Worship, 43–51; and Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 142–155. 6 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 106. 7 In addition to the works cited in previous chapters, this is also true of his treatise on the Glory of Christ in the last three chapters of that work (chs. 12–14). Works, I, 374–415. For a further exploration of this treatise, see the Appendix to this thesis on Owen’s teaching on the use of images in worship. 8 For Puritan emphases on piety, see chapter 1 above. Remember that Owen taught that the two primary concerns of Puritanism had reference to the reform of public worship and to personal holiness. Owen, “Providential Changes, an Argument for Universal Holiness,” Works, 9:137. 9 A treatment of this subject is found in Charles L. Cohen, God’s Caress: The Psychology of Puritan Religious Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). However, this work suffers from some significant limitations. Cohen ultimately presents the Puritan quest for conversion as the result of desiring power in response to a sense of weakness and helplessness (272). His psychological analysis of Puritan spirituality hinders his historical accuracy at vital points. In addition, Cohen wrote with the older assumption of pitting Calvin against the later Calvinists, a viewpoint that prevailed prior to Muller’s reassessment.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Setting our Minds in Heaven During Public Worship

119

around spiritual affections toward God, an implicit Trinitarian framework, and the ordinances of public worship. In the Puritan mindset and for Owen in particular, communion with God is predominantly spiritual in nature.10 For this reason, communion with God in public worship must take place primarily in the realm of the affections.11 John Rowe (1626–1677), a Congregationalist minister who served as an assistant to the well-known Theophilus Gale (1628–1678), took this principle so far as to argue that in heaven, the saints would enjoy God “without the creatures.” He even treated the resurrected body as virtually incidental to the happiness of heaven.12 It is not clear whether Owen went as far as Rowe in his own assertions about heavenly life. However, this common stress on spiritual affections illustrates why Owen cautioned people against being too satisfied with the external elements of public worship, as will become clear below.13 The assertion that communion with God was predominantly spiritual in nature grew partly out of the common seventeenth century assertion that the soul took priority over the body. For example, Edward Reynolds argued that the body was not a part of the image of God, but rather a vessel for the image of God which resided in the soul.14 Chapter 34 of his work argued for the independence of the soul from the body in terms of its existence, but his first chapter presented a case for the soul’s dependence on the body in the sense that the soul exercises its faculties through the body. In this way, he argued for the priority of the soul over the body while still retaining a conception of the inter-relationship between the soul and the body. Calvin and Charnock made similar arguments.15 It was in this context of faculty psychology that Owen wrote on the priority of the affections. The excellence of man must reside in some spiritual aspect of his being. Owen argued for the priority of the affections largely because the affections

10 Owen argued that “Spirit” in this connection often referred both to the Holy Spirit as well as to “the principle of spiritual life.” Owen, The Grace and Duty, 3–4; Works, 7:269. 11 The burden of part II of Owen’s work on spiritual-mindedness is to treat the affections as the “seat of spiritual-mindeness.” Works, 7:394. 12 John Rowe, Heavenly-Mindedness and Earthly-Mindedness, in Two Parts, With an Appendix Concerning Laying Hold on Eternal Life (London: 1672), 49–50. Gale wrote a biography of a different John Rowe (b. 1588) entitled, The Life and Death of Mr. John Rowe of Crediton in Devon (London, 1673). The John Rowe of the biography was Gale’s cousin and the John Rowe who served as his assistant was Gale’s cousin. See Dewey Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 93. Owen wrote a preface to Gale’s work on Jansenism. See Carl R. Trueman, “Preachers and Medieval Renaissance Commentary,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 65. 13 For a more positive view of the body and of the physical world in the life to come in Reformed orthodox thought, see Turretin, Institutes, topic 20, question V. 14 Edward Reynolds, Passions and Faculties of the Soul, 1061–1065 (chapter 35). 15 Calvin, Institutes I.15.3; Charnock Existence and Attributes of God, 119–120.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

120

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

marked out the line between true and false understanding in accord with his definition of true theology, as presented in chapter 2 above.16 He began by noting that the Holy Spirit is not the author of all religious affections. Natural affections in religion are temporary rather than permanent.17 The first difference between true spiritual affections and affections that are temporarily renewed by “light and conviction” is that affections produced by the Spirit of God stem from a “spiritual renovation of [people’s] minds,” while the affections of the unregenerate are “occasional impressions” only.18 The close parallel between this statement and his definition of true theology set forth in chapter 2 above (“mentis hominis per Spiritum Sanctum renati”) illustrates that Owen had the renovation of the mind of man in view primarily, rather than Westcott’s translation, “renovation of the entire human personality.”19 While it is true that Owen was concerned with the transformation of the entire person, he placed priority on the transformation of the mind, since he taught that God works through the understanding in order to stir the affections. Due to its similarities to his definition of communion with God (see chapter 2 above), Owen’s second point is worth citing in full: “The second difference lieth herein, that there may be a change in the affections, wherein men may delight in the duties of religious worship and diligence in their observance; but it is the spiritual renovation of the affections that gives delight in God through Christ, in any duty of religious worship whatever.”20 Owen defined communion with God as consisting in a mutual delight between God and believers in the fellowship that they enjoy through Christ as mediator.21 Note the implicit Trinitarianism here: the Spirit produces true spiritual affections with the result that believers delight in God through Christ. Owen rarely lost sight of communion with God as triune, especially in his treatments of public worship, and he developed his material on 16 As we observed in that chapter, this treatment of true understanding growing out of a renewed heart developed out of the assertion that true theology involves “mentis hominis per Spiritum Sanctum renati.” Owen, Theologoumena, 487. 17 The subsequent treatment of the affections in Owen’s work is a sort of precursor to the later work of Jonathan Edwards. It is possible that Edwards developed his views on the religious affections based partly upon Owen’s previous reflections. For the general influence Owen had on Edwards, see the introduction by Paul Ramsey to Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 2:53. As noted above, Owen was not included on Ramsey’s list of direct influences on the Religious Affections. The interrelation between Owen and Edwards deserves further research. The references or allusions to Owen in this volume that I know about are found on the following pages: 250, 372, 475. In the last reference, Edwards refers to “the singularly judicious Doctor Owen.” All three places refer to Owen’s Pneumatologia. 18 Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded, 208–209; Works, 7:417. 19 Owen, Theologoumena, 487. 20 Grace and Duty, 220; Works, 7:423. 21 Owen, Communion with God, 4; Works, 2:8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Wrong Affections in Public Worship

121

the affections in public worship in a manner that stood in harmony with and grew out of his earlier definitions of true theology and of communion with God. The primary difference between the religious affections of hypocrites and those of true believers is that the unregenerate love the external ordinances and duties of worship, while the regenerate delight in God’s ordinances only to the degree that they experience communion with God through them. The purpose of delighting in public ordinances is to come to the Father through faith in Christ. While his overarching concern was to establish positively the nature of heavenly communion with God in public worship, Owen divided his teaching on this matter into negative and positive elements. What guided his teaching on these points was the notion that public worship should be a real spiritual transaction between the souls of believers on earth and the Triune God in heaven. All of this supports the primary contention of this research that his doctrine of communion with God was the foundation of his theology of public worship, and that public worship was the climax of communion with the Triune God.

4.3

Wrong Affections in Public Worship

Having established in general Owen’s treatment of the spiritual affections, his negative and positive treatments of the affections in public worship illustrate further how and why the saints should enjoy communion with God in that setting. In order for the saints to enjoy communion with God in public worship, they must be able to contrast true affections toward God with false ones. The Puritans greatly feared the danger of self-deception at this stage.22 While the matter of hypocrisy was an important concern among English Puritans, they did not approach the matter in a monolithic manner. Some authors, such as Mead and Shepard, tended to direct readers inward. Other authors, such as Owen, Scudder, and Sedgwick, sought to drive readers to their union with Christ as the foundation of assurance as well as the root of the marks of salvation.23 22 For an overview of the difficulties surrounding assurance of salvation and self-examination in Reformed orthodoxy, see Joel R. Beeke, “The Assurance Debate: Six Key Questions,” Drawn into Controversie, 263–283. 23 The primary source literature on this question is overwhelming. For a representative sample of important English authors on assurance of salvation, see Robert Bolton, The Carnal Professor Discovering the Woeful Slavery of a Man Guided by the Flesh, Distinguishing a true Spiritual Christian that Walks Close with God, from all Formalists in Religion, RottenHearted Hypocrites, and Powerless Professors Whatsoever (London, 1634); Thomas Shepard, The Parable of the Ten Virgins Opened and Applied, Being the Substance of Divers Sermons on Matthew 25:1–13 (London, 1695); Matthew Mead, En Oligo Christianos, or, The Almost Christian Discovered, or, The False Professor Tried and Cast, Being the Substance of Seven Sermons (London, 1661); Obadiah Sedgwick, The Doubting Believer, or, A Treatise Concer-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

122

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

4.3.1 The First Danger: Externalism The first danger that Owen noted was “Men may be greatly affected with the outward part of divine worship, and the manner of the performance thereof, who have no delight in what is internal, real, and spiritual therein: John v. 35, ‘He was a burning and shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.’”24 This principle is illustrated clearly by the various attitudes hearers might have to the preaching of the word of God. For instance, some who rejoiced at the eloquence of Ezekiel’s preaching were liable to the imminent judgments of God (Ezek. 33:31–32).25 William Greenhill (1591–1671) observed in relation to this text that some may experience dramatic effects while listening to sermons while being unregenerate in heart.26 However, in order to comfort the true saint in his weakness, Owen clarified that even those with genuine saving affections for God approach him in public worship with varying degrees of success.27 Other factors may account for this fluctuation as well. For instance, the gifts of some preachers may be more effective in the lives of some of God’s people than the

24 25 26

27

ning the Nature, the Kinds, the Springs, the Remedies of Doubtings, Incident to Weak Believers (London, 1641); Thomas Manton, A Second Volume of Sermons by the Late Reverend and Learned Thomas Manton, in Two Parts: The First Containing XXVII Sermons on the TwentyFifth Chapter of St. Matthew…(London, 1684); see the last lengthy section of Henry Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk in Holy Security and Peace, Comprising the Whole Duty of Man (London, 1664). Owen addressed the question of assurance, among other places, in his lengthy exposition of Psalm 130. Owen, A Practical Exposition upon Psalm CXXX; Wherein the Nature of the Forgiveness of Sin is Declared; The Truth and Reality of it Asserted; and the Case of a Soul Distresssed with the Guilt of Sin, and Relieved by a Discovery of Forgiveness with God, is at Large Discoursed (London, 1668); Works, 6:323–648. For Owen’s positive approach to this topic, see Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 103. In this sense, Brian Kay has exaggerated Owen’s distinctiveness on this matter. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 143. There was parallel to this Puritan concern over the question of assurance and hypocrisy in the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. See Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, and Arie de Reuver, Sweet Communion. Owen, Grace and Duty, 221. Works, 7:424. Owen, Grace and Duty, 221. Works, 7:424. Greenhill observed, “In our days some preachers are a pleasant song to some persons; they are affected with their voice, notions, gestures, expressions, matter, arguments, stories; they sigh, they weep sometimes, and are ravished at other times; they never heard such a man, such a sermon, such things, and yet are not changed in their hearts, reformed in their tongues or lives, but are notorious hypocrites.” William Greenhill, The Exposition Continued Upon the Nineteen Last Chapters of the Prophet Ezekiel, with Many Useful Observations Thereupon, Delivered in Several Lectures in London (London, 1662), 169–170. See also the so-called “Westminster Annotations” in loc as well as Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible. Owen, Grace and Duty, 221; Works, 7:424: “I deny not but that men may be more delighted, more satisfied, with the gifts, the preaching, of one than another, and yet be sincere in their delight in the dispensation of the word; for they may find more spiritual advantage thereby than in the gifts of others, and things so prepared as to be more suited unto their edification than elsewhere: but that which at present we insist on hath respect only unto some outward circumstances, pleasing the minds of men, 2 Tim. 3:5.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Wrong Affections in Public Worship

123

gifts of others. Thomas Manton noted that while the efficacy of preaching depended upon the Holy Spirit alone, no one could doubt that certain kinds of preaching were more effective than others. Manton’s point was that the Spirit of God prepares the men who preach the word, including their gifts to preach and their ability to craft sermons, and he prepares the hearts of those who hear. 28 The primary question is whether worshipers come for the sake of the ordinances or for the sake of communion with God through those ordinances. Though he did not treat the ordinances of public worship in his book, the primary burden of John Rowe’s treatment of heavenly mindedness was to show that people must delight in communion with God in all things and through all things. Failing to do so is what makes one earthly minded instead of heavenly minded.29 It is significant that Owen stressed the ordinances of public worship in his treatise while Rowe did not. This reinforces the importance of public worship in Owen’s thinking. Communion with God through his ordinances comes through a properly informed understanding. In Owen’s view, the external lengths to which some Roman Catholics were willing to go in their devotions, regardless of whether they understood their significance, illustrates this point.30 If this is the case, then people may even come to a service that is Reformed in its external character and bring affections that are no better than what Roman Catholics brought to their uninformed services.31 Two worshipers may both delight in the service, but for entirely different reasons. It is strange that while William Perkins argued consistently that engaging the heart in worship was the primary part of true religious worship, he asserted that “The true worship of God is not subject to a possibility of being idolatry.”32 This is a peculiar inconsistency since the early pages of his work argue that idolatry can have reference either to the external form of worship or to the attitude of one’s heart. Owen expanded this idea by arguing that using the proper external form of worship, yet delighting in that worship for the wrong reasons still constituted idolatry. Owen likened the difference between them to the difference between an ignorant person and an herbalist enjoying the same garden. The first person is consumed by the colors and smells of the garden while the latter loves the garden because he knows what it truly is.33 Both people are 28 Manton, Works, 10:221. Owen made a similar point in his work on spiritual gifts. Owen, Two Discourses Concerning the Holy Spirit and His Work, chapter 8, pp. 240–256. 29 Rowe, Heavenly-Mindedness, 18, among numerous instances. 30 Owen, Grace and Duty, 222–223; Works, 7:424–425. For a vivid description of such pilgrimages as well as the almost magical importance that medieval worshipers attached to relics and places, see Eire, War Against the Idols, chapter 1. 31 See chapter 3 above for the external character of Reformed orthodox worship. 32 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 103. 33 Owen, Grace and Duty, 223; Works, 7:425: “Hence, two persons may at the same time attend unto the same ordinances of divine worship, with equal delight, on very distinct principles:

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

124

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

affected by the garden, but only one is affected for the highest reasons. Owen was not saying that the delight that true saints have in divine worship is purely intellectual.34 Rather he argued that both in true theology and proper worship, right affections must be grounded in correct thinking.

4.3.2 The Second Danger: Intellectual Satisfaction The second danger regarding false affections in worship is that people may delight in performing the outward duties of worship solely to satisfy their convictions intellectually.35 While Owen’s first point stressed coming to worship for the right reasons, this second point balances the first by noting that worship cannot be solely intellectual. True affections toward the Triune God are always in view, and they are always the primary goal of public worship. Coming to public worship to satisfy conscience alone is misguided because the conscience is satisfied only when the affections of the heart match the convictions of the mind.36 This does not mean that it is improper to perform acts of worship out of a sense of duty and conviction, but that it is dangerous to assume that going through external motions alone can “quiet conscience.” Peace of conscience must come through communion with Christ in grace through faith only.37 The

34 35 36

37

as if two men should come into the same garden, planted with a variety of herbs and flowers, one ignorant of the nature of them, the other a skillful herbalist; both may be equally delighted, the one with the colors and smell of the flowers, the other with the consideration of their various natures, their uses in physical remedies, or the like. So may it be in the hearing of the word. For instance, one may be delighted with the outward administration, another with its spiritual efficacy, at the same time.” Compare to Charnock’s conflation of the understanding and the affection in Existence and Attributes of God, 141. Owen, Grace and Duty, 223; Works, 7:426. Owen, Grace and Duty, 224–225; Works, 7:426: “The performances of those divine duties gives them a present relief and ease; though it heals not their wound, it assuageth their pain and dispelleth their present fears…And their condition is somewhat dangerous who, upon the sense of the guilt of any sin, do betake themselves for relief unto their prayers, which having discharged, they are much at ease in their minds and consciences, although they have obtained no real sense of the pardon of sin nor any strength against it.” This treatment is similar to his treatment of the work of the Spirit in regeneration in volume three of his Works. For an analysis of this treatise, see Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, chapter 2. See also, Ryan M. McGraw, “John Owen on the Holy Spirit, The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit, 267–283. See chapter 2 above. William Ames defined the conscience as “a practical judgment” that stems from a habit of the soul. William Ames, Conscience, with the Power and Cases Thereof (London, 1639), 2–3. Ames wrote this in explicit contrast to Perkins, who treated the conscience as a distinct faculty of the soul. See William Perkins, The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience, Distinguished into Three Books (London, 1619), 26–27. In this place, Perkins defines the conscience as an aspect of knowledge or understanding, which “in regard

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Wrong Affections in Public Worship

125

problem that Owen addressed here is that any worship that focuses predominantly upon the self rather than upon the Triune God hinders rather than furthers communion with him.38 This highlights as well why Owen was dissatisfied with forms of self-examination that drove sinners inward rather than away from themselves to seek the remedy in Christ for all of their deficiencies. As noted above, this is why his work on The Mortification of Sin included sections on union with Christ in both the beginning and the middle of the work.39 In order for worship to be a true spiritual transaction between the soul and the Triune God, those who come must seek to use the public ordinances of God to know God better, not merely to soothe the demands of conscience. This spiritual transaction between God and man occurs in the realm of the affections. Conscience is appeased only when a person rests his or her affections upon God as the object of his or her delight.40

4.3.3 The Third Danger: Resting in Ordinances for Righteousness The third indicator that one has misplaced affections for the ordinances of public worship flows from the second: some rest in observing external ordinances as the grounds of their righteousness in the sight of God.41 Such people suppose that multiplying duties will compensate for past sins. This, in turn, increases their zeal for external exercises of religion. This was the error of the Jews who rejected the gospel in the time of the apostles (Owen cited portions of Romans chapters 9–11 to bolster his argument here). In his view, the desire for self-righteousness in the human heart was so powerful that it could compel even the most covetous people to give up their goods if it allowed them to trust in their

38

39 40

41

of authority and power, it is placed in the middle between God and man, for it is under God, and yet above man.” Owen, Grace and Duty, 225; Works, 7:427: “This begins and ends in self; self-satisfaction is the sole design of it. By it men aim at some rest and quietness in their own minds, which otherwise they cannot attain. But in the performance of duties in faith, from a conviction of their necessity as God’s ordinance, and their use in the way of his grace, the soul begins and ends in God. It seeks no satisfaction in them, nor finds it from them, but in and from God alone by them.” Works, 6:1ff. See comments in chapter 2 above. The primary proposition of Robert Bolton’s massive work on helping those with afflicted consciences was: “The spirit of a man that is furnished with grace, and a sense of God’s favor, is able to pass through the pikes and conquer all comers.” Robert Bolton, Instructions for a Right Comforting of Afflicted Consciences: With Special Antidotes Against Some Grievous Temptations (London, 1635), 2. Owen, Grace and Duty, 225; Works, 7:427. “The principal reason why men whose affections are only changed, not spiritually renewed, do delight in holy duties of divine worship, is, because they place their righteousness before God in them, whereon they hope to be accepted with him.” Emphasis original.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

126

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

religious duties as their righteousness.42 Owen’s first three points follow a logical progression: people who are satisfied with external things in worship rather than with spiritual communion with God will come to worship in order to satisfy their consciences. Then they begin to rest in those ordinances as their righteousness. The downward spiral that he depicted begins with delight in external things instead of in spiritual communion with the Trinity. At the stage of that spiral treated in this paragraph, all niceties are stripped away, revealing that such affections flow from the sinful human desire for self-justification. Over-emphasis on one’s self becomes the primary hindrance to communion with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. This demonstrates how Owen’s stress on communion with the Trinity in conjunction with public worship grew out of the God-centered nature of his theology.43

4.3.4 The Fourth Danger: A Reputation for Devotion Fourth, a reputation for devotion in religious duties may drive “unrenewed minds” to great diligence and delight in their duties.44 Those who are guilty of this error are often unaware of their fault. Individuals may be zealous to excel others and to win others to their cause.45 This is similar to the point that Owen made (see chapter 3 above) concerning apostasy in which he noted that people may be more concerned with standing on the right side of a cause than with the glory of God. A man or woman who worships in the right manner may end up no better than the Pharisees of the New Testament: “These two principles, their own reputation and that of their sect, constituted the life and soul of Pharisaism of old.”46 Those who pursue religion for the sake of their own reputation, or that of their particular party, are not ordinarily aware of their hypocrisy. The reason for 42 Owen, Grace and Duty, 226–227; Works, 7:428. “And when men were persuaded that righteousness was to be attained by works of munificence and supposed charity, in the dedication of their substance unto the use of the church, they who otherwise were covetous, and greedy and oppressing, would lavish gold out of the bag, and give up their whole patrimony, with all their ill-gotten goods, to attain it; so powerful an influence hath the desire of self-righteousness upon the minds of men. It is the best fortification of the soul against Christ and the gospel, - the last reserve whereby it maintains the interest of self against the grace of God.” 43 For the centrality of the doctrine of God in Owen’s theology, see Trueman, The Claims of Truth, 102ff. 44 Owen, Grace and Duty, 227; Works, 7:428. 45 For Owen’s treatment of the question of unity in the church, see Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, chapter 5. Cooper argues that Owen desired toleration from the state for various Protestant groups, whereas Baxter wanted comprehension of these groups within the established church. What the men had in common was that they were wary of those who were too zealous for their own particular party. 46 Owen, Grace and Duty, 228; Works, 7:428.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Wrong Affections in Public Worship

127

this is that by an unconscious habit of seeking the praise of men, they have consistently, albeit imperceptibly, distorted the grounds of religious worship. Owen wrote this treatise in 1681 during a time of great religious upheaval and fragmentation.47 Most religious parties, especially Episcopalians and Presbyterians, desired a single state church that represented one branch of Protestantism.48 Owen largely argued for a broader form of religious toleration.49 Those who take pride in their own group because they believe that their practices are right usually mean well, but they have still taken their eyes away from communion with the Triune God as the goal of public worship.50 The point is that people often convince themselves that they are doing things to serve God that in truth give them great delight in serving their own purposes. Once again, the error is that they draw more attention to themselves than to God in relation to public worship.

4.3.5 The Fifth Danger: Superstition Fifth, and last, false affections in public worship lead to superstition. This is more a result than a characteristic of wrong affections in worship. Owen defined superstition as “an undue fear of the divine nature, will, and operations, built on false notions and apprehensions of them.”51 Henry Scudder used “superstition” along these lines to describe Roman Catholic views regarding holy places for worship.52 For the same reason, Perkins called the religion enforced by the 47 See Dewey Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism. For Owen’s place during this period, see Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, chapter 8. 48 See Coffey, Politics, Religion, and the British Revolutions. This remained Baxter’s view. However, Owen’s view of toleration as opposed to comprehension became public policy in 1689, six years after Owen’s death. See Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, chapter 8. 49 In his Indulgence and Toleration Considered. Owen argued that Christians should be able to worship in a manner that is “suitable to their light” as long as they do not “interfere with the fundamentals of Christian religion or public tranquility.” Owen, Indulgence and Toleration Considered, in a Letter unto a Person of Honor (London, 1667), 7; Works, 13:522. However, Coffey’s recent article in the Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology argues that the groups who were the objects of Owen’s toleration policies shifted slightly during the interregnum and Restoration periods. 50 Owen, Grace and Duty, 228; Works, 7:429: “I speak of them who, being under the convictions and motives before mentioned, do also yet give admittance unto this corrupt end of desire of reputation of the praise of men; for every such end, being admitted and prevalent in the mind, will universally influence the mind unto a delight in those duties whereby that end may be attained, until the person with whom it is so be habituated unto them with great satisfaction.” 51 Owen, Grace and Duty, 228; Works, 7:429. 52 Henry Scudder, A Key of Heaven: The Lord’s Prayer Opened and so Applied, that a Christian May Learn How to Pray, and to Procure all Things which May Make for the Glory of God, and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

128

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

council of Trent “the Great Italian Diana.”53 Fundamentally, “[superstition] is an internal vice of the mind.” The internal principle of the mind, however, always finds a corresponding external practice or behavior. In this sense, “superstition” is both a false apprehension of God as well as a false practice of worship, since the external practice mirrors the internal belief. In this regard, “superstition” was closely akin to idolatry. Perkins argued that false means of worship always reflected distorted views of the Godhead, So, for example, worshiping God by means of images creates a “double idol.” The image itself is the first idol, and the second idol is the god whom the image represents.54 This observation is important in light of the fact that the previous chapter of this thesis showed how Owen began with his views of communion with God as triune and developed his treatment of the principles governing worship in light of them. This reiterates the intimate connection between his formulation of the Reformed principle of worship and his Trinitarian focused theology. True spiritual-mindedness must express itself in the proper use of the external ordinances of God’s worship. The superstition residing in the hearts of those who have a misinformed fear of God leads them to external forms of worship that match the state of their hearts. Ironically, the result is that if people do not use divinely instituted ordinances in worship properly, then their hearts will begin to seek for new ordinances and external forms.55 The preeminent example of this perversion in worship is Roman Catholicism, which abandoned the biblical ordinances of worship because it had lost true communion with the Godhead in public worship.56 This is demonstrated, among other things, through its dependence upon images of Christ. The internal principle of spiritual-mindedness flowing from affections that are “spiritually and supernaturally renewed” takes priority over the external form of public worship without negating its significance. Owen concludes that this shows us “the greatest part of the devotion that is in the world doth not spring from the spiritual renovation of the minds of men.”57 This draws another connection between his treatment of spiritual af-

53 54 55 56 57

the Good of Himself and of His Neighbor ; Containing Likewise such Doctrines of Faith and Godliness, as May be Very Useful to All that Desire to Live Godly in Christ Jesus (London, 1633), 36. Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 6. The Reformed use of “superstition” was treated in the previous chapter above. Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 13. For the importance of the question of images in Owen’s theology of worship, see the appendix to this thesis. Owen, Grace and Duty, 229–230; Works, 7:429–430. The implications of these things for the simplicity of the external form of worship under the new covenant will be treated in chapter 5 below. See “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:549: “The loss of an experience of the power of religion hath been the cause of the loss of the truth of religion; or it hath been the cause of rejecting its substance, and setting up a shadow or image in the room of it.” Works, 7:429.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

True Spiritual Affections in Worship

129

fections in worship and his definitions of true theology as well as communion with God, as noted earlier in this chapter.58

4.3.6 Analysis The important point that recurs in Owen’s material above is that believers must never lose sight of God’s glory as their primary goal when they come to public worship. The glory of God stood at the heart of Reformed theology in general. Believers enjoy communion with God through his ordinances, but communion with God cannot be equated with observing those ordinances. The point Owen made with regard to the affections in public worship was the same point that Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) would make in the following century when he asserted that the one thing that ultimately distinguishes the religious affections of a true believer from those of hypocrites is “An apprehension or sense of the supreme holy beauty and comeliness of divine things, as they are in themselves, or in their own nature.”59 This leads to Owen’s positive treatment of proper spiritual affections in public worship.

4.4

True Spiritual Affections in Worship

Owen’s positive treatment of the affections in worship clarifies the fact that worship is a heavenly transaction between the Triune God and the redeemed soul. His Trinitarianism becomes more explicit in this section as well. The primary reason why worship is dear to the saints is because they hope to enjoy communion with all three Persons of the Trinity through the ordinances of public worship. The expectation that the Holy Spirit will lift up believers’ souls to God in heaven in public worship endears this worship above most things. For 58 We have seen the phrase “spiritual renovation of the minds of men” occur frequently at this stage. For further references, see Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 65–66. 59 Jonathan Edwards, “True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 2:48. Edwards added, “He that hath his eyes opened to behold the divine superlative beauty and loveliness of Jesus Christ, is convinced of his sufficiency to stand as Mediator between him, a guilty helldeserving wretch, and an infinitely holy God, in an exceedingly different manner than ever he can be convinced by the arguments of authors or preachers, however excellent.” 48–49. Edwards, however, had a more Platonic tendency to elevate the soul at the expense of the body than some of his Reformed orthodox predecessors did. In a meditation on “The Pure in Heart Blessed,” Edwards argued that believers’ sight of God in heaven would be without bodily eyes. Works, 2:905–912. By contrast, Thomas Manton referred to the beatific vision as “ocular.” Manton, Works, 20:460. For a similar analysis of Edwards, see John Carrick, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2008), 194–99.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

130

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

this reason, “this has been the greatest cause of their suffering persecution, and martyrdom itself, in all ages.”60 He reasoned that, if the saints love communion with God in heaven more than all else, then they will cherish most those means that are best conducive to drawing their souls near to him in fellowship. They will use those means at all costs as well. Owen’s treatment of the affections in public worship takes a distinctively Christological tone at this point.61 In the Psalms, King David provided a model for the longing of the saints for public worship, yet the ultimate pattern for loving public worship is that set by the Lord Jesus Christ.62 In addition, communion with God through him is the goal and purpose of worship. Coming to the Father through the Son is what constitutes public worship as a heavenly transaction. Christ is the center of Owen’s treatment of the role of the affections in public worship both as the means of approaching God and as the perfect example for believers. For this reason, he wrote, “I say, in general, that their delight in all the ordinances of divine worship…is in Christ himself, or God in Christ.”63 Here public worship as the high point of communion with God as triune comes to the forefront in this treatment of the affections.

4.4.1 Exercising Faith, Love, and Delight in God The first reason why the saints should delight in the ordinances of public worship is to stir up and act on “faith, and love, and delight in God through Christ.”64 Owen regarded this as the fundamental and most important ground for delighting in public worship. As indicated above in this chapter, this mirrors closely the key elements of his definition of communion with God as triune. For this reason, he devoted more attention to this point than to any other. Old Testament Jews often acted as though their sacrifices “were appointed for their 60 Owen, Grace and Duty, 231; Works, 7:430. For the theme of persecution, see the previous chapter. 61 This reiterates the observations made in chapter 2 that Owen’s Trinitarianism was a Christcentered Trinitarianism. 62 Owen, Grace and Duty, 232; Works, 7:431: “‘A greater than David is here.’ Our Lord Jesus Christ himself did, upon all occasions, declare his delight in and zeal for all the ordinances of divine worship which were then in force by virtue of the divine institution and command; for although he severely reproved and rejected whatever men had added thereunto, under the pretence of a supererogating strictness of outward order, laying it all under that dreadful sentence, ‘Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up,’ and so cast into the fire,’ yet as unto what was of divine appointment, his delight therein was singular and exemplary to all his disciples.” 63 Owen, Grace and Duty, 233; Works, 7:431. 64 Owen, Grace and Duty, 234; Works, 7:432.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

True Spiritual Affections in Worship

131

own sake.”65 They were often sharply reproved by the prophets for performing these sacrifices “without desiring or endeavoring any holy communion with God in them or by them” (citing Jer. 7:22–23 and Is. 1:12–14). Owen added that the second commandment testified against this practice not only by regulating the external form of worship, but by providing the means to express the internal graces of the soul toward God that the first commandment required.66 This is consistent with the connection that he made elsewhere between these two commandments (see chapter 3). Here he carried the theme forward into an explicit treatment of religious affections in worship. He added that believers know by experience that communion with God is the purpose of instituted worship. When they do not experience this in public worship, then unlike those who are satisfied with external service alone, they find no rest or peace in their souls.67 People who do not approach worship in order to enjoy communion with God through his ordinances fall either into “cursed formality” or the rejection of these ordinances entirely on account of their unbelief.68 These principles demand that true worshipers come with “desire, design, and expectation” to exercise “divine faith and love.”69 The internal principles of communion with God through public worship were so important in Owen’s estimation that those who reduced acts of worship to external actions rejected reverence for God entirely.70 Many people are deceived by the external pomp and glory of Roman Catholic worship and even by the established worship of the Church of England. The only way to approach the Triune God properly is through faith. Believers then cling to him through love and they abide in him continually through “fear, reverence, and delight.”71 Coming to worship apart 65 Owen, Grace and Duty, 234; Works, 7:432. The contrast between communion with God under the old and new covenants is the subject of chapter 5 below. 66 Owen, Grace and Duty, 235; Works, 7:432–433. “But all the duties of the second commandment, as all instituted ordinances of worship, are but means to express and exercise those of the first, as faith, love, fear, and delight in God.” 67 Owen, Grace and Duty, 235; Works, 7:433: “[Believers] have experienced that in and by them their faith and love are excited unto a gracious exercise of themselves on God in Christ; and when they find it otherwise with them, they can have no rest in their souls. For this end they are ordained, sanctified, and blessed of God; and therefore are effectual means of it, when their efficacy is not defeated by unbelief.” For the role of Christian experience in formulating true doctrine in Owen’s theology, see Kapic, Communion with God, chapter 1. 68 Owen, Grace and Duty, 235–236; Works, 7:433. For a succinct and similar treatment of the use and abuse of the ordinances of public worship, see Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 1240–1241. 69 Owen, Grace and Duty, 236; Works, 7:433. See Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 84–85. 70 Owen, Grace and Duty, 236; Works, 7:433. “To suppose that a drawing nigh to God may consist merely in the outward performance of duty, whatever its solemnity, is to reject all due reverence of him.” Citing Isaiah 29:13–14. 71 Owen, Grace and Duty, 237; Works, 7:434. “Our souls…have no way of approach unto God in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

132

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

from faith in Jesus Christ alone and without the explicit intention to commune with God through Christ shows contempt for God. As chapter 5 demonstrates, over-stressing external beauty in worship threatens faith in Christ rather than assists it. On the other side of the coin, because God appointed the ordinances of worship to promote communion with himself, it is impossible for those who despise or neglect public means to delight in the spiritual graces to worship properly. Upon the pretense of heightened piety or direct communications from the Holy Spirit, some men neglect public worship as superfluous. This is contrary to the exhortation of Hebrews 10:35.72 Owen likely had the Quakers in mind at this point.73 In light of the Trinitarian foundation that Owen laid at the outset of his treatment of the affections in worship, as well as the consistent allusions to his definitions of communion with God and true theology, it is a bit surprising that this is his first reference to the Holy Spirit under his positive treatment. Even here, the statement is polemical in nature, and he does not make a positive statement. While communion with the Father through the Son is clearly in the foreground, Owen did not use the opportunity of rejecting Quaker views of the work of the Spirit in order to establish his own view. It is not clear why this is the case, and the reason may simply be a mild inconsistency on his part.74 He did add, however, that neglecting the ordinances of public worship leads to utter apostasy : “I never saw but it issued in a great decay, if not an utter loss, of all exercise of faith and love, and sometimes in open profaneness: for such persons contemn the way and means which God, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, hath appointed for their exercise and increase, and this shall not prosper.”75 Combined with his statements above to the effect that our affections may be selfdeceived when we trust in the ordinances of public worship, Owen here stressed a twofold danger. People can neither trust in simply participating in the ordinances of public worship nor can they dispense with the ordinances of public worship without ruining their souls. This reiterates the point that not only must people worship God through the work of the Spirit in their hearts, but that all true spiritual worship must be according to God’s truth as defined by his

72 73 74 75

duties of worship but by faith; no way of adhering or cleaving unto him but by love; and no way of abiding in him but by fear, reverence, and delight.” Emphasis original. “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.” Owen, Grace and Duty, 237; Works, 7:434. Goold has correctly amended the original text to read Heb. 10:35 instead of Heb. 16:35. For the place of the Quakers in the English religious landscape in the seventeenth century, see Adrian Davies, The Quakers in English Society, 1655–1725 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). John Rowe’s work includes an almost identical stress on the Father and the Son to the partial neglect of the Holy Spirit. Rowe, Heavenly-Mindedness, 10, 15. Owen, Grace and Duty, 237–238; Works, 7:434

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

True Spiritual Affections in Worship

133

commandments. This reveals, theologically at least, why the subject of public worship appears so frequently in Owen’s writings and particularly in connection to communion with the Triune God. The ordinances of public worship are not only the best means of communion with God, but in ordinary circumstances, they are an indispensable means of communion with him. This first positive observation concludes with an exhortation against sloth in using the instituted ordinances of public worship, coupled with a positive injunction to be watchful and prayerful in their proper use.76 Unless true Christians treat public worship as the means appointed by God to exercise faith and love toward Christ, with sincere endeavors to stir up faith and love, and strive against temptation and mere external attendance, even they shall not experience worship as a transaction with God in heaven. In addition to this, the saints must regard the ordinances themselves as divinely appointed in Scripture, as well as the manner in which the gifts of their particular minister are suited to minister to their souls.77

4.4.2 Means of Communicating Divine Love and Grace The second reason why the regenerate delight in “ordinances of divine service and duties of worship” is “because they are the means of the communication of a sense of divine love and supplies of divine grace unto the souls of them that do believe.”78 Under the first heading, the saints delight in the Triune God through public worship. This point adds that the Triune God communicates himself to the saints during public worship. This reflects both the divine and human parties in his definition of communion with God.79 This is not surprising in that communion with God was both the foundation and the purpose of public worship in his view. Worship creates two-way traffic between the human soul and the Triune God. It is a spiritual transaction between earth and heaven. The God-downward side of this equation means that believers should attend public worship expecting to receive good things from God.80 Christians must come to public 76 Owen, Grace and Duty, 238–239; Works, 7:435. 77 Owen, Grace and Duty, 240–241; Works, 7:436. With regard to the former : “Where their original and observance are resolved into divine authority, there, and there alone, will they have a divine efficacy….Whatever hath regard to anything else is not faith, but fancy….” With respect to the latter : “Ministers that are wise will, in holy administrations, neglect all other things, and attend to this alone, how they may be helpful unto the faith, and love, and joy of believers, so far as they are the object of their ministry.” 78 Owen, Grace and Duty, 241; Works, 7:437. Emphasis original. 79 Among other places, see Owen, Communion with God, 4; Works, 2:8; see Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. II, 462–463, and the treatment of this subject in chapter 2 above. 80 Owen, Grace and Duty, 241; Works, 7:437: “To make a pretence of coming unto God, and not with expectation of receiving good and great things from him, is to despise God himself, to

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

134

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

worship in order to obtain a sense of the love of the Father in Christ as well as for fresh supplies of grace in the heart. At this point, Owen’s Trinitarian emphases became explicit. This is significant, in that these points mirror the covenantal and Trinitarian structure of his definitions of communion with God and true theology.81 He taught that believers know the love of the Father and all his comforts “in Jesus Christ,” but “it is the Holy Spirit who is the immediate and efficient cause of all these things in us.”82 According to Mastricht, Reformed theology regarded union with Christ as the foundation of the application of redemption (“Fundamentum applicationis est union et communion cum Christo”) and the Holy Spirit as the efficient cause of applying the benefits of Christ to believers in the new covenant.83 This was why Edward Leigh wrote, for example, “The Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of sanctification.”84 The Spirit “sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts” (Rom. 5:5) and he bears witness to our adoption as the children of God (Rom. 8:15–16). Among the benefits sought in public worship, assurance of adoption by God holds the first place.85 This agrees with the assertions of chapter 2 above to the effect that Owen prioritized calling God “Father” in worship.86 Assurance of adoption lifts the Christian’s heart up to heaven as nothing else can.87 This assurance is the work of the Spirit in the heart, driving the believer to Christ in faith, so that with confidence he or she may call God “Father.” Without assurance of adoption in public worship, the souls of believers will not be fit for any aspect of the Christian life.88 Assurance of the Father’s love should be the normal

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

overthrow the nature of the duty, and deprive our own souls of all benefit thereby. And want hereof is that which renders the worship of the most useless and fruitless unto themselves. We are always to come unto God as unto an eternal spring of goodness, grace, and mercy, of all that our souls do stand in need of, of all we can desire in order unto everlasting blessedness.” See the first two sections of chapter 2 above. Owen, Works, 7:437. Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 789. See chapter 5 below for Owen’s teaching on the new covenant. Leigh, Body of Divinity, 531. Owen, Grace and Duty, 242; Works, 7:439. This was the stress of his sermons on Eph. 2:18 entitled, “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship,” which were treated at length in chapter 2 above. Owen, Communion with God, 40; Works, 2:39–40. Also see p. 27; “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” in Works, 9:58. Owen, Grace and Duty, 244–245; Works, 7:439: “Many of the better sort of professors are too negligent in this matter. They do not long and pant in the inward man after renewed pledges of the love of God; they do not consider how much need they have of them, that they may be encouraged and strengthened unto all other duties of obedience; they do not prepare their minds for the reception of them, nor come with the expectation of their communication unto them; they do not rightly fix their faith on this truth, - namely, that these holy administrations and duties are appointed of God in the first place as the ways and means of conveying his love and a sense of it unto our souls.” See also Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 95, for

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

True Spiritual Affections in Worship

135

experience of every true believer. Without this assurance, believers fall into spiritual decay. In this manner, Owen explicitly introduced the Trinitarian theme that stood at the heart of his doctrine of worship, while simultaneously directing that theme to assurance of the Father’s love as its goal. As noted above, not all Puritan authors held the same emphases with regard to the matter of self-examination and assurance of salvation. Owen’s overarching concern leaned toward the side of assurance for believers by resting upon the objective works of the Triune God as the object of faith.89 The God-downward aspect of public worship is designed to produce assurance of salvation. This assurance, in turn, is designed to produce fruit. As believers are assured of their adoption through the proper use of the ordinances of worship, “they come for supplies of internal, sanctifying, strengthening grace.”90 Expounding Isaiah 40:28–31, Owen noted that the being of God is the original source of all grace and blessing to believers. However, the weakness of believers prevents them from apprehending the grace of God adequately. The value of God’s public ordinances of worship as means of grace lies in the fact that the Triune God has chosen to communicate his grace and power to his people through them.91 This places a premium upon prayer as “the way of his appointment for the application of our souls unto him to obtain a participation of all needful grace.”92 Exercising faith through prayer not only prepares believers to profit from public worship but is also the means by which God communicates himself to their souls from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit.93

89

90 91

92 93

the importance of assurance of adoption and resisting the assaults of Satan in the context of prayer. See the citations earlier in this chapter. Assurance of salvation was a primary concern of Owen’s work on the doctrine of justification. See Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated (London, 1677), [2], unpaginated preface. Owen, Grace and Duty, 245–246; Works, 7:440. Owen, Grace and Duty, 246–247; Works, 7:440: “All grace and spiritual strength is originally seated in the nature of God, verse 28. But what relief can that afford to us who are weak, feeble, fainting? He will act suitably to his nature in the communication of this grace and power, verse 29. But how shall we have an interest in this grace in these operations? Wait on him in the ordinances of his worship, verse 31.” Owen, Grace and Duty, 247; Works, 7:241. This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism (question 88) lists prayer as one of the “outward and ordinary means” through which Christ communicates the benefits of redemption. In the word and in the ordinances of public worship, God communicates Christ and his benefits objectively to believers. However, as Owen implied, worship is a covenantal transaction in which man approaches God and God approaches man. Prayer serves as a bridge to facilitate this two-way traffic. Prayer was listed as one of the outward and ordinary means by which God communicated his grace to the souls of his people because, without prayer, none of the other means of grace could be effective.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

136

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

4.4.3 Experience Leads to Greater Affection The third reason why the saints delight in the ordinances of worship is that the more they experience the presence of God in public worship, the more they will attend worship with affection and delight.94 This is particularly true with respect to preaching. When God blesses his people greatly through preaching, then they desire and pray for even greater blessings through the preached word. Conversely, the only reason why men do not delight in preaching is that they have received no spiritual advantages through it.95 This principle applies equally to private prayer and meditation. Owen’s primary concern respected the intentions of believers when they come to worship. One reason why believers do not profit more from daily Bible reading and prayer is that they do not come to these exercises for the sole purpose of communion with the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. His point was that such people make the performance of a duty an end instead of a means of communion with God. He added that the fact that God withdraws the “sensible” experience of communion with himself sometimes promotes spiritual communion with him through his ordinances rather than hinders it. The reason is that such times of spiritual desertion drive believers to exercise faith and prayer more fervently. This was Owen’s way of saying that God blesses his people most through his ordinances when he drives them to look least at themselves and most upon his glory.96 In other words, God designed public worship to be a two-way communication between the human soul and all three persons of the Trinity. This is a transaction between man on earth and God in heaven. This meant that human beings must come to worship with this goal in view. Even if the saints do not experience these blessings immediately in public worship, they must place this 94 Again, this echoes Owen’s appeal to genuine Christian experience as one of the primary criteria for discerning the truth of God as it is revealed in Scripture. See Kapic, Communion with God, chapter 1. 95 Owen, Grace and Duty, 248; Works, 7:442. “And the sole reason, on the other hand, why men grow so careless, negligent, and cold in their attendance unto the preaching of the Word, is because they have no experience of any spiritual benefit or advantage by it.” For the importance of preaching in religious life during the mid-seventeenth century, see chapter 20 (Tom Webster) of the Oxford Handbook to the Early-Modern Sermon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). This is the first comprehensive volume on early-modern preaching. 96 Owen, Grace and Duty, 251–252; Works, 7:444: “There may be a season, indeed, when God will seem to hide himself from believers in their prayers, so as they shall neither find that life in themselves which they have done formerly, nor be sensible of any gracious communications from him; but this is done only for a time, and principally to stir them up unto that perseverance and fervency in prayer as may recover them into their former or a better state than they have yet attained unto. The like may be said of all other duties of religion or ordinances of divine worship.” For contemporary resources on the topic of “spiritual desertion,” see the works cited in chapter 2 above.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

True Spiritual Affections in Worship

137

intention in the foreground. When God appears to hide his face from them, this leads them to re-evaluate why they have come to worship at all. This highlights the fact that the aims of Puritan religion were inherently experimental and practical while retaining a God-centered theology.97 The experiential knowledge of God through Christ is not only the goal of public worship, but it is the purpose of the Christian life. De Reuver traces the phraseology of the experimental knowledge of God (“cognition Dei experimentalis”) at least back to Thomas Aquinas.98 Owen simply stressed the idea that the ordinances of public worship were the best means of achieving this goal. This was why William Perkins argued that the experimental knowledge of God as triune produces the true worship of God.99

4.4.4 God’s Instituted Means The fourth and final reason why those with “renewed affections” delight in public worship is that this is the “great instituted way” through which they must give glory to God.100 Even though he listed this motive last, Owen noted that it is the first.101 This does not contradict his earlier assertion that exercising faith and love toward Christ takes first place in worship.102 These two assertions combine to create one whole picture. The saints desire to exercise faith and love toward Christ so that they may deepen their communion with the entire Godhead and give glory to God by doing so. If, as Owen asserted, the divinely instituted ordinances of public worship are the primary way in which God communicates himself to the souls of his people, then such people should delight in the public means of grace above all other means. This makes the desire to commune with 97 For similar assertions on experimental piety, see Edward Reynolds’ comments in his Meditations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter (London, 1677), 58: “Christ is not truly apprehended either by the fancy or the understanding. He is at once known and possessed. It is an experimental, and not a speculative knowledge that conceives him; he understands him that feels him. We see him in his grace and truth, not in any carnal or gross pretense.” See also Rowe, Heavenly-Mindedness, 103. 98 De Reuver, Sweet Communion, 22. 99 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 106. Note the similarities between Perkins’s assertion here and the thesis of this research. Owen held the same view as Perkins, but he developed it more persistently throughout his writings. 100 Owen, Grace and Duty, 252; Works, 7:444. 101 Owen, Grace and Duty, 252; Works, 7:444. “This is the first and principal end of all duties of religion as they respect divine appointment, - namely, to ascribe and give unto God the glory that is his due; for in them all acknowledgment is made of all the glorious excellencies of the divine nature, our dependence on him and relation unto him. And this is that which, in the first place, believers design in all the duties of divine worship.” 102 Owen, Grace and Duty, 234; Works, 7:432.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

138

Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven

God through Christ converge with love for the ordinances of public worship. Owen here points to the idea that a Christian is never more a Christian than when he forgets himself and is absorbed in joyful rapture over the glory of the Triune God. In this respect, public worship is the apex of Owen’s conception of the Christian life. In summary, Owen described two groups of people in chapters 14 and 15 of The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded. Both groups love public worship, but they do so for reasons that differ widely. In light of what Owen wrote on this point, the following picture emerges: The Triune God instituted public worship in order to facilitate two-way traffic between heaven and earth. Public worship is not the only means of holding communion with him, but it is the greatest means of doing so. Though not all who attend public worship will be lifted up into heavenly communion with God, God’s design is to bless and to comfort his people through public worship. This places a premium on the affections of those who worship as well as on the reasons why they love the public means of grace. Public worship must be a genuine transaction with God by the Holy Spirit, through the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to call upon God as Father. In Owen’s view, even though public worship as instituted by God is the greatest appointed means of communion with God, this means does not work automatically, in a Catholic ex opere operato fashion. Worshipers must be active. In other words, public worship engages both the divine and the human parties of the covenant of grace, with Christ himself being the bond of union and delight between them both.103

4.5

Conclusion

Owen’s inclusion of communion with the Triune God in public worship in his treatment of spiritual affections is important for several reasons. First, the two chapters that address public worship in The Grace and Duty of Being SpirituallyMinded establish this material on a Trinitarian foundation. This emphasis is explicit in several places and it is implicit throughout the entire treatment. This shows that Owen remained self-conscious about the Trinitarian foundation of his theology as a whole and his doctrine of worship in particular throughout his life. Second, he singled out public worship from other topics and placed special stress on it in his practical theology. Not all Puritan and Reformed authors of this time period did so in writing about spiritual affections.104 This shows how important public worship was to Owen. Third, the material analyzed here contains 103 See Owen, Communion with God, 4; Works, 2:8. 104 The references to Rowe and to others cited above demonstrate this.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

139

Conclusion

continual allusions to his definitions of communion with God and of true theology. In particular, the covenantal quality of communion with God as grounded in union with Christ stands at the forefront, as does his assertion that theology is grounded in “the spiritual renovation of the minds of men.”105 Owen wrote Communion with God in 1656, and he published Theologoumena Pantodapa in 1660. The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded appeared in 1681. What emerges is a rigidly consistent pattern in his emphases over a long period of time and through the course of dramatic turns of events both in the nation and in Owen’s personal life.106 It is remarkable for an individual theologian to remain so persistent and consistent in one set of emphases over the course of several decades. This supports the assertion of this thesis that communion with God as triune through public worship stood at the heart of Owen’s theology. Students of his theology cannot afford to neglect this area of his thought. The primary point that this current chapter adds to the preceding ones is that communion with the Triune God in public worship is primarily a matter of the affections. It is a spiritual transaction between the soul of man on earth and God in heaven. These assertions flow from Owen’s conception of the new covenant, which is the subject of the next chapter.

105 Owen, Works, 7:429; Theologoumena, 487. 106 For this historical context, see Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

5.

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

5.1

Introduction

The concept of the covenant stood at the heart of John Owen’s teaching on communion with all three persons in the Godhead.1 In a 1673 sermon on “Christ’s Pastoral Care,” he noted that the covenant summarizes every aspect of a saint’s communion with God.2 The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the connection that he made between his views of communion with God in public worship and his teaching on the nature of the new covenant. He taught that the glory of worship under the new covenant far surpassed worship under the old covenant due to the higher degree of communion with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the new covenant. In order to understand how he related his views of public worship to his covenant theology, it is necessary to look at the confessional structure of covenant theology during his time, his Trinitarian construction of the covenant of redemption, his view of the Mosaic covenant as the “old covenant,” and the heightened communion with God that marks the new covenant. Owen’s covenant theology maps out a cycle that “begins” with the persons of the Godhead in eternity, progresses according to God’s plan in history, and finally directs believers to communion with the eternal Triune God. In this world, Owen believed, public worship is the high point of communion and one of the primary goals of the new covenant.

1 Owen, Communion with God, 4–5; Works, 2:8. See the first section of chapter 2 above for the covenantal overtones surrounding Owen’s definitions of communion with God and of true theology. 2 Owen, “Christ’s Pastoral Care,” Works, 9:281.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 141

5.2

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century

As Mark Jones observed, covenant theology is so fundamental to the Reformed faith that the two terms are virtually synonyms.3 Patrick Gillespie (1617–1675) called the covenant “the very sum and substance, and marrow of the knowledge of the Scriptures.”4 While all traditions during this period held to some form of covenant theology, the Reformed tradition increasingly stressed the importance of the federal representation of mankind under either Adam or Christ.5 The theme of the covenant has already appeared numerous times in the preceding chapters. Rather than providing a full treatment of the development of covenant theology in Reformed orthodoxy, this section constructs Owen’s immediate theological context primarily in light of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms and the Savoy Declaration of Faith. Because the purpose of this chapter is to treat the manner in which Owen contrasted communion with God under the old and new covenants, this sketch will necessarily be brief. This material primarily treats developments in English covenant theology from the 1640s through the end of Owen’s life in the 1680s. This period encompasses important developments in Reformed covenant theology. It coincides roughly with Owen’s writing career as well. In order to limit the scope of the overwhelming amount of primary source literature on the covenant during this time period, this section relies primarily on English authors who contributed significantly to this subject during this time period, on books that Owen expressed explicit interest in, and on continental authors who may have influenced his thinking.6

3 Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 76. 4 Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament Opened, or, The Secret of the Lord’s Covenant Unsealed, in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1661), 36. In light of this fact as well as the manner in which Owen placed the covenant of grace at the heart of his concept of communion with God as Triune, it is peculiar that Richard Vines (1600–1655/6), who was a member of the Westminster Assembly, placed nearness to God through the covenant as the lowest of eight levels of drawing near to God. He even placed nearness to God in covenant immediately beneath being near to him as a subject and as a servant. This is even more interesting in light of the fact that he explicitly referred in this place to communing with God in three persons. Richard Vines, The Saint’s Nearness to God: Being a Discourse upon Part of the CXLVIII Psalm (London, 1662), 56–57, 143. 5 See Aaron Denlinger, Omnes in Adam ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 274. Chapter 5 of this work outlines the development of seventeenth century federal theology generally. 6 These limitations apply to this entire chapter and not simply to the general overview of Reformed covenant theology presented here.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

142

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

5.2.1 The Covenant in Reformed Orthodoxy The development of Reformed covenant theology is complex.7 The relevant terms for “covenant” appear frequently in the pages of Scripture in both testaments. However, translators did not render the Hebrew and Greek terms for “covenant” uniformly.8 For instance, it is noteworthy that while earlier translations favored either “covenant” or “testament,” the Authorized Version (KJV) split the use of the terms almost evenly in that translation. The section on the Mosaic covenant below shows that such translation choices were not arbitrary. They reflected theological developments regarding the relationship between covenants and testaments under the new covenant.9 The frequency of covenantal terminology in Scripture necessitated that the Reformed should develop a covenant theology. However, the concept of the covenant quickly became important in describing the gospel of Jesus Christ and the way in which God interacts with human beings.10 For example, John Preston summarized the blessings of the covenant terms of justification, sanctification, and all other blessings of the gospel.11 First and second generation Reformed authors expounded covenant theology to some extent. Some research has appeared on Calvin’s covenant theology.12 Heinrich Bullinger developed the idea extensively at an early date in the Refor-

7 For an analysis of this development, see Willem van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden: Brill, 2001). 8 Cohen has provided charts from the OED that illustrate the varied ways in which English translations alternated between “covenant” and “testament” to translate the relevant terms in the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. Cohen, God’s Caress, 73–74. 9 Brian Lee traces this development in great detail, but his primary focus was upon Latin rather than English theology. The problem was compounded in Latin theology since three terms were used to express covenantal ideas: foedus, testamentum, and pactum. See Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology : Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–10 (Gottingen: Vanenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), chapter 1. Lee’s work is an expansion of Richard Muller’s earlier comments regarding the complexity of exegetical and philological issues involved in the development of covenant theology. See Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth Century Reformed Orthodoxy : A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus a Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal, 1994, 29:80–81. Incidentally, Owen criticized those who tried to form a covenant theology based upon Latin terms rather than upon the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture. Vnidiciae Evengelicae, 571; Works, 12:499. 10 For example, this is the primary argument of Mark Beach’s work on the covenant theology of Francis Turretin. See J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Gottingen: Vanenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). 11 John Preston, The New Covenant, or, The Saint’s Portion; Unfolding the All-Sufficiency of God, Man’s Righteousness, and the Covenant of Grace (London, 1639), 450. 12 See for example Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 143

mation and he wrote an entire treatise on it.13 Later in the same century, the second generation Scottish Reformer Robert Rollock (1555–1599) elaborated Reformed covenant theology more explicitly in terms of a bicovenantal structure involving a covenant of works with Adam and a covenant of grace in Christ.14 This bicovenantal structure became standard fare for Reformed covenant theology. As will become clear, later authors added to this a third, intra-trinitarian covenant. Aaron Denlinger, who translated Rollock’s catechism into English, wrote, “I suggest that Rollock’s positive and extensive use of the covenant of works as a theological foil to the covenant of grace constitutes his primary contribution to the intellectual development of Reformed covenant theology.”15 The general concept of a covenant was a compact or agreement between two parties.16 Joseph Caryl, whose congregation merged with Owen’s in London in 1673 following Caryl’s death, argued that the original terms for covenant signified “to choose” or “to eat.”17 He primarily had in view covenants between human parties. However, his fully formulated definition of a covenant brought out the voluntary nature of the arrangement: “A covenant is a solemn compact or agreement between two chosen parties or more, whereby with mutual, free, and full consent they bind themselves upon select conditions, tending to the glory of God and their common good.”18 He added that a covenant was more than 13 Heinrich Bullinger, De Testamento seu Fodere Dei Unico et Aeterno Henrychi Bullingeri Brevis Expostio (Tiguri, 1534). For an analysis and translation of Bullinger’s work, see J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980). As Baker’s title indicates, his work argues that Bullinger’s covenant theology represents an alternative and parallel Reformed tradition to that established by Calvin. Others have challenged this position and argued for a greater continuity (for instance, Lillback’s work listed above). For a middle position which argues for greater continuity between the early and later Reformed traditions than Baker argues for and less uniformity than Lillback argues for, see Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 46, 60, 288. 14 Robert Rollock, Quaestiones et Responsiones Aliquot de Foedere Dei: Deque Sacramento Quod Foederis Dei Sigillum Est (Edinburgh, 1596). Rollock’s second question was, “Quaestio: Quotuplex est Foedus Dei com homine persussum? Responsum: Duplex est: foedus naturae sive operum, et foedus gratiae. Gal. 4.24.” 15 Aaron C. Denlinger, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants: Translated and Introduced,” Mid America Journal of Theology 20 (2009), 106. Mark Jones suggests that Dudley Fenner (1558–1587) may have coined the terminology of the covenant of works, though the concept did not originate with him. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 185. 16 For the Latin terms for covenant (foedus and pactum), see Muller, Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms, 119–120, 217. See Owen, Vinidiciae Evangelicae, Works, 12:497; John Ball (1585–1640), A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1645), 1; Samuel Petto (1624–1711), The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained: With an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal Concernments of it (London, 1674), 5. Owen wrote a preface to Petto’s work. 17 Joseph Caryl, The Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, Property, and Benefits, of a Sacred Covenant, Together with the Duties of those Who Enter into Such a Covenant (London, 1643), 6. 18 Caryl, Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, 7.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

144

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

a promise and less than an oath. Both types of covenants, those made between God and believers and those made between two or more believers, were rooted in the blood of Christ.19 He drew this connection even more clearly in his conclusion, where he wrote, “Trust to God in Covenant, not to your Covenant. Make not your Covenant your Christ; no, not for this Temporal Salvation.”20 All of this demonstrates the evangelical character of covenants in Puritan theology.21 A related term was that of “testament,” which referred to a will that went into effect upon the death of the testator.22 The English terms “covenant” and “testament” were related, but they were not synonymous. In the seventeenth century, the terms were distinguished more carefully than they were in the previous century. A covenant was an agreement, whether between men and God or between human beings, with stipulations, promises, and threats for breaches of faith.23 A testament was a last will in which a person left his possessions to posterity upon his death. Owen illustrated this distinction clearly when he regarded the term “covenant” as highlighting promises and requirements and the term “testament” as drawing attention to a gift or an inheritance.24 Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) is the most extreme example of this distinction in that he treated the covenant of God and the testament of God as two distinct categories instead of two aspects of a unified covenant of grace.25 The question that arose in Reformed covenant theology was how these two terms were related.26 The general consensus came to be that the covenant of grace bore the character of both a covenant and a testament.27 In general terms, the idea of a covenant stressed the dynamic relationship between God and man and in a way that stressed fellowship or communion.28 The term “testament” drew attention to the sovereign and gracious character of the blessings bestowed. The titles of Patrick Gillespie’s two surviving treatises on this subject reflect this distinction. The Ark of the Covenant was a treatise on the 19 Caryl, Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, 19. 20 Caryl, Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, 40. 21 Caryl preached this sermon on the occasion of ratifying the Solemn League and Covenant. Caryl, Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, 17. 22 Muller notes that testamentum could refer either to “a covenant or a legal bequest.” Muller, Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms, 297. See Owen, Works, 23:335–337. 23 Rollock, Quaestinones et Reponsiones, first question (unpaginated); Caryl, Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, 19. 24 Owen, Works, 23:337. 25 The very title of his work hints at this fact. Johannes Cocceius, Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei Explicata (n.p., 1654). By contrast, the title of Bullinger’s work cited above indicated his intention to treat covenant and testament as virtual synonyms. 26 For more detail on this development, see Lee, Johannes Cocceius, chapter 1. 27 Owen, Works, 23:337; Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament, 302. 28 This is reflected most clearly in Owen’s definitions of communion with God treated above. See also, Willem J. van Asselt, Johannes Cocceius, 1–2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 145

eternal covenant between the Father and the Son.29 The Ark of the Testament treated the covenant of grace made with sinners through Christ. “Covenant” predominates in the former treatise because the parties of the eternal covenant are two divine persons. The second treatise used the term “testament” to highlight the free grace of God to sinners in the gospel. Trueman has noted the particular importance of Gillespie in providing clear and extensive definitions of covenant terminology.30 In his preface to The Ark of the Covenant, Owen referred to “My long Christian acquaintance, and friendship with the author.”31 The general Reformed consensus that developed in the seventeenth century was that God the Father made an eternal covenant with his Son in order to redeem his elect. The Westminster Confession of Faith did not specify this eternal covenant explicitly. A decade later, the Savoy Declaration added a reference to a covenant between the Father and the Son as the foundation for God’s plan of redemption (“according to a covenant made between them both”).32 This highlighted the gradual growth of the concept of an intra-trinitarian covenant. This concept became widespread in the latter half of the seventeenth century. In English theology, this intra-Trinitarian covenant gained prominence through David Dickson beginning in 1638, though as Carl Trueman has noted, the concept was present in Reformed theology even before it received precise exposition.33 After creating mankind, God made a covenant of works with Adam, in which he would confirm Adam in eternal life upon condition of perfect and

29 Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1677). 30 Trueman, John Owen, 71. 31 Gillespie, Ark of the Covenant, (unpaginated preface). Chapter 2 of Gillespie’s Ark of the Testament, 43–97, addresses this terminology almost exclusively and it includes a survey of the then current Reformed opinion on the subject. He divided covenants into various categories and then turned to address divine covenants in particular beginning in chapter 3. For a similar treatment, see Francis Roberts, Mysterium et Medulla Bibliorum: The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible, viz. God’s Covenants with Man, in the First Adam Before the Fall, and in the Last Adam Jesus Christ After the Fall; from the Beginning to the End of the World (London, 1657), 10–12. 32 The Westminster Confession of Faith did not specify this eternal covenant explicitly. A decade later, the Savoy Declaration added a reference to a covenant between the Father and the Son as the foundation for God’s plan of redemption (“according to a covenant made between them both”). Savoy Declaration 8.1. This highlighted the gradual growth of the concept of an intra-trinitarian covenant, a concept that became widespread in the latter half of the seventeenth century. 33 Trueman, John Owen, 84, 86. Lyle Bierma has observed a precursor to the idea of the covenant of redemption in the writings of Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587), who referred to the Son as sponsio on behalf of the elect in the eternal decree of God. See Lyle Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005), 107–112. Bierma concluded, “The covenantal idea is present; only the fully developed covenantal terminology is lacking” (112).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

146

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

personal obedience to God.34 When Adam failed the terms of this covenant, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism stated succinctly, “all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, fell in him and sinned with him in his first transgression.”35 As early as Genesis 3:15, the Lord then entered into a covenant of grace in which he promised to redeem his elect out of the estate of sin and misery by the hand of a Redeemer.36 John White (1575–1648), who was a member of the Westminster Assembly, provided an extensive analysis of this passage, including thirty-four doctrinal observations.37 He argued that the seed of the woman must refer to Christ as representing his people, though the primary reference is to Christ.38 He explained this connection in terms of the saint’s union with Christ.39 Likewise, Peter van Mastricht based his chapter on the covenant of grace (de foedere gratiae) on an exposition of Genesis 3:15.40 The covenant of grace fulfilled the designs of the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son by bringing the elect to salvation through faith in Christ. The covenant of redemption secured the gracious character of the covenant of grace by rooting man’s salvation in the eternal plan of God and thus excluding all human merit.41 Even though this covenant did not come to full fruition until Christ lived, died, rose, and ascended for the redemption of his people, the saints under the Old Testament were redeemed by the grace of this covenant by way of 34 See Savoy Declaration 7.2. Reformed authors disagreed, however, as to whether Adam’s reward would have been earthly or heavenly life. See Mark A. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” Drawn into Controversie, 162–182. 35 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 16. 36 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 20. For the importance of Genesis 3:15 in Reformed covenant theology, see Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 192–193. For Reformed orthodox expositions of this passage in connection to covenant theology, see John Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 16, 36–47; Petto, The Difference, 25–26. Owen alluded to this passage in Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. 2, cap. 1, 127, among other places in that work. Some Catholic theologians, such as Amrogius Catharinus, identified the terms of the covenant of grace in Genesis 3:19 instead of 3:15. The difference was that 3:15 grounded the covenant in the work of Christ, while 3:19 grounded it in the work of believers. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 130. 37 John White, A Commentary upon the First Three Chapters of the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (London, 1656), 162–200. Interestingly, while he began with the doctrine of justification, the bulk of his exposition stressed the necessity of sanctification and personal holiness as a result of union with Christ. He developed the covenantal principle at work in this passage on pages 188–189, though the term does not appear elsewhere in his treatment of this text. 38 John White, A Commentary, 172, 192. 39 John White, A Commentary, 174, 193–195. 40 Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practicae Theologiae, lib. IV, cap. 1, 489–521. 41 See below for the expansion of this idea. In addition, Trueman noted that Owen used the distinction and the relationship between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace in order to reject the antinomian idea of eternal justification. Trueman, John Owen, 116.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 147

promise.42 The Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace was often called the “old covenant” and its New Testament dispensation was called the “new covenant.”43 The new covenant in particular bore the character of a last will and testament as well as of a covenant in that it was the last will and testament of Christ that his death ratified and that procured an eternal inheritance for the elect.44 Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration include a distinct paragraph that asserts the testamentary nature of the new covenant, which uses the exact language of the KJV of this passage to make its assertion (7.4 in both documents). When the Westminster divines stated that the covenant of grace was “frequently” set forth by way of testament, this did not merely reflect stylistic variation in the accepted English translation. The translation was based upon the conviction that the new covenant in Christ was a testamentary covenant. While the conditions of the covenant of works were perfect and perpetual obedience, Christ met the conditions of the new covenant on behalf of his people and sent the Holy Spirit to work faith and repentance in them.45 When the Spirit works faith in believers, then they are united to Christ in their effectual calling.46 The concepts of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace deserve further elaboration, since they provided the primary basis for understanding the work of God in salvation. It will become evident below thatOwen’s exegesis of the eighth chapter of the book of Hebrews led him to treat the Mosaic covenant as standing in stark contrast to the new covenant without subverting the overarching unity of the covenant of grace.47 The covenant of works was the first covenant that God gave to man following his creation.48 Terms describing the covenant of works varied. For instance, the Westminster Shorter Catechism refers to this covenant as a “covenant of life,” whereas the confession of faith and Larger Catechism speak of a “covenant of works.”49 Samuel Rutherford dem42 Cite Savoy Declaration 7.5; Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 569; Works, 12:497 (last 3 lines). 43 While there was diversity among Reformed theologians on this point, Mark Jones has observed that this was the majority position among the Reformed orthodox. Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie, 189. See below for Owen’s divergent view. 44 This was based largely upon the exposition of Hebrews 9:16ff. 45 In relation to Owen, Trueman observes that in Owen’s view, the Holy Spirit is always the direct agent in the works of God ad extra. Trueman, John Owen, 94; See Owen, Pneumatologia, 125; Works, 3:157, where he noted that the Holy Spirit is the only person of the Godhead that believers deal with immediately. 46 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 29. 47 His primary exposition of this point is found in Works, 23:71–98. This section will form the primary basis of the treatment of the Mosaic covenant below. 48 Savoy Declaration 7.1. 49 Petto added that others referred to this covenant as a “covenant of amity” or friendship, while others called it a “covenant of nature.” Petto, Difference Between the Old and New Covenants, 14. So with William Bridge (1600–1670), who was one of the Independent members of the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

148

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

onstrated the flexibility of these terms when he wrote a book on the covenant of grace entitled, The Covenant of Life Opened.50 This probably reflects the idea that, while the terms of the covenants of works and of grace differ widely, yet the promise in both covenants is essentially the same. Herman Witsius asserted clearly that Christ, under the covenant of grace, merited the reward that God promised to Adam in the covenant of works.51 He did not deny that the position of the saints in Christ far excelled that of Adam prior to the Fall and even that the communion of the saints with God through Christ is greater than anything that Adam would have received upon his confirmation if he had passed his trial in the garden. Even if – as noted above – Reformed authors differed over the nature of Adam’s reward, they agreed that God promised life to him and to his posterity in the covenant of works. Since the covenant of grace offered a promise of life to man, then both covenants could appropriately be covenants of life with respect to the promised reward. There is a wide difference, however, between the terms and conditions of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.52 The difference was not one of Adam’s independent obedience versus the absolute dependence of sinners upon the grace of Christ through faith. As Bridge argued, God made Adam to be a dependent creature, but he did not give to him a promise of perseverance. 53 According to Owen, Adam, being a dependent creature, could not have trusted in himself even in the Garden of Eden. Doing so would have itself been an act of rebellion against God. Sin is not the only cause of dependence on God; creatureliness requires it too.54 The Savoy Declaration reflects this idea when it describes the covenant of works as a “voluntary condescension” on God’s part, since Adam did not deserve to enjoy God as his blessedness and reward.55 Owen went so far as to argue that Adam’s true fault in the Garden of Eden was that he stopped trusting in the Holy Spirit to sustain him and thus fell into sin.56 The primary difference between the terms of the covenant of works and those of the

50 51

52 53 54 55 56

Westminster Assembly. Christ and the Covenant; the Work and Way of Meditation, God’s Return to the Soul or Nation, Together with his Preventing Mercy (London, 1667), 62, 67. Van Asselt lists six common designations for the covenant of works. Van Asslet, Johannes Cocceius, 254–257. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh, 1654). Witsius, Oeconomia Foederum, lib. 1, cap. 9, paragraph XXIII (p. 126): “Foedus gratia non est abolitia foedus operum, sed confirmation illius, in quantum Mediator omnes conditiones foederis implevit, adeo ut juxta foedus operum, cui a Mediatore satisfactum est, fideles omnes justificentur et serventur.” Petto, The Difference, 8–16. Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 62, 67. Owen, Pneumatologia, 136–137; Works, 3:168. Savoy Declaration 7.1. Owen, Pneumatologia, 136–137; Works, 3:168.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 149

covenant of grace lies in the means by which man obtains the covenant promises. Owen observed that the primary difference in the promise of the covenant of grace is that it includes the promise of the forgiveness of sins. The covenant of works excluded forgiveness.57 In the covenant of works, the promise of God was gracious in that it was not commensurate to the obedience of the creature, but the terms of obtaining the promise were personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.58 In the covenant of grace, the grace of the promised life is accentuated more fully than in was in the covenant of works because sinful man is redeemed by the obedience of Christ, both in his estates of humiliation and exaltation,59 and through his once offering up of himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.60 Christ came according to the terms of the covenant of redemption to fulfill the terms of the broken covenant of works and to remove its penalty. The covenant of works was abrogated as a means of obtaining eternal life as soon as Adam fell in the garden, but its obligations and penalties remained in force.61 The broken covenant of works necessitated the incarnation, obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ. In this regard, the covenant of grace and the covenant of works stood or fell together in seventeenth century Reformed orthodoxy.62 Owen and most of his contemporaries believed that God republished the covenant of works in some sense under the Mosaic economy, though, Mark Jones observes that this 57 Owen, Works, 23:68. So with Petto, The Difference, 227–240, and with Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 67–68. 58 Owen, Works, 23:69: “The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us…They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did also infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience.” See also Petto, The Difference, 221: “Thus a reward may be of merit and of debt, and yet of grace in some sense (though not of special Gospel grace), for all good promised or given by the Lord to his creatures is of grace, seeing God oweth nothing to any.” He called this “merit ex pacto.” Bridge noted as well that God made the covenant of works with Adam “out of free love and grace.” Christ and the Covenant, 61. 59 Westminster Shorter Catechism, questions 27–28. 60 Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 25. Owen noted, “The first covenant with Adam was ordered in grace, but not in all grace; it was ordered in righteousness, holiness, and innocency, but not ordered in the grace of perseverance: and failing in that grace, the whole covenant failed. But [the covenant of grace] is ‘ordered in all things,’ with reference to believers.” Owen, “The Everlasting Covenant,” Works, 9:419. Petto added that the presence of some grace in the covenant of works did not transform it into a covenant of grace just as some works in the covenant of grace does not transform it into a covenant of works. The means of justification in these two covenants were mutually exclusive. Petto, The Difference, 15. 61 Owen, Works, 23:61–62. Witsius included a lengthy exposition of this point that is similar to that of Owen. Witsius, Oeconomia Foederis, lib. 1, cap. 9. 62 a Brakel asserted strongly, “Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus.” The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:335.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

150

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

was in a declarative rather than a covenantal sense.63 The reason was that Christ came to fulfill this republished covenant of works on behalf of his people.64 This brief sketch leaves many unanswered questions that are beyond the scope of this chapter. For instance, how does the covenant relate to the doctrine of the church?65 Another important question is how the covenant relates to the kingdom of Christ and of God.66 Such questions relate to the role of the children of believers in the covenant and the question of infant baptism.67 In this regard, covenant theology was not only central to Reformed theology, but it frequently stood at the heart of numerous theological debates among Baptists, Paedobaptists, Quakers, high churchmen in the established church of England, and Roman Catholics. The question of whether or not faith and repentance are conditions of the new covenant in Christ was debated long afterwards.68 In addition, there was significant diversity among the Reformed regarding the role of the Mosaic economy in the general scheme presented above.69 Owen’s treatment of the covenant with Moses will receive more attention below. What is relevant at this stage is that he fell in line with the general scheme presented above and agreed with the Reformed confessional consensus on covenant theology.70 63 Jones cites Owen in support of this assertion. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 200. See more below. 64 Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 311–316. 65 See the treatment by Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament, 23–28. 66 See Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 221–246, who treats this question at some length. On page 225, he alluded to the relationship between the covenant of redemption and the kingdom of God by asserting that the kingdom of Christ in history came by virtue of “the deputation of the blessed Trinity.” Note Scudder’s Trinitarian overtones in relation to the decree of God in reference to the redemption of the elect. While the language of the covenant of redemption is not explicit, Scudder wrote this treatise in 1633, five years prior to Dickson’s publication on the covenant of redemption in English. 67 The literature on this subject and especially the number of pamphlets on infant baptism in the seventeenth century is so vast that it defies citation here. 68 Most believed either that faith and repentance were not conditions of the covenant in order to stress the gracious character of the covenant (so Petto, The Difference, 110–111, 211–226), or they believed that faith and repentance were conditions of the covenant but that these conditions were supplied to believers by Christ through the Spirit. See Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 315–318. Richard Baxter fell outside both of these options by teaching a form of justification by faithfulness to the terms of the covenant. In doing so, most of his contemporaries regarded him as threatening the gracious character of the new covenant. See Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, 75–83. On the other side, some of those who denied conditionality in the covenant ran the risk of being branded as Antinomians. See Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638 (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004). 69 See Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 188. 70 Some of the continental standards, such as the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism do not include a clearly delineated covenant theology. However, three comments are in order : 1. Some of these Reformed confessions were written at an early stage in the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 151

5.2.2 Owen’s General Conception of the Covenant Owen’s definition of the term “covenant” as well as his use of the terms “covenant” and “testament” show, in part, how he fit into the general Reformed orthodox structure presented above. This, in turn, sets the stage for the more detailed analysis of his thought below. In chapter 27 of Vindiciae Evangelicae, Owen used the terms “compact,” “covenant,” “convention,” or “agreement” as virtual synonyms.71 This mirrored the commonly received definition of the term during his time, which we saw above. In his view, five things were necessary in order to “establish and accomplish such a compact or agreement.”72 First, there must be at least two persons, “a promiser and an undertaker.” Both of them must agree voluntarily to a common end. Owen added that removing the voluntary aspect of this arrangement would change it into an imposition on one or more of the parties, rather than a covenant. This assertion is interesting in that it implies that the voluntary consent of both parties is equally necessary. On the surface, this creates a tension in calling the covenant of grace between God and man a covenant. The resolution to this tension will be treated below.73 Second, the person making the promise must impose some condition on the other party. The fulfillment of the promise hinges on this condition.74 This does not contradict his first point, since the imposition occurs only after both parties have entered into the covenantal agreement voluntarily. Third, this same person (“the promiser”) must give promises that are necessary to support the person submitting to his terms (“the undertaker”) in order to support and to encourage him in fulfilling

71 72 73 74

development of Reformed covenant theology. What I have presented in this section is the mature seventeenth century structure of the covenant. 2. Zacharius Ursinus, who was one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, did write extensively on the doctrine of the covenant in his commentary on the catechism. This demonstrates that even though covenant theology was in the process of development at this time, the theme was still prevalent among Reformed authors. See Lyle D. Bierma, “Law and Grace in Ursinus’ Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 96–110. As noted above, Bierma has also examined the covenant theology of Caspar Olevianus, who was the other author of this catechism. See Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. 3. The Westminster Confession of Faith was one of the first English Reformed confessions to set forth a codified form of covenant theology. Even though diversity remained in the Reformed tradition after this time, the general covenant structure presented in this confession became the standard for later documents such as the Savoy Declaration. Chapter 7 of both documents is dedicated exclusively to the subject of the covenant. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 569; Works, 12:497. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 570; Works, 12:498. See Ferguson’s observations on the tension that arose in Owen’s teaching at this point. John Owen on the Christian Life, 31. He cites Works, 13:111, in which Owen says that the covenant of grace is not a covenant “in a strict and proper sense.” Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 570–571; Works, 12:499.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

152

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

the terms.75 Fourth, the undertaker must fully address himself to fulfilling the conditions and he must expect the promiser to fulfill his promises.76 Fifth, and lastly, the undertaker pleads the fact that he has fulfilled the conditions and the promiser approves his servitude and rewards him in order to fulfill the original purposes of their arrangement.77 In his view, every covenant or compact between two or more parties must bear these five characteristics. In Theologoumena Pantodapa, Owen presented another aspect of the picture when he treated the promise of a covenant as its primary aspect.78 This stands in apparent tension with the mutuality of his definition and description of a covenant in Vindiciae Evangelicae as outlined above. In his treatment of the Noahic Covenant, where the term first appears in Scripture, Owen preferred not to define a covenant as a mutual agreement or contract.79 In the preceding paragraph on the same page, he interacted with the various definitions of a covenant proffered by Grotius, Cocceius, Mercer, and John Ball. Ball in particular defined the term “covenant” in a manner that allowed either for a contractual view or for “an absolute promise of God, without any stipulation at all.”80 Owen argued that divine covenants cannot depend on human will or reciprocation and that the covenant of grace does not include any conditions that God himself does not supply by his grace.81 The reasons for Owen’s hesitancy are obvious in the context of the Noahic Covenant, since that covenant included the entire creation, most of which could not reciprocate in agreement with the terms of the covenant. Ball cited the Noahic covenant as his primary example of this point as well.82 In the overarching context of Theologoumena Pantodapa, one of his primary concerns was to demonstrate that true theology always began with God’s gracious initiative.83 Stressing the sovereign and absolute character of the covenant enabled him to highlight this assertion. Trueman has noted that the concept of the covenant enabled Owen and many of his contemporaries to articulate “the 75 76 77 78

79 80 81

82 83

Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 571; Works, 12:499. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 571; Works, 12:499. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 571;Works, 12:499. Later in his work on the book of Hebrews, he wrote: “The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the promise.” Owen, Works, 23:64. In this same work, he later appeared to revert to a more contractual definition: “a covenant is the solemn expression of the terms of peace between various parties, with the confirmation of them.” Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 155; Biblical Theology, 206. Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 3. Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 155–156; Biblical Theology, 206. His original assertion is: “Ita est, non suspenditur Dei foedus a voluntate nostra, ullisive conditionibus a nobis praestandis; ab Authoritate, gratiae, et fidelitate ipsius Dei virtutem omnem habet et effectum. Absoluta enim est promissio gratiae, neque ulla est foederis condition quae in ipsa promissio continentur.” Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 3. See chapter 2 above for a fuller analysis of the purpose of this work.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The General Structure of Confessional Covenant Theology in the Seventeenth Century 153

basically relational nature of theology.”84 Most of the time, a covenant relationship does involve mutual agreement. This was the case in the covenant of works with Adam; even in the covenant of grace, believers must accept Christ by faith, even if that faith is supplied by the covenant itself. However, through this example, Owen preferred to root the essence of all covenants between God and mankind in the element of promise in order to preserve the fact that the Triune God reserves the right to impose covenantal relationships upon his creatures. However, the idea of imposing a covenant stands in tension with Owen’s assertion noted above that a covenant is a voluntary compact or agreement, and that by definition, it cannot be imposed.85 There are two potential ways in which Owen and other Reformed orthodox writers solved this problem. The first is found in the relationship between covenants and testaments. In line with the mainstream of Reformed orthodox writers, Owen understood Hebrews 9:16 as referring to the benefits of the new covenant as coming to believers through the death of Christ, who was the Testator.86 The benefits of the new covenant came to believers through the last will and testament of Christ. The language of receiving an inheritance mandates this assertion. On the other hand, the fact that the Testator must shed his blood pointed to the idea of sacrifice, which belonged to a covenant instead of a testament.87 This meant that the covenant of grace was a testamentary covenant.88 Patrick Gillespie added that the covenant of grace is a testament in the sense that in it, God provides the conditions required on behalf of believers through regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit. He summarized: “A covenant also may be a testament when that which is the stipulation of the covenant is made sure by an absolute disposition of it in a testament, and that which is required in the covenant is bequeathed and given in the testament.”89 As seen above, John Ball provided two definitions of the term “covenant” in order to fit what were treated ordinarily as covenantal and testamentary ideas. However, Ball observed the distinction and the relationship between covenant and testa84 Trueman, John Owen, 67. See also Willem van Asselt, Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology. 85 He noted this tension and provided arguments as to why the covenant of grace still bore the character of a covenant even though the promise of grace was absolute (absoluta enim est promissio gratiae). Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 156; Biblical Theology, 206–207. Reflecting the centrality of the mutual agreement of the parties to the essence of a covenant, Patrick Gillespie argued that Adam in the Garden consented to the terms of the covenant of works. Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament, 193. However, the fact that Adam entered this covenant voluntarily does not mean that he was free to reject its terms. Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 57. 86 Owen, Works, 23:335–339. 87 Owen, Works, 23:336. 88 Owen, Works, 23:339. 89 Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament, 302.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

154

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

ment later in his work: “It is called a covenant and a testament. A covenant in respect to the manner of agreement; a testament in respect of the manner of confirming. A covenant in respect of God; a testament in respect of Christ, who being appointed of the Father Lord and Prince, with full possession of all things necessary for salvation, died as testator, and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise before made, of obtaining the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins.”90 Moreover, because the argument in the text demands a uniform concept of either covenant or testament throughout, Hebrews 9:17 led Owen and others to import a testamentary idea into the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace. This means that the covenant of grace is both a mutual agreement between two parties (God and man through Christ as Mediator) and that it is a testament that is sovereignly imposed at the same time.91 Samuel Petto added that by fulfilling the conditions of the covenant of grace on behalf of the elect, he turned it into a testament, “the blessings of it being now legacies absolutely promised to us.”92 In this way, fallen man can be a party in the covenant without being God’s equal. This accounts for how Owen could deny that a covenant is, properly speaking, imposed on either party, and how he could treat the covenant of grace as exemplified by the Noahic covenant as consisting primarily of divine imposition. The other avenue of harmonizing this tension was that the Triune God made the covenant of grace with believers indirectly. Westminster Larger Catechism question 31 states, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ, and in him with all the elect as his seed.” Christ is then one party of the intra-trinitarian covenant of redemption and he is a representative party in the covenant of grace. Christ is the second Adam who represented his people according to the terms of the covenant of redemption and in the covenant of grace.93 In the eternal covenant, Christ made an agreement with the Father to accomplish the salvation of the elect. In the temporal covenant, the people of God are united to Christ through faith as the head of the covenant, and he represents them before the Father.94 This is how the covenant of grace can be a testamentary covenant 90 Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 196. 91 Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 70. Bridge cites Junius as teaching that the term “testament” stressed the idea that the covenant of grace is unconditional with reference to believers. 92 Petto, The Difference, 69, 180, 196–197, 204. On page 204, he argues that the death of Christ altered the meaning of diatheke in order to include a testamentary idea. 93 Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 580; Works, 12:507. 94 In Theologoumena Pantodapa, he argued that the eternal covenant was made with Christ only, but that this covenant brought temporal benefits to all mankind. Presumably this was because the Triune God preserved heaven and earth for the sake of the salvation of the elect. However, the spiritual grace of the covenant pertains to the elect alone (at spiritualis gratia foederis in Christo sanciti, ad electos tantum pertinet). Theologoumena Pantodapa, 158. Westcott’s loose paraphrase distorts the idea of the original text in this case: “Yet the inner

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

155

and how it can be an agreement between two parties, as well as a sovereign imposition of God. This means that Owen’s position is not ultimately contradictory. Covenants involve mutual agreement, but in the covenant of grace, God creates a willing people in Christ who submit to the covenant voluntarily, even though they do not and cannot do so by their own initiative. This point will be clarified in the treatment of the work of the Holy Spirit in relation to the covenant of redemption below. With regard to the overarching structure of Owen’s covenant theology, he agreed with the confessionally codified covenant theology presented above with a slight twist. This writer will state his scheme here without proof and then seek to demonstrate it fully below. Owen’s covenantal order was: An eternal intraTrinitarian covenant in which the Son agreed to come in time to accomplish redemption on behalf of the elect. Then in human history, God made a covenant of works between himself and Adam as the federal head of mankind. The covenant of grace made in the Christ who was to come followed this. This covenant of grace was the same in substance in the Old and the New Testaments in the sense that all who have ever been or ever will be saved were redeemed through Christ’s work alone. However, the Mosaic covenant was not, strictly speaking, the covenant of grace. Though many Reformed authors believed that the Mosaic economy included a republished covenant of works in some sense, they believed that the covenant of grace was the predominating theme in the Sinai covenant. Owen rejected the majority view. He treated the Mosaic economy as neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace. It is this covenant that stood in contrast to the new covenant and which forms the basis of his teaching regarding communion with the Triune God in public worship under the new covenant. In summary, the early Reformed believed in two covenants: one of works and one of grace. The seventeenth century Reformed believed in three covenants: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace (with two different administrations). Owen believed in four covenants: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the Sinai covenant, and the covenant of grace.

5.3

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

The eternal covenant between the Father and the Son promoted a Trinitarian emphasis in Owen’s entire covenant theology. Due to the central place of the covenant within his overarching theological framework, this secures a Triniessence of the covenant is spiritual, and pertains only to Christ, and has reference through him to the elect.” Biblical Theology, 210.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

156

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

tarian structure for every part of his theology.95 Though his teaching on communion with God in public worship flowed primarily out of his view of the nature of the new covenant, his teaching on the intra-trinitarian covenant of redemption provided the backdrop for the whole of his teaching. For this reason, it is vital to examine his construction of the covenant of redemption and the way in which he related this covenant to all three persons of the Godhead. This latter point is especially important in light of the sometimes nebulous role of the Holy Spirit in the covenant of redemption in Reformed orthodoxy.

5.3.1 The Covenant of Redemption in General The covenant of redemption was a later development in Reformed orthodox theology.96 As noted above, Carl Trueman points to the importance of the Scottish theologian David Dickson in popularizing the concept in England in the 1640s.97 In Owen’s unpaginated preface to Patrick Gillespie’s work on the covenant of redemption, he wrote, “That for order, method, perspicuity in treating, and solidity of argument, the ensuing discourse exceedeth whatsoever single treatise I have seen written with the same design.”98 For this reason, the treatment below gives precedence to Gillespie in shedding light on Owen’s views. The terminology of the covenant of redemption began to gain prominence around the same time as the publication of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. This accounts for the absence of explicit reference to a covenant between the Father and the Son in those documents and to the statement added to the Savoy Declaration, as noted above. 95 For the Trinitarian structure of Owen’s theology in general, see Trueman, The Claims of Truth. 96 For the historical development of the covenant of redemption, see Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 18 (2007), 11–65. Muller noted that it was remarkable that the concept of an intratrinitarian covenant was received without opposition in the later seventeenth century in spite of the fact that it was relatively new. This points to the fact that the concept had much earlier roots in the Reformed tradition (14). 97 Trueman, John Owen, 71. For Dickson’s exposition of the covenant of redemption, see his comments on Psalm 2:7–9. David Dickson, A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms, second edition (London, 1655), 11–13. Muller examines Dickson together with Bulkelley and Cloppenburg. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 16–22. He observes: “Dickson’s speech before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1638, makes explicit use of the eternal covenant of redemption for the refutation of Arminian teaching – with no indication at all that Dickson viewed the doctrine as a new concept” (16). In connection to Psalm 2:7–8, he adds later that this passage proved to be ideal as an exegetical foundation for the covenant of redemption (29). 98 Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, preface.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

157

Patrick Gillespie’s basic definition of the covenant of redemption was “an eternal transaction and agreement betwixt Jehovah and the Mediator Christ, about the work of our redemption.”99 In The Sum of Saving Knowledge – which was printed frequently as an appendix to the Westminster Confession of Faith – David Dickson and James Durham defined the covenant of redemption at length: The sum of the covenant of redemption is this, God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace did give them before the world began, unto God the Son appointed Redeemer, that upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and body, unto personal union with his Divine Nature, and submit himself unto the Law as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the Cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them.”100

In this manner, the covenant of redemption is an eternal covenant between the Father and the Son that is the foundation of the covenant of grace in time, which includes all of the means required to apply its benefits to the elect.101 Gillespie argued that six things characterized the covenant of redemption: freedom, graciousness, eternity, equality (both in terms of the parties and the conditions), order, and stability.102 The voluntary character of the Son’s entering into this covenant was a vital aspect of seventeenth century definitions of what constituted a covenant.103 99 Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 51. 100 The Sum of Saving Knowledge with the Practical Use Thereof (Edinburgh, 1671), heading 2 (unpaginated). Muller cited this statement as well in his treatment of the covenant of redemption in Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 16–17. 101 Curiously, The Sum of Saving Knowledge does not connect the application of redemption explicitly to the work of the Holy Spirit even though this was the commonly accepted belief of Reformed orthodoxy. See more below. Westminster Larger Catechism question 13 used similar language in relation to eternal election in Christ (“in Christ has chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof”). The covenant of redemption highlights the aspect of the divine decree as it relates to salvation and as it is based on the decree of election. Gillespie developed this line of thought in a supralapsarian direction, though Owen did not do so. Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 55. The Sum of Saving Knowledge reflects infralapsarian language when it refers to the elect as chosen out of “lost mankind.” See J. V. Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” Drawn into Controversie, 99–123. Both lapsarian positions were compatible with the idea of the covenant of redemption. 102 Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 57–70. 103 Van Asselt, Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 231. The voluntary nature of Christ’s role in the covenant of redemption is especially prominent in Herman Witsius, Oeconomia Foederum, lib. 2, cap. 3. Gillespie singled out the “consent and delectation” of the Son in this covenant as worthy of special notice before he proceeded to expound the character of the covenant. Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 56.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

158

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

The covenant of redemption is related to the concept of the divine decree in that it is the eternal decree of God as it relates to redemption.104 This was reflected in the placement of the covenant of redemption in various treatments of Reformed theology. Willhelmus a Brakel, for instance, placed his treatment of the intra-Trinitarian covenant immediately after his chapters on the divine persons, the decrees of God, and predestination.105 Muller noted that in early formulations of the intra-trinitarian covenant, authors treated the topic under Christology and later under the divine decree rather than in sections on the covenant.106 This arrangement between the Father and the Son was a covenant and not merely a decree in that it bore the characteristics of an agreement between two or more parties.107 The covenant of redemption was also referred to as the “council of peace” or pactum salutis (based on Zechariah 6:13, “The council of peace shall be between them both.”). Wistius, Brakel, and other continental divines often preferred the term pactum salutis over the term “covenant of redemption.” English authors often alternated between the terms. In spite of the importance of this text with regard to covenant terminology, Muller has demonstrated clearly that Zechariah 6:13 was neither the primary basis nor the impetus for the development of the covenant of redemption.108 The basic idea was that the Father and the Son made a covenant between themselves regarding the salvation of the elect. The Father would send the Son in order to procure the salvation of the elect, and the Son voluntarily agreed to become incarnate and fulfill the office of a Mediator in order to redeem them. This became the divine blueprint for everything that God would do in history regarding man’s redemption. Owen developed his view of the covenant of redemption in Vindiciae Evangelicae in light of the five characteristics of a covenant noted above. In that context, he set forth the five characteristics for the purpose of proving that the eternal arrangement between the Father and the Son was a covenant.109 This

104 Muller notes that the concept of the covenant of redemption “aimed at the resolution of the debate concerning the eternal decree and the covenant of grace that had been debated in the last decade of the sixteenth century and the first decade of the seventeenth-century.” Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 17. See pp. 61–63 for the relationship between the pactum salutis and the eternal decree in general. 105 Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, chapters 4 through 7. 106 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 49. 107 Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 569; Works, 12:497. 108 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 37. 109 This treatment is more concerned with stating Owen’s views and their bearing on his trinitarianism rather than examining his exegesis in detail. However, readers should bear in mind that Owen devoted several pages to establishing each assertion through detailed exegetical arguments from Scripture. Muller notes the mistake of accusing the Reformed orthodox of “proof-texting” by forcing the Scriptures to fit their logical systems of theology.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

159

method of proceeding grew out of the fact that there was no explicit passage of Scripture that spoke of an eternal intra-trinitarian covenant, though he believed that the citation of Psalm 40 in Hebrews 10:7 expressed it most clearly.110 He applied his five criteria to the eternal covenant it the following manner. First, the Father and the Son are the two parties of the covenant. The Scriptures describe the end that they agreed upon as the glory of God and the salvation of the elect.111 Second, the Father required the Son to do everything for the salvation of the elect that his justice, glory, and honor necessitated.112 In general, Christ did this by fulfilling his offices of prophet, priest, and king.113 In particular, he satisfied divine justice by taking the nature of his elect people upon himself, by rendering perfect obedience to the Father on their behalf, and by satisfying the justice and truth of God that stood against sinners.114 Third, the Father gave various promises to sustain the Son in his work as well as to reward him upon finishing that work.115 Fourth, the Lord Jesus accepted the conditions and undertook the work voluntarily.116 Fifth, the Father approved of the Son’s finished work and the Son laid claim upon the Father’s promises.117 Gillespie, who wrote his treatise twenty years after Owen published these thoughts, used identical arguments with the exception that he split Owen’s fifth mark of a covenant into two distinct points.118 In Owen’s view, the covenant of redemption was the sole grounds for securing the gracious character of the covenant of grace.119 The reason for this was that the

110

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

He adds, “The older dogmatics consistently folded the best exegesis of its day into its pattern and method of formulation.” Muller, “The Covenant of Works,” 81. “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.” Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 570; Works, 12:498. In his later work on Hebrews, Owen observed, “For there is herein represented unto us as it were a consultation between the Father and the Son with respect unto the way and means of the expiation of sin, and the salvation of the church.” Owen, Works, 23:468. See Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 52–54. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 572; Works, 12:500. Citing Heb. 2:9–10; 12:2; and Zech. 6:13. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 573–574; Works, 12:501. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 575; Works, 12:502. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 575–576; Works, 12:502–503. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 576–577; Works, 12:503–504. Citing Is. 42:4, 6; Ps. 16:10; and Is. 53:10–11 among other passages. Goold rightly corrected Owen’s original numbering here, since Owen skipped number three in his list and used the number four twice. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 578; Works, 12:505. He regarded this voluntary aspect of the work of Christ as essential to the idea of the covenant of redemption. Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, 578–580; Works, 12:505–507. Gillespie, Ark of the Covenant, 18–19. Without referring explicitly to the covenant of redemption, in his sermon on “The Everlasting Covenant the Believer’s Support Under Distress,” Owen argued that the only grounds for comfort in the covenant of grace lay in the fact that this covenant was rooted in eternity. Works, 9:417: “This covenant had not its beginning when I first laid hold upon it; but it had its beginning in God’s love from eternity.” He preached this sermon in 1669

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

160

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

only persons involved in this covenant were divine, making the ground of salvation a sovereign act of the Triune God. This secured the absolutely gracious character of the covenant of grace between God and believers in Christ.120 One of the primary grounds for distinguishing between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace was that they contained different promises addressed to different parties. The Father promised to support the Son in his work of redemption, to give him the nations as his inheritance, and to accept his payment on behalf of the elect.121 While these promises are the foundation of the salvation of the elect, the promises address Christ rather than the elect. This point became so central to Reformed covenant theology that it is likely why, in the next century, Jonathan Edwards professed that he could not understand Thomas Boston’s (1676–1732) scheme of covenant theology, since Boston subsumed the covenant of redemption under the covenant of grace by stressing an eternal and a temporal aspect of the same covenant.122 It is interesting that Samuel Petto’s chart on the covenants between God and man subsumes both the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son and the temporal covenant with the elect in Christ under the heading of the covenant of grace.123 He added later that the Father’s promises to the Son and God’s promises

120 121 122

123

during uncertain times and after a great and unexpected turn of events for Puritanism in England. The burden of the sermon was to argue that God’s eternal covenant was the only true grounds of lasting comfort for the people of God. John Flavel wrote a short treatise on the same text on which Owen based his sermon (2 Sam. 23:5). While there is no clear evidence of dependence in either direction, the content of Flavel’s work was very similar to Owen’s. John Flavel, The Balm of the Covenant Applied to the Bleeding Wounds of Afflicted Saints (London, 1688). The same is true with regard to John Cotton, The Covenant of God’s Free Grace, Most Sweetly Unfolded and Comfortably Applied to a Disquieted Soul from that Text 2 Sam 23. Ver. 5 (London, 1645). Ferguson noted: “the problem created by the existence of conditions in the covenant of grace is resolved by the presence of conditions in the covenant of redemption.” Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 31. Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant, 4. For a similar set of arguments, see Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London, 1661), 3–4. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 16:235: “As to Mr. Boston’s view of the covenant of grace, I have had some opportunity with it, and I confess that I did not understand his scheme delivered in that book.” Boston had subsumed the covenant of redemption under the general heading of the covenant of grace, ironically, in an attempt to defend the grace of the gospel. He believed that doing so would better enable him to present the gospel as unconditional grace from God to man. Instead of regarding the covenant of redemption as the sovereign and absolute foundation for the covenant of grace, he made the covenant of grace itself part of the eternal predestinating plan of God rather than the expression of its historical outworking. Instead of two covenants, Boston taught that there were eternal and temporal aspects of the one covenant of grace. For an explanation of Boston’s rejection of the covenant of redemption, see A.T.B. McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1997), 40–41. Petto, The Difference, 6–7, see also 16.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

161

to believers “together make up but one Covenant of Grace.”124 In chapter 2, he elaborated why these cannot be two distinct covenants.125 It is curious that Owen did not draw attention to this fact in his preface to this work. It is possible that Bridge held this view as well, though he is less clear than Petto on this point.126 Willem van Asselt asserts that Boston and John Gill developed the idea of combining the pactum salutis and the covenant of grace into eternal and a temporal aspects of a single covenant. Moreover, he connects this construction to supporting the idea of eternal generation.127 However, the idea goes back at least as far as Petto, who introduced the concept without giving the impression that he had coined it. Though this question requires further research, it is possible that collapsing the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace into a single covenant was more in vogue in antinomian circles than among others. Some could have regarded denying the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace as an antinomian position by undermining the faith and obedience of believers in the covenant of grace. The eternal covenant128 set the tone for every other aspect of Owen’s covenant theology. This includes his views of communion with God in public worship, since public worship under the new covenant reflected the Trinitarian structure of the covenant of redemption as brought to fruition in the experience of believers.

5.3.2 The Holy Spirit in the Covenant of Redemption The place of the Holy Spirit in the intra-Trinitarian covenant remains a looming question in the background. Chapter 2 above demonstrated that Owen held to the classic Trinitarian view that the persons of the Godhead indwell each other and that they act simultaneously though distinctly in every work of God ad extra. 124 125 126 127

Petto, The Difference, 13. Petto, The Difference, 19: “that distinction which some use, is improper.” Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 58, 76, 93. Willem J. van Asselt, “Covenant Theology as Relational Theology : The Contributions of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and John Owen (1616–1683) to a Living Reformed Theology,” Ashgate Research Companion, 81. 128 Readers should take caution with the terms “eternal” and “everlasting” in connection to seventeenth century covenant theology. Sometimes these terms referred to the covenant of redemption, but other times they referred to the permanent effects and benefits of the covenant of grace. See Flavel, The Balm of the Covenant, 12–13, 23. So with Richard Vines, The Saint’s Nearness to God, 87–89, referring more clearly to the “perpetual covenant.” Ordinarily, the rule is that “the eternal covenant” referred to the covenant of redemption and “the everlasting covenant” referred to the lasting effects of the covenant of grace. However, preaching on the same text as Flavel, Owen used the term “everlasting” to refer to the eternal origin of the covenant, to the duration of its benefits, and to the permanence of its subject matter. Owen, “The Everlasting Covenant,” Works, 9:417.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

162

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

Since the works of the Triune God in time reflect who he is eternally, this should create a strong presumption that the Reformed orthodox held a place for the Holy Spirit in the eternal covenant. While it is true that the emphasis for Owen and for his contemporaries fell on the relationship between the Father and the Son in the covenant of redemption,129 his language regarding the voluntary condescension of the Holy Spirit in the application of the gospel is reminiscent of his stress on the voluntary condescension of the Son in the eternal covenant.130 In addition, in his work on Hebrews he wrote that at Christ’s coming, “the glorious counsels of God, namely, of the Father, Son, and Spirit, brake forth with light, like the sun in its strength from under a cloud.”131 Gillespie reflected the same view when he stated that the covenant of redemption was between Jehovah and Christ. By Jehovah, he included the undivided counsel of the entire Godhead, even though the Father and the Son were the specific parties of the eternal covenant.132 This opens the possibility of including the Holy Spirit in the covenant of redemption in some capacity. However, is the Holy Spirit an actual party to this covenant, or is he simply promised in the covenant? Owen’s assertions about the voluntary condescension of the Holy Spirit deserve further comment. In a brief passage in Pneumatologia, he referred to the “voluntary condescension” of the Holy Spirit in applying the grace of the covenant.133 He argued that the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son was a necessary act of the Godhead ad intra. However, the work of applying the redemption purchased by Christ was, “A voluntary act of his will, and not a necessary property of his person.”134 This assertion enabled Owen to uphold the freedom of the Godhead in making a plan of redemption. He then added that this “voluntary acting” of the Holy Spirit was in order to pursue “the 129 As late as 1688, five years after Owen’s death, John Flavel stressed the Father and Christ to the neglect of the Spirit. This was true not only with regard to the covenant of redemption, but with regard to the covenant of grace, which he had primarily in view in this treatise. Flavel, The Balm of the Covenant, 13–14. 130 See The Glory of Christ, 111; Works, 1:339 (“an act of infinite condescension”). While this section treats the voluntary submission of Christ to the law of God, Owen rooted the discussion in Christ’s voluntary consent to become incarnate. 131 Owen, Works, 23:471. 132 Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant, 51. 133 Owen, Pneumatologia, 89; Works, 3:117. For a similar statement, see Communion with God, 317–318; Works, 2:272: “Consider him as he condescends to this delegation of the Father, and the Son, to be our Comforter….And in this asking and receiving of the Holy Ghost, we have communion with the Father in his love, whence he is sent, and with the Son in his grace, whereby he is obtained for us, so with himself, on the account of his voluntary condescension to this dispensation.” Emphasis original. 134 Owen, Pneumatologia, 89; Works, 3:117. Jonathan Edwards made an identical distinction in his short treatise entitled, “Economy of the Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption.” Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 20:432.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

163

counsels and purposes of the Father.”135 While he did not make explicit reference to the eternal covenant in that place, this chapter has demonstrated already that Christ’s voluntary submission to the Father’s plan lay at the heart of Owen’s definition of the covenant of redemption. While he never treats the Spirit as a covenanting party in the covenant of redemption, yet it is clear that he did not exclude the Spirit’s voluntary consent to that covenant. His orthodox Trinitarian theology would not permit him to do so without dividing the indivisible Trinity.136 The Spirit receives more emphasis in the covenant of grace in Owen’s theology than in the covenant of redemption. For instance, the lengthy section on personal holiness at the close of Pneumatologia roots the entire argument in the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit in the covenant of grace. In his treatment of the Lord’s Prayer, Henry Scudder gave more space to the work of the Holy Spirit in prayer than to the other two divine persons.137 This was because the Spirit applies the work of Christ and brings salvation to fruition according to the terms of the covenant of redemption in the lives of the elect. The Westminster Larger Catechism placed the same stress on the work of the Spirit in prayer, thus highlighting that communion with the Triune God begins with his work.138 It is significant, as well, that in Owen’s massive Pneumatologia, which he wrote toward the end of his life, there is not a single reference to the covenant of redemption or pactum salutis. The Father and the Son were the only parties he mentioned explicitly in his writings in relation to the eternal covenant.139 The proper construction of his position appears to be as follows: In the intra-trinitarian covenant, the Father gave promises to the Son alone and the Spirit is the substance of that which he promised. As Ferguson wrote, “It is interesting that, for Owen, the Holy Spirit who is the substance of the promise of the covenant is given, as it were, from the heart of the covenant of redemption.”140 The will of the Father receives the primary focus in this covenant. In the covenant of grace, the emphasis shifts to the work of the Son and to the Holy Spirit in accomplishing

135 Owen, Pneumatologia, 89; Works, 3:117. 136 Van Asselt came to a similar conclusion in reference to Cocceius’s position: “With regard to the role of the Holy Spirit within the pactum salutis, therefore, we must conclude that the Holy Spirit is certainly involved in the immanent Trinitarian pact, but not as a legal partner.” Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 235. 137 Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 132–137. 138 Questions 182–185. 139 For example, Owen, Works, 20:30. 140 Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 33. The reference to Communion with God, 317–318; Works, 2:272 cited above imply this connection clearly even though the term “covenant” does not appear in the passage. Compare to Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Mercy Sealed, 4.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

164

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

and applying redemption according to the Father’s will.141 Just as the covenant of grace does not exclude the Father – and Owen stressed the priority of calling upon the Father in that covenant – so the covenant of redemption does not exclude the Holy Spirit.142 These facts, coupled with his language regarding the voluntary condescension of the Holy Spirit, lean in the direction of the Holy Spirit being active rather than passive in the covenant of redemption. His later writings present a more active role of the Holy Spirit in his various treatments of the covenant of redemption as well.143 Owen at least left the door open for developing the idea of the covenant of redemption in a way that assigned to the Spirit an active role together with the Father and the Son.144 In the next century, Jonathan Edward’s formulation of the role of the Spirit in the covenant of redemption clarified the trajectory of Reformed orthodoxy. He wrote, “The sum of the blessings Christ sought, by what he did and suffered in the work of redemption, was the Holy Spirit. . . . The Holy Spirit is that great benefit, that is the subject matter of the promises, both of the eternal covenant of redemption, and also of the covenant of grace.”145 This retains the undivided work of all three persons of the Godhead in both the eternal and the temporal covenants. Moreover, he referred in this place to the Holy Spirit as Christ’s “grand legacy” to his disciples. This echoes almost exactly two passages in Owen’s Pneumatologia.146 In another treatise, Edwards elaborated that although “the persons of the Trinity all consent” to the covenant of redemption, yet the Spirit “is never represented as a party in this covenant, but the Father and Son only.”147 In his view, the primary reason for this was that, unlike the Son, the consent of the Spirit did not involve his humiliation and that the Spirit did not receive promises from the Father in that covenant.148 Like Owen, Edwards did not 141 Without referring explicitly to the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, this appears to be his construction in his 1669 sermon on “The Everlasting Covenant.” He stated that three things give order to God’s covenant with his people. These three things correspond to the work of the three persons of the Godhead: “Its infinitely wise projection, in the love and eternal wisdom of the Father ; its solemn confirmation, in the blood and sacrifice of the Son; and its powerful execution, in the efficacy of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of grace.” Owen, “The Everlasting Covenant,” Works, 9:418. There is an allusion to the Father and the Son being the parties in the covenant of redemption when he states that the eternal plan of the Father “wraps Christ in it.” 142 See references to Communion with God from chapter 2 above. 143 For example, Owen, “The Everlasting Covenant,” Works, 9:418. 144 Mark Jones has made similar suggestions with reference to Thomas Goodwin. Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 139–144. 145 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 5:341. 146 Owen, Pneumatologia, 9, 124; Works, 3:25, 156. “He bequeathed the Spirit as his great legacy unto his disciples” (124/156). 147 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 20:431, 442, respectively. 148 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 20:441. See van Asselt, Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 235 for a similar observation.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

165

treat the Spirit as a party in the covenant of redemption. Instead, the Spirit is the sum of everything that the Father promised to give the Son in the covenant of redemption, just as the Spirit is the sum of all of the promises of the covenant of grace. However, Owen’s language regarding the “voluntary condescension” of the Spirit indicates that the Spirit is an active participant in both covenants. In regard to the obedience of Christ, Owen was hesitant to speak of his passive obedience on the grounds that all obedience is active by definition. “It cannot clearly be evinced that there is any such thing as passive obedience; obeying is doing, to which passion or suffering cannot belong: I know it is commonly called so, when men obey until they suffer ; but properly, it is not so.” 149 If this is the case, then the “voluntary condescension” of the Son and the Spirit to the terms of the covenant of redemption must be active, as well, in his view. Robert Letham recently criticized Owen for his “binitarian construction” of the covenant of redemption.150 Letham regards this as resulting from the western tendency to subordinate and depersonalize the Holy Spirit. However, if the above assessment of Edwards is correct, then the Spirit is active in the covenant of redemption, but he is not a party because he is not humiliated. The Son’s humiliation is an essential aspect of his being a party in the covenant of redemption. On the other hand, the Spirit cannot be inactive in the covenant without dividing the Godhead. Regarding the place of the Spirit in the covenant of redemption, Willem van Asselt wrote, “Underlying this argument is the fundamental assumption in Reformed theology that there must be a divine ad intra foundation for all divine works ad extra. It is a fundamental architectonic device in the doctrine of God indicated by the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.”151 The accusation that the covenant of redemption tends to subordinate or depersonalize the Holy Spirit appears to reflect Letham’s predisposition to eastern Trinitarian theology more than it does the witness of the primary sources.152 All of this is important for Owen’s theology of communion with God as triune under the new covenant, and in the context of public worship in particular. The primary reason is that every aspect of redemption came to pass according to the plan of the Triune God. The covenant of redemption is an aspect of God’s decree that highlights the work of all three persons in the Godhead, not only jointly, but distinctly. This means that every stage of history in which this plan unfolds is the work of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This will become clearer in 149 Owen, Communion with God, 186; Works, 2:163. 150 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” Ashgate Research Companion, 196. 151 Van Asselt, “Covenant Theology as Relational Theology,” Ashgate Research Companion, 77. 152 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” Ashgate Research Companion, 197: “…the Eastern approach has the greater merit here …”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

166

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

the treatment of Owen’s views of communion with God under the new covenant below. The Father’s purpose in the covenant of redemption was to bring sinners into fellowship with himself, through his Son, and by the Spirit.153 The new covenant reveals this eternal plan explicitly by bringing it to fruition in the lives of God’s people. The section on the new covenant below will show that the experience of communion with all three persons in the Godhead finds its high point in public worship and that this is the primary blessing of the new covenant.

5.4

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

Some scholars have regarded Owen’s view of the Mosaic Covenant as peculiarly difficult.154 It is not that his teaching on this subject is unclear, but that, due to his careful exegesis of several portions of Scripture, his view of the Mosaic economy is highly nuanced and intricate. In particular, his covenant theology developed largely out of his understanding of the epistle to the Hebrews.155 Essentially, Owen viewed the covenant on Mount Sinai as neither the covenant of works made with Adam nor the covenant of grace in its Old Testament administration. It included an administration of the covenant of grace and “a superadded covenant” that is similar to but not identical with the covenant of works.156 This is similar to Samuel Petto’s view, who said that the Sinai covenant was “an addition or appendix to that with Abraham.”157 Owen viewed this covenant as a distinct covenant in which the terms of the covenant of works were republished and the covenant with Abraham was promoted.158 However, this is not the same thing as asserting that the Mosaic Covenant simultaneously contains elements of the covenant of works and of the covenant of grace. Since the covenant of works was abrogated as a way of life and because the Mosaic covenant stands in contrast to the covenant of grace in the book of Hebrews, it is a third covenant that must be distinguished from both. Ferguson corrects Earnest Kevan’s earlier study by noting that within the seventeenth century, there were three different views of the Sinai Covenant. The first is that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of works. The second is that this 153 This is why his first sermon on “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” argues that calling upon the Father is the highest privilege of worship. 154 See Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 27–32. 155 Brian Lee has noted the centrality of the book of Hebrews in seventeenth century treatments of covenant theology. See Brian Lee, Johannes Cocceius, 13. The primary analysis of his study is based upon exegetical treatments of Hebrews 7–10. 156 Owen, Works, 23:70. 157 Petto, The Difference, 162. 158 Owen, Works, 23:77–78.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

167

covenant is the covenant of grace. The third is that the Sinai covenant is the covenant of grace, but that it included a republication of the covenant of works as well.159 However, this list should be expanded to include two additional views. Johannes Cocceius developed a complex view of the Mosaic covenant that was peculiar to himself, both in his use of terminology as well as in the fact that he taught that the Old Testament was abrogated.160 The last view was that the Mosaic covenant was distinct from both the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. This was John Cameron’s view.161 Owen’s view is similar to Cameron’s with the exception that he still adhered to the basic bicovenantal structure of the covenants of works and grace.162 Petto likewise appreciated aspects of “the learned Cameron’s” position, but departs from Cameron in a manner similar to that of Owen.163 In this respect, Ferguson has too readily classified Owen with other Reformed orthodox and Puritan theologians who held to other forms of a republication theory. Owen’s view was more complex than this. Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant was not unique, but it was a minority position among Reformed writers.164 Due to this fact, the treatment below gives precedence to Petto’s work as shedding light on Owen’s view, since they held to the same position and because Owen wrote a preface to Petto’s work on the covenants. While Petto lacks Owen’s distinct emphasis upon public worship, he made the same general observation about the value of comparing the old covenant with the new covenant: “The more good there was in this, the greater excellency there will appear in the new, which is a better covenant.”165 In order to understand Owen’s teaching on the peculiar glory of new covenant worship, it is necessary to understand how he viewed the old covenant and its worship.

5.4.1 Owen on the “Old Covenant” Owen’s primary treatment of the Mosaic covenant is found in his exposition of Hebrews 8:6.166 Reformed authors generally agreed that this section of Hebrews contrasted the old and new covenants.167 The question of first importance in 159 160 161 162 163 164

Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25, fn 5. See Brian Lee, Johannes Cocceius, 71, 153, 176–179. Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 194–199. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 199. Petto, The Difference, 185–186. For a concise analysis of Owen on the Mosaic covenant, see Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 199–202. 165 Petto, The Difference, 189. 166 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also is he the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” 167 See Brian Lee, Johannes Cocceius, chapter 3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

168

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

Hebrews 8:6 was what the old covenant referred to. Owen argued that the text clearly referred to two distinct covenants and not to two differing administrations of the same covenant.168 He asserted that it could not refer to the covenant of works, since that covenant is no longer in force as a means of eternal life.169 However, it did revive the precepts of the covenant of works by way of the Decalogue in order to convince people of their sins and drive them to Christ in the covenant of grace. Mark Jones observes that he believed that this republication of the covenant of works was declarative and not covenantal.170 Owen stood in line with most Reformed orthodox thelogians in this assertion. John Ball called the Mosaic law “a mere draught of the covenant of works.”171 Later Ball added that this was not a “perfect draught” of the natural covenant because God did not give it to them as a means to eternal life.172 Witsius added that the covenant of works could never serve this purpose again because it offered no mercy to sinners.173 In the next part of his assertion, Owen added a less common twist. He argued that the old covenant cannot refer to the early promises of the gospel prior to the Mosaic covenant, such as the promise of Genesis 3:15 and the covenant made with Abraham, since these are in substance the covenant of grace.174 Given the context of the book of Hebrews and the extensive contrast between the priesthood of Christ and the Levitical priesthood, the old covenant must refer to the covenant that God made with Israel under Moses. It must be the Sinai covenant, since this is the only option left.175 This assertion was common, but the idea that the Sinai covenant was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace was less so. It is significant that here and throughout Owen’s treatment of the old covenant, he laid great stress on contrasting the ordinances of Mosaic worship with worship under the new covenant.176 His emphasis upon public worship pervades his work on Hebrews in general and particularly this section on the old and new covenants.177 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

Owen, Works, 23:76. Owen, Works, 23:61, 74, 77, 81, 86, 89, 91. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 200. John Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 99. John Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 109. Witsius, Oeconomia Foederum, lib. 1, cap. 9, paragraph XX. Owen, Works, 23:62–63. Owen, Works, 23:63. For examples of this, see Owen, Works, 23:64–65, 73, 75, 82–83, 93, 96, 98. On page 93, he added that one of the primary benefits of the new covenant lay, “In our freedom from the whole system of Mosaic worship, in all the rites, and ceremonies, and ordinances of it.” Emphasis original. We will see below that with this freedom came heightened communion with God in three persons. 177 See A. Craig Troxel, “Cleansed Once for All: John Owen on the Glory of Gospel Worship in Hebrews,” Calvin Theological Journal 32:2 (1997), 468–479.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

169

Even though the Mosaic covenant is, strictly speaking, neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, it is related to them both. Petto argued that the Sinai covenant presented the covenant of works as the “legal condition” of the covenant of grace.178 Using language like Owen’s, he later added, “I do not call it, the Covenant of Grace, nor the Covenant of Works; but to express the formality and essential nature of it, I call it, the Covenant of Grace as to its legal condition, or a covenant concerning the legal condition of the covenant of grace.”179 This was essentially Owen’s position. It is difficult to determine whether Owen depended upon Petto for his view. Petto in one place cited “Dr. O” (Owen) on Hebrews.180 He did not cite a volume number or biblical reference to indicate what place he had in mind. Petto would have had access to the preliminary exercitations, volume one (published in 1668), and possibly volume two, which was published the same year as Petto’s work on the covenants in 1674. Owen’s exposition of Hebrews 8 did not appear until 1680, six years after Petto’s publication. Michael Brown has argued recently that Owen likely depended upon Petto.181 However, Petto appeared to hold a view similar to that of Cameron, whom he likely cited as “Dr. C” in one place and whom he mentioned by name in another.182 There is more evidence of Petto’s general familiarity with Owen than there is of Owen’s with Petto. In his work on the covenant, Petto referred to three different works by Owen.183 It is probably best to treat both Owen and Petto as adhering in common to a minority position within Reformed theology.184 In this connection, Michael Brown’s recent work on Samuel Petto misrepresents Owen’s view on the Sinai covenant.185 He asserts, “[Owen] saw it as a covenant of works, distinct from yet subservient to the covenant of grace.”186 He later distinguishes Owen’s view from that of Bolton (and Cameron), who regarded the Mosaic covenant as neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace.187 However, Mark Jones has demonstrated that Owen’s position has many commonalities with Cameron’s, even though he illustrates the nuanced differences between them.188 Even though Owen believed that the substance of the 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188

Petto, The Difference, 112, 127. Petto, The Difference, 168. Emphasis original. Petto, The Difference, 177. Michael Brown, Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624–1711) (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 78–80, 92–93. Petto, The Difference, 92, 185. Petto, The Difference, 177, 224, 281. For the subtle distinctions between Owen and Cameron, see Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 189. See my review of Brown’s work in Mid-America Journal of Theology, forthcoming. Brown, Christ and the Condition, 44. Brown, Christ and the Condition, 79. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 199–202.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

170

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

covenant of works was republished at Sinai, he explicitly called Sinai “a superadded covenant” that was essentially neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace.189 As shown above, this was Petto’s position. By contrast, Brown consistently writes as though Owen believed that the Mosaic covenant was simply a republished covenant of works. The treatment below will illustrate further why this assertion is overly simplistic and misses the point of the position taught by both Owen and Petto. Owen expanded his treatment by presenting a brief summary of the characteristics of the covenant of grace.190 He then demonstrated four points about which all Reformed theologians agreed.191 These areas of agreement included the fact that all who were saved in the Old Testament were saved through the covenant of grace and only in so far as they looked to the coming of Christ in the promises given to them. Notwithstanding substantial areas of agreement, Owen was aware that his view differed slightly from those of “most Reformed divines,” though he cautioned against exaggerating these differences.192 It was common in Reformed orthodoxy to regard the Mosaic economy as primarily an administration of the covenant of grace which included a republication of the covenant of works as a subordinate element.193 The presence of the covenant of works was designed to drive the Israelites to Christ through the knowledge of their sins.194 Christ also kept the covenant of works as republished in the Mosaic economy in order to impute his obedience to his people. Owen substantially agreed with this position.195 He noted, however, under five general headings, that “most Reformed divines” taught that the old covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.196 Ball similarly called this view the position of “most Divines.”197 In contrast to his own position, Petto observed, “It is usually said that they are two administrations or dispensations of the same covenant.”198 Against his fellow Congregationalists, Owen and Petto, Bridge self-consciously adopted and defended the majority view.199 He stated, with little comment, that the Lutherans rejected this Reformed position under two headings, arguing that the old 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

Owen, Works, 23:70, 77–78. See Petto, The Difference, 162 Owen, Works, 23:63–64. Owen, Works, 23:70–71. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 191. Owen, Works, 23:71. On page 73, he cited Calvin, Vermigli, and Bucanus as examples of such Reformed divines. Jones agrees with Owen’s self-assessment of his basic agreement with the general structure of Reformed covenant theology. Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 201–202. John Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 100–101. However, Ball added, “The covenant of grace leads to Christ directly ; the old covenant indirectly.” Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 95. Owen, Works, 23:81. Owen, Works, 23:71–73. John Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, 95. Petto, The Difference, 84. William Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 63.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

171

and new covenants were contrasted absolutely in the New Testament.200 If Bridge’s assessment is correct, then Owen’s view has some affinities to the Lutheran position.201 This certainly agrees with Trueman and Euler’s assessment, who argue that Owen reinstated a Lutheran rather than a Reformed lawgospel antithesis in this connection.202 In his opinion, he distinguished himself from the Lutherans and sided with the Reformed by noting that the covenant of grace can save people from sin, whether under the Old Testament or the New Testament, but the covenant with Moses could not do so.203 Owen taught that the covenant on Mount Sinai included the republication of the covenant of works and that it promoted the covenant of grace simultaneously.204 As demonstrated above, the Reformed orthodox taught that the covenant of works was abrogated as a means to life, yet its terms were republished in the Decalogue for purposes subordinate to the gospel.205 On this point, Owen’s view was not out of accord with mainstream Reformed theology, and even his peculiarities become minor in terms of their practical consequences. He asserted with regard to the covenant of works in the Sinai covenant that the Decalogue reiterated its commands, that its sanction was revived, and that it reiterated God’s promise of life conditioned upon perfect obedience.206 However, 200 Owen, Works, 23:73–74. For Reformed arguments against the Lutheran view of the Mosaic covenant, see J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 265–269. 201 Owen, Works, 23:69: “The apostle doth everywhere in this place dispute concerning two covenants, or two testaments, comparing the one with the other, and declaring the disannulling of the one by the introduction and establishment of the other. What are these two covenants in general we have declared, - namely, that made with the church of Israel at mount Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs unto it.” This does not mean that other Reformed theologians were unwilling to contrast the old and new covenants. For example, Ball observed, “The covenant which God made with Israel is called the Old Testament or the Law, not because it was first, as some suppose, but because it was to wax old, and to give place to the more excellent covenant succeeding, and finally to be abolished.” John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 92–93. The difference was that most Reformed writers believed that the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace was temporary and inferior to the new. 202 Carl R. Trueman and Carrie Euler, “The Reception of Martin Luther in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England,” Reception of Continental Reformation, 77. They add that Owen used this antithesis to bolster Reformed concerns against moralism: “This is not a distinctively Reformed position; rather it is distinctively Lutheran and it serves the theological and polemical purpose of protecting Protestant theology, specifically Reformed theology, from the dangerous inroads of works-righteousness” (77–78). 203 Owen, Works, 23:76–77. 204 These are his first two points regarding the nature of the old covenant. See Owen, Works, 23:77–78. 205 “The legal covenant or Covenant of Works cannot be renewed after it is once broken, seeing it admitteth not repentance of sin past, but exacts perfect and perpetual obedience.” Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 107. 206 Owen, Works, 23:77–78.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

172

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

he clearly rejected the idea that the covenant of grace was the primary aspect of the Mosaic covenant.207 Instead, he believed that the covenant of grace continued to be in force by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and that the Sinai covenant promoted the covenant of grace without being an administration of that covenant. Its relation to the covenant of grace was indirect only. Owen anticipated the next question that would rise naturally in the minds of his readers at this stage: “That if it did neither abrogate the first covenant of works, and come in the room thereof, nor disannul the promise made unto Abraham, then unto what end did it serve, or what benefit did the church receive thereby?”208 He answered, first, that God in his sovereign will and good pleasure determined it to be so. Even if believers had no other answers to this question, then the revealed will of God should be sufficient.209 His second and primary answer grew out of his exposition of the Apostle Paul’s treatment of the law (which Owen argued referred to the Sinai covenant) in Galatians 3:19–24. He prefaced his brief exposition of this passage by noting a common property with Hebrews 8:6. This was that the text contained “things not commonly discerned by expositors.”210 Petto would have been a rare exception to this statement, since his treatment of the text agreed with Owen’s.211 This illustrates the fact that while his peculiar construction of the Sinai covenant was tied largely to his exposition of the book of Hebrews, he systematically related his construction of this covenant to other relevant passages of Scripture. It is significant that he recognized in these two passages that his views stood outside the mainstream of Reformed thought. Owen concluded his exposition of Hebrews 8:6 with a refutation of the Socinian views of the covenant. In doing so, he refuted them in favor of the standard Reformed position of the strong continuity of the covenant of grace between the Old and New Testaments.212 This served a secondary purpose of demonstrating that while his views on the Mosaic covenant differed slightly from those of other Reformed authors, he was still orthodox in the general tenor of his covenant theology. Owen argued that, in the Galatians passage, the Apostle addressed two primary questions: what end the Mosaic Law served and whether or not this end was contrary to the promise of God in the covenant of grace.213 To the first 207 Contra, for example, Ball. John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 103. 208 Owen, Works, 23:79. 209 Owen, Works, 23:79–80: “In the meantime, if we had no other answer to this inquiry but only this, that in the order of the disposal or dispensation of the seasons of the church, before the fullness of times came, God in his manifold wisdom saw it necessary for the then present state of the church in that season, we may well acquiesce therein.” (p. 80). 210 Owen, Works, 23:80. 211 Petto, The Difference, 87–88, 108–110. 212 Owen, Works, 23:99–100. 213 Owen, Works, 23:80.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

173

question, he answered that God used the law in order to republish the covenant of works. The purpose of doing so was to strike men with a sense of awe before the majesty of God, to restrain their sins, and to make unbelievers despair of finding life and righteousness through the covenant of works.214 With regard to the second question, he answered that the Apostle provided “a double answer, taken from the second use of the law.”215 This grew out of the first question and the relation between them was that republishing the covenant of works drove sinners to Jesus Christ in the gospel.216 This meant that rather than being contrary to the promise of God in the covenant of grace, the Sinai covenant promoted it. In all of this, Owen agreed with the general position of Reformed orthodoxy. In what way, then, did he regard his view as advancing that of his peers? The answer is likely that while he upheld the Reformed view of the Old Testament, he believed that he was better able to harmonize this position with the proper exposition of Scripture by treating the Sinai covenant as related to both the covenants of works and of grace while being coterminous with neither of them. Another significant difference between this view and the mainstream Reformed position was that its adherents, such as Owen and Petto, assumed that Paul’s Jewish opponents in Galatians (and Romans) had largely understood the purpose of the Mosaic Law correctly when they treated it like a covenant of works.217 Authors such as John Flavel, on the other hand, argued that instead of treating the republication of the covenant of works as an “appendix” to the covenant of grace at Sinai, the Jews mistook the purpose and end of the law, “making it to themselves a covenant of works.”218 The distinction between these two positions is subtle at first glance. Both parties believed that the Mosaic covenant included a republished covenant of works, and they agreed that Israel mistakenly tried to obtain justification by virtue of that covenant. However, Owen and Petto’s view creates a sharper contrast between the old and the new covenants than those who – like Flavel – believed that the Sinai covenant was an Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace that included a republished covenant of works as an “appendix.” Petto even recognized at one point that it troubled him that his 214 215 216 217

Owen, Works, 23:81. Owen, Works, 23:81. Owen, Works, 23:81–82. This is particularly evident in Petto’s repeated emphasis on this point. Petto, The Difference, 87–88, 122, 132, 141–147, 168. 218 John Flavel, Vindiciae Legis et Foederis: or, A Reply to Mr. Cary’s Solemn Call, Wherein he Pretends to Answer all the Arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Syndenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the Right of Believers to Infant Baptism, by Proving the Law at Sinai, and the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham, were the Very Same with Adam’s Covenant of Works, and that Because the Gospel-Covenant is Absolute (London, 1690),[18]. The preface and Prolegomena are not paginated.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

174

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

contrast between the old and the new covenants lent itself to concluding that the church under the new covenant would consist exclusively of those in saving union with Christ and faith in him.219 This tendency to define the covenant of grace in terms of true believers only was present in other Congregationalists, even when they did not share Petto and Owen’s views on the Mosaic covenant.220 This potentially excluded the children of believers from baptism, which Petto immediately denied was the case. He later wrote a treatise defending infant baptism based upon the continuity between the covenant with Abraham and the new covenant.221 Mark Jones makes the interesting suggestion that Owen’s view of the old covenant appeared to have been more prevalent among Congregationalists than among other Puritans.222 There may have been an affinity with seventeenth century Baptists in this respect, since both Congregationalists and Baptists tended to define the new covenant and the church primarily as consisting of true believers. The point of commonality may be their views of the old covenant. It is interesting that the Baptist work cited above by Flavel begins by treating the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the covenant of grace. Moreover, it is remarkable that Flavel’s summary of the Baptist position in his long title could describe Petto’s arguments point by point with the exception of subsuming the covenant with Abraham under the covenant of works. Modern Baptists, at least, have seen Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant as bolstering the Baptist position.223 The Baptist theologian Nehemiah Coxe claimed to have developed his views from Owen’s exposition of Hebrews 8.224 This question deserves further research in the context of the seventeenth century. In any case, placing the old and new covenants in antithesis instead of treating them as two different administrations of the covenant of grace set the stage for Owen’s contrast between communion with God in public worship under the old covenant and the new.

219 Petto, The Difference, 256. 220 See Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 17–73. 221 Samuel Petto, Infant Baptism of Christ’s Appointment, or, A Discovery of Infant’s Interest in the Covenant with Abraham, Showing Who are the Spiritual Seed and Who are the Fleshly Seed (London, 1687). 222 Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 201. 223 See Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, and Francisco Orozco, eds., Covenant Theology From Adam To Christ (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005). 224 The work cited in the previous footnote includes Owen on Hebrews 8 alongside Coxe on the covenant.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

175

5.4.2 Worship and the Old Covenant It is important to note that Owen taught that under the old covenant, the covenant of grace never had its own peculiar and appropriate form of worship.225 This is where Owen and Petto parted ways, since Petto argued that the forms of worship under the ceremonial law “did belong to the administration of the Covenant of Grace.”226 Owen taught that although the Levitical sacrifices and temple worship promoted the covenant of grace, they did not constitute the worship of the covenant of grace, even though that covenant was present under the Old Testament. The worship attached to the covenant of grace must be simple and spiritual because the purposes of that covenant are direct spiritual communion with God expressed through worship.227 The simple form of new covenant worship is thus the form of worship that reflects the nature of the covenant of grace. This is tied inseparably to the establishment of the new covenant in the person and work of Christ.228 The form of worship under the Mosaic economy could not continue once the promises of the covenant of grace came to fruition. When God abolished Mosaic worship, the simple worship under the gospel must “be the rule of all intercourse between God and the church.”229 New covenant worship brings communion with God to full fruition. This worship took shape according to the elements set forth in chapter 3 above. In light of Owen’s construction of the Sinai covenant as well as the contrast he made between worship under the old and new covenants, his treatment of the Sinai covenant in Theologoumena Pantodapa is particularly interesting. There, he noted that the Mosaic covenant constituted a significant advance in biblical worship.230 While he listed three principles of the Mosaic economy, the first alone is relevant to this discussion.231 In spite of the substantial differences between the 225 Owen, Works, 23:65. 226 Petto, The Difference, 153. 227 Owen, Works, 23:73: “But the way of worship under the gospel is spiritual, rational, and plainly subservient unto the ends of the covenant itself.” 228 Owen, Works, 23:75: “So that although by ‘the covenant of grace,’ we ofttimes understand no more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet by the ‘new covenant,’ we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the church.” 229 Owen, Works, 23:82. 230 This emphasis appears in his treatment of Hebrews 10:1, as well, where he referred to the old covenant with its ordinances of worship as “the spring and cause of all the privileges and advantages of the church of Israel.” Owen, Works, 23:419. Also see Petto, The Difference, 192–193. 231 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 334; Biblical Theology, 434. The other two principles are: 2. Salvation by grace through the promised Seed (335/435) and “substitutionary sacrifice” (335/437). 3. All of these glorious ordinances “were designed to last only for a predetermined period” (336/437). Emphasis original.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

176

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

old and new covenants, the Mosaic Law greatly advanced the principle that true theology and practice must be restricted to the teaching of Scripture alone.232 In other words, the Sinai covenant contributed to the worship of God by clarifying further the principle of worship contained in the second commandment.233 This principle continues under the new covenant even though the external form of worship does not. The Scriptures alone are saving and life-giving. There is no communion with God apart from adhering closely to his own ordinances.234 This is a point of exact continuity between the old and new covenants. This positive approach to the Mosaic covenant as advancing the worship of God resurfaces in his later work on Hebrews.235 The difference is that in the passages cited from Theologoumena Pantodapa, Owen treated the Sinai covenant primarily as it advanced the covenant of grace. The reason for this was that the burden of this work was to contrast true and false means of knowing God. This does not stand in conflict with his later teaching on the Mosaic covenant. Instead, it demonstrates that the purpose of the Sinai covenant was ultimately to promote the covenant of grace, even though he believed that it was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace. The principles of worship under the Sinai covenant were permanent, but the external form of worship was temporary and, ultimately, not fitting for the covenant of grace.236 Owen’s second sermon on “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” illustrates his description of the character of old covenant worship. In his view, external glory characterized old covenant worship, while spiritual simplicity and heightened communion with God as triune characterized new covenant worship.237 The tabernacle/temple and its ordinances were the centerpiece of worship under the Sinai covenant. Temple worship epitomized external beauty and magnificence. He observed that the temple “was the most beautiful solemnity that ever the sun shone upon.”238 In this regard, the external pomp and glory of God-ordained worship under the old covenant surpassed anything that man could invent. With Roman Catholic worship in view, he noted that “the Cathedral 232 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 334; Biblical Theology, 434. 233 See chapter 3 above. 234 Biblical Theology, 434: “First, it is clearly laid down that no teaching about God, or concerning his worship, can be considered as true theology except those which he alone has revealed, and so placed beyond all doubt. ‘Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,’ (Deuteronomy 4:2; see also Deuteronomy 12:32). That only is saving and life giving truth which has been written. This is what must be taught and expounded, but never added to by anyone.” Theologoumena Pantodapa, 333. 235 Owen, Works, 23:82. 236 See Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 11–13; Works, 15:451–452. 237 In his Discourse Concerning Liturgies, he noted that in contrast to the old covenant, the ordinances of worship under the new covenant “were few and easy to be observed.” 10; Works, 15:9. 238 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:80.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Worship under the Mosaic Covenant

177

of Saint Peter in Rome,” together with popes, cardinals, all of their ornaments and vestments, choirs, singers, and “images and pictures” laid claim in vain in comparison to the “glory and beauty” of Solomon’s temple.239 The first chapter of David Clarkson’s polemic work against Roman Catholicism bore the title “Real worship of God not necessary in the Church of Rome.”240 The primary reason for this was that, in his view, every aspect of Catholic worship stressed externals and denied the necessity of internal worship.241 Owen’s primary aim in describing worship under the old covenant was not to refute Roman Catholicism. The purpose was to exalt worship under the new covenant by contrast. Owen went so far as to say that worship under the new covenant so far surpassed that of the old covenant in glory that old covenant worship had no glory by comparison.242 This shows the central place that the Mosaic economy held in his theology of worship. Without establishing the greatness of Mosaic worship, believers cannot appreciate the surpassing excellence of new covenant worship. Elsewhere he added that one’s view of the external character of public worship often reflected one’s view of justification.243 The primary reason for this was that the external glory of the elements of worship under the old covenant served the sole purpose of foreshadowing the work of Christ.244 Those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God that comes through faith in Christ mistake the intent of the ordinances of old covenant worship and seek to pursue external glory in public worship rather than spiritual communion with God.245 239 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:81. He concluded: “Let any man in his thoughts a little compare the greatest, and most solemn, pompous, and costly worship that any of the sons of men have in these latter days invented and brought into the Christian Church, with this of the Judaical, and he shall quickly find that it holds no proportion with it, - that it is a toy, a thing of naught in comparison of it.” 240 David Clarkson, The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive of Christianity and Men’s Souls, Works, 3:9–47. 241 Clarkson relegated this criticism to the Catholic Church in his time. Much of his refutation of Catholic errors drew from Medieval scholastic theologians and even more recent authors such as Suarez. 242 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:81: “These things being premised, we say now, that, notwithstanding this whole worship, and the concernments of it, was appointed by God himself; notwithstanding it was designed by him to be beautiful and glorious, and that indeed it was the very top of what external beauty and splendor could reach unto; - yet that it was no way comparable to the beauty and glory of this spiritual worship of the New Testament; yea, had no glory in comparison to it.” He based this observation on his exposition of the contrast between the old and new covenants in 2 Corinthians 3:7–10. 243 Owen, A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, 8; Works, 15:7. 244 See, for example, Owen, Works, 23:419–422. 245 Owen, A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, 8; Works, 15:7: “As ignorance of the righteousness of God, with a desire to establish their own, did in any take place, so also did endeavors after

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

178

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

In summary, Owen regarded the Sinai covenant as the primary backdrop for his teaching on communion with God in public worship under the new covenant. This covenant was neither the covenant of works (as it was given originally) nor the covenant of grace. It promoted the covenant of grace by republishing the covenant of works and by foreshadowing Christ through its worship. The Sinai covenant established a contrast for the glory of simple spiritual worship without external pomp and splendor in the new covenant. He concluded, “The Lord Jesus Christ sees more beauty and glory in the weakest assemblies of his saints, coming together in his name, and acted and guided in his worship and ways by his Spirit, than ever was in all the worship of Solomon’s temple when it was in its glory.”246 One of the primary advantages of worship under the new covenant was heightened communion with God in three persons.

5.5

New Covenant Worship

Owen’ treatment of worship under the new covenant demonstrates how and why his doctrine of communion with God in three persons served as the foundation for his theology of public worship. In particular, he defined the benefits of worship under the new covenant in terms of knowing that the object of worship is the Triune God and in holding distinct communion with all three divine persons. In contrast to the external glory of old covenant worship, spirituality and biblical simplicity should characterize new covenant worship.247 These ideas build on his views of communion with God as seen in chapter 2 above. They expand on his description of the worship service and the importance of spiritual affections as seen in chapters 3 and 4 as well.

5.5.1 Spiritual Communion with God in New Covenant Worship Owen emphasized heightened spiritual communion with God in new covenant worship in two general ways. The first relates to the worship of God as triune and the second to the nature of the Spirit’s work under the new covenant. In his sermon, “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open,” he listed two primary characteristics of new covenant worship in which it surpasses the “beauty and glory” of old covenant worship. The first is that “the express object an outward, ceremonious worship: for these things do mutually further and strengthen each other ; and commonly proportionable unto men’s darkness in the mystery of the righteousness of God in Christ is their zeal for a worldly sanctuary and carnal ordinances.” 246 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:83. 247 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 10; Works, 15:9.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

New Covenant Worship

179

of it is God, not as absolutely considered, but as existing in three persons, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The second is that new covenant worship has “constant respect” to each divine person, “as unto their peculiar work and actings for the salvation of the church.”248 These emphases mirror Owen’s work Communion with God and the two sermons on public worship seen above, with an explicit connection to his view of the old and new covenants. He introduced here the idea of communion with God as triune because it was foundational to his conception of the glory of new covenant worship and because he believed that Roman Catholicism had virtually destroyed the concept of communion with all three persons in the Trinity. The point of his “Chamber of Imagery” sermon is that Rome did this not only by distorting the gospel of Jesus Christ, but by exchanging the plainness and spirituality of new covenant worship for manmade inventions. Rome tried to replace the presence of the Spirit and communion with God in Christ in worship with external observances.249 This placed the church in a position worse than if it had reverted to Mosaic worship. Owen elaborated that much of the glory of new covenant worship consists in the revelation of God as triune: “This is the foundation of all the glory of evangelical worship. The object of it, in the faith of the worshiper, is the holy Trinity ; and it consists in an ascription of divine glory unto each person, in the same individual nature, by the same act of mind. Where this is not, there is no glory in religious worship.”250 It is significant that his target was Roman Catholicism and not Socinianism. Historians can assume that a Reformed theologian such as Owen developed his theology by an obsessive reaction to one particular group.251 However, as Paul Lim demonstrated recently, polemical theologians such as Owen and Cheynell used their polemical contexts to develop a positive theology.252 The fact that Owen applied his doctrine of communion with the Trinity in public worship in response to Roman Catholicism as well as to Socinianism illustrates this point. Even though he stated in his early catechism that the Trinity was the one doctrine that Rome had not corrupted,253 he here implied that Rome had distorted the doctrine of the Trinity practically by hindering communion with God. To press communion with each divine person, he referred to Ephesians 2:18, which was pivotal to his views of Trinitarian worship. In harmony with Communion with God and the sermons on gospel worship, he presented the Father as 248 249 250 251

Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:555–556. Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:556. Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:556. Sarah Mortimer gives the impression of Owen’s response to Socinianism in Reason and Relgion, 177–204. 252 Paul Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 173. 253 Owen, Works, 1:472.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

180

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

“the ultimate object”’ of new covenant worship.254 The old covenant prioritized calling God “Father” as well, but not with the same force, clarity, and spiritual comfort as in the new. God is the Father of believers because of their union with Christ in his person and work. Owen added that Christ is the “administrator” of new covenant worship as well. As our “High Priest over the house of God” (Heb. 7:2; Rev. 8:3), “he is the administrator of all the worship of the Church in the holy place above.”255 This reinforces the idea asserted in chapter 4 above that worship is a transaction between believers on earth and the Triune God in heaven. Christ causes this transaction not merely as mediator between God and man, but as the worship leader who ushers the church into God’s presence. This makes heaven the place where new covenant worship truly occurs.256 This concept led Owen to take another jab at using images of Christ as a means of communion with him: “This presence of a living Christ, and not a dead crucifix, gives glory to divine worship.”257 This reiterates the point that while Owen stressed that communion with God as triune found its high point in public worship, he was Christocentricly Trinitarian.258 In addition, Owen emphasized a special communion with the Holy Spirit in new covenant worship. In his work on Hebrews, he noted that the old and new covenants differ “with respect unto the dispensation and grant of the Holy Ghost.”259 This did not mean that God did not give the Holy Spirit to his people under the old covenant. It meant that he would confirm and establish the new covenant by a “more signal effusion” of the Spirit.260 Owen further qualified that this effusion of the Spirit did not simply refer to establishing the new covenant by miraculous gifts, since this also characterized the old covenant.261 The primary difference between the work of the Spirit in the old and new covenants lies in his work as a comforter, which the New Testament expounds most clearly in John, chapters 14 through 16.262 In addition to the greater revelation concerning God under the new covenant, the comfort of the Holy Spirit was the primary source of the greater experience of communion with God under the new cove-

254 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:556; Communion with God, 17; Works, 2:19; “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:59. 255 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557. 256 See Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:83. 257 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557. See the Appendix on Owen’s view of images below. 258 For example, see the arguments for this point in Durham, Revelation, 12–14. 259 Owen, Works, 23:95. 260 Owen, Works, 23:95. 261 Owen, Works, 23:95. 262 Owen, Works, 23:95. See his book on The Work of the Holy Spirit as a Comforter, Works, 4:352–419.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

New Covenant Worship

181

nant.263 Including this stress on the work of the Holy Spirit in his sermon “The Chamber of Imagery” enabled Owen to supply what was lacking at the heart of Roman Catholicism: a living communion with the Father through faith in Christ. He demonstrated this by noting three ways in which the Spirit beautifies new covenant worship. First, he enables his people to worship by providing the gifts and graces needed to enter God’s presence. For this reason, “To think to observe the worship of the gospel without the aid and assistance of the Spirit of the gospel, is a lewd imagination.”264 Second, believers have become the temple of God, “and so the principle seat of evangelical worship, 1 Cor. iii.16, vi.19.”265 Man-made external beauty does not make this temple beautiful either in God’s sight or that of true worshipers. The beauty of new covenant worship consists of communion with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. Third, the Spirit ushers believers into God’s presence “in light, love, and delight, with holy boldness”266 (Heb. 10:19, 21–22). This was how worshiping the true God through the Spirit excels the externally glorious worship under the old covenant. In Apostasy from the Gospel, Owen made an interesting connection between the work of the Spirit in the new covenant and public worship. He argued that replacing the forms of worship under the old covenant with simple unadorned worship was one of the primary gifts of the Spirit under the new covenant. This is striking in light of his teaching that no one could profit from gospel ordinances without the internal regenerating work of the Spirit.267 In expounding the phrase, “tasted the heavenly gift,” in Hebrews 6:4, he cited many texts of Scripture to prove that the Holy Spirit himself is the “great gift” of God under the New Testament.268 This gift can refer either to the “thing given” or to “the grant itself.” If “the gift of God” refers to the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 6:1–4, then why does the next term add being “partakers” of the Holy Spirit? He answered that we speak of the work of the Holy Spirit both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, his preeminent “gift” is the ordinances of new covenant worship, following the abolition of the “carnal ordinances” of the old covenant. Subjectively, the unregenerate can partake of the gifts of the Spirit even though they do not receive the internal saving graces of the Spirit. The “especial work” of the Holy Spirit that is “the great gift of the gospel times” is “the change of the whole state of religious 263 Owen, Works, 23:96. He concluded, “And the difference between the two covenants which ensued hereon is inexpressible.” 264 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557. 265 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557. 266 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557. Citing Heb. 10:19, 21–22. 267 See the analysis of this material in chapter 4 above. 268 Owen, The Nature of Apostasy, 29; Works, 7:22: “The Holy Spirit is signally the gift of God under the new testament.” Later he added, “The Holy Ghost, for the revelation of the mysteries of the gospel, and the institution of the ordinances of spiritual worship, is the great gift of God under the new testament” (35/25). Emphasis original.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

182

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

worship in the church of God.”269 This gift is rooted in the immanent relationships between the persons of the Trinity and in God’s eternal promise.270 As demonstrated above, this fulfills the plan of the covenant of redemption. Changing the external mode of public worship was the “reformation of all things” mentioned in Hebrews 9:10.271 Christ put “a virtual end” to Mosaic worship, but the Spirit actualized its end following his outpouring on the day of Pentecost.272 In this regard, new covenant worship is superior to old covenant worship not only by virtue of the more effective work of the Spirit as a comforter, but the simplicity of new covenant worship is God’s blessing to his people. The reason is that simple and Scriptural worship is the best means to promote spiritual communion with a God who is Spirit.273

5.5.2 Simplicity of New Covenant Worship The simplicity of new covenant worship was correlative to its spirituality in Owen’s thinking. Not only did the external glory and beauty of old covenant worship pass away with the work of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit, but external glory and beauty in public worship positively militates against communion with God under the new covenant. He argued this point by noting that worship that is regulated by Scripture alone (chapter 3 above) will have a few and simple ceremonies. He illustrated this assertion by his occasional references to the use of church buildings under the new covenant.274 Owen taught that spiritual communion with God and external pomp and splendor were mutually exclusive in new covenant worship. For instance, failing 269 Owen, The Nature of Apostasy, 31; Works, 7:23. 270 Owen, The Nature of Apostasy, 31; Works, 7:23. “He was the great, the promised heavenly gift, to be bestowed under the new testament, by whom God would institute and ordain a new way, and new rites of worship, upon the revelation of himself and his will in Christ.” 271 Owen, The Nature of Apostasy, 31; Works, 7:23. In his Hebrews commentary, he similarly observed on this verse, “The time of the coming of Christ was the time of the general final reformation of the worship of God, wherein all things were unchangeably directed unto their proper use.” Works, 23:258. 272 Owen, The Nature of Apostasy, 31–32; Works, 7:23. “When he came as the great gift of God, promised under the new testament, he removes all the carnal worship and ordinances of Moses, and that by the full revelation of the accomplishment of all things that was signified by them, and appoints the new, holy, spiritual worship of the gospel, that was to succeed in their room.” 273 According to Owen, by coming under the ordinances of new covenant worship without experiencing the saving power of the Spirit in their hearts, some of the Hebrew Christians had “tasted” the heavenly gift of gospel ordinances without “eating” or “digesting” the spiritual substance of them profitably. Owen, The Nature of Apostasy, 33–35. 274 I will forgo treating his teaching on liturgies until the next chapter, since his view of liturgies was tied so closely to his ecclesiology.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

New Covenant Worship

183

to delight in communion with the Trinity in worship was why Catholicism turned to “ceremonies, vestments, gestures, ornaments, music, altars, images, paintings, with prescriptions of great bodily veneration.”275 He added ironically that Roman Catholic worship not only fell short of the external beauty of old covenant worship, but that even pagan worship surpassed it in this respect.276 However, the true glory of evangelical worship was entirely spiritual in nature. It was necessary to reduce the new covenant to a “few and simple ceremonies of worship” in order to achieve this spiritual aim.277 The unregenerate cannot see any glory in new covenant worship, but the regenerate prefer spiritual communion with God through a simple worship service to all the external glory in the world.278 The reason is that the beauty of new covenant worship consists exclusively in communion with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.279 He elaborated this point elsewhere by stating, “Worship is certainly an act of the soul.”280 As chapter 3 above demonstrates, bodily gestures are important in worship. However, the body is subordinate to the soul in worship. With the new 275 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:558. 276 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:559. “But hereby, instead of presenting the true glory of the worship of the gospel, wherein it excels that under the Old Testament, they have rendered it altogether inglorious in comparison of it; for all the ceremonies and ornaments which they have invented for that end come unspeakably short, for beauty, order, and glory, of what was appointed by God himself in the temple, - scarce equally what was among the Pagans.” 277 The quotation here comes from Westcott’s translation of Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. VI, cap. 7, 501: “Evangelical theology requires that the only worship in these Churches which is acceptable to Christ is spiritual worship. Christ abolished all external magnificence, all carnal decoration (however brilliant and attractive it is), and replaced all with a few and simple ceremonies of worship (John 4:23; 2 Corinthians 3:6–11; Hebrews 9:11–12). Whatever was visibly necessary for his worship of old, God himself prescribed down to the very last button; and, for the same reason, Christ now ordains what he requires, and he it is to cast out from any role in true worship all ornaments and ceremonies, as things now fulfilled and relegated to the past.” Owen, Biblical Theology, 656. Compare to A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, 10; Works, 15:9. Note that the stress falls on communion with God and the sufficiency of Scripture in worship. These are the subjects of chapters 2 and 3 above. 278 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. VI, cap. 8, 507; Biblical Theology, 665: “Evangelical theology insists that the glory of religious worship is its internal and spiritual nature. That the divine is really present in religious worship is the presumption of all men. To the natural man, therefore, no religious worship is pleasing unless he can see something of glory and splendor. But no one sees the glory of spiritual worship unless he himself is also spiritual!” 279 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, liv. VI, cap. 8, 507–508; Biblical Theology, 665: “Now evangelical institutions have indescribable beauty, outstanding glory, splendor far surpassing any external show in the eyes of those who enjoy in its observance sweet communion with God the Father and Son, through the Holy Spirit, but those who are only carnal can only see with carnal eyes, can only perceive what is external, and never can share in that inner glory. Their substitute must be to expand into every kind of superstition, and attempt to supply the defect of their religion with external beauty, ritual, and splendor.” 280 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:57.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

184

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

covenant revelation of God’s triune glory, regenerate souls can finally enjoy communion with him without the fetters of the externalism of old covenant worship. The revelation of God as triune and spiritual communion with him in new covenant worship coincide. Owen’s view of the simplicity and spirituality of new covenant worship had implications for the role of church buildings. Most Puritan authors believed that while the saints under the old covenant went to the temple to worship, the place of worship under the new covenant had become indifferent. For instance, the Westminster divine Henry Scudder argued based on John 4:21–23 that, in contrast to the old covenant, “prayer may be made to God in all places.”281 Believers should not regard church buildings as holy because, “Since the death of Christ, all religious difference of place is taken away.”282 Nevertheless, Scudder added that believers should esteem churches highly and maintain them well, since they are set apart for the regular worship of God. They must be adorned with “all such outward beauty and ornaments as are beseeming the pure worship of God.”283 What is “beseeming” new covenant worship is to deemphasize the “outward beauty” that was prominent in the old covenant. Scudder qualified this idea by adding that while church buildings should not detract from spiritual worship through ostentation, neither must they fall into disrepair through neglect. People should neither profane nor idolize church buildings and they should not assume that their private prayers are more effective in public places of worship.284 Owen would have added that the reason why church buildings were relatively unimportant was that Jesus Christ as high priest administered the service and gave believers direct access to God in heaven.285 Christ’s presence in public worship is preeminently necessary and he is not limited by any particular location.286 Emphasizing elaborate buildings unnecessarily restrains God’s people, who have communion with God in public worship wherever they gather in Christ’s name.287

281 282 283 284 285

Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 166. Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 168. See Westminster Confession of Faith 21.6. Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 169. Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 170–171. Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:65: “And as for the assemblies now here below, all places are now alike. And what can be more glorious than this, - namely, that the whole spiritual worship of the gospel, performed here on earth by the saints, is administered in heaven by such a holy Priest, who is at the right hand of the throne of the majesty of God! and yet under his conduct we have by faith an entrance into the presence of God.” 286 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:67: “All depends on the presence of Christ, and their access to God by him; and he is excluded from no place, but thinks any place adorned sufficiently for him which his saints are met in or driven unto.” 287 The next chapter shows how this relates to his ecclesiology.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

185

Conclusion

In Owen’s view, the simple ceremonies of new covenant worship and the simplicity of the place of worship promote the spirituality of the new covenant. Closer communion with God as triune required a simplified service of public worship once old covenant ordinances had served their purpose and were fulfilled in Christ. Where Roman Catholicism stressed the place of worship and the eternal beauty of ceremonies and vestments, the Reformed emphasized the biblical elements of worship. In summary, Owen taught that when accompanied by the Spirit, these simple biblically mandated elements of worship had greater capacity to bring believers into spiritual communion with the Father through the Son than did old covenant ceremonies. In light of the analysis above, Owen saw a greater contrast between the glory of the new covenant over the old than authors such as Calvin saw. However, he did this without the Cocceian distinction between the covering of sins under the Old Testament and the actual forgiveness of sins under the New. As old covenant worship corresponded to the nature of that covenant, so new covenant worship reflects character of the better covenant. This consists primarily in greater communion with God in three persons.

5.6

Conclusion

It is significant that among the wide array of Owen’s works cited in this chapter, the themes of Trinity, covenant, and worship appear together regularly and consistently. This is true of sermons, doctrinal treatises, exegetical works, practical books, and of Theologoumena Pantodapa. This means that any treatment either of Owen’s Trinitarianism or of his covenant theology that does not connect these themes to public worship does not reflect adequately his selfconscious theological emphases. His theology of public worship is grounded in his covenant theology. His covenant theology is rooted, in turn, in his Trinitarianism. His covenant theology moves from the counsel of the Trinity in the eternal covenant of redemption, to the covenant of grace in time, in which the Father sends the Son, the Son accomplishes his work, and the Son sends the Spirit from the Father in order to apply his work to the elect. When God effectually calls the elect to saving faith, they come through the Son by the Spirit’s power to call God “Father.” This process directs them back to their election in the eternal covenant of redemption. Through this covenant relationship to God, believers come face to face not only with the economic Trinity in time, but with the ontological Trinity in eternity. The old covenant veiled these facts even as it foreshadowed them. Owen taught that understanding the old or Mosaic covenant accentuated the joy of new covenant worship by way of contrast. The revelation of God’s triunity is the glory of new covenant worship, and he reveals himself most gloriously when his people gather in public worship. This stress on public

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

186

New Covenant Worship: The Character of Communion with God in Public Worship

worship in connection to his covenant theology and his Trinitarianism highlight how he wove experimental piety into the heart of his theology. The next chapter treats the means by which the saints come into public worship.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

6.

The Ministry and Worship: The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

6.1

Introduction

In a 1678 sermon, John Owen noted, “all the contests about church order and worship, that we have in the world” relate to one’s view of the Holy Spirit’s work in endowing ministers with gifts and in calling them to office.1 The previous chapters have argued that Owen’s theology of public worship depended on and grew out of his doctrine of communion with God in three persons. He regarded public worship as the highest expression of communion with the Triune God. However, an accurate picture of his theology of public worship must include the relationship between worship and his ecclesiology. His teaching on the role of the Christian ministry in public worship ties together every theme treated in the preceding chapters. This chapter argues that, for Owen, the ministry is the primary means ordained by God to bring his people into communion with all three persons of the Godhead in public worship. This is illustrated in his teaching on the benedictory nature of the ministry, on the ministry as Christ’s gift, and on the Spirit’s work in endowing ministers with gifts.

6.2

The Benedictory Nature of the Christian Ministry

Owen posited two ways in which the Triune God intended to bless the church through ministers. First, officers are Christ’s gift to his church. Second, it is the gifts of the Holy Spirit that qualify officers for ministry that make them a blessing to the church. Since the ministry relates primarily to the application of redemption, the work of Christ and of the Spirit are predominant, but particularly the work of the Holy Spirit. Ministers bless the church primarily through administering the ordinances of public worship. This section treats the bene1 Owen, “Ministerial Endowments, the Work of the Spirit,” Works, 9:442.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

188

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

dictory nature of the ministry in general terms. This comes out most clearly in Owen’s exposition of the nature of benedictions in Scripture.2

6.2.1 Benedictions in General In Owen’s commentary on Hebrews 7:7, he explained the nature of benedictions.3 The passage extols the greatness of Melchizedek, who in Genesis chapter 14 blessed Abram when he returned from helping the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah in battle. The chapter argues that Christ’s priesthood is greater than Melchizedek’s in terms of his person and his ministry. This text led Owen to treat benedictions generally as well as the benedictory relationship between ministers and the church. Earlier in his treatment of Hebrews 7, Owen defined benedictions as follows: “As to the nature of it, blessings in general are the means of communicating good things, according unto the power and interest in them of them that bless, Gen. xxxiii. 11.”4 In other words a benediction, as used here, imparts a blessing from one party to another. Benedictions vary in degree. Not everyone can pronounce benedictions upon others. Even a proper benediction will be more or less efficacious depending on who pronounces it and the relationship they have to those receiving it. He reduced all benedictions to being “authoritative” or “charitative.”5 “Charitative” benedictions are virtually synonymous with prayer. “Authoritative” benedictions relate to office. Owen set aside “charitative” blessings as being beyond the scope of his text. He then divided “authoritative” blessings into “paternal” and “sacerdotal” benedictions. “Paternal” benedictions communicate blessings from parents to children.6 While Owen’s friend, Thomas Goodwin, upheld the same distinction, he believed that “paternal” blessings had more in common with prayer than with authoritative blessings.7 “Sacerdotal” benedictions are not, as the term might suggest initially, restricted to the priesthood. They pertain to those holding ministerial office who 2 Portions of this section are adapted and expanded from chapter 5 of my ThM thesis from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. 3 “And, without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better.” Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:368–375. This treatment expands his introduction to this subject in his comments on Hebrews 7:1–3 (316–320). This section gives special attention to the material connected to verse seven. 4 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:316. See also Thomas Goodwin, Ephesians, 12–13. 5 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:317. 6 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:317–318. 7 Thomas Goodwin, Ephesians, 34. However, Owen treated the use of the means appointed by God to train children in the ways of the Lord as the primary way that parents blessed their children, and not simply pronouncing blessings upon them. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:318.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Benedictory Nature of the Christian Ministry

189

conduct the service of public worship.8 This means that those administering divine ordinances in public worship proclaim “sacerdotal” benedictions. This was true of priests and Levites under the old covenant and of ministers of the word under the new covenant. In the Old Testament, these blessings could include divinely inspired prophecy.9 At other times, those holding ordinary offices in the church performed them as part of proclaiming God’s word. In this respect, the Aaronic priests placed the name of God on the people using the words of Numbers 6:22–27.10 Placing God’s name on the people highlighted the authoritative character of the blessing, since this meant that God was present with them in and through the blessing. This concept was vital to Owen’s view of how the Triune God used ministers as instruments to foster communion with himself in public worship.

6.2.2 Categories of Benedictions Before applying these observations directly to the Christian ministry, Owen noted concerning Hebrews 7:7: “Expositors generally on this place distinguish the several sorts of benedictions that are in use and warrantable among men.”11 Based upon his library catalogue as well as authors cited in his work on Hebrews, Henry Knapp observed that Owen likely consulted at least the following commentators: William Gouge, Matthew Poole, David Dickson, George Lawson, William Jones, Edward Dering,12 John Downame, the Dutch Annotations, Thomaso Cajetan (Roman Catholic),13 Erasmus, Calvin, Franciscus Gomarus, Johannes Cocceius, David Pareus, Johannes Piscator, John Diodati, Schlichtingius 8 “And we may take notice, in our passage, that whatever be the interest, duty, and office of any, to act in the name of others toward God, in any sacred administrations, that proportionably is their interest, power, and duty to act toward them in the name of God in the blessing of them. And therefore ministers may authoritatively bless their congregations. It is true, they can do it only declaratively, but withal they do it authoritatively, because they do it by virtue of the authority committed unto them for that purpose. Wherefore the ministerial blessing is somewhat more than eutical, or a mere prayer. Neither is it merely doctrinal or declaratory, but that which is built on a particular especial warranty, proceeding from the nature of the ministerial office. But whereas it has respect in all things unto other ministerial administrations, it is not to be used but with reference unto them, and that by whom at that season they are administered.” Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:319. 9 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:318. 10 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:319. 11 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:369. 12 Dering’s comments go only through Hebrews 6. Edward Dering, XXVII Lectures, or Readings, upon Part of the Epistle Written to the Hebrews (London, 1614). 13 Thomas Barlow singled out Cajetan among Roman Catholic theologians as “the most moderate, and comes nearer the truth.” Barlow, Remains, 42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

190

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

and Crellius (both Socinians), and Hugo Grotius.14 Most of these authors provided simple distinctions. For instance, Cocceius differentiated paternal and sacerdotal blessings only.15 The so-called Westminster Annotations, which bear Downame’s name, treated sacerdotal blessings exclusively and connected them to Christ’s office as Mediator.16 Calvin virtually relegated benedictions to prayer, though he distinguished between the prayers of ministers for the people and the prayers of believers for one another.17 Others, such as David Dickson, noted at least four categories of blessings: blessings of reverence in which men worship God, blessings of charity in which men pray for one another, authoritative blessings by ordinary ministers, and authoritative blessings through extraordinary officers.18 This last category included patriarchs and prophets, who blessed God’s people through special inspiration of the Holy Spirit. William Gouge (1575–1653), who was a member of the Westminster Assembly, noted six types of blessings consisting of three pairs. God blesses something by setting it apart “to an holy use” or by conferring “some real actual good upon his creature.” Man blesses God in two ways: by confessing “God’s excellencies” or by “thanking and praising God for the same.” Lastly, men bless one another through “supplication” or through “confirmation.”19 Confirmatory blessings come through those in authority. This includes heads of household, magistrates, and ministers. This applies particularly to ministers, “for they in a most peculiar manner stand in God’s room.”20 He divided ministerial benedictions between extraordinary officers, such as prophets and apostles, and ordinary ministers of the word.21 All these authors taught an authoritative ministerial blessing of some kind. 14 Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God,” 18–24. 15 Johannes Cocceius, Epistolae ad Hebraeos Explicatio, et Versitatis Eius Demonstratio, Adornata (Lugdoni Batavorum, 1659), 265. Franciscus Gomarus noted that the benediction in view here was not common (vulgari) between equals (qua par pari), but a sacerdotal and solemn (sacerdotali, ac sollemni) blessing. Gomarus, Opera Theologica Omnia,, 1:635. 16 Downame, Annotations, in loc. So Matthew Poole, Annotations, Heb. 7:1, in loc, and the Catholic theologian, Thomaso Cajatan (1468–1534), Epistulae Pauli, et Aliorum Apostolorum (n.p., 1540), in loc,196. Pareus did not mention the nature of benedictions at all, but he highlighted the greatness of Christ over both Abraham and Melchizedek. David Pareus (1548–1622), In Divinam ad Hebraeos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius (Heidelberg, 1613), 330. So with George Lawson, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1662), in loc. 17 Calvin, Commentarii in Epistolam ad Hebraeos (Geneva, 1549), in loc, 89–90. 18 Dickson, A Short Explanation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews (Cambridge, 1649), 89. 19 William Gouge, A Learned and Very Useful Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1655), 2:126. 20 Gouge, Hebrews, 2:127. 21 Gouge, Hebrews, 2:127. Gouge directed his readers to his comments on Heb. 6:8 and 6:15 for expansion on his treatment of blessings. However, the former reference treats God’s blessing of creation in general (2:35–36) and the latter describes how God blessed Abraham and the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Benedictory Nature of the Christian Ministry

191

Owen noted that most commentators recognized four types of benedictions.22 It is hard to see who he meant, since almost none of the commentators in the list above gave four categories of benedictions. It is possible that he drew from other sources not known to modern readers. Out of the surveyed writers, he is nearest to Dickson, yet he reverses Dickson’s order. Owen’s taxonomy of benedictions is as follows: First, “benedictio potestativa,” or absolute blessings communicated by God directly. Second, “benedictio authoritativa,” which men proclaim in God’s name at his command. Third, “benedictio charitativa,” by which people bless others by praying for them according to God’s will. Fourth, “benedictio reverentialis,” which consists of worshiping God.23 He dismissed the first category, since all blessings proceed from God, making this category too broad to be helpful.24 Dickson omitted this epithet and divided authoritative benedictions into two categories.25 This means that even his four categories did not approximate Owen’s. As noted above, “benedictio charitativa” is not immediately relevant to church offices. Owen added that they were benedictions “improperly” and that they “[do] not belong unto this rule of the apostle.”26 “Benedictio reverentialis” were doxologies or praises to God rather than blessings from God. This is why this category “belongs not at all unto the design of the apostle.”27 He added that both “paternal” and “sacerdotal” blessings came under “benedictio authoritativa.”28 This category bears directly on the gospel ministry and public worship.

6.2.3 The Christian Ministry as Benedictory Ministerial blessings are more than prayer and more than merely declaring the word.29 They are tied to God’s presence in public worship and to the ministerial office. Owen explained this connection in terms of the pastor’s duties in public worship. These duties consisted primarily of five things. First, ministers place

22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

faithful in Christ (2:73–77). Note that Gouge mistakenly referred to his exposition of 6:15 instead of 6:14. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:370. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:370–371. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:370. Dickson, Hebrews, 89. Similarly, William Jones suggested three categories of blessings (prayer, giving thanks to God, and consecrating anything to a holy life). However, his categories differed both from Owen’s and from Dickson’s. William Jones, A Commentary upon the Epistles of Saint Paul to Philemon and to the Hebrews (London, 1635), 270. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:371. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:371. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:372–373. As shown above, Goodwin diminished the authoritative element of “paternal” blessings. Thomas Goodwin, Ephesians, 34. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:319; Gouge, Hebrews, 2:127.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

192

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

the name of God upon the church through “the right and orderly celebration of all the holy ordinances of worship of his appointment.”30 Ministers alone should administer the public means of grace. If believers should experience communion with the Triune God more gloriously in public worship than in any other setting, this makes the role of ministers in public worship vital. Placing God’s name on the people includes every blessing conveyed through the pastoral office. Second, ministers bless the church through preaching the gospel.31 Third, they must carefully apply the Scriptures to the church in administering church discipline and in promoting assurance among those with afflicted consciences.32 Fourth, ministers bless the church through prayer and godly example.33 Lastly, he mentioned the practice that “hath always been of use in the church” of the minister proclaiming God’s blessing on the people at the close of public worship.34 The Westminster Directory for Public Worship required ministers to “dismiss the congregation with a solemn blessing.”35 Likewise, John Cotton (1585–1652), who influenced Owen’s ecclesiology greatly, noted that the elders of the church “have the power to dismiss the church, with a blessing in the name of the Lord, Num. 6.23 to 26, Heb. 7.7.”36 This description of the role of ministers in public worship illustrates that proclaiming a benediction at the end of the service was not the primary focus. Owen concluded, “But yet, because the same thing is done in the administration of all the other ordinances, and this benediction is eutical only, or by the way of prayer, I shall not plead for the necessity of it.”37 Even though ministers may appropriately proclaim benedictions at the close of public worship, they did not need to do so because they blessed the people already by administering divine ordinances. This is important for at least two reasons. First, Thomas Goodwin took pains to argue based on Numbers 6:23–27 that the benediction did not belong to the ceremonial law, but that it was a ministerial duty in every age.38 However, even Goodwin softened his conclusion, noting that this provided 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:373. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:373. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:374. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:374. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:374–375. A Directory for the Public Worship of God, 19. John Cotton, The Keys of the Kingdom, and the Power Thereof, According to the Word of God (London, 1644), 22. 37 Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:375. “Eutical” referred to thanksgiving through prayer. 38 Goodwin, Ephesians, 12. So in briefer form, Gouge, Hebrews, 2:127. Ainsworth argued for the continuation of the benediction through ordinary ministers, only he added that ministers should not lift up their hand as the priests did in order to demonstrate that the blessing comes through Christ and not the minister. Henry Ainsworth (1571–1622), Annotations upon the First Five Books of Moses, the Book of Psalms, and the Song of Songs, or, Canticles (London, 1627), 3:42.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Benedictory Nature of the Christian Ministry

193

warrant for proclaiming the benediction, though he did not explicitly require ministers to do so as a Scriptural mandate. Second, Owen wrote earlier, “Wherefore the ministerial blessing is somewhat more than eutical, or a mere prayer. Neither is it merely doctrinal or declaratory, but that which is built on a particular especial warranty, proceeding from the nature of the ministerial office.”39 This statement appears initially to contradict the statement cited above. However, Owen was trying to stress a deeper principle. In his view, proclaiming a benediction at the close of the service was “eutical” and bore the character of prayer, but the blessing conveyed through the ministerial office was more than “eutical” or mere prayer. This is why he added immediately that ministers should not pronounce benedictions in detachment from public worship and its ordinances.40 The ministerial office is benedictory because ministers dispense these ordinances. While not denying the need to proclaim the benediction at the close of the service, Dickson concluded similarly that being appointed to bless people in God’s name demonstrated “the excellence of the office of God’s ministers.”41 Presbyterians and Congregationalists diverged slightly on this point. This difference related to the nature of ministerial authority, and it affected the church at every level. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that believers should honor the decisions of synods and councils not only because their decisions agreed with the word of God, but because synods and councils are divine ordinances.42 This gave councils a double-authority of sorts. The Savoy Declaration omitted the chapter on Synods and Councils altogether, though Congregationalists such as Owen and Burroughs allowed for a limited use of such assemblies.43 Burroughs went so far as to call synods “an ordinance of Jesus Christ” that “may by the power they have from Christ admonish men or churches in his name.” He argued that such ecclesiastical bodies proclaiming the word of God to the church in agreement with Scripture should be enough to constrain men’s consciences without ascribing additional authority to synods as an ordinance of God. Though Burroughs was a member of the Westminster

39 40 41 42

Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:319. Owen, Hebrews in Works, 22:319. Dickson, Hebrews, 90. Westminster Confession of Faith, 31.3: “…which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his word.” 43 Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church, in Works, 16:195–208. Burroughs, Irenicum, to the Lovers of Truth and Peace; Heart-Divisions Opened in the Causes and Evils of Them: with Cautions that We May not be Hurt by Them, and Endeavors to Heal Them (London, 1653), 43.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

194

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

Assembly, he clearly disagreed with the published confessional statement at this point.44 The difference between these views was that such Congregationalists believed that while synods possessed authority when their decisions agreed with the word of God, they had no double-authority as ordinances of God. In the unpaginated preface to John Cotton’s Keys of the Kingdom, Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye stated that synods are ordinances of Christ and they possess “dogmatical or doctrinal power,” but the local congregation has the power only to excommunicate.45 Later they added, “Although a greater assembly of Elders are to be reverenced as more wise and able than a few Elders with their single congregations, and accordingly may have an higher doctrinal power…in cases of difficulty, to determine and direct congregations in their way, yet Christ hath not betrusted them with that power he hath done the congregations, because they are abstracted from the people.”46 Goodwin and Nye noted that this was their single exception to Cotton’s position in his book. Cotton’s view of synods was closer to the Presbyterians’ than to the Congregationalists’. At first glance, this difference appears to be slight. Burroughs insisted that the differences between the Independents and the Presbyterians on this point were minor and that most people did not understand them.47 The Congregationalist view, however, implies a different view of ministerial authority. Owen’s conception of the benedictory nature of the pastoral office illustrates this point. As noted, he was indifferent about whether or not ministers proclaimed the benediction at the close of the service. He stressed the benedictory nature of the pastoral office instead.48 By contrast William Gouge and the Westminster Directory for Public Worship required the benediction as an element of worship.49 While Congregationalists such as Owen believed that ministerial authority resided in the word alone,50 Presbyterians believed that ministers held authority by virtue of their office and by the ordinances of Christ. Both sides agreed that ministers blessed the church by leading the people into

44 Burroughs, Irenicum, 43. This illustrates that the Westminster Assembly did not necessarily adopt mediating positions that comprehended all of its members. For more on this point, see Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” Drawn into Controversie, 45, 49. 45 John Cotton, Keys of the Kingdom, [4]. 46 John Cotton, Keys of the Kingdom, [10]. 47 See Burroughs, Irenicum, 288. 48 Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:456–457. 49 Gouge, Hebrews, 2:127; A Directory for the Public Worship of God, 19. 50 Goodwin and Nye use the identical language of a doctrinal authority belonging to ministers that they used earlier with regard to the authority of Synods. John Cotton, The Keys of the Kingdom, [9].

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Ministers as Christ’s Gift to the Church

195

communion with God in public worship. Both agreed that Christ gave the ministry to the church to bless it through work of the Spirit.

6.3

Ministers as Christ’s Gift to the Church

Owen explained the relationship between the ministry and the church with reference to the persons of the Godhead. Christ’s gift is the foundation of the Spirit’s gifts, and the gifts of both promoted communion with God in public worship. This is why he treated Christ’s work through the ministry prior to treating the Spirit’s work. This reflects the economic order of the works of God ad extra, in accord with Owen’s views of the triunity of God treated in chapter 2. The last part of his treatise on the work of the Holy Spirit represents his most extensive treatment of the Christian ministry as Christ’s gift to his church. William Goold, the editor of Owen’s works, noted that, though his treatise on spiritual gifts was disproportionately smaller than the rest of his work on the Spirit, he regarded it “as the second part of the main body of the whole work on the Spirit.”51 Owen narrowed the focus of this treatise by stating Christ’s great gift is “that of the ministry of the church.”52

6.3.1 The Ministry and Christ’s Humiliation and Exaltation In Owen’s estimation, extraordinary church offices provided the pattern for ordinary church offices. Likewise, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit laid the foundation for the ordinary gifts of the Spirit. Ministers have gifts of the same kind as the apostles, but differing in measure and degree.53 Christ’s person and work is the foundation of these spiritual gifts. The Christian ministry is Christ’s primary gift through the Spirit to the church. Owen based these observations on Ephesians 4:7–16. He believed that this passage provided the clearest foundation in Scripture for the origin, use, benefit, and permanence of the Christian ministry.54 The passage primarily has ministers in view, though the text allows some general application to the congregation.55 The origin of the ministry has great consequences for the order and the worship of the church: “It is the great fundamental of all church order, power, and worship, that the gift and grant of 51 52 53 54 55

Owen, Works, 4:352. Owen, Two Discourses, 220; Works, 4:486. Owen, Two Discourses, 220; Works, 4:486. Owen, Two Discourses, 221; Works, 4:487. Owen, Two Discourses, 271–275; Works, 4:516–518.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

196

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

Christ is the original of the ministry.”56 Introducing man-made offices into the church usurps Christ’s “supreme authority” as the head of the church.57 This relates to the claim of the “Dissenting Brethren,” with whom Owen worked closely, who believed that ministers had power by direct grant from Christ rather than from the church.58 He added that imagining the church without her officers cast doubt on the faithfulness of Christ.59 The twofold circumstances in which Christ gave officers to his church highlights their momentous importance.60 In the first place, he gave gifts by virtue of his ascension into heaven. The change in wording from Psalm 68:17–18 in Ephesians 4:8 (“gave” to “received”) illustrates both natures of Christ since, as God, he gives gifts and, as man, he received them from the Father on completing his work of redemption.61 While Owen does not say so explicitly, this is clearly the fruition of the covenant of redemption. This means that there is “more excellency, in giving one poor minister unto a congregation” than there is in the pompous installation of thousands of popes, cardinals, and metropolitans.62 The excellence of the ministry as Christ’s gift is also demonstrated by his descent “to the lower parts of the earth.” This may refer either to Christ’s entire humiliation or to his burial; Paul may have intended both.63 This parallels the two commonly accepted Reformed interpretations of Christ’s descent into hell in the Apostle’s Creed.64 Westminster Larger Catechism, question 50, chose between these options by implying that Christ “descended into hell” by continuing in the grave to the third day. The importance of this expression is that the ministry is rooted in both Christ’s humiliation and his exaltation. Philippians 2:6–11 illustrates this as well. 56 Owen, Two Discourses, 221; Works, 4:487. See “Ministerial Endowments, the Work of the Spirit,” Works, 9:442, cited at the beginning of this chapter. 57 Owen, Two Discourses, 222; Works, 4:488. 58 See Hunter Powell, “October 1643: The Dissenting Brethren and the Proton Dektikon,” in Drawn into Controversie, 69, 78. Goodwin laid the foundation for this claim when he wrote, “Power spiritualis is an impress of, or investiture with the authority of Christ, merely out of his will, whereby men are authorized and enabled by commission from Christ, and in his name to do that which others cannot do; and by virtue of which, what they so do, hath a special efficacy in it from the power of Christ, seconding and accompanying it; which also the conscience acknowledging subjects it self to, as unto the power of Christ, for the sake of his will and institution.” Thomas Goodwin, Of the Constitution, Right, Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ (London, 1696), 17. For the same position, see John Cotton, Keys of the Kingdom, 34. 59 Owen, Two Discourses, 227–228, 231; Works, 4:491, 493. 60 Owen, Two Discourses, 223; Works, 4:488. 61 Owen, Two Discourses, 224; Works, 4:489. 62 Owen, Two Discourses, 224; Works, 4:489. 63 Owen, Two Discourses, 225; Works, 4:490. 64 Daniel R. Hyde, In Defense of the Descent (Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology) (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Ministers as Christ’s Gift to the Church

197

Christ’s humiliation determines the purpose and emphasis of the Christian ministry. The ministry is grounded in a work that made peace between God and men (citing Eph. 2:14, 16–17). Consequently, the purpose of the ministry is to preach reconciliation between sinners and God through Christ (citing 2 Cor. 5:18–21).65 William Perkins treated Christ as the sum of the entire Bible. He demonstrated this in connection to each of the canonical books of both testaments.66 On the last page of this treatise, he summarized by stating, “Preach one Christ, by Christ, to the praise of Christ.”67 Andreas Hyperius taught similarly that the primary design of preaching was “to set forth those things that conduce to the salvation and reconciliation of man unto God.”68 The Westminster divine, Oliver Bowles, mirrored Owen’s sentiments when he argued that because the ministerial call originated from Christ, the central focus of the ministry should be reconciliation to God through Christ.69 This demonstrates how the Christian ministry promoted communion with the Triune God. The ministry brings people to the Father through the Son’s humiliation. Owen then developed the connection between the ministry and Christ’s ascension.70 It is interesting that, he did not yet connect the ministry to the Holy Spirit. This is so because, as the previous chapter demonstrated, the Sprit was Christ’s “great legacy” to his disciples.71 He wanted to illustrate the importance of the ministry by its special connection to the person and work of Christ.72 While Christ founded the church by virtue of his death and resurrection, through his ascension the church “was to be filled with its utensils and beautified with its ornaments.”73 The greatness of the Christian ministry lies in the fact that it was the “first exercise” of Christ’s ascension power.74 A ministry not proceeding from this source is “contemptible.”75 Owen drew from his doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture (see chapter 3 above) by establishing that Scripture alone delineates church offices. At this juncture, spiritual gifts become relevant. The ministry is such a great gift to the church because it is the primary seat of spiritual gifts. This makes it inconceivable to have a ministry that is not suffi65 Owen, Two Discourses, 226; Works, 4:490. 66 William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, or, A Treatise Concerning the Sacred and only True Manner and Method of Preaching (London, 1607), 7–17. 67 Perkins, Art of Prophesying, 148. 68 Andreas Hyperius, The Practice of Preaching, Otherwise Called the Pathway to the Pulpit, trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 9. 69 Oliver Bowles, De Pastore Evangelio Tractatus (London, 1659), 2. 70 Owen, Two Discourses, 226; Works, 4:490. 71 Owen, Pneumatologia, 9, 124; Works, 3:25, 156. 72 He refers to his commentary on Heb. 4:14 as an expansion of this point. 73 Owen, Two Discourses, 227; Works, 4:491. 74 Owen, Two Discourses, 227; Works, 4:491. 75 Owen, Two Discourses, 227; Works, 4:491.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

198

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

ciently gifted.76 Setting up an order of ministers by the authority of the church alone “is to despise his authority and care.”77 These spiritual gifts are essential to fulfill Christ’s purposes for the Christian ministry.

6.3.2 Extraordinary and Ordinary Officers Owen added that his text included two categories of officers. This division reflects the two stages of the establishment and the development of the church.78 Christ gave the extraordinary offices of apostle, prophet, and evangelist to establish the church.79 Owen used this idea as an opportunity to return to the topic of public worship.80 Extraordinary officers were necessary in order to stage an aggressive assault on Satan’s kingdom and to direct men “unto a new rule and law, for the worship of God.”81 These extraordinary functions coincided with establishing new covenant worship. Following this extraordinary period of founding the new covenant church, Christ ordained ordinary pastors and teachers to edify the church (citing Acts 14:23). Owen added sarcastically that “our apostle forgot popes, and diocesan bishops, with some others.”82 Following a digression on the means by which Christ calls ordinary officers to service, Owen closed his chapter by stating the purpose of ministers.83 Their positive end is to build up the church. Their “negative” purpose is to prohibit and hinder evil. While a church can be properly constituted without an ordained ministry, “the proper seat and subject of all gospel worship and ordinances” was the “gift of Christ in the ministry.”84 Even in cases where the church has lost its officers, however, it retains the power under Christ to appoint new ones. This is the same position that Owen taught early in his ministry in The Duties of Pastors and People.85 Interestingly, this early treatise represented his views while he was a Presbyterian, but he wrote his treatise on the spiritual gifts long after becoming a Congregationalist. This raises several questions. Was this a point held in common by Presbyterians and Congregationalists? Were there differences of opinion among Presbyterians regarding the seat of church power and of calling 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Owen, Two Discourses, 228; Works, 4:491. Owen, Two Discourses, 228; Works, 4:491. Owen, Two Discourses, 228–229; Works, 4:491. He devoted chapter 3 to expounding the nature of extraordinary offices and why they passed away. Owen, Two Discourses, 229; Works, 4:492. Owen, Two Discourses, 229; Works, 4:492. Owen, Two Discourses, 230; Works, 4:492. Owen, Two Discourses, 236; Works, 4:496. Owen, Two Discourses, 236; Works, 4:496. Owen, Duty of Pastors and People, 28–29, 41; Works, 13:28–29, 38. (chapter 4).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

199

officers?86 Another possibility was that Owen never understood Presbyterianism adequately. This appeared to be the case with John Cotton, who treated Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism as practically synonymous.87 It is sufficient to note that there were both Presbyterians and Congregationalists who believed that the congregation was the original seat of church power.88 The point here is that, just as ministers are called through the church, so the edification of the church is the primary object of their labors.89 The “negative” ends of the ministry include restraining evil in the church.90 This involves protection from false doctrine and delivering the church from a “child-like state.” Instruction through the ministry of the word delivers the church from its natural weakness, instability, and willfulness. Even though the stress here lies on the ministry, Owen concluded by noting that when the ministry functions properly, the entire church can fulfill all duties and edify itself in love.91 The essential point is that the ministry is Christ’s gift for the purpose of communicating grace to his church.92 Owen’s concluding “corollaries” serve as a bridge to considering the work of the Spirit in and through the ministry. First, all offices in the church must be delineated in the word of God if they are the gifts of Jesus Christ to his people. Second, a man who holds church office but who does not possess the Spirit’s gifts does not nullify his office, but “there is a nullity as to his person, and a disorder in the church.” Third, the church must greatly value the ministry as a preeminent gift of Christ. Fourth, ministers should labor diligently so that they may truly be a gift to the church. Fifth, ministers must do this by cultivating and pursuing all of the graces and the gifts required to make them useful as ministers.93 Christ blesses his people through ministers by the work of the Holy Spirit.

6.4

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

The work of the Holy Spirit in endowing ministers with spiritual gifts explains why they are a blessing to the church. Owen wrote, “A ministry devoid of 86 Hunter Powell has helpfully delineated differences among English Presbyterians on this point. See Powell, “October 1643,” 71–83. 87 John Cotton, Certain Queries Tending to Accommodation and Communion of Presbyterian and Congregational Churches (London, 1654), 5–6, 10. For Cotton’s influence on Owen’s ecclesiology, see Trueman, John Owen, 3. 88 Hunter Powell, “October 1643,” 66. 89 Owen, Two Discourses, 238; Works, 4:497. 90 Owen, Two Discourses, 238; Works, 4:497. 91 Owen, Two Discourses, 239; Works, 4:497. 92 Owen, Two Discourses, 239; Works, 4:498. 93 Owen, Two Discourses, 239; Works, 4:498.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

200

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

spiritual gifts is a sufficient evidence of a church under a degenerating apostasy.”94 The Spirit’s gifts enable ministers to lead the church into the presence of God through the ordinances of public worship. In this way, ministerial gifts are the means through which the saints experience Christ’s presence in public worship. Owen demonstrated this by his teaching on the Spirit’s gifts in general, the Spirit’s work in preaching, the administration of the sacraments, public prayer, and in ushering the presence of Christ into public worship.

6.4.1 The Work of the Pastor and the Gifts of the Spirit In a sermon on “The Duty of a Pastor,” Owen wrote, “The original of all church order and rule is in gifts; the exercise of those gifts is by office; the end of all those gifts is edification.”95 When treating the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it is significant that he understood these gifts primarily in terms of the gifts that characterized church offices. He taught that there were four categories of gifts that corresponded to four perpetual offices in the church. These offices were those of pastor, teacher, ruler, and deacon.96 He added that all of the gifts of the Spirit listed in Romans 12:6–8 should be assigned to one or more of these offices.97 In this sermon he sketched the work of the pastor, which he regarded as the primary office that Christ instituted for blessing the church. This placed high importance on pastors and teachers, which he treated as two aspects of a single office.98 It is not that other offices are unimportant, but the teaching offices of the church are the special focus of the work of the Son and the Spirit. Through preaching and teaching, pastors echoed the Spirit’s work in their labors since the Spirit instructs, illumines, and regenerates sinners. Owen’s general teaching on the gifts of the Spirit requires some elaboration. In light of 2 Corinthians 12:7–11, he identified eight kinds of extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.99 He expounded the significance of each of them at length.100 These gifts were revelatory and they were tied to extraordinary church offices. When the extraordinary offices passed away, so did these gifts. However, the ordinary gifts of the Spirit are “analogous” to the extraordinary and revelatory ones.101 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Owen, Two Discourses, 212; Works, 4:482. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:452. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:453. His primary application of the gifts of the Spirit to officers is found in Two Treatises; Works, 4, chapter 7. He regarded teachers as pastors with a specialized function, making the term “pastor” the more general of the two terms. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:452. Owen, Two Discourses, 164; Works, 4:454. Owen, Two Discourses, 164–198; Works, 4:459–474. Owen, Two Discourses, 200, 219; Works, 4:475, 486.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

201

The Lord bestows everything needed in like kind on pastors and teachers. To illustrate this, he drew an analogy between divinely inspired prophecy and ordinary preaching. While prophecy involves the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit and ordinary preaching does not, the point of the analogy is that both are gifts of the Spirit to proclaim the word of God.102 William Perkins subsumed both kinds of proclamation under the term “prophesying,” and he virtually assumed that its ordinary and uninspired form was its primary meaning.103 The cessation of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit placed heightened stress on the sufficiency of Scripture.104 The presence of analogous spiritual gifts in ordinary officers is tied closely to the church’s spiritual life and vitality. For this reason, he argued that spiritual gifts as exemplified by church officers were the true glory and beauty of the church instead of “the meretricious paint of pompous ceremonies.” Grace constitutes the life of the “primitive church” and gifts constitute her glory.105 The primary aim of these gifts was for the Triune God to communicate with his people in a salvific way.

6.4.2 The Spirit’s Work in Preaching The centrality of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Christian ministry led Owen to stress preaching.106 In order to bless those who sit under preaching, ministers must possess spiritual wisdom, authority, experience of the power of the truth, the ability to rightly divide the word, intimate knowledge of the flock, and zeal for God’s glory and the good of souls.107 John Flavel subsumed all of these categories under the heads of faithfulness and prudence.108 The fact that Owen’s sermon corresponds closely to sections in his books on the True Nature of a Gospel Church and Two Discourses shows the importance of this topic to him.109 The authority of preaching and the pastor’s experience of the truth particularly illustrate how the Spirit uses the ministry to lead the church into communion with God in public worship. 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

Owen, Two Discourses, 189–192, 257–258; Works, 4:469–471, 508–509. Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, 2–4. Owen, Two Discourses, 194; Works, 4:472; Duties of Pastors and People; Works, 13, chapter 7. Owen, Two Discourses, 200; Works, 4:475. Something that is “meretricious” is something that appears attractive, but has not real value. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:453. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:454–456. This material almost exactly parallels the relevant section in The True Nature of a Gospel Church. John Flavel, “The Character of a Complete Evangelical Pastor Drawn by Christ, The Whole Works of John Flavel, Late Minister of the Gospel at Dartmouth, Devon (London: W. Baynes and Son, 1820), 6:567. Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church in Works, Two Discourses in Works, 4:509–513.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

202

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

With regard to the minister’s authority in preaching, Owen noted, “It is a consequent of unction, and not of office.”110 This meant that the Spirit’s gifts constituted ministerial authority rather than ordination to office. Without denying the necessity of ordination, he argued that ministers did not receive authority by virtue of the congregation’s call to office. Similarly, in his work on the Spirit as the author of spiritual gifts, he noted that men rightly insisted on having an outward call to the ministry, since this was God’s appointment. However, when they prescribe the limits of this call by making submission to “ways, modes, and ceremonies of their own” prerequisite to entering the ministry, they forget that God calls ministers primarily by giving them gifts.111 Later, he added that by giving men gifts, the Holy Spirit gives them the right to hold office in the church, but that this does not give them the right to exercise the functions of office in the church.112 Christ ordinarily gives the right to exercise office through three steps. He limits offices to those revealed in his word, he gives men the gifts and abilities needed to hold office, and he invests the church with the power to call ministers.113 Churches must ordain ministers, but only those endowed with the Spirit’s anointing should hold office. The reason is that the work of the ministry must ultimately be Christ’s work through the Holy Spirit rather than merely the work of the pastor. This argument for the necessity of ordination is in contrast to that of the Congregationalist Samuel Petto, and in agreement with that of the Presbyterian Matthew Poole.114 Perkins wrote that preaching was “in the name and room of Christ.”115 The Spirit’s work in preaching illustrates that church power is spiritual and that it is exercised through using spiritual gifts only.116 The other matter that highlights the Spirit’s work in and through the ministry is Owen’s assertion that ministers must experience the power of the truth in their hearts.117 This is related closely to preaching. There is a difference between the gifts of the Spirit and the graces of the Spirit.118 Without the gifts of the Spirit, a 110 111 112 113 114

115 116 117 118

Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:454. Owen, Works, 4:431. Owen, Works, 4:441. Owen, Works, 4:492–496. John Marin, Samuel Petto, and Fredrick Woodal, The Preacher Sent, or, AVindication of the Liberty of Public Preaching by Some Men not Ordained (London, 1657); Matthew Poole, Ouo Warranto, or, A Moderate Enquiry into the Warrantableness of the Preaching of Gifted and Unordained Persons (London, 1650). Poole’s work is a response to the former treatise. Martin, Petto, and Woodal’s treatise is, in turn, a reply to Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici. This debate created a string of pamphlet wars. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, 3. Owen, Two Discourses, 201–202; Works, 4:476. In contrast, here, to the Roman Catholic Church. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:455. Owen, Two Discourses; Works, 4, chapter 2.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

203

minister cannot be useful to the church. Without the graces of the Spirit, a minister cannot be a true Christian. A man can have the gifts of the Spirit without the graces of the Spirit, but his usefulness will likely be temporary in such cases.119 When gifts and graces both reside in the same person, “they are exceedingly helpful unto each other. A soul sanctified by saving grace is the only proper soil for gifts to flourish in.” The presence of graces makes gifts most successful.120 With a similar emphasis on experimental piety and the effectiveness of preaching, Flavel wrote, “As ever we expect the truths we preach should operate upon the hearts of others, we first labor to work them in upon our own hearts….As hot iron, though blunt, will pierce sooner than a cold one, though sharper.”121 Chapter 2 above argued that Owen believed that without the Spirit’s regenerating power in renovating man’s mind, true theology was impossible.122 Chapter 4 above added to this idea the centrality of true spiritual affections to Puritan piety and to Owen’s teaching on worship. Patrick Gillespie added that the experimental knowledge of God stood at the heart of the covenant of grace.123 Here Owen applied all of these concepts to the pastor’s task of preaching the word of God. It is not simply necessary for hearers to hold communion with God by the Spirit. The Spirit’s work in the pastor is essential as well.124 The fact that preaching after the Restoration was so ineffective in the lives of many people was probable evidence that those who preached the word were no longer gripped by its power in their own hearts.125 Owen did not regard preaching as simply im119 120 121 122 123

Owen, Two Discourses, 122; Works, 4:430. Owen, Two Discourses, 136; Works, 4:438. Flavel, “Character of a Complete Pastor,” Works, 6:572–573. Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487. Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament, 20: “The saving knowledge of the Gospel Covenant doth necessarily affect the heart, yea it doth determine and sway the heart.” See Owen, Two Discourses, 125; Works, 4:431. 124 Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:455: “He who doth not feed on, digest, and thrive by, what he prepares for his people, he may give them poison, as far as he knows; for, unless he find the power of it in his own heart, he cannot have any ground of confidence that it will have power in the heart of others. It is an easier thing to bring our heads to preach than our hearts to preach.” Emphasis original. 125 Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:455: “A man may preach every day in the week and not have his heart engaged once. This hath lost us powerful preaching in the world, and set up, instead of it, quaint orations; for such men never seek after experience in their own hearts: and so it is come to pass, that some men’s preaching and some men’s not preaching, have lost us the power of what we call the ministry ; that though there be twenty or thirty thousand orders, yet the nations perish for want of knowledge, and is overwhelmed in all manner of sins, and not delivered from them unto this day.” For the experience of the church with reference to ministerial gifts, see Owen, Two Discourses, 255; Works, 4:507: “The experience of those who are humble and wise, who, fearing God, do inquire into these things, is appealed unto. Have they not an experiment of this administration? Do they not

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

204

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

parting information, but as a dynamic interaction between God and the congregation.126 His subsequent teaching on prayer in this sermon stressed this idea even more forcefully by arguing that all the preaching in the world would be valueless without constant and fervent prayer.127 As he argued elsewhere, the Holy Spirit himself is the primary blessing that God gives in response to all genuine prayer.128

6.4.3 The Administration of the Sacraments The sacraments are another important aspect of a minister’s work in public worship. In the Second Helvetic Confession, Heinrich Bullinger summarized ministerial duties in terms of administering the word and the sacraments.129 This highlights an important dimension of the Spirit’s work in public worship. Sacraments were tied intimately to the concept of the covenant in Reformed theology, since God customarily signified and sealed his covenant promises through visible signs.130 Edward Leigh described a sacrament as “an applying of the covenant of grace to God’s people for their good by visible signs.”131 Because baptism was less prominent in Owen’s writings than the Lord’s Supper, this section draws attention to the Supper. Owen prioritized the ministry of the word; however, he believed that the saints enjoyed peculiar communion with God through the sacraments.132 Calvin famously taught that believers held communion with Christ in both his divine and human natures through the Supper.133 This did not occur by transforming the elements into Christ’s physical body, but by lifting up the souls of believers to heaven in an indescribable manner. It is

126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133

find the presence of the Spirit himself, by his various gifts in them, by whom spiritual things are administered unto them? Have they not a proof of Christ speaking in them by the assistance of his Spirit, making the word mighty unto all its proper ends?” One weakness of the Oxford Guide to the Early Modern Sermon is that it almost entirely neglects Reformed views on the Spirit’s work in preaching. The Spirit’s work was as integral to Owen’s view of preaching as it was to his definitions of true theology. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:456–458. Flavel wrote, “Those are the best sermons, that are obtained by prayer.” Flavel, “Character of a Complete Pastor,” Works, 6:573. Owen, Works, 3:155. See also 109, 398–399. Goodwin made the same observation. See Thomas Goodwin, Ephesians, 1:42. Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XXVIII, “The Duties of Ministers.” See Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament, 45–49. Rollock’s catechism likewise indicated this relationship by including sacraments in its title. Leigh, A Body of Divinity, 655. Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:560: “The communication of Christ herein, and our participation in him, are expressed in such a manner as to demonstrate them to be peculiar – such as are not to be obtained in any other way or divine ordinance whatever; not in praying, not in preaching, not in any other exercise of faith on the word of promises.” Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.2; Opera, 2:103.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

205

likely that Owen believed in a peculiar communion with Christ through the sacraments, partly due to the fact that the Lord ministered to his people both through the word and through a visible sign.134 Ordained ministers of the gospel alone were permitted to administer the sacraments.135 Edward Leigh spoke for the Reformed tradition as a whole when he wrote, “It is held by the Reformed churches, and the soundest Protestant writers, that neither of these sacraments may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.”136 The warrant to administer the sacraments grew out of the minister’s warrant to preach the word of God. This reflected the inseparable connection between Word and sacraments in Reformed theology.137 Owen’s view that ministerial authority resided in the gifts of the Spirit undergirded the minister’s right to administer the sacraments as much as to preach the word. The Lord’s Supper in particular highlights communion with all three persons of the Godhead in public worship. Richard Sibbes, for example, exhorted his hearers to behold the Love of the Father in the Supper.138 The Spirit then becomes the link between believers and the Father and the Son: “The Spirit of the Father and the Son must discover the love of the Father to us in his Son.”139 The Father has spread the feast for his people. Christ is present by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who receive the Supper in faith. The result is that through ministerial labors, believers have an opportunity to commune with God in public worship that they cannot receive in private. This does not over-exalt the clergy as a class as much as it stresses why public worship is better than private worship.140 In conclusion, it is important to add that Savoy represented a Reformed consensus when it asserted that the efficacy of a sacrament “doth not depend on the piety or intention of him that doth administer it.”141

134 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:561: “It is a spiritual image of Christ proposed unto us, intimately affecting our whole souls. These things – namely, the ineffable love and grace of Christ, the bitterness of his sufferings and death in our stead, the sacrifice that he offered by his blood unto God, with the effect of it in atonement and reconciliation – being herein contracted into one entire proposal unto our souls, faith is exercised thereon in a peculiar manner, and so as it is not in any other divine ordinance or way of the proposal of the same things unto us.” 135 Savoy Declaration 28.4; Directory for the Public Worship of God, 19, 23–24; Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 907–908. 136 Leigh, A Body of Divinity, 660. 137 Savoy Declaration 28.4; Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 909; Leigh, A Body of Divinity, 660. 138 Richard Sibbes, Works, 4:329: “In the Sacrament see the Father.” 139 Richard Sibbes, Works, 4:329. 140 See Clarkson, Public Worship, Works, 3:187–209. 141 Savoy Declaration 28.3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

206

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

6.4.4 Public Prayer and Imposed Liturgies The issue of imposed liturgies was very important to Owen.142 Chapters 1 and 3 above illustrated the historical context of seventeenth century debates over public worship. It is important here to examine how Owen connected the matter of liturgies to the gifts of the Spirit in ministers and to imposed forms of prayer. Westminster Shorter Catechism question 80 states, “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.” The ministry is Christ’s gift to the church, and he applies his redemption to his elect through the work of ministry by virtue of the Spirit’s gifts.143 He uses these “outward and ordinary means” to do so. Owen argued that imposed liturgies and external beauty in Roman Catholic worship attempted to compensate for the absence of the Holy Spirit.144 This was evidence that all of the gifts of the Spirit are “extinguished” in the church of Rome.145 Out of all of Rome’s apostasies, the way in which she corrupted the “evangelical institutions” of worship was her most “pernicious” error.146 This is a strong statement, given the numerous criticisms that the Reformed had against Rome. This demonstrates the importance that Owen attached to worship in his theology. The external extravagance and “show of worship” in Roman Catholicism grew in proportion to her neglect of the gifts of the Spirit in the ministry.147 However, the “hinge” on which all other differences over worship turned was the Spirit’s work in prayer.148 This question is “the foundation of all our present differences about the manner of divine worship.”149 William Perkins observed that preaching and prayer are two parts of prophesying. In preaching, ministers speak to the people on God’s behalf. In

142 For example, see his Discourse Concerning Liturgies, Works, 15:1ff. For a treatment of Owen’s views of liturgies, see Hyde, “Of Great Importance and of High Concernment.” Hyde elsewhere notes that it is strange that Owen’s liturgical theology has received so little attention. Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen. 143 Owen, Two Discourses, 117; Works, 4:426: “By these gifts, I say, doth the Lord Christ demonstrate his power and exercise his rule.” 144 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557–560. 145 Owen, Two Discourses, 202; Works, 4:476. 146 Owen, Two Discourses, 202; Works, 4:476: “There is nothing so pernicious unto the church, so justly to be watched against and rooted out, as a dislike of their horrible apostasies, in the corrupt depravation of all evangelical administrations.” 147 Owen, Two Discourses, 201–202; Works, 4:507. 148 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, 8; Works, 4:254. 149 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, [29], unpaginated preface; Works, 4:245; Two Discourses, 266–268; Works, 4:513–514. The latter reference summarizes the minister’s work in public worship in terms of preaching and prayer.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

207

prayer, ministers lead the people to God’s throne.150 Ministers must exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit in public prayer. While believers cannot condemn “set forms of prayer” entirely,151 yet the Lord did not promise the Spirit’s help to assist ministers to compose prayers, but to enable them actually to pray.152 Imposing set forms of prayer is unlawful, though written forms in themselves are not.153 However, ministers who rely exclusively on forms of prayer render the gifts of the Holy Spirit unnecessary.154 Such prayers have no divine promises or commands connected to them, but exercising spiritual gifts in prayer have both.155 This means that depending on set forms of prayer stifles the Spirit’s gifts in leading public worship. In other words, using set forms of prayer in public worship results in a twofold detrimental effect. On the one hand, ministers diminish their ministerial gifts. On the other hand, hampering these gifts hinders the Spirit’s work in the congregation. This does not imply that God’s presence in public worship depends on the piety or the intention of the minister. Instead, it reflects that idea that God intends ordinarily to meet with his church by working in both pastor and people.156 Several important implications arise from these ideas. Owen’s objections to liturgies do not entail rejecting order in public worship. Presumably he could have been comfortable with a directory of worship instead of an imposed liturgy. Even though the word of God determines the elements of public worship, Owen did not simplistically believe that this was all that was needed to direct the public worship of the church. Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration mention that there are certain circumstances of the worship of God and the government of the church that are left to the discretion of human reason and custom, so long as they agree with the “general rules of the word.”157 The point here is that not only must every element of worship be founded in Scripture, but that every element of worship must be administered through the active exercise of spiritual gifts.

150 Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, 2. 151 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, [7–8]; Works, 4:239. See Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 73. Later Scudder concluded, “I conclude this point therefore, that it is an error to hold set prayer to be unlawful; and it is no less error, to hold that no prayer but a set form of prayer is lawful” (76). 152 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, [13–14]; Works, 4:240. 153 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, [29]; Works, 4:245. 154 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, 51; Works, 4:272. 155 Owen, Work of the Spirit in Prayer, 79; Works, 4:284. 156 Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:454–456; “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:548. 157 Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6; Savoy Declaration 1.6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

208

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

6.4.5 The Work of the Pastor and the Presence of Christ The capstone and summary of the work of the ministry in public worship lies in bringing the congregation into Christ’s presence.158 This is tied closely to the Spirit’s work through the ministry, and it is what makes the ministerial office benedictory. The previous chapter argued that Owen taught that Christ was the true administrator of public worship.159 Accordingly, he added here that the efficacy of the ordinances of public worship “depends only upon the presence of Christ.”160 Christ’s promise to be with his church to the end of the age is “that which makes the church to be what it is” and distinguishes it from all other societies. Churches that have lost the special presence of Christ are no longer churches.161 This does not refer to Christ’s presence “in the immensity of his divine nature.” Neither does it refer to his presence in his human nature, since heaven must receive him until his second coming (Acts 1:9). It refers instead to his presence in the power of the Holy Spirit.162 Without Christ’s presence, his ordinances would be no better than those of the Jews under the old covenant.163 The Westminster divine, Anthony Burgess, wrote that if “God should withdraw his power and presence in the ministry . . . then the ministry is but a shadow; or if a body, then a body without a soul: It’s but a dead letter : Yea, not only the law, but the gospel and all preaching is but the ministration of death, and condemnation, when without God’s Spirit and power.”164 Worship would be unacceptable without Christ’s presence in the Spirit, for such a church would have “no covenant-relation” to God.165 The necessity of Christ’s presence in public worship is wedded to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s primary work through ministers in public worship lies in endowing them with spiritual gifts and working spiritual graces in hearts. However, these ministers must procure Christ’s presence in public worship through fervent prayer. This is the Spirit’s primary aim.166 To emphasize this point, he added that ministers who trust in their natural abilities rather than in God’s Spirit exclude the presence of both Christ and the Spirit from their la158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:457–458. Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:557. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:458. Owen, Two Discourses, 242; Works, 4:499; Theodore Beza, Annotationes Maiores in Novum Domini Nostri Jesu Christ, pars prior (Geneva, 1594), 159. Owen, Two Discourses, 243; Works, 4:500. Owen, Two Discourses, 242; Works, 4:500. Anthony Burgess, The Scripture Directory for Church Officers and People, or, A Practical Commentary Upon the Whole Third Chapter of the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, to Which is Annexed the Godly and the Natural Man’s Choice (London, 1659), 67. Owen, Two Discourses, 245; Works, 4:501. See chapter 5 above. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:457–458.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Ministry, The Spirit’s Gifts, and Christ’s Presence

209

bors.167 The work of the Spirit facilitates the presence of Christ, and the presence of Christ makes the ordinances of public worship effective means of salvation.168 These observations raise the question of the Father’s relation to the ministerial office. Even though Owen did not refer to the Father explicitly here, his two sermons on public worship argued that coming to the Father was the high point of public worship.169 His covenant theology provides a clue regarding the reason for highlighting the Spirit’s work and Christ’s presence in connection to his ecclesiology. In the eternal covenant of redemption, the Father and the Son are prominent and the Spirit is promised as a result of that covenant. However, the covenant of grace shifts the attention from the Father and the Son to the Son and the Spirit, since the Son accomplished redemption for the elect and the Spirit applies redemption to them in effectual calling and regeneration.170 The centrality of the person and work of Christ is the common point in both covenants.171 Since the Christian ministry is connected closely with the application of redemption, then the work of the Holy Spirit naturally takes center stage. However, the Spirit’s role is to glorify Christ and to bring believers into communion with him. In the economy of the Trinity, every blessing from God comes to the church through Christ by the Spirit.172 This mirrors his teaching regarding the proper work of each person of the Godhead and the peculiar communion that believers hold with them.173 His treatment of offices stresses the work of Christ, but his discussion of gifts shifts attention to the Holy Spirit.174 Richard Sibbes observed similarly that the relation of the divine persons to the work of the ministry reflects the Trinitarian order of salvation.175 He argued that the Christian ministry must foster a Christ-centered focus, since Christ is both the object of faith as well as the only means by which people can know the Father’s love. The Trinitarian revelation of salvation to the sinner then comes full circle, since the Father reveals the Son by means of the Spirit, and the Son likewise reveals the Father by means of the Spirit.176 While summarizing the 167 Owen, Two Discourses, 256; Works, 4:507–508. 168 Owen, Two Discourses, 240–241; Works, 4:498. See Westminster Shorter Catechism question 88. 169 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:60. 170 Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 30. 171 This is why I have referred to Owen’s Christ-centered Trinitarianism above. 172 For instance, Samuel Petto noted that God invested Christ with every blessing before he bestowed these blessings upon the church: “If we would obtain any Spiritual gifts, any graces, any comforts, any glory, we must be beholden to him, borrow all from his store, receive all from his hand.” Petto, The Difference, 23–24. He included the Holy Spirit as the root of these blessings. 173 See chapter 2 above. 174 Owen, Two Discourses, 240–241; Works, 4:498. 175 Sibbes, Works, 4:330. 176 Sibbes, Works, 4:330.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

210

The Christian Ministry as the Means of Communion with God in Public Worship

Trinitarian nature of communion with God in salvation, Sibbes later concluded that believers could not receive the Holy Spirit without the Father reconciling himself to them through Christ’s atonement. However, it is equally true that they cannot receive Christ apart from the operative power of the Holy Spirit.177 Like Owen, Sibbes made the entire gospel hinge on the concerted yet distinct work of all three Persons in the Godhead. The Son accomplishes the works of God and the Spirit perfects them. This is why, in Owen’s view, the Spirit’s gifts relate immediately to the application of redemption through preaching, sacraments and prayer. Through these means, ministers become instruments of bringing believers into communion with God by virtue of Christ’s presence in public worship.178

6.5

Conclusion

Francis Turretin wrote, “The church is the primary work of the holy Trinity, the object of Christ’s mediation and the subject of the application of his benefits.”179 John Owen taught that the Triune God applied this work through a Spirit-filled ministry. This chapter explored how this was the case both generally and particularly. In general, the ministerial office is benedictory in nature because through it, God dispenses the outward means of applying Christ and the benefits of redemption. In particular, this office is Christ’s gift, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit enable ministers to bless the church through the ordinances of public worship. This subject moves this research near to conclusion, since it ties together every theme of the first five chapters. Together these chapters set forth Owen’s teaching on the Trinitarian structure of public worship, the Scriptural grounds of public worship, the spiritual manner of public worship, the covenantal character of public worship, and the instrumental cause of communion with God in public worship. In each of these areas, Owen’s theology was selfconsciously Trinitarian and practical. This practical Trinitarianism almost always found its highest expression in public worship.

177 Sibbes, Works, 4:343. 178 See Anthony Burgess, Scripture Directory, 67: “That the ministry in God’s church is the means and instrumental cause, he hath appointed to work faith and all other graces in the hearers.” He added later that the ministry is the “only ordinary way” appointed by God in order to begin or to increase grace in people (69). 179 Francis Turretin, Institutes, 3:1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

7.

Conclusion

7.1

Introduction

Historical theology is a vast subject. It is impossible to master the astonishing number of primary sources from seventeenth century Reformed theology alone, let alone the literature from other theological traditions. It is hard for historians to know when they have established a subject’s historical context adequately. As Carl Trueman observed, It is also once again a reminder of the need for modesty in conclusions. Because contexts are as large as the historian cares to make them, conclusions are necessarily limited and provisional. Again, this is not to say that all conclusions are therefore equally valid, that all histories are equally true; but it is to say that no history can lay claim to enjoying a status that means it can never be improved or refined as a result of fresh discoveries or insights 1

This research has attempted to situate John Owen in his seventeenth century world and to understand the core principles of his theology in light of that context. The primary contention of this work has been that Owen’s doctrine of communion with all three persons in the Godhead was the foundation of his theology of public worship. In addition, every chapter has argued that he regarded public worship as the highest expression of communion with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These emphases were not peripheral to his teaching; he self-consciously incorporated the themes of Trinitarian communion and public worship into every major area of his theology. It is now possible to draw some conclusions based upon the content of each of the preceding chapters. These conclusions assess the significant contributions of each chapter and consider some areas that merit further research.

1 Carl R. Trueman, Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 140.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

212

7.2

Conclusion

Contributions of the Preceding Chapters

The primary contribution of this research is its reassessment of John Owen’s Trinitarian theology in light of its inherently practical bent. Public worship was the filter than enabled him to ensure that every aspect of his Trinitarian theology produced an inherently practical outcome. This appears by evaluating the findings of each of the preceding chapters. Chapter 1 seeks to establish Owen’s historical context as it related to his views of public worship. In this regard, his historical status as a “Puritan” is vital, since he believed that the two primary areas in which the church needed reform were in reference to personal holiness and public worship.2 The troubled times in which he lived accounts, in part, for his preoccupation with the subject of public worship. However, this does not account adequately for how he intertwined the themes of the Trinity and public worship consistently throughout his writings. There was a deep theological bond in his works between communion with the persons of the Trinity and public worship. Owen’s writings demand that those who study his thinking give careful attention to these twin themes. The growing body of secondary literature on Owen’s life and theology has not yet recognized this adequately. This research has addressed this defect by letting Owen dictate the scope of this study. His writings lead consistently to communion with the Godhead in public worship. Chapter 2 is a microcosm of the entire thesis of this study. It argues that Owen’s doctrine of communion with the Triune God was the foundation of his theology of public worship. This chapter explored his Trinitarian doctrine of the knowledge of God, his teaching on communion with the divine persons, and how he applied them in two sermons on Ephesians 2:18. This chapter of the thesis is central to its remaining chapters and includes several contributions to studies of Owen and of Reformed orthodoxy in general, two of which are singled out here. First, the chapter reevaluates his Theologoumena Pantodapa. This includes significant critical interaction with Westcott’s “English interpretation” of this book. In contrast to many earlier assessments, this work is primarily a Prolegomena to theology rather than a work of covenant theology or a precursor to the discipline now known as Biblical Theology.3 In particular, this work mirrors Johannes Hoornbeeck’s definitions of theology and the structure of his Prolegomena, only in much larger form.4 Theologoumena Pantodapa is significant because it presents Owen’s definitions of true theology and the resultant con2 Owen, “Providential Changes,” Works, 9:137. 3 Westcott’s introduction to Owen, Biblical Theology, xii; Trueman, John Owen, 5, and Goold’s comments in Owen, Works, 17:2. 4 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. VI, cap. VIII, 519; Biblical Theology, 681–682; Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae, lib. 1, cap. 1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Contributions of the Preceding Chapters

213

nection between theology and personal piety. Owen’s definitions require that theology be both theoretical and practical in order to be worthy of the name.5 This means that studies on Owen’s Trinitarian theology that neglect the experimental or practical aim of his theology are deficient to some extent.6 This does not imply that such studies are inaccurate as far as they go. The question is whether Owen would have recognized his own emphases in these studies. Theologoumena Pantodapaemphasizes communion with God in public worship as well. Second, chapter 2 adds to the small body of literature on seventeenth century trinitarian theology. In this connection, it is important to say that the footnotes of this chapter include much information for those interested in further research. Owen’s development of a devotional or practical Trinitarianism is particularly noteworthy. Philip Dixon observed that in the early eighteenth century, belief in the doctrine of the Trinity fell into decline. While English divines had fought for the doctrine for decades, these finely tuned doctrinal arguments gradually lost touch with the faith and life of ordinary believers. Eventually, some wondered if the doctrine was important at all. This led many churches into Unitarianism.7 Owen used the doctrine of the Trinity as the platform for every area of the Christian life. This practical emphasis culminated in communion with God in public worship. His Dutch contemporary, Gisbertus Voetius, argued that one reason why the doctrine of the Trinity was a fundamental article of the faith was that it was the foundation of so many practical uses as well as of personal godliness and divine worship.8 Developing a Trinitarian piety was likely the primary contribution of seventeenth century Reformed orthodoxy to the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is in contrast to the teaching of Robert Letham who, in effect, assumes that Reformed orthodoxy made no significant contributions to Trinitarian theology.9 While Owen was not entirely unique in his practical Trinitarianism, it is fair to say that he was 5 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. VI, cap. VI, 488; Biblical Theology, 638. 6 Pieter de Vries has mildly criticized Carl Trueman’s work on Owen on this point. In a later book, Trueman acknowledged that this criticism was valid to some extent, but that his emphasis on the theoretical aspects of Owen’s theology justified a diminished emphasis on his stress on experimental piety. Trueman, John Owen, 5. This thesis strengthens de Vries’s original criticism. 7 Philip Dixon relates that by the early eighteenth century, the Church of England theologian Daniel Waterland (1683–1740) made one of the last attempts to show the practical importance of the Trinity. This attempt illustrates the general decline of belief in the doctrine. Dixon notes, “Instead of a sense of the centrality of the doctrine to the whole of Christian experience, the reader is left with the feeling that Waterland is desperately trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity ‘relevant.’” He concluded, “The doctrine of the Trinity remained the official teaching of the Church of England but had little impact on its life.” Dixon, Nice and Hot Disputes, 205–207. 8 Voetius, Disputationes, 1:473. 9 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

214

Conclusion

distinctive in the consistency of his teaching in this area. This is why Joel Beeke singled out Owen’s teaching on communion with the Trinity in the relevant chapter of A Puritan Theology.10 However, this treatment makes no reference to his views of public worship. Owen’s two sermons on Ephesians 2:18 explicitly tie his twin themes of Trinity and public worship to several major areas of his theology. These sermons provided the structure for chapters 2 through 6. Chapter 3 treats Owen’s construction of the Reformed principle of worship in light of his views on the sufficiency of Scripture. The first part of the chapter complements the section on the Trinitarian knowledge of God in chapter 2 by exploring his views of the Trinitarian character of divine revelation in Scripture. Combined, these two chapters present his treatment of the being of God (principium essendi) and of the doctrine of Scripture (principium cognoscendi), thus grounding his theology of worship in the two foundational principles of Reformed Prolegomena.11 In addition, chapter 3 includes an in-depth analysis of the principles, terminology, and parts of worship in Reformed theology. This encompasses how they rooted their principle of worship in an exposition of the second commandment; how this principle related to the attributes of Scripture; and the nature of elements, forms, and circumstances of worship. Owen’s treatment of the principle of public worship and its application grew out of his Trinitarianism. His emphases mirrored those of earlier Reformed authors, such as William Perkins. However, this Trinitarian cast to public worship was conspicuously absent among many of his contemporaries, such as Jeremiah Burroughs and Stephen Charnock, who wrote on worship. This illustrates the diverse emphases that existed among Reformed orthodox writers, in spite of their otherwise common theology. Chapter 4 sets forth Owen’s treatment of the spiritual affections as the primary vehicle of communion with the Triune God in the ordinances of public worship. Most studies on Puritan and Reformed orthodox piety have drawn attention to private devotion rather than to public worship.12 This chapter serves a twofold purpose. On the one hand, it balances the material from chapter 3 by showing that Owen treated the external forms of public worship as a means to the end of communion with the Godhead. As important as the external elements of worship were to Owen, communion with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit was always the aim of public worship. On the other hand, this chapter shows how and why public worship is the high point of communion with God as triune. This was because public worship is a transaction between the souls of the

10 Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 101–116. 11 Muller, PRRD, I. 12 For instance, de Reuver, Sweet Communion.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Contributions of the Preceding Chapters

215

saints on earth and God in heaven. This relates both to his teaching on apostasy and on spiritual-mindedness. Chapter 5 presents a sketch of how Owen’s views of public worship relate to his covenant theology. The focus of this thesis means that this is not a full analysis of his covenant theology. This topic in itself could warrant several monographs. In particular, his entire commentary on Hebrews is a massive treatise on the contrast between old covenant and new covenant worship.13 The primary point of this chapter is that knowing God as triune is one of the primary benefits of new covenant worship and it is largely what makes new covenant worship superior to old covenant worship. Two contributions of this chapter to the study of Reformed orthodoxy and to Owen studies are worth particular emphasis. First, the chapter explores Owen’s view of the Holy Spirit in relation to the covenant of redemption as well as to where he fit into the development of the intra-Trinitarian covenant in Reformed theology.14 Jonathan Edwards usefully confirmed the general trajectory of Reformed views on this subject, which helps clarify Owen’s position. The order of operation of the divine persons in the covenant of redemption provided the structural backdrop for his doctrine of communion with God in public worship. Communion with the divine persons, both jointly and distinctly, was the fruition of the eternal covenant of redemption. Second, this chapter explores Owen’s construction of the Mosaic covenant. The nature of the Mosaic covenant in Reformed orthodoxy is a difficult issue.15 Some authors have misrepresented Owen’s position on the Sinai covenant.16 This is somewhat understandable, since his view is complex and it represents a minority position within Reformed orthodoxy. Owen regarded the Mosaic covenant as neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but as retaining elements of them both.17 The Mosaic law was identical to the law of the covenant of works, but God did not give the law to Israel on Sinai as a covenant of works. It revived the terms of the covenant without reviving the covenant itself, which was abrogated immediately upon Adam’s fall. However, the Mosaic covenant was not the covenant of grace either. Samuel Petto, who taught the same view as Owen taught on the Mosaic covenant, clarified this point by arguing that the Mosaic covenant was the republication of the covenant of works as the “legal condition”

13 A. Craig Troxell, “Cleansed Once for All.” 14 Mark Jones has noted the need for further research on this question. Jones, “Introduction” to Petto’s Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace, 19. 15 See Mark Jones, “The Old Covenant,” Drawn into Controversie, and his chapter entitled “Minority Report: John Owen on Sinai,” in A Puritan Theology, 293–303. 16 This applies particularly to Michael Brown, Christ and the Condition, 44, 79. 17 Owen, Works, 23:70, 77–78; Petto, The Difference, 162.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

216

Conclusion

of the covenant of grace.18 While Michael Brown identified this as Petto’s position, he incorrectly distinguished this view from those of Cameron and Bolton.19 While chapter 5 does not present an exhaustive treatment of Owen’s covenant theology, this writer hopes that this analysis of his view of the Mosaic covenant will add clarity to further studies. The primary purpose here is to provide a backdrop for the contrast that Owen drew between public worship under the old and new covenants. Through the simplified external form of new covenant worship, believers enjoy more immediate and effective communion with God in three persons than did the Old Testament saints. Chapter 6 ties together the themes of the preceding chapters in relation to the Christian ministry. Owen taught that ministers exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit in administering the ordinances of public worship were Christ’s gift to the church, designed to bring his people into fellowship with God. Owen’s treatment of benedictions in public worship provides an unexpected avenue into exploring the relationship between the Christian ministry and communion with God in public worship. The ministerial office is benedictory in nature because it is Christ’s gift to the church and because it is the primary seat of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ministers promote communion with God in public worship by exercising these gifts through word, sacrament, and prayer. Though chapter 3 treats the elements of public worship in general, this chapter revisits some of them as they relate to the ministerial office. The section on Owen’s views of public prayer includes a brief analysis of why he rejected set forms of prayer in the debate over imposed liturgies. The primary contribution of this chapter is to show the practical implications of his Congregationalist ecclesiology for his theology of worship. This material ties directly into the theme of public worship as the highest communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

7.3

Areas Requiring Further Research

Owen was a prolific author and it is difficult to master his works. A research project of this nature naturally gives rise to areas that require further study. This is true not only in regard to Owen studies but also in regard to several questions that arise in relation to Reformed orthodoxy in general. This section simply lists several of these areas in hopes of promoting further research. First, The influence of Arminianism on the development of Reformed Trinitarian piety. This author has primarily considered Owen’s response to Soci18 Petto, The Difference, 112, 127. 19 Brown, Christ and the Condition, 79. See my review of Brown in Mid-America Journal of Theology, Fall 2012.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Areas Requiring Further Research

217

nianism as part of his historical context. However, Arminianism was an important impetus for developing a practical Trinitarian theology. For example, Voetius, Hoornbeeck, and Mastricht all developed a devotional Trinitarian theology in response to the Arminian threat. The primary reason was that seventeenth century Arminianism denied that the Trinity was a fundamental article of the faith.20 This shows a deficiency in Philip Dixon’s otherwise helpful study. He ignores the potential effects of the shift toward Arminian theology in the Church of England in the latter half of the seventeenth century on the decline of a practical Trinitarianism. While Sarah Mortimer has demonstrated the differences between the English and the Dutch over connecting Arminianism and Socinianism, it is at least worth asking about the effects of English Arminianism on Trinitarian theology.21 Owen was clearly preoccupied with Socinianism. Even so, it is worth noting that he classed the Arminians with the Socinians in his first published work. There is little secondary literature on the doctrine of the Trinity in the seventeenth century, and there is even less material on the practical development of the doctrine by Reformed authors. The Arminian context provides an avenue for exploring how some Reformed theologians developed a selfconscious model for Trinitarian piety.22 Second, The significance of the filoque clause in Reformed orthodoxy for understanding the experience of communion with God. Owen believed that the western doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son was essential to understanding the Spirit’s work in personal holiness. This author has written briefly on this subject elsewhere.23 In other words, the question here regards how western Trinitarianism shaped western as opposed to eastern piety in the seventeenth century. As the Trinity stood at the heart of Owen’s Reformed and Puritan piety, so did his use of the filoque clause in the creed. Instead of asking whether Reformed orthodox writers were eastern or western in their doctrine of the Trinity, it would be more fruitful first to determine the character of western Trinitarianism in the seventeenth century and how western authors, such as Owen, contributed to this tradition.24 This question is not only important historically, but it can be potentially useful in contemporary discussions between eastern and western Christians.25 It would be 20 Muller, PRRD, 4:109. 21 Mortimer, Reason and Religion, 39–62. 22 This author is currently researching the Trinitarian piety of Voetius, Hoornbeeck, and Mastricht as it grew out of their responses to Arminianism. 23 McGraw, “John Owen on the Holy Spirit,” The Beauty and the Glory of the Holy Spirit , 267–284. 24 Contra Letham, John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context, Ashgate Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 185–197. 25 For example, in his recent systematic theology, Douglas Kelly asserts that if the western church removed the filioque clause from the creed, then “nothing significant would be lost”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

218

Conclusion

useful to have a study on the implications of the filioque doctrine in Reformed orthodoxy. Third, Further examination of praxis as an essential component of Reformed scholasticism. This author noted above that this has been a weakness in Owen studies. However, neglecting the practical aspects of theology is a weakness in studies of Reformed orthodoxy and Protestant scholasticism in general. Almost all Reformed orthodox authors agreed that praxis was an integral part of true theology. Chapter 2 surveys a small cross-section of these authors. It is a mistake for historians to isolate the development of Reformed doctrine from the manner in which Reformed authors applied their theology. One danger that faces historians of intellectual history is that they run the risk of studying what interests them instead of what interested their subjects. This can result in singling out certain areas of an author’s thought and neglecting other areas that he or she believed were equally important. Incidentally, the Reformed orthodox emphasis on praxis in theology tends to narrow the gap between English Puritanism and Reformed orthodoxy in general, if not largely blur the lines between them. Fourth, The general structure of Owen’s covenant theology. As noted above, a detailed analysis of his massive work on the book of Hebrews would be especially fruitful in this regard. Further inquiry into Owen’s covenant theology may shed light on men such as Petto, Cameron, and Bolton, who adhered to a minority position on the Mosaic covenant. Mark Jones suggests that Owen’s view may possibly have been more common among Congregationalists than other groups and that this may end up being a question of ecclesiology.26 At the very least, the title to John Flavel’s response to a work that attacked infant baptism indicates that the Congregationalist view of the Mosaic covenant had affinities with the Baptist view of the Abrahamic covenant.27 Possible connections between seventeenth century Congregationalist and Baptist covenant theologies are worth exploring. Fifth, Owen’s influence upon later authors. This question is difficult to gauge, but it is potentially valuable in tracing continuities and discontinuities between earlier and later Reformed orthodoxy. For example, this thesis already provides possible evidence of Jonathan Edwards’s dependence on Owen.28 The question of the dependence of later authors on Owen is also helpful for those interested in and it would “constitute healing for the entire church.” Douglas F. Kelly, Systematic Theology Volume One Grounded in Holy Scripture and Understood in Light of the Church: The God Who Is: The Holy Trinity (Geanies House, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2008), 577. Owen would have disagreed vigorously with both of these assertions. See Mcgraw, “John Owen on the Holy Spirit,” 270–272. 26 Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 202. 27 John Flavel, Vindiciae Legis et Foederis, [18]. See chapter 5 above. 28 Chapter 4 above on the spiritual affections.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

219

Conclusion

appropriating his thought for contemporary theological formulation, since later authors can serve as models or test cases for doing so.

7.4

Conclusion

John Owen contributed significantly to Reformed orthodox Trinitarian theology. He developed a practical Trinitarianism that he intertwined with his theology of public worship. William Perkins anticipated Owen’s emphases when he closed his book on worship with the words, “Trin-uni Deo Gloria.”29 Perkins, however, presented the divine persons as the object of worship only. Owen stressed particular communion with each persons in the Godhead. Communion with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit stood at the heart of Owen’s doxological theology. In his view, the order of operation of the persons of the Trinity was a “heavenly directory” for the public worship of God.30

29 William Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 181. 30 Owen, Communion with God, 314; Works, 2:269.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

8.

Appendix: Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ

8.1

Introduction

John Owen’s theology is both Trinitarian and doxological.1 He believed that public worship was the highest experience of communion with God. Worship is a transaction between believers on earth and God in heaven, and it is the best means of promoting spiritual-mindedness.2 His frequent rejection of “any visible representation of all or any of the persons of the Godhead”3 illustrates his conception of spiritual-mindedness in public worship and in the Christian life in general. Believers must walk by faith and not by sight. Images represent an attempt to walk by sight instead of by faith. For this reason, Owen treated one’s attitude toward images of the divine persons as a litmus test for heavenlymindedness in public worship. While this topic does not explicitly develop Owen’s conception of Trinitarian piety, it does provide a further window into the nature of communion with God in public worship. This appendix sketches the importance of the question of images in Reformed orthodoxy and then examines Owen’s views of images in relation to public worship in light of two chapters from his work, The Glory of Christ, and a section of his sermon, “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open.” The importance of the question of images in Reformed orthodox theology has often been neglected. The connection between this teaching and the nature and role of faith is virtually forgotten. Owen exemplifies both of these ideas well and sheds light on the manner in which the question of images of God ties into the broader system of Reformed theology.

1 Trueman, The Claims of Truth, 229–232 2 See chapter 4 above. 3 See Westminster Larger Catechism 109.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Question of Images in Reformed Theology

8.2

221

The Question of Images in Reformed Theology

It is important to sketch the trajectory of Reformed theology on this point. Carlos Eire demonstrates amply that rejecting images of the Godhead stands at the heart of Reformed theology.4 Rejecting images is not peripheral to the Reformed tradition.5

8.2.1 Basic Arguments Reformed orthodox authors gave two general reasons for rejecting images of the Godhead. The first was that the second commandment expressly forbade making or worshiping images of the true God.6 Not making images and not worshiping God by means of them were two distinct parts of the commandment.7 The basic argument was that the first commandment forbade idolatry of all kinds, while the second commandment related to the worship of the true God. Those who combined these requirements into one commandment, as Roman Catholics and Lutherans did, ended up with nine commandments rather than ten, because they ended up with two commandments against coveting.8 Such people argued that the second commandment did not forbid making and worshiping images of false gods, but making and worshiping images of the true God.9 Reformed orthodox commentaries, such as the so-called Westminster Annotations, treated Deuteronomy chapter 4 as a divinely inspired exposition of the second commandment.10 This passage clearly forbade making images of the 4 Eire, War Against the Idols. 5 The primary source literature on this point is too numerous to list. For a sampling of English authors in addition to those cited below, see Vincent, Exposition of the Assembly’s Catechism, 131; Watson, Body of Practical Divinity, 279–282; Ussher, A Body of Divinity, or, The Sum and Substance of Christian Religion, 230–233; Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 121–123; etc. Continental Reformed theologians held to this view as well. See Turretin, Institutes, 11.9–10, 2:51–66; Bullinger, Decades, 1:222–230; Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 697–699; a Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3:105–118, etc. 6 Westminster Larger Catechism 109. 7 Wolfgang Musculus, In Decalogum Praeceptorum Dei Explanatio (Basil, 1653), See Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, Geneva Catechism, Scots Confession, Belgic Confession, etc. 8 Musculus, Decalogum, 18. 9 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 5; Works, 15:448; Durham, The Law Unsealed, 7; Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 697–698. 10 Downame, Annotations, on Deut. 4:15 (no page numbers) Musculus, Decalogum, 47. Interestingly, Henry Ainsworth (1571–1622?) skipped verses 15–18 in his exposition. Henry Ainsworth, Annotations upon the Five Books of Moses, The Book of Psalms, and Song of Songs, or Canticles (London, 1627), 2:17. Thomas Case (1598–1682), who was a member of the Westminster Assembly, wrote that he and the other men who preached these sermons, “Have

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

222

Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ

true God. The most basic reason behind the Reformed rejection of images was a simple divine prohibition: God forbids his people from making images of himself. The second general reason for rejecting images of any or all three persons of the Godhead was that the Word of God did not require them.11 This was consistent with the Reformed principle of worship in general (see chapter 3).

8.2.2 Theological Connections and Implications Even though the corse of the Reformed polemic against images of the Godhead was simple, their position involved more than merely a divine prohibition.12 The Reformed view encompassed several arguments that involved many areas of their theological system. In order to understand why this issue was so important in Reformed orthodoxy, it is helpful to provide a brief sketch of these arguments. James Durham represented the breadth of Reformed arguments on this issue in his work on the Ten Commandments. For this reason, his material serves as a useful summary of this material and as an introduction to Owen’s development of the question of images in his theology of public worship. According to Durham, first, images demean God’s character by begetting carnal rather than spiritual thoughts of him.13 Second, God chose to reveal himself by his word and not by images.14 Based on Habakkuk 2:18,15 George Hutcheson (d. 1678) wrote, “they cause the mind to wander from the true and saving knowledge of God, as he is revealed in his Word, and do imprint false and carnal conceptions of a Deity.”16 This stresses the Reformed principle that God always takes the initiative

11 12 13 14 15 16

not without some regret observed that the larger English Annotations, in which some few only of the late Assembly, together with some others, had an hand, are generally ascribed to the whole Assembly, and usually carry the name of the Assemblies Annotations, as if done by the joint advice of that grave and learned convention” (emphasis original). Thomas Case, The Morning Exercise Methodized (London, 1659), unpaginated preface. We do not know exactly what differences Case had in mind, but this statement at least indicates that the Westminster Annotations do not necessarily represent an exegetical consensus among the Westminster divines. Ussher, A Body of Divinity, 231. I take it for granted at this point that Reformed theology did not forbid all images in every setting, but that images of God or images used as aids in divine worship only were in view. This is the first point that Durham made in the section cited below. Durham, The Law Unsealed, 50. Durham, The Law Unsealed, 51. Citing Deuteronomy 4:14–15. “What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?” George Hutcheson, A Brief Exposition of the Prophecies of Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, and Zephaniah (London, 1654), 262. For similar arguments with a polemic emphasis against Roman Catholic worship, see Edward Marbury (1581–1665), A Commentarie or Exposition upon the Prophecy of Habakkuk: Together with Many Useful and Very Seasonable Observations (London, 1650), 328–332.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Question of Images in Reformed Theology

223

in revealing himself to man.17 Images cannot reveal God to men if God has not chosen to use them for this purpose. Third, it is impossible to make images of a spiritual God without demeaning him and robbing him of his divine glory.18 On this point, Durham borrowed a rhetorical question from Isaiah 40:18: “To whom will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” This prohibition includes images of the entire Trinity as well as any of the distinct persons, including the incarnate Christ.19 The Reformed rejection of images of Christ was the most controverted point in connection to the second commandment. Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and some ministers in the Church of England rejected this view. Durham provided further arguments to establish this point. In his view, the fundamental issue hinged on an orthodox understanding of Christology.20 Those advocating images of Christ argued that even if Scripture forbade images of the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet images of the Son were lawful because of his true humanity.21 Durham used the same point to argue in the other direction. The Son is fully God and fully man. However, in orthodox Christology, the personhood of the Godman resides in the eternal Son of God rather than in his assumed humanity. This means that Christ’s humanity is the humanity of God the Son.22 Those who desire to depict his humanity alone are guilty of heresy, both because they try to divide the two natures of Christ and because they disregard the fact that the person whom they are trying to depict is the second person in the Trinity.23 The Westminster divine, Henry Scudder, added the interesting argument that those who depict the Son divide the Trinity, since they cannot make a picture of the Son in his eternal relation to the Father and the Spirit.24 Because Christ is the Son of God, Durham noted that if we make images of him then we are left with two equally bad options: “we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture representeth not Christ.”25 The basic Reformed argument against images 17 See chapter 3. 18 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 51. Citing Romans 1:22–23 he added, “Every such image must be derogatory to God.” See Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:121–123. 19 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 51. 20 For the implications of the Reformed orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ, see Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, chapter 7. 21 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 51. 22 Ussher, A Body of Divinity, 231: “An image can only represent the manhood of Christ, and not his Godhead, which is the chiefest part in him.” 23 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 52. 24 Henry Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 129. The argument is that if we cannot depict the Triunity of God within the undivided essence, then we cannot depict any of the individual divine persons. The essence of the entire Godhead is spiritual and invisible and cannot be depicted by images. 25 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 52. This section presents the core of Durham’s arguments against images. He continued the question on pages 52–66.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

224

Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ

of the Christ amounted to the following syllogism: God forbids making images of himself; Jesus Christ is God; therefore, God forbids making images of Jesus Christ. However, the question of images related more broadly to Reformed views of Scripture, the being of God, and Christology. In his commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Thomas Vincent summarized the heart of the question regarding images, and of images of Christ in particular, when he wrote: It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his Body as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain, if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshiping by an image or Picture, and so a palpable breach of the second Commandment.26

In this connection, William Perkins adopted a rare position among Puritan authors. He argued that while believers should not make images of Christ for religious purposes, they may make them as long as they depict his humanity only.27 In light of Vincent’s comments, making images of Christ without religious intent is vain. In light of Durham’s observations, depicting Christ’s humanity in abstraction from his divine person violates orthodox Christology. Perkins’s reasoning is not consistent with his book’s other arguments against Roman Catholic worship or with the general trajectory of Reformed Christology, Scripture, or principles of worship. The Reformed rejection of images rejected the basic priority that they placed on the preaching of the word.28 The Triune God designed his word to strengthen faith and spiritual communion with God, while images aim at producing devotion through sight.29 Owen believed that images of any or all three persons in the Godhead weakened, and even threatened to destroy, faith in Christ. He used the standard Reformed approach to images of the persons of the Godhead in order to stress the nature of spiritual communion 26 Vincent, An Explicatory Catechism, 132. 27 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 15. 28 This was one of the points that Durham made above. On the centrality of preaching in Reformed orthodoxy, see chapter 6 of this thesis. For an analysis with special reference to preaching Christ, see Chad Van Dixhoorn, “Preaching Christ in Post-Reformation Britain,” in Robert L. Penny, ed., The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson (Philipsburg: P& R Publishing, 2008), 361–389. 29 Westminster Larger Catechism 155: The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.” See Ussher, A Body of Divinity, 331: “Since by preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments Christ is as lively painted out, as if he were crucified again amongst us (Gal. 3.1) it were to no purpose to paint him to that end.” Chapter 6 addresses how this relates to the sacraments.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

225

The Glory of Christ

with God as triune in public worship. This point is illustrated most clearly through his treatment of images in his Meditations on the Glory of Christ and in his sermon “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open.”

8.3

The Glory of Christ

Meditations on the Glory of Christ was the last book Owen sent to the publishers before he died.30 Toward the end of the book, he included several chapters contrasting what it meant to walk by faith instead of sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Significantly, these chapters on faith versus sight follow his treatment of the glory of Christ in the “recapitulation of all things.”31 Christ is glorified by renovating his elect both body and soul and in transforming the physical world.32 If believers’ hope lies in the new heavens and the new earth, then the means that they use to enjoy communion with Christ in this life must be conducive to heavenlymindedness. Owen noted that both faith and sight in religion “have the same immediate object.”33 They both aim to embrace Christ and to glorify him. However, faith is the means of embracing Christ in this world, while sight is the means of embracing him in the world to come. Images of any person of the Godhead militate against the eschatological goal of redemption and reverse the divinely appointed order of faith giving birth to sight. Owen noted first that the knowledge of Christ that the saints have through faith is dark and obscure in some respects.34 In support, he cited 1 Corinthians 13:12, which depicts the present state as seeing in a glass darkly versus seeing face to face in glory. The view that the saints have of Christ through faith is imperfect compared to his “substantial glory,” which they can see in heaven only. This imperfect view of Christ by faith is God’s design. It is his method of making his people long for his presence in heaven. Failing to understand this point led some people to make images of Christ under the pretense of assisting their devotion to him. However, man-made images of Christ actually destroy this aim 30 Toon, God’s Statesman, 171. Paul Lim calls this “his last known work.” Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 200. If this refers to the last work that Owen knew came to publication then this is correct. However, large portions of his work on Hebrews came to the press after he died. Owen completed these volumes before he died and had planned for their publication. 31 Owen, Works, 1:367–374. 32 See also Turretin, Institutes, topic 20, question V. For Owen’s views on glorification, see Suzanne McDonald, “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: John Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision,” Ashgate Research Companion, 141–159. 33 Owen, Works, 1:375. 34 Owen, Works, 1:375. “The view which we have of the glory of Christ by faith in this world is obscure, dark, inevident, reflexive.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

226

Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ

entirely.35 When Christ’s people worship him on earth, they cannot attempt to stir up their faith and affections toward him through any means other than those appointed in his word. Doing so weakens rather than strengthens faith. This is a development upon the Reformed arguments against images as represented by Durham and others above. God reveals himself through his word and limits his worship to divine revelation in Scripture. Faith likewise rests on the Word of God alone. Owen connected these ideas and tied them to his view of heaven. The limited knowledge of God in this world is what makes images a temptation. While believers desire to know God more fully and more clearly, the irony is that even in regard to what God has revealed in his word, “we cannot abide in the steady contemplation of.”36 Borrowing language from Song of Solomon 2:9, Owen wrote: “There is a wall between him and us, which yet he standeth behind. Our present mortal state is this wall, which must be demolished before we can see him as he is. In the meantime he looketh through the windows of the ordinances of the Gospel.”37 In this present sinful and mortal state, the saints cannot see Christ in his glory.38 This condition is removed fully for believers at death only. They should desire to see Christ in glory, but it would neither be possible nor profitable to see him in their present state. Seeing him as he is would destroy them.39 It is important to note Owen’s reference to “the ordinances of the Gospel.” Though believers walk by faith (not by the sight of images), they “see” Christ truly and sufficiently by exercising faith in Christ through the ordinances of public worship.40 Owen reinforced his argument as to why images of Christ hinder rather than help faith by appealing (as Durham and others did) to Christ’s person.41 His personhood was that of the second person of the Trinity. Christ is a divine person in hypostatic union with a true human nature and people cannot picture a divine 35 Owen, Works, 1:376. “That woeful, cursed invention of faming images of him out of stocks and stones, however adorned, or representations of him by the art of painting, are so far from presenting unto the minds of men anything of his real glory, that nothing can be more effectual to divert their thoughts and apprehensions from it.” 36 Owen, Works, 1:377. 37 Owen, Works, 1:377. For Owen’s exposition of the Song of Solomon in his work on Communion with God, see the analysis in Paul Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 193–200. 38 It is unclear whether Owen believed that this limitation was due to sin or to creaturely limitation. Eire observed that Calvin and early Reformed authors rooted the inability to behold God in creaturely limitation. Sin exacerbated this limitation. 39 Owen, Works, 1:380. “Should the Lord Jesus appear now to any of us in his majesty and glory, it would not be unto our edification nor consolation. For we are not meet nor able, by the power of any light or grace that we have received, or can receive, to bear the immediate appearance and representation of them.” 40 See chapter 6 above. 41 Owen, Works, 1:379. “It is not, therefore, the mere human nature of Christ that is the object of [faith], but his divine person, as that nature subsisteth therein.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

227

The Glory of Christ

person. In other words, since Christ has a human nature, but not a human personality, the person depicted is divine.42 Returning to the theme that even those being sanctified by the Holy Spirit will never possess enough grace to behold Christ in this life, Owen added, How much more abominable is the folly of men, who would represent the Lord Jesus Christ in his present glory by pictures and images of him! When they have done their utmost with their burnished glass and gildings, any eye of flesh can not only behold it, but, if it be guided by reason, see it as contemptible and foolish. But the true glory of Christ, neither inward nor outward sight can bear the rays of it in this life.43

Images of Christ destroyed the heavenly character of public worship and were the death of true devotion, whether in public or in private. Nevertheless, there is strong continuity between how believers know Christ in this life and in the life to come. They will know and see the same objects in glory that they do in this life. The difference lies in the degree to which they see them and the means by which they apprehend them.44 In other words, those who make images of Christ are trying to jump ahead in the story of redemption. In the present act of the story, believers must walk by faith. In the final act, faith gives way to sight and sight will be transformative. When believers see Christ as he is, they will be like him (1 John 3:1–2).45 To summarize: images of Christ distort rather than promote faith because believers desire to see the glorified Christ. The union of Christ’s divine and human natures in one divine person means that although the deity and the humanity of Christ are inseparable, his divine personhood makes him the object of worship rather than his humanity. Believers must set their minds on things above where Christ is seated in heaven. Images of Christ are meant to promote devotion to him, yet they cannot produce communion with the Triune God. Owen’s rejection of images of Christ and his corresponding emphasis on faith demonstrates the heart of heavenly-mindedness in public worship. He drew these conclusions from standard principles of Reformed theology. 42 Owen, Works, 1:379–380. 43 Owen, Works, 1:380. 44 Owen, Works, 1:383. “Being renewed by grace, what it receives here of spiritual life and light shall never be destroyed, but perfected in glory. Grace renews nature; glory perfects grace; and so the whole soul is brought unto its rest in God. We have an image of it in the blind man whom our Savior cured, Mark viii. 22–24. He was absolutely blind, - born so, no doubt. Upon the first touch, his eyes were opened, and he saw, but very obscurely ; - he saw men walking like trees. But on the second, he saw all things clearly. Our minds in themselves are absolutely blind. The first visitation by grace gives them a sight of things spiritual, heavenly, and eternal; but it is obscure and unsteady. The sight of glory makes all things clear and evident.” 45 Most of the remaining material in The Glory of Christ develops this theme of seeing Christ in glory.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

228

8.4

Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ

The Chamber of Imagery

Owen’s sermon “The Chamber of Imagery in the Church of Rome Laid Open” applies more fully the principle of faith versus sight in worship. He began with the question, “How is the practical love of the truth the best preservative against popery?”46 His primary contention in the sermon was that all Christians recognize that they must have Christ set before them as the object of their affection. The only two means to achieve this are faith or sight. In his view, Roman Catholicism represents a religion that replaced faith with sight. By contrast, Protestant principles direct Christians to faith instead of sight. The text for Owen’s sermon was 1 Peter 2:3, “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.” However, he based the title and plan of the sermon on Ezekiel chapter 8. In that chapter, the Lord showed the prophet a “chamber of imagery” in the temple of the Lord (Ezek. 8:11–12). In this “chamber of imagery,” the Lord progressively guided the prophet deeper into the temple. At each stage, as the Lord uncovered the idolatry of his people, he repeated the refrain, “Come, I will show you greater abominations than these.” Borrowing this metaphor, Owen led his readers step by step through the “abominations” of the Church of Rome and how she had perverted the gospel at every level. He inferred five areas of evaluation from 1 Peter 2:3. First, all benefits derived from the gospel depend on their effectual communication to the souls of believers in grace and in power. Second, this power and efficacy comes through the preaching of the word of God. Third, the power and efficacy of the word is “confined” to communicating the grace of God to the souls of men. Fourth, people experience the power of the word by God imparting light to understand it in a spiritual manner, including a spiritual taste or relish for the truth and conformity to the standard of holiness revealed in the word.47 Fifth, when the experience of the power of religion is lost, true religion itself will be lost or men will erect “a shadow or image in the room of it.”48 By losing the experience of the 46 Owen, Works, 8:547. 47 Compare to Jonathan Edwards, “True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 2:48–49: “He that hath his eyes opened to behold the divine superlative beauty and loveliness of Jesus Christ, is convinced of his sufficiency to stand as Mediator between him, a guilty helldeserving wretch, and an infinitely holy God, in an exceedingly different manner than ever he can be convinced by the arguments of authors or preachers, however excellent.” 48 All citations in this paragraph come from Works, 8:548–550. For the importance of experimental piety in contemporary authors, see Edward Reynolds, Mediations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter (London, 1677), 58: “Christ is not truly apprehended either by the fancy or the understanding. He is at once known and possessed. It is an experimental, and not a speculative knowledge that conceives him; he understands him that feels him. We see him in his grace and truth, not in any carnal or gross pretense.” See also Rowe, Heavenly-Mindedness, 103. Cite in chapter 4 above.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

The Chamber of Imagery

229

power of the gospel, the Roman Catholic Church “at this day, is nothing but a dead image of the gospel, erected in the loss of an experience of its spiritual power, overthrowing its use, with all its ends, being suited to the taste of men, carnal, ignorant, and superstitious.”49 When professing Christians no longer experience the power of the gospel in their hearts, then the church changes its conception of her relation to the person and offices of Christ, “the state, order, and worship of the church,” and the obedience required by the gospel. The first of these headings bears directly on the question of images and heavenly-mindedness in public worship. The principle on which all sides are agreed is “that the Lord Jesus Christ, in his person and grace, is to be proposed and represented unto men as the principle object of their faith and love.”50 In this sense, everyone must have an “image” of Christ set before them, though not necessarily an image that relates to the sense of sight.51 Faith “beholds” Christ through the word just as clearly as a man who sees his own face in a mirror. This “sight” of Christ is both salvific and transformative.52 The “sight” that believers have of Christ through the gospel is of the same nature as the sight they will have of him in glory, but it is not of the same degree. Owen added a historical argument. When the church no longer made an “affecting discovery” of Christ from Scripture, then those in charge of public worship began to dissuade people from reading Scripture, which they perceived to be dangerous. However, the need to represent Christ to the minds of men remained, since they could not reject this need without rejecting Christianity : “Wherefore they will find out another way for it, - another means unto the same end, – and this, by making images of him of wood and stone, or gold and silver, or painting on them.”53 This was not only the cause of introducing images in the Church of Rome, but “of all image worship in the world.” Those desiring images deny the sufficiency of the word for fellowship and communion with Christ.54 For this reason, Owen saw introducing images of Christ as the first symptom of 49 Owen, Works, 8:551. Owen’s associate minister, David Clarkson, made similar observations in his book, The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive of Christianity and Men’s Souls in Works, 3:9–47. The title of this section was “Real worship of God not necessary in the Church of Rome.” 50 Owen, Works, 8:551. 51 Owen, Works, 8:552: “There must, therefore, an image or representation of him be made unto our minds, or he cannot be the proper object of our faith, trust, love, and delight. This is done in the gospel, and the preaching of it; for therein is he ‘evidently set forth’ before our eyes, as ‘crucified amongst us,’ Gal.iii.1.” 52 Owen, Works, 8:552: “Having a spiritual light to discern and behold the glory of Christ, as represented in the glass of the gospel, they have experienced its transforming power and efficacy, changing them into the likeness of the image represented unto them, - that is, of Christ himself; which is the saving effect of gospel power.” 53 Owen, Works, 8:552. 54 See chapter 3 for the sufficiency of Scripture in Owen’s thought.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

230

Faith Versus Sight: The Rejection of Images in Devotion to Christ

apostasy from the gospel. People began introducing images when the church began losing the experience of saving communion with Christ.55 Owen’s point is that images of Christ inherently weaken faith. By their very nature, images cannot strengthen faith, which the Bible opposes to sight. In a sense, the idea is that a man is what he sees. If he sees a physical image of Christ, then he becomes like that image. If he sees a spiritual image of the glorified Christ through faith in the gospel, then he becomes like that image instead.56 In The Glory of Christ, Owen showed why images of Christ are contrary to walking by faith instead of sight. In “The Chamber of Imagery,” he argued that images are contrary to the experimental knowledge of Christ. In both cases, images strike at the heart of communion with the Triune God in public worship. Worship is a heavenly transaction between spiritually minded worshipers and the Triune God that occurs by faith and not by sight.

8.5

Conclusion

Carlos Eire observed that while Catholic missionaries traveled to the new world to convert the heathen from idolatry, the Protestant Reformation waged war on the “idols” of the Catholic Church in Europe by opposing statues and stained glass depicting God and the saints.57 The question of images of the Godhead and especially images of Christ was an integral piece of Reformed orthodox theology. It was intertwined with Christology, the doctrine of Scripture, the principle governing public worship, the relationship between this world and the next, and the nature of faith. Owen’s teaching against images of Christ in his works The Glory of Christ and “The Chamber of Imagery” developed the last two of these areas. This was integrated into his treatment of the worship of God in the sense that, if images of God and Christ diminished faith, then they hindered communion with God in worship as well. Spiritual communion with a spiritual God 55 Owen, Works, 8:554. “This, therefore, is evident, that the introduction of this abomination, in principle and practice destructive unto the souls of men, took its rise from a loss of the experience of the representation of Christ in the gospel, and the transforming power in the minds of men which it is accompanied with in them that believe.” See Of the Dominion of Sin and Grace in Works, 7:529. For a similar historical argument on the gradual process of introducing images into the church, see Marbury, Habakkuk, 332. 56 After arguing that it is impossible to make images of any person of the Godhead and claim that men do not worship them, Hutcheson concluded, “Such as worship graven images, do proclaim their own brutishness, and that they are as great blocks as these which they adore, when they exalt that which is below themselves, to be above themselves and in God’s room; for what a brutishness is it in a man endued with sense and reason, to make himself dumb idols, which have no sense at all?” Hutcheson, A Brief Exposition, 263. He had Roman Catholic rather than pagan worship in view. 57 Eire, War Against the Idols, chapter 1.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

231

Conclusion

was the aim of faith in Puritan and Reformed theology. Richard Sibbes observed that Christ is beloved both as God the Son and “as the engraven image of his Father.”58 The only means of seeing this image of God in this life is by faith and not by sight.

58 Sibbes, Works, 1:11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Works Cited

Works by John Owen Anonymous. a Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament, Etc. [by John Owen.] Ms. Note [on Fly-Leaf by G. Offor].]. London, 1667. Owen, John. A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity as Also of the Person and Satisfaction of Christ. London: Printed by R.W. for Nath. Ponder …, 1669. ———. A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their Imposition. London: [s.n.], 1662. ———. A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer with a Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Use of Mental Prayer and Forms. London: Printed for Nathanael Ponder …, 1682. ———. A Practical Exposition on the Cxxx Psalm. Wherein the Nature of the Forgiveness of Sin Is Declared; the Truth and Reality of It Asserted; and the Case of a Soul Distressed with the Guilt of Sin, and Relieved by a Discovery of Forgiveness with God, Is at Large Discoursed. London: Printed by r. White for N. Ponder, 1669. ———. An Enquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order and Communion of Evangelical Churches. with an Answer to the Discourse of the Unreasonableness of Separation Written by Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of Pauls, and in Defence of the Vindication of Non-Conformists from the Guilt of Schisme the First Part. London: Printed by J. Richardson, for Nath. Ponder …, and Sam. Lee …, 1681. ———. Biblical Theology, or, the Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth, in Six Books: In Which Are Examined the Origins and Progress of Both True and False Religious Worship, and the Most Notable Declensions and Revivals of the Church, from the Very Beginning of the World … Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994. ———. Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, in His Person, Office, and Grace with the Differences Between Faith and Sight: Applied Unto the Use of Them That Believe. London: Printed by A.M. and R.R. for Benjamin Alsop …, 1684. ———. Of Communion with God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly in Love, Grace, and Consolation, or, the Saints Fellowship with the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Unfolded. Oxford: Printed by A. Lichfield … for Tho. Robinson, 1657. ———. “Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers: The 1. Necessity, 2. Nature, and 3. Means

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Works by John Owen

233

of It. with a Resolution of Sundry Cases of Conscience Thereunto Belonging. by John Owen, D.d. a Servant of Jesus Christ in the Work of the Gospel.,” 1668. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88–2003& res_id=xri:eebo& rft_val_fmt=& rft_id=xri:eebo:image:31113. ———. Phronema Tou Pneumatou, or, the Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-Minded Declared and Practically Improved. London: Printed by J.G. for Nathaniel Ponder …, 1681. ———. Pneumatologia: Or, a Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit: Wherein an Account Is Given of His Name … London, 1674. ———. Salus Electorum, Sanguis Jesu, or, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ a Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That Is in the Blood of Christ with the Merit Thereof, and the Satisfaction Wrought Thereby: Wherin the Proper End of the Death of Christ Is Asserted … and the Whole Controversie About Universall Redemption Fully Discussed in Foure Parts, Whereof the I. Declareth the Eternall Counsell, and Distinct Actuall Concurrence of Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit … 2. Removeth False and Supposed Ends of the Death of Christ … Rightly Stating the Controversie, 3. Containeth Arguments Against Universall Redemption from the Word, with an Affection of the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, 4. Answereth All Considerable Objections as yet Brought to Light … London: Printed by W.W. for Philemon Stephens, and are to be sold at his shop …, 1648. ———. The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Explained, Confirmed, & Vindicated. London: Printed for R. Boulter …, 1677. ———. The Duty of Pastors and People Distingushed, or, a Briefe Discovrse Touching the Administration of Things Commanded in Religion Especially Concerning the Means to Be Used by the People of God, Distinct from Church-Officers, for the Increasing of Divine Knowledge in Themselves and Others: Wherein Bounds Are Prescribed to Their Performances, Their Liberty Is Enlarged to the Utmost Extent of the Dictates of Nature and Rules of Charity : Their Duty Laid Downe in Directions, Drawn Form Scripture-Precepts and the Practise of Gods People in All Ages: Together with the Severall Wayes of Extraordinary Calling to the Office of Publike Teaching, with What Assurance Such Teachers May Have of Their Calling, and What Evidence They Can Give of It, Unto Others. London: Printed by L.N. for Philemon Stephens …, 1644. ———. The Nature of Apostasie from the Profession of the Gospel, and the Punishment of Apostates Declared, in an Exposition of Heb. 6, 4, 5, 6,: With an Enquiry into the Causes and Reasons of the Decay of the Power of Religion in the World … Also, of the Proneness of Churches and Persons of All Sorts Unto Apostasie, with Remedies, and Means of Prevention. London: Printed for N. Ponder, 1676. ———. The Oxford Orations of Dr. John Owen; Callington (Cornwall): Gospel Communication, 1971. ———. The True Nature of a Gospel Church and Its Government Wherein These Following Particulars Are Distinctly Handled … London: printed for William [Barthhall?] at the Bible in Newgate-street, 1955. ———. Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu Progressu, Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus Religiosi,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

234

Works Cited

Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur … Oxoniæ: Excudebat Hen. Hall … impensis Tho. Robinson …, 1661. ———. Theomachia Avtexousiatike, or, a Display of Arminianisme Being a Discovery of the Old Pelagian Idol Free-Will, with the New Goddesse Contingency, Advancing Themselves into the Throne of the God of Heaven to the Prejudice of His Grace, Providence, and Supreme Dominion Over the Children of Men: Wherein the Maine Errors of the Arminians Are Laid Open, by Which They Are Fallen Off from the Received Doctrine of All the Reformed Churches, with Their Opposition in Divers Particulars to the Doctrine Established in the Church of England: Discovered Out of Their Owne Writings and Consessions and Confuted by the Word of God. London: Printed by I.L. for Phil. Stephens …, 1643. ______. Indulgence and Toleration Considered in a Letter to a Person of Honour. [by Dr. John Owen.]. London, 1667. Owen, John, and W. H Goold. The Works of John Owen. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Owen, John, and William H Goold. The Works of John Owen, D.d. London; Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850. ______. Vindiciae Evangelicae, or the Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and Socinianisme Examined, in the … Confutation of a Catechisme … Written by J. Biddle … and the Catechisme of Valetinus Smalcius, Commonly Called the Racovian Catechism. with the Scripture … from the Perverse Expositions … Oxford: Printed by Leon. Lichfield, for Tho, Robinson, 1655. ______. Two Discourses Concerning the Holy Spirit, and His Work the One, of the Spirit as a Comforter, the Other, as He Is the Author of Spiritual Gifts … London: Printed for William Marshall …, 1693. Owen, John, and Thomas Russell. The Works of John Owen, D.d. Edited by T. Russell. with Memoirs of His Life and Writings, by W. Orme. (funeral Sermon … by D. Clarkson.). London, 1826. Owen, John, and Peter Toon. The Correspondence of John Owen (1616–1683): With an Account of His Life and Work; Cambridge: James Clarke, 1970. Owen, John. Exercitations Concerning the Name, Original, Nature, Use and Continuance of a Day of Sacred Rest. Wherein the Original of the Sabbath from the Foundation of the World, the Morality of the Fourth Commandment, with the Change of the Seventh Day Are Enquired into. Together with an Assertion of the Divine Institution of the Lord’s Day, and Practical Directions for Its Due Observation. by John Owen, D.d. London: printed by R[obert]. W[hite]. for Nath. Ponder, at the Peacock in Chancery Lane near Fleetstreet, 1671.

Other Primary Sources A’Brakel, Wilhemus. Christian’s Reasonable Service. Trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel Beeke. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Ainsworth, Henry. Annotations Upon the Five Bookes of Moses, the Booke of the Psalmes, and the Song of Songs, or, Canticles Vvherein the Hebrevv Vvords and Sentences, Are

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Other Primary Sources

235

Compared with, and Explained by the Ancient Greeke and Chaldee Versions, and Other Records and Monuments of the Hebrewes: But Chiefly by Conference with the Holy Scriptures, Moses His Words, Lawes and Ordinances, the Sacrifices, and Other Legall Ceremonies Heretofore Commanded by God to the Church of Israel, Are Explained. with an Advertisement Touching Some Objections Made Against the Sinceritie of the Hebrew Text, and Allegation of the Rabbines in These Annotations. as Also Tables Directing Unto Such Principall Things as Are Observed in the Annotations Upon Each Severall Booke. by Henry Ainsworth. London, 1627. Alleine, Joseph. A Most Familiar Explanation of the Assemblies Shorter Catechism Wherein Their Larger Answers Are Broken into Lesser Parcels, Thereby to Let in the Light by Degrees into the Minds of the Learners: To Which Is Added in the Close, a Most Brief Help for the Necessary but Much Neglected Duty of Self-Examination to Be Daily Perused: And to This Is Subjoined a Letter of Christian Counsel to a Destitute Flock. London: Printed for Edw. Brewster, 1674. Ames, William. A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship or a Triplication Unto D. Burgesse His Rejoinder for D. Morton, … London, 1633. ———. A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. ———. Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof Devided into V. Bookes. Written by the Godly and Learned, William Ames, Doctor, and Professor of Divinity, in the Famous University of Franeker in Friesland. Translated Out of Latine into English, for More Publique Benefit. Leyden and London: Imprinted W. Christiaens, E. Griffin, J. Dawson, 1639. ———. Disceptatio Scholastica De Circulo Pontificio Et Eorum Omnium Akatalepsia, Qui in Scripturis Non Acquiescunt. Item Ejusdem Disquisitiones Theologicae De Lumine Naturae Et Gratiae, Praeparatione Peccatoris Ad Controversiam, Adoratione Christi Mediatoris. Ac Denique Orationes Duae, Antehac Non Editae, Quibus Subjecta Est D. Esteji De Certudine Salutis. Amstelodami: Janssonius, 1658. ______. Medulla S.s. Theologiæ … in Fine Adjuncta Est Disputatio De Fidei Divinæ Veritate. Editio Tertia Priori Longe Correctior. Apud Robertum Allottum: Londini, 1629. Ames, William, and John D Eusden. The Marrow of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997. Ball, John, and Simeon Ashe. A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace Wherein the Graduall Breakings Out of Gospel Grace from Adam to Christ Are Clearly Discovered, the Differences Betwixt the Old and New Testament Are Laid Open, Divers Errours of Arminians and Others Are Confuted, the Nature of Uprightnesse, and the Way of Christ in Bringing the Soul into Communion with Himself … Are Solidly Handled. London: Printed by G. Miller for Edward Brewster …, 1645. Barlow, Thomas. The Genuine Remains of That Learned Prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, Late Lord Bishop of Lincoln Containing Divers Discourses Theological, Philosophical, Historical, & c., in Letters to Several Persons of Honour and Quality : To Which Is Added the Resolution of Many Abstruse Points: As Also Directions to a Young Divine for His Study of Divinity, and Choice of Books, & c., with Great Variety of Other Subjects. London: Printed for John Dunton …, 1693. Baxter, Richard. The Practical Works of Richard Baxter : With a Life of the Author and a Critical Examination of His Writings by William Orme. London: J. Duncan, 1830.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

236

Works Cited

Beeke, Joel R, and Sinclair B Ferguson. Reformed Confessions Harmonized. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999. Beza, Theodorus. Theodori Bezae Annotationes Maiores in Novum Dn. Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum: In Duas Distinctae Partes, Quarum Prior Explicationem in Quatuor Evangelistas Et Acta Apostolorum, Posterior Verý in Epistolas Et Apocalypsin Continet: Quibus Etiam Adiuncti Sunt Indices Rerum Ac Verborum Locupletissimi. Genevae: J. des Planches, 1594. Biddle, John. A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity, According to the Scripture. London, 1648. ———. Xii Arguments Drawn Out of the Scripture Wherein the Commonly-Received Opinion Touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit Is Clearly and Fully Refuted: To Which Is Prefixed a Letter Tending to the Same Purpose, Written to a Member of the Parliament … London, 1647. Bolton, Robert. “Instructions for a Right Comforting Afflicted Consciences with Speciall Antidotes Against Some Grievous Temptations. Delivered for the Most Part in the Lecture at Kettering in Northhamptonshire. by Robert Boulton …,” 1635. ———. The Carnall Professor. Discovering the Wofull Slavery of a Man Guided by the Flesh. Distinguishing a True Spiritual Christian That Walkes Close with God, from All Formalists in Religion, Rotten Hearted Hypocrites, and Empty Powerlesse Professors Whatsoever. London: Printed for R. Dawlman, 1634. Bolton, Samuel. The Trve Bovnds of Christian Freedome. or a Treatise Wherein the Rights of the Law Are Vindicated, the Liberties of Grace Maintained, and Severall Late Opinions Against the Law Are Examined and Confuted. London,: Printed, for P.S. and are to be sold by A. Kemb, and are to be sold at his shop neer the Talbot-gate in Southwark, 1656. Bowles, Oliver. De Pastore Evangelico Tractatus: In Quo Universum Munus Pastorale; Tam Quoad Pastoris Vocationem, & Præparationem; Qu—m Ipsius Muneris Exercitium: AccuratÀ Proponitur. Oper– Et Studio Oliveri Bowles Angli, Ecclesiæ Quæ Suttoniæ Est, in Agro Bedfordiensi, Nuper Pastoris Eximii: Et in Synodo Westmonasterii Nuper Convocat– Egregii Theologi. London, 1649. Bridge, William. Christ and the Covenant, the Work, and Way of Meditation Gods Return to the Soul, or Nation, Together with His Preventing Mercy : Delivered in Ten Sermons. London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst and are to be sold at his shop, 1667. ______. I. Scripture-Light, the Most Sure Light: In Compare with 1. Revelations and Visions. 2. Natural, and Supernatural Dreams. 3. Impressions with, and Without the Word. 4. Light and Law Within. 5. Divine Providence. 6. Christian Experience. 7. Humane Reason. 8. Judicial Astrologie. Delivered in Three Sermons, on 2 Pet. I.19. Ii. Christ in Travel … in Three Sermons, on Isai. 53.11. Iii. a Lifting up for the down-Cast … Delivered in Thirteen Sermons, on Psal. 42.11. Four Several Sermons … London: Printed by Peter Cole in Leaden-hall, and are to be sold in his shop, at the sign of the Printing-press in Cornhil, neer the Royal Exchange., 1656. Bullinger, Heinrich. De Testamento Seu Foedere Dei Unico & Aeterno. Tiguri [Zurich]: In aedibus Christoph. Frosch[auer], 1534. Bullinger, Heinrich, and Thomas Harding. The Decades of Henry Bullinger. Cambridge: University Press, 1849. Burgess, Anthony. The Scripture Directory for Church-Officers and People, or, a Practical

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Other Primary Sources

237

Commentary Upon the Whole Third Chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians to Which Is Annexed the Godly and the Natural Mans Choice, Upon Psal. 4, Vers. 6, 7, 8. London: Printed by Abraham Miller for T.U. and are to be sold by Thomas Underhill, George Calvert, and Henry Fletcher …, 1659. Burroughs, Jeremiah. Gospel-Worship, or, the Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God in General and Particularly in These Three Great Ordinances, Viz. 1. Hearing of the Word, 2. Receiving the Lords Supper, 3. Prayer. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1658. ———. Two Treatises of Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs the First of Earthly-Mindedness … the Second Treatise of Conversing in Heaven, and Walking with God … London: Printed by Peter Cole for A.D., 1656. ______. Gospel-Revelation in Three Treatises: Viz, 1. the Nature of God. 2. the Excellencies of Christ. and, 3. the Excellency of Mans Immortal Soul … Published by William Greenhill, William Bridge, Philip Nye, John Yates, Matthew Mead, William Adderly. London: For Nath. Brook & Thomas Parkhurst, 1660. Byfield, Richard. The Gospels Glory, Without Prejudice to the Law Shining Forth in the Glory of God [brace] the Father, the Sonne, the Holy Ghost, for the Salvation of Sinners, Who Through Grace Do Believe According to the Draught of the Apostle Paul in Rom. 8.ver. 3.4. Held Out to Publick View. London: Printed by E.M. for Adoniram Byfield at the three Bibles in Corn-hil, next door to Popes-head Alley, 1659. Cajetan, Thomaso. Epistolae Pauli Et Aliorum Apostolorum: Juxta Sens. Literal. Enarratae. Acc: Actus Apostol. Comm. Ejusd. Illustr. Paris, 1540. Calvin, Jean. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii in Epistolam Ad Hebraeos. Genevae: Gerardus, 1549. Caryl, Joseph. The Nature, Solemnity, Grounds, Property, and Benefits of a Sacred Covenant Together with the Duties of Those Who Enter into Such a Covenant: Delivered in a Sermon at Westminster at the Publique Convention, Ordered by the Honourable House of Commons, for the Taking of the Covenant, by All Such, of All Degrees as Willingly Presented Themselves, Upon Friday Oct.b. 6, 1643. London: Printed by E.G. for John Rothwell and Giles Calvert, 1643. Case, Thomas. The Morning Exercise Methodized: Or Certain Chief Heads and Points of the Christian Religion Opened and Improved in Divers Sermons by Several Ministers of the City of London, in the Monthly Course of the Morning Exercise at Giles in the Fields, Etc. [compiled and Edited by T. Case]. London: E.M. for Ralph Smith, 1659. Charnock, Stephen. Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God. 2 Vols. Baker Book House, 1853. Cheynell, Francis. The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or, the Blessed Doctrine of the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall Godhead Without Any Confusion or Division of the Distinct Subsistences or Multiplication of the Most Single and Entire Godhead Acknowledged, Beleeved, Adored by Christians, in Opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, Blasphemous and Antichristian Hereticks, Who Say They Are Christians, but Are Not. London: Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Samuel Gellibrand, 1650. ———. The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianisme Together with a Plaine Discovery of a Desperate Designe of Corrupting the Protestant Religion, Whereby It Appeares That the Religion Which Hath Been so Violently Contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and His Adherents) Is Not the True Pure Protestant Religion, but an Hotchpotch

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

238

Works Cited

of Arminianisme, Socinianisme and Popery : It Is Likewise Made Evident, That the Atheists, Anabaptists, and Sectaries so Much Complained of, Have Been Raised or Encouraged by the Doctrines and Practises of the Arminian, Socinian and Popish Party. London: Printed for Samuel Gellibrand, 1643. Church of Scotland. A Directory for the Publique Worship of God Throughout the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland Together with an Ordinance of Parliament for the Taking Away of the Book of Common-Prayer : And for Establishing and Observing of This Present Directory Throughout the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales … London: Printed by M.B. and A.M. for the Company of Stationers, 1646. Clarkson, David. The Works of David Clarkson. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. Cocceius, Johannes. Collationes De Foedere Et Testamento Dei: Ad Illustrandam Methodum & Analogian Doctrinæ Pietatis in Scripturis Traditam. Franekeræ: Apud I. Balck, 1648. Coccejus, Johannes. Johannis Cocceji Opera Omnia Theologica, Exegetica, Didactica, Polemica, Philologica: Divisa in Decem Volvmina. Amstelodami: ex typ. P. et J. Blaeu, prostant apud Janssonio-Waesbergios, Boom et Goethals, 1701. Cotton, John. Certain Queries Tending to Accommodation and Communion of Presbyterian & Congregationall Churches. London: Printed by M.S. for John Allen and Francis Eglesfield …, 1654. ———. The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Power Thereof, According to the Vvord of God. London: Printed by M. Simmons for Henry Overton, 1644. Cotton, John, and John Davenport. The Covenant of Gods Free Grace Most Sweetly Unfolded and Comfortably Applied to a Disquieted Soul from That Text of 2 Sam. 23. Ver. 5.: Also a Doctrinall Conclusion That There Is in All Such Who Are Effectually Called, inDwelling Spirituall Gifs [sic] and Graces Wrought and Created in Them by the Holy Ghost. London: Printed M.S. for Iohn Hancock, 1645. Dering, Edward. Xxvii Lectures, or Readings, Upon Part of the Epistle Written to the Hebrues. London: Printed by Edward Griffin for Edward Blount, 1614. Dickson, David. A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms. London: Printed by T.M. for Thomas Johnson, 1655. ———. A Short Explanation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrewes. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Printed for Roger Daniel for Francis Eglesfield, 1649. Dickson, David, James Durham, and Westminster Assembly. The Summe of Saving Knowledge with the Practical Use Thereof. Edinburgh: Printed by George Swintoun and Thomas Brown and are to be sould by James Glen and Da[vid] Trench, 1671. Downame, John. Annotations Upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament This Second Edition so Enlarged, as They Make an Entire Commentary on the Sacred Scripture: The Like Never Before Published in English: Wherein the Text Is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Parallelled, and Various Readings Observed. London: Printed by John Legatt, 1651. ———. The Second Volume of Annotations Upon All the Books of the Old and Nevv Testament This Third, Above the First and Second, Edition so Enlarged, as They Make an Entire Commentary on the Sacred Scripture, the Like Never Before Published in English: Wherein the Text Is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Parallel’d and Various Readings Observed. London: Printed by Evan Tyler, 1657. ———. The Summe of Sacred Divinitie: First Briefly and Methodically Propounded and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Other Primary Sources

239

Then More Largly & Cleerely Handled and Explained. London: Printed by Willi: Stansby and are to be sold by Geo. Hodges, 1630. Durham, James. A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation Wherein the Text Is Explained, the Series of the Several Prophecies Contained in That Book, Deduced …the Periods and Succession of Times at, or About Which, These Prophecies … Began to Be … and Those That Are yet to Be Fulfilled …: Together with Some Practical Observations, and Several Digressions …: Delivered in Several Lectures. London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, 1658. ———. Clavis Cantici, or, an Exposition of the Song of Solomon. Edinburgh: Printed by George Swintoun and James Glen, and are to be sold at their shops …, 1668. ______. The Law Unsealed, or, a Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments with a Resolution of Several Momentous Questions and Cases of Conscience. Edinburgh: Printed by the heir of Andrew Anderson, 1676. Eaton, Samuel, and John Knowles. The Mystery of God Incarnate or the Vvord Made Flesh, Cleered up: Or, a Vindication of Certain Scriptures (produced to Prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ) from the Corrupt Glosses, False Interpretations, and Sophistical Argumentations of M. John Knowles, Who Denies the Divinity of Christ. Also, Certain Annotations and Observations Upon a Pamphlet Entituled, a Confession of Faith Concerning the Holy Trinity, According to the Scriptures: Together with a Copie of a Letter Sent by Him to the Committee of Gloucester, Concerning His Faith Touching the Doctrine of the Trinity. by Samuel Eaton, Teacher of the Church of Christ at Duckenfield. Whereunto Is Annexed the Attestation of Philip Nye, John Owen, Joseph Caryl, Tho. Harrison, William Greenhill, Sydr. Simpson, Geo. Griffiths. London, 1650. Edwards, Jonathan, Sereno E Dwight, and Edward Hickman. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edinburgh: Banner of Thrust, 1997. Edwards, Jonathan, Perry Miller, John E Smith, and Harry S Stout. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven, Conn., [etc.]; London: Yale University Press; Oxford University Press, 1957. Flavel, John. The Balm of the Covenant Applied to the Bleeding Wounds of Afflicted Saints First Composed for the Relief of a Pious and Worthy Family, Mourning Over the Deaths of Their Hopeful Children; and Now Made Publick for the Support of All Christians, Sorrowing on the Same or Any Other Account. to Which Is Added, a Sermon Preached for the Funeral of That Excellent and Religious Gentleman John Upton of Lupton Esq; by John Flavell, Preacher of the Gospel at Dartmouth in Devon. London: printed for J. Harris, at the Harrow against the Church in the Poultrey, 1688. ———. The Fountain of Life Opened, or, a Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory … London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1698. ———. The Whole Works of John Flavel, Late Minister of the Gospel at Dartmouth, Devon. London: W. Baynes and son, 1820. ———. Vindiciæ Legis & Foederis: Or, a Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call Wherein He Pretends to Answer All the Arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism, by Proving the Law at Sinai, and the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham, Were the Very Same with Adam’s Covenant of Works, and That Because the Gospel-Covenant Is Absolute. by John Flavel Minister of the Gospel in Dartmouth. London, 1690. Flavel, John, Increase Mather, Thomas Young. An Exposition of the Assemblies

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

240

Works Cited

Catechism, with Practical Inferences from Each Question:: As It Was Carried on in the Lords Days Exercises in Dartmouth, in the First Year of Liberty, 1688. Edinburgh,: Reprinted by the heirs and successors of Andrew Anderson, printer to his most excellent Majesty,, 1699. Gale, Theophilus. The Life and Death of Mr. John Rowe of Crediton in Devon. London: Printed for Francis Tyton …, 1673. Gillespie, George, and Christopher Coldwell. A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland: Wherein Not Only Our Own Arguments Against the Same Are Strongly Confirmed, but Likewise the Answers and Defences of Our Opposites, Such as Hooker, Morton, Burges, Sprint, Paybody, Andrews, Saravia, Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey, Forbes, Etc., Particularly Confuted. Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1993. Gillespie, Patrick. The Ark of the Covenant Opened, or, a Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace the Second Part, Wherein Is Proved, That There Is Such a Covenant, the Necessity of It, the Nature, Properties, Parties Thereof, the Tenor, Articles, Subject-Matter of Redemption, the Commands, Conditions, and Promises Annexed, the Harmony of the Covenant of Reconciliation Made with Sinners, Wherein They Agree, Wherein They Differ, Grounds of Comfort from the Covenant of Suretiship. London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst …, 1677. ———. The Ark of the Testament Opened, or, the Secret of the Lords Covenant Unsealed in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, Wherein an Essay Is Made for the Promoving [sic] and Increase of Knowledge in the Mysterie of the Gospel-Covenant Which Hath Been Hid from Ages and Generations but Now Is Made Manifest to the Saints … London: Printed by R.C., 1983. Goodwin, Thomas. Of the Constitution, Right, Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ. London: Printed by Tho. Snowden for T.G., 1696. ———. The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.d. … the First Volume. Containing, an Exposition on the First, and Part of the Second Chapter, of the Epistle to the Ephesians. and Sermons Preached on Several Occasions. London: Printed by J.D. and S.R. for T.G., 1681. ———. The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Edinburgh: J. Nichol, 1861. Gouge, William. A Learned and Very Useful Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews Wherein Every Word and Particle in the Original Is Explained …: Being the Substance of Thirty Years Wednesdayes Lectures at Black-Fryers, London. London: Printed by A.M., T.W. and S.G. for Joshua Kirton, 1655. Gregory Nazianzen. Select Orations. Ed. Martha Pollard Vinson.Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Hoornbeeck, Johannes. Theologiae Practicae. Francofurti & Lipsiae: Bailliar, 1698. Hopkins, Ezekiel. An Exposition on the Ten Commandments. London: Printed for Nathanael Ranew, Jonathon Robinson and John Wyat, 1692. Howe, John. “ATreatise of Delighting in God from Psal. Xxxvij. 4. Delight Thy Self Also in the Lord, and He Shall Give Thee the Desires of Thine Heart. in Two Parts. by John Howe, M.a. Sometime Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxon.,” 1674. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88–2003& res_id=xri:eebo& rft_val_fmt=& rft_id=xri:eebo:image:32156.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Other Primary Sources

241

Hutcheson, George. A Brief Exposition of the Prophecies of Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. London: Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Ralph Smith …, 1654. Hyperius, Andreas. De Formandis Concionibus Sacris, Seu De Interpretatione Scriptuarum Populari: Libri 2. Marpurgum: Colibius, 1562. ______. The Practice of Preaching, Otherwise Called the Pathway to the Pulpet. Trans. Andreas Gerardus. London, 1577. Jones, William. A Commentary Vpon the Epistles of Saint Pavl to Philemon, and to the Hebrewes, Together with a Compendiovs Explication of the Second and Third Epistles of Saint Iohn. London: Allot, 1635. Lawson, George. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Sawbridge, 1662. Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened … London: Printed by A.M. for William Lee …, 1662. Maccovius, Joannes. Loci Communes Theologici … Collecti … Opera Et Studio N. Arnoldi. Amstelodami, 1658. Manton, Thomas. A Second Volume of Sermons Preached by the Late Reverend and Learned Thomas Manton in Two Parts: The First Containing Xxvii Sermons on the Twenty Fifth Chapter of St. Matthew, Xlv on the Seventeenth Chapter of St. John, and Xxiv on the Sixth Chapter of the Epistle of the Romans: Part Ii, Containing Xlv Sermons on the Eighth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and Xl on the Fifth Chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: With Alphabetical Tables to Each Chapter, of the Principal Matters Therein Contained. London: Printed by J. Astwood for Jonathan Robinson …, 1684. ———. The Complete Works. London: Nisbet, 1870. Marbury, Edward. A Commentarie or Exposition Upon the Prophecie of Habakkuk Together with Many Usefull and Very Seasonable Observations. London: Printed T.R. and E.M. for Octavian Pullen, and are to be sold at his shop, 1650. Marprelate, Martin, and William Pierce. The Marprelate Tracts, 1588, 1589. London: J. Clarke & co., 1911. Martin, John, Samuel Petto, Frederick Woodall, John Collinges. The Preacher Sent: Or, a Vindication of the Liberty of Publick Preaching, by Some Men Not Ordained; in Answer to Two Books: 1. Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici: By the Provincial Assembly of London. 2. Vindiciæ Ministerii Evangelici. by Mr. John Collings. Published by J. Martin, S. Petto, F. Woodal. London, 1658 January 30, 1657, 1658. van Mastricht, Peter. Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur. Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715. Mead, Matthew. En Oligo Christianos the Almost Christian Discovered; or, the False Professor Tryed and Cast Being the Substance of Seven Sermons, First Preached at Sepulchres, London, 1661. and Now at the Importunity of Friends Made Publique. by Matthew Meade. London, 1666. Musculus, Wolfgang. In Decalogum Praeceptorum Dei Explanatio. Basileae: Per Ioan. Heruagium, 1553. Pareus, David. In Divinam Ad Hebraeos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius Quo Praeter Accuratam Textus Sacri … Interpretationem, De Quaestionibus Controversis

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

242

Works Cited

Dubia Plurima Explicantur : Et Antiqua Fides Catholica õ Corruptelis Sophistarum Papisticorum … Vindicatur. Heidelbergae: Jonas Rosa, 1613. Perkins, William. A Declaration of the True Maner of Knowing Christ Crucified. London, 1615. ———. A Warning Against the Idolatrie of the Last Times and an Instruction Touching Religious, or Diuine Worship. Cambridge: Printed by Iohn Legat, printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And are to be sold at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Churchyard, London, by Simon Waterson, 1601. ———. An Exposition of the Symbole or Crede of the Apostles: According to the Tenour of the Scriptures, and the Consent of Orthodoxe Fathers of the Church. Cambridge: Printed by John Legat, 1596. ______. The Arte of Prophecying, or, a Treatise Concerning the Sacred and Onely True Manner and Methode of Preaching. Imprinted at London: By Felix Kyngston for E.E. and are to be sold in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Swan, 1607. ———. The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience: Distinguished into Three Bookes. London: Printed by Iohn Legatt, 1619. Petto, Samuel. Infant Baptism of Christ’s Appointment, or a Discovery of Infants Interest in the Covenant with Abraham Shewing Who Are the Spiritual Seed and Who the Fleshly Seed. Together, with the Improvement of Covenant Interest by Parents and Children. by S.p. Minister of the Gospel. London, 1687. ———. The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained with an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal Concernments of It. London: Printed for Eliz. Calvert, 1674. ———. The Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace: Or, the Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained. Stoke-on-Trent: Tentmaker Publications, 2007. Polanus, Amandus. Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae: Aliquot Praelectionibus Genevae Proposita a Amando Polando a Polansdorf; Praemissi Sunt Duo Indices … Adiunctae Sunt Orationes Quatuor: I. De Incarnatione Immanuelis Nostri Iesv Christi, Ii. De Crucis Christi Scientia & Communione, Iii. De Vita & Obitu Oecolampadii, Cui Disputatio De Primatu Papae Inserta, Iv. De Prophetia Danielis. Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597. Poole, Matthew. Annotations Upon the Holy Bible. Wherein the Sacred Text Is Inserted, and Various Readings Annex’d, Together with the Parallel Scriptures, the More Difficult Terms in Each Verse Are Explained, Seeming Contradictions Reconciled, Questions and Doubts Resolved, and the Whole Text Opened. Vol. Ii. Being a Continuation of Mr. Pool’s Work by Certain Judicious and Learned Divines. London: printed for Thomas Parkhurst, Dorman Newman, Jonathan Robinson, Brabazon Ailmer, Thomas Cockeril, 1685. ———. Blasphemoktonia: The Blasphemer Slaine with the Sword of the Spirit: Or, a Plea for the God-Head of the Holy Ghost: By an Admirer and Worshipper of the Trinity in Unity. London: J. Rothwell, 1653. ______. Quo Warranto; or a Moderate Enquiry into the Warrantablenesse of the Preaching of Gifted and Unordained Persons … Being a Vindication of the Late Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici … from the Exceptions of Mr. John Martin, Mr. Sam. Petto, Mr.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Other Primary Sources

243

Frederick Woodal, Ministers of Suffolk, in Their Late Book Intituled: The Preacher Sent. London, 1658. Preston, John. Life Eternall or, a Treatise of the Knowledge of the Divine Essence and Attribvtes: Delivered in Xviii. Sermons. Imprinted at London: By R.B [adger] and are to be sold by Nicholas Bourne at the Royall Exchange, and by Rapha Harford, in Paternoster row in Queenes-head alley, at the signe of the guilt Bible, 1633. ______. The New Covenant, or, the Saints Portion: ATreatise Unfolding the All-Sufficiencie of God, Mans Uprightnes, and the Covenant of Grace; Delivered in Fourteen Sermons Upon Gen. 17:1,2 Whereunto Are Adjoyned Foure Sermons Upon Eccles. 9:1,2,11,12. London: Printed by I.D. for Nicolas Bourne, 1639. The Racovian Catechisme: Wherein You Have the Substance of the Confession of Those Churches, Which in the Kingdom of Poland, and Great Dukedome of Lithuania, and Other Provinces Appertaining to That Kingdom, Do Affirm, That No Other Save the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Is That One God of Israel, and That the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Who Was Born of the Virgin, and No Other Besides, or Before Him, Is the Onely Begotten Sonne of God. Printed at Amsterledam [sic]: For Brooer Janz, 1652. Reynolds, Edward. The Works of … Edward Reynolds … Containing Three Treatises of the Vanity of the Creature. the Sinfulness of Sin. the Life of Christ … with a Collection of Thirty Sermons Preached on Several Solemn Occasions … London: Printed by Tho. Newcomb, and are to be sold by Robert Boulter, 1679. ______. Meditations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter. London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst …, 1677. Roberts, Francis. Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum. the Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible: Viz. God’s Covenants with Man, in the First Adam, Before the Fall: And in the Last Adam Iesus Christ, After the Fall; from the Beginning to the End of the World; Unfolded & Illustrated in Positive Aphorisms & Their Explanations. Wherein the General Nature, Several Kinds, … of All Gods Holy Covenants, … Together with Their Peculiar Terms, Occasions, Author, … Are Largely and Familiarly Expounded: The Blessed Person and Office of Jesus Christ, … Is Described: Many Choice Fundamental Points of Christianity, Are Explained: Sundry Practical Questions, … Are Resolved: … and in All, the Great Supernatural Mystery of the Whole Sacred Bible, Touching Gods … Salvation of Sinners by Jesus Christ Through Faith, … Is Disclosed and Un-Veiled. by Francis Roberts, M.a. Pastor of the Church at Wrington, in the County of Sommerset. London: printed by R[obert]. W[hite]. for George Calvert, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Half-Moon in Pauls Church-yard, 1657. Rogers, Timothy. A Discourse Concerning Trouble of Mind and the Disease of Melancholy. in Three Parts. … the Second Edition. Corrected. by Timothy Rogers … to Which Are Annexed, Letters from Several Divines, Relating to the Same Subject. London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, and J. Sprint, and J. Nicolson, 1706. Rollock, Robert. Quæstiones Et Responsiones Aliquot De Foedere Dei Deque Sacramento Quod Foederis Dei Sigillum Est. in Gratiam Rudiorum Collectæ Per Robertum Rollocum Scotum. London, 1596. Rowe, John. Heavenly-Mindedness, and Earthly-Mindedness in Two Parts: With an Appendix Concerning Laying Hold on Eternal Life. London: Printed by J.C. for Francis Tyton, 1672.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

244

Works Cited

Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened; or, a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. Edinburgh, 1655. Rutherford, Samuel, and Andrew A Bonar. Letters of Samuel Rutherford: With a Sketch of His Life and Biographical Notices of His Correspondents. Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006. Scudder, Henry. The Christians Daily Walk in Holy Security and Peace Comprising the Whole Duty of Man: Being an Answer to These Questions, 1. How a Man May Do Each Present Days Work, with Christian Chearfulness 2. How to Bear Each Present Days Cross with Christian Patience. Containing Familiar Directions; Shewing, 1. How to Walk with God in the Whole Course of a Mans Life. 2. How to Be Upright in the Said Walking. 3. How to Live Without Taking Care or Thought in Any Thing. 4. How to Get and Keep True Peace with God; Wherein Are Manifold Helps to Prevent and Remove Damnable Presumption: Also to Quiet and Ease Distressed Consciences. by Henry Scudder, Late Preacher of the Word. London: printed by T. Hewer for Lodowick Lloyd, at the Castle in Cornhill, 1664. Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant, Wherein Is Set Forth the Nature, Conditions and Excellencies of It. London: Byfield, 1661. ______. The Doubting Beleever, or, a Treatise Containing 1. the Nature, 2. the Kinds, 3. the Springs, 4. the Remedies of Doubtings, Incident to Weak Beleevers. London: Printed by M.F. for Thomas Nicols, and are to be sold at his shop, 1641. Shepard, Thomas. The Parable of the Ten Virgins Opened & Applied: Being the Substance of Divers Sermons on Matth. 25. 1, –- 13 … London: Re-printed, and carefully corrected in the year, 1695. Sibbes, Richard. Antidotum Contra Naufragium Fidei & Bonæ Conscientiæ: Concio [on 2 Tim. I. 14] … Habita Ad Academicos Cantabrig. … 9 Die Octobris 1627. Londini, 1657. ______. The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes. Edinburgh: Nichol, 1862. Swinnock, George. The Fading of the Flesh, and Flourishing of Faith; or, One Cast for Eternity, with the Only Way to Throw It Well … by George Swinnock. London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1662. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. corpusthomisticum.org, n.d. Turrettin, Francis, George Musgrave Giger, and James T Dennison. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P& R Pub., 1992. Ursinus, Zacharias, and David Pareus. Corpus Doctrinae Orthodoxae: Sive, Catecharum Explicationum D. Zachariae Ursini Opus Absolutum D. Davidis Parei Opera Extrema Recognitum … Adiuncta Sunt Miscellanea Catechetica … [Genevae]: sumptibus Samuelis Crispini, 1616. Ussher, James. A Body of Divinitie, or, the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion Catechistically Propounded, and Explained, by Way of Question and Answer : Methodically and Familiarly Handled. London: Printed by M.F. for Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1647. ______. Jacobi Usserii Armachani De Romanae Ecclesiae Symbolo Apostolico Vetere. Oxonii: G. Hall, 1660. Vincent, Thomas. An Explicatory Catechism: Or, an Explanation of the Assemblies Shorter Catechism. Glasgow: Sanders, 1692.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

245

Secondary Sources

Vines, Richard. The Saints Nearness to God Being a Discourse Upon Part of the Cxlviii Psalm. London: Printed by A.M. for Francis Tyton, 1662. Voetius, Gijsbertus. G. Voetii … Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima. Editio Quinta. Accedunt Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ. Ultrajecti, 1648. Voetius, Gijsbertus and Johannes Hoornbeeck. Spiritual Desertion. Trans. M. Eugene Osterhaven. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003. Watson, Thomas. A Body of Practical Divinity, Consisting of Above One Hundred Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Catechism Composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster : With a Supplement of Some Sermons on Several Texts of Scripture. by Thomas Watson, Formerly Minister at St. Stephen’s Walbrook, London. Printed from His Own Hand-Writing. Recommended by Several Ministers to Masters of Families and Others. London: printed for Thomas Parkurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1692. ———. Heaven Taken by Storm, or, the Holy Violence a Christian Is to Put Forth in the Pursuit After Glory. London: Printed by R.W. for Tho. Parkhurst, 1669. ______. Paramuthion, or, a Word of Comfort for the Church of God. London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1662. Westminster Assembly. The Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechism. London, 1655. Whitaker, William. Disputatio De Sacra Scriptura: Contra Hujus Temporis Papistas, Inprimis Robertum Bellarminum … & Thomam Stapletonum … Sex Quæstionibus Proposita Et Tractata. Herbornæ Nassoviorum: Ex officina Christophori Corvini., 1600. Whitaker, William, and William Fitzgerald. A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000. Witsius, Herman. De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor. Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water, 1694. ———. Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Libri Iv, Quibus De Prophetis & Prophetia, De Tabernaculi Levitici Mysteriis … Diligenter & Prolixe Disseritur. Trajectii ad Rhenum: Apud Franciscum Halman, academ typogr., 1692. ———. On the Character of a True Theologian. Greenville, S.C.: Reformed Academic Press, 1994.

Secondary Sources Asselt, W. J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001. Asselt, W. J. van, and E. Dekker, eds. Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. Asselt, W. J. van, T. Theo J Pleizier, P. L Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

246

Works Cited

Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980. Barber, Malcolm. The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages. Harlow, England; New York: Longman, 2000. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1, Prolegomena. Trans. John Vriend. Ed. John Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker academic, 2003. Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Beeke, Joel R. Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. Beeke, Joel R, and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology : Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Beeke, Joel R, and Joseph A Pipa, eds. The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Benedict, Philip. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Bierma, Lyle D. The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005. Black, J. “The Rhetoric of Reaction: The Martin Marprelate Tracts (1588–89), AntiMartinism, and the Uses of Print in Early Modern England.” The Sixteenth Century Journal (1997): 707–725. Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion & Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638. Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Brown, Michael. Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624–1711). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Carlton, Charles. Archbishop William Laud. London; New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. Clark, R. Scott and Carl R. Trueman, eds. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. Coffey, John. Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Harlow, England; New York: Longman, 2000. ———. Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Cohen, Charles Lloyd. God’s Caress: The Psychology of Puritan Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Collinson, Patrick. “Antipuritanism.” The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (2008): 19–33. ______. From Cranmer to Sancroft. London; New York: Hambledon Continuum, 2006. ———. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1967. Cooper, Tim. John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Coxe, Nehemiah, John Owen, Ronald D Miller, James M Renihan, and Francisco

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

247

Secondary Sources

Orozco. Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ … Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005. Daniels, Richard W. The Christology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004. Davies, Adrian. The Quakers in English Society, 1655–1725. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 2000. Davies, Horton. The Worship of the English Puritans. Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997. Denlinger, Aaron C. Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Dixon, Philip. Nice and Hot Disputes: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century. London;;New York: T & T Clark, 2003. Duncan, J. Ligon, and W. Duncan Rankin, eds. The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century : Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Vol. 2. Fearn: Mentor, 2004. Eire, Carlos M. N. War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Ellis, Brannon. Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Ferguson, Sinclair B, and Robert W Oliver, eds. John Owen: The Man and His Theology. P & R Publishing; Evangelical Press, 2002. Fesko, J. V. Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–1700). Göttingen; Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Gribben, Crawford. The Puritan Millenium: Literature and Theology, 1550–1682. London: Four Courts Press, 2000. Gunton, Colin E. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1991. Ha, Polly, Patrick Collinson, eds. The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain. Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2010. Hall, David W, and Peter A Lillback, eds. A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2008. Haykin, Michael A. G, and Mark Jones, eds. Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism. Göttingen; Oakville, Conn.: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Hyde, Daniel R. In Defense of the Descent: A Response to Contemporary Critics. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. ———. “Of Great Importance and of High Concernment: The Liturgical Theology of John Owen (1616–1683).” ThM thesis. Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, 2010. Ian Hugh Clary. “Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism.” Puritan Reformed Journal 2, no. 1 (January 2010). Jones, Mark. Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Jue, Jeffrey K. Heaven Upon Earth Joseph Mede (1586–1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2006. Kapic, Kelly M. Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

248

Works Cited

Kapic, Kelly M, and Mark Jones. The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012. Kay, Brian. Trinitarian Spirituality : John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion. Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2007. Kelly, Douglas F. Systematic Theology : Grounded in Holy Scripture and Understood in the Light of the Church. Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2008. Knapp, Henry M. “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-Century Exegetical Methodology.” PhD diss. Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002. Kot, Stanislaw. Socinianism in Poland. Boston: Starr King Press, 1957. Lake, Peter, and Michael C Questier. The Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Lee, Brian J. Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2004. ———. The Westminster Assembly : Reading Its Theology in Historical Context. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2009. Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria, England: Baker Academic; Paternoster, 2001. Lim, Paul Chang-Ha. Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Little, Patrick, ed. Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives. Basingstoke, England; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors: Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and Westminster Conferences 1959–1978. Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. Lowenstein, David and John Marshall, eds. Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern English Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Matthews, A. G. The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, 1658. London: Independent Press, 1959. McCullough, Peter E, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. McGraw, Ryan M. “A Review of Michael Brown, Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624–1711).” Mid-America Journal of Theology 23 (2012): 152–155. ———. “A Review of, Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680).” Calvin Theological Journal 47, no. 1 (April 2012): 159–162. ______. By Good and Necessary Consequence. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. ______. “John Owen on the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Trinity, the Humanity of Christ, and the Believer.” In The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit, edited by Joel R. Beeke and Joseph A. Pipa, 267–284. Grand Rapids, 2012.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

249

Secondary Sources

______. “John Owen on the Study of Theology.” The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 180–195. McLachlan, H. John. Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England. London: Oxford University Press, 1951. Mortimer, Sarah. Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of Socinianism. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010. Muller, Richard A. “A Note on Christocentrism and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology.” The Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 2 (2006): 253–260. ———. “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy : A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus — Brakel.” Calvin Theological Journal 29, no. 1 (1994). ______. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1985. ———. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academics, 2003. ______. “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept.” Midamerica Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11–65. Muller, Richard A. and Rowland S Ward. Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2007. Neele, Adriaan Cornelis. Petrus Van Mastricht (1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy : Method and Piety. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. Nuttall, Geoffrey F. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. The Harvest of Medieval Theology : Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Old, Hughes Oliphant. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Penny, Robert L, ed. The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson. Pillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2008. Phan, Peter C, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pieper, Josef. Guide to Thomas Aquinas. New York: Pantheon Books, 1962. Poole, K. “Saints Alive! Falstaff, Martin Marprelate, and the Staging of Puritanism.” Shakespeare Quarterly (1995): 47–75. Quantin, Jean-Louis. The Church of England and Christian Antiquity the Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford; New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009. Rehnman, Sebastian. Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Reid, James. Memoirs of the Westminster Divines. Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982. Reuver, Arie de. Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages Through the Further Reformation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. Richard, Guy M. The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

250

Works Cited

Roach, Andrew. The Devil’s World: Heresy and Society, 1100–1300. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson Education Ltd., 2005. Ryken, Leland. Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, 1986. Schaefer, Paul R. The Spiritual Brotherhood: Cambridge Puritans and the Nature of Christian Piety. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983. Schweitzer, William M. God Is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2012. Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Selvaggio, Anthony T. ed. The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub., 2007. Spence, Alan. Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of Christology. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Sprunger, Keith L. Dutch Puritanism a History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden: Brill, 1982. ———. The Learned Doctor William Ames; Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972. Steinmetz, David C. “The Scholastic Calvin.” Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (n.d.): 16–30. Tay, Edwin E.M. “The Priesthood of Christ in the Atonement Theology of John Owen (1616–1683).” PhD diss. Cambridge University, 2009. Toon, Peter. God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971. Troxel, A. Craig. “Cleansed Once for All: John Owen on the Glory of Gospel Worship In ‘Hebrews.’” Calvin Theological Journal 32 (1997): 468–479. Trueman, Carl R. Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010. ———. John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2007. ———. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998. Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, C. 1590–1640. Oxford Oxfordshire; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1987. Wallace, Dewey D. Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Westcott, Stephen P. By the Bible Alone!: John Owen’s Puritan Theology for Today’s Church. Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media & Press, 2010. Westminster Conference. ‘Where Reason Fails:’ Papers Read at the 2006 Westminster Conference. N.p.: Westminster Conference, 2006. Wilbur, Earl Morse. A History of Unitarianism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Index of Persons

Ainsworth, Henry 192, 221 Allaine, Joseph 90 Ames, William 17 – 18, 41, 47, 82 f., 85 f., 94, 103, 106, 124 Aquinas, Thomas 36 – 38, 41, 137 Aristotle 37 f. Arminius, Jacob 38 Athanasius 53, 56 Augustine 53, 56 f., 66, 105 f. Ball, John 143, 152 f., 168, 170 f. Barber, Malcom 15 Barlow, Thomas 22, 41, 189 Barth, Karl 32 Basil the Great 56 Bavinck, Herman 36 Baxter, Richard 25, 65, 126 f., 150, 173 Beach, J. Mark 142, 150, 171 Beeke, Joel R. 17, 32, 60, 99, 121, 150, 214 Benedict, Philip 21, 93, 105 f. Biddle, John 49 f. Bierma, Lyle 145, 151 Black, Joseph 15 Bolton, Robert 121, 125 Bolton, Samuel 169, 216, 218 Boston, Thomas 49, 96, 160 f. Bowles, Oliver 197 Bozeman, Theodore Dwight 150 Brakel, Wilhelmus a 17, 142, 149, 158, 221 Bremer, Francis 17 – 18. Bridge, William 23, 65, 97, 147 – 148, 154, 161, 170 Brown, Mark 169 f.

Brown, Michael 169, 215 Bucanus 170 Bulkelley, Peter 156 Bullinger, Heinrich 81, 142 – 144, 204, 221 Bunyan, John 26 Burgess, Anthony 18, 101, 208, 210 Burroughs, Jeremiah 28, 83, 97 – 100, 117 – 118, 193 f., 214 Buxtorf , Johann 36 Byfield, Richard 44, 58, 60, 62 f. Cajetan, Thomaso 189 Calvin, John 12 – 13, 20 f., 31 f., 35, 71 – 72, 87, 91, 118 – 119, 142, 168, 170, 185, 189 f., 204, 226 Cameron, John 167, 169, 216, 218 Carlton, Charles 87, 95 f. Caryl, Joseph 23, 25, 96, 143 f. Case, Thomas 122, 221 f. Charles II 16, 24 – 26 Charnock, Stephen 28, 97 – 100, 117 – 119, 124, 214, 221, 223 Cheynell, Francis 37 – 38, 48, 50 f., 55, 70, 100, 109, 179 Clark, Scott R. 11, 13, 35, 37, 42, 56, 59 Clarkson, David 26, 44, 67 – 69, 78 f., 108, 114, 177, 205, 229 Cloppenburg, Johannes 156 Cocceius, Johannes 142, 144, 148, 152, 161, 163 f., 167, 189 f. Coffey, John 13 – 16, 18, 21 f., 94, 99, 104, 113, 127 Cohen 118, 142

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

252

Index of Persons

Collinson, Patrick 14 f., 18, 106 Cooper, Tim 22, 106, 126 f., 150 Cotton, John 160, 192, 194, 196, 199 Coxe, Nehemiah 174 Crellius 190 Cromwell, Oliver 23 – 24, 34 Cromwell, Richard 24 Daniels, Richard 59 Dawson, Jane 18 De Reuver, Arie 46, 122, 137, 214 Dekker, Eef 20, 35 Denlinger, Aaron 141, 143, 146 Dennison, James T, Jr. 38 Dering, Edward 189 Dickson 191, 193 Dickson, David 145, 150, 156 f., 189 – 191, 193 Diodati, John 189 Dixon, Philip 49 – 51., 54, , 56, 213, 217 Downame, John 52, 190, 221 Durham, James 52, 57, 59, 72, 75, 90 f., 157, 180, 221 – 224, 226 Eaton, Samuel 50 Edwards, Jonathan 12, 42, 116 f., 120, 129, 160, 162, 164 f., 228 Ellis, Brannon 72 Elshout, Bartel 17 Erasmus 21, 189 Erie, Carlos 20, 89 Euler, Carrie 171 Fenner, Dudley 14, 143 Ferguson, Sinclair B. 23, 26, 66, 122, 124, 129, 151, 160, 163 Fesko, J. V. 83, 157 Flavel, John 83 f., 91, 160 – 161, 173 f., 201, 203 f., 218 Gale, Theophilus 119 Gill, John 161 Gillespie, George 17 f., 93, 101 Gillespie, Patrick 141, 144 f., 150, 153, 156 f., 203 Gomarus, Franciscus 111, 189 – 190

Goodwin, John 19 Goodwin, Thomas 17, 37, 43, 56 f., 64, 69, 96, 164, 188, 191 f., 194, 196, 204 Gouge, William 189 f., 191 – 192 Green, Lowell C. 37 Greenhill, William 23, 97, 122 Gregory of Nazianzus 58 Gribben, Crawford 19 Grotius, Hugo 152, 190 H. John McLachlan 49 Ha, Polly 14 Hall, David D. 12, 17, 96 Haykin, Michael A. G. 12, 105 Heflin, Joel 48 Helm, Paul 35 Herman Witsius 46, 142 Herzer, Mark A. 146 Hoornbeeck 42, 47 f. Hoornbeeck, Johannes 38, 47 f., 65, 212, 217 Hopkins, Ezekiel 90 Howe, John 25, 84 Hunsinger, George 53 Hutcheson, George 222, 230 Hyde 12, 31 Hyde, Daniel 12 Hyde, Daniel R. 31, 196, 206 Hyperius, Andreas 36, 39, 197 images 21 f., 29, 73, 92, 106, 111, 118, 128, 177, 180, 183 James Reid 58 John Flavel 160, 162, 201 Jonathan Edwards 160, 162, 215, 218, 228 Jones 16, 85, 141, 143, 147, 150, 191, 215 Jones, Mark 17, 49 f., 57, 64, 72, 83, 141, 146, 149 f., 164, 167 – 170, 174, 223 Jones, William 189, 191 Jue, Jeffrey K. 19 Kapic 12, 131 Kapic, Kelly 11, 31, 44, 53, 55, 63, 117 Kay, Brian K. 12, 31, 55 – 57, 62 f., 122 Kelly, Douglas F. 53, 217

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

253

Index of Persons

Kevan, Earnest 166 King James 21 Klauber, Martin I. 38 Knapp, Henry 83, 85, 92, 189 – 190 Kot, Stanislaw 49 Lake, Peter 14 f., 67 Laud, William 16, 22, 87, 95 Lawson, George 189 f. Lee, Brian 142, 144, 166 f. Leigh, Edward 14, 52 – 54, 57, 61, 72, 82, 134, 204 Leighton, Alexander 96 Letham, Robert 17, 31 f., 40, 53, 56 f., 62, 165, 213, 217 Lim, Paul C. H. 14 f., 18, 33 – 35, 48, 50 f., 61 f., 70, 72, 179, 225 f. Little, Patrick 24 Lloyd-Jones, D. M. 16 Loeffs, Isaac 26 Luther, Martin 37, 171 Maccovius, Johannes 39 Manton, Thomas 57, 82, 84 – 86, 89, 112, 122 f., 129 Marbury, Edward 222, 230 Marshall, Stephen 19 Mastricht, Petrus van 42, 47, 63, 82, 84, 86 f., 110, 131, 146, 205, 217 McDonald, Suzanne 53, 225 McGowan, A.B.T 160 McGraw, Ryan M. 32, 88, 124, 217 McLaughlan, John 49 Mead, Matthew 121 Melanchthon, Philip 37 Milton, Anthony 14, 16, 19, 104 Mortimer, Sarah 179, 217 Muller, Richard A. 13, 17, 19, 34 – 36, 38 – 40, 53 – 54, 59, 71, 81 – 82, 84 f., 98 f., 102, 118, 156, 214 Neele, Adriaan C. 47, 86 Nuttall, Geoffrey 11, 66 f., 109, 112 Nye, Philip 23, 96 f., 194

Oberman, Heiko 13 Owen, Henry 21 Packer, J. I. 16, 34 Pareus, David 189 f. Patrick Collinson 14, 106 Peacey, John 24 Perkins, William 17, 47, 52, 57, 70, 72, 82 f., 92 f., 100, 118, 123 f., 127 f., 137, 197, 201 f., 206 f., 214, 219, 224 Petegree, Andrew 34 Peter A. Lillback 12 Petto, Samuel 143, 146 – 150, 154, 160 f., 166 f., 169 f., 172 – 175, 202, 209, 215, 218 Pieper, Josef 37 Pipa, Joseph A. 32 Piscator, Johannes 189 Poole, Kristen 15, 202 Poole, Matthew 52, 122, 189, 202 Powell, Hunter 23, 196, 199 Preston, John 99, 142 Pronk, Cornelis 17 Prynne, William 96 Quantin, Jean-Louis

87, 106

Rehnman, Sebastian 34, 69 Rester, Todd M. 17 Reynolds, Edward 16, 87, 106, 117, 119, 137, 228 Richard, Guy M. 11 – 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 34 f., 37, 39, 44, 58 – 63, 65, 71, 83, 98 – 100, 104, 112, 126 f., 156 Rjissen, Leonard 40 Rogers, Timothy 65 Rollock, Robert 13, 204 Rowe, John 119, 123, 132, 137 – 138, 228 Russell, Thomas 11 Rutherford, Samuel 18, 104, 147, 160 Ryken, Leland 15 Schlichtingius 189 Schweitzer, William M.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

42

254

Index of Persons

Scudder, Henry 121 f., 127, 134, 150, 163, 184, 207, 223 Sedgwick, Obadiah 121, , 160, 163, 173 Shepard, Thomas 121 Sibbes, Richard 60 f., 65, 83, 100, 112, 205, 209 f., 231 Siecienski, Edward 32, 76 Sinnema, Donald 39 Socinus, Faustus 48 f. Spence, Alan 56, 59, 83 Sprunger, Keith L. 17, 47, 122 Steinmetz, David C. 13, 35 Stillingfleet, Edward 25 Stock, Richard 12, 56, 99 Strange, Alan D. 63, 194 Swinnock, George 58 f., 99 Sympson, Sydrach 97 Thomas Watson 99 Todd, Margo 17 Trueman, Carl R. 13, 22, 31, 34, 52, 57, 63 f., 119, 145, 171, 211 – 212, 220 Turretin, Francis 38, 69, 119, 142, 210, 221, 225 Tweeddale, John 12 Tyacke, Nicholas 14 Ursinus, Zecharias 81, 91 f., 151, 221 Ussher, James 16, 53, 221 – 224

van Asselt, Willem 20, 35, 142, 153, 157, 161, 164 f. Vermigli, Peter 170 Vincent, Thomas 91 f., 221, 224 Vines, Richard 141, 161 Voetius, Gisbertus 32, 35 f., 47, 65, 213, 217

Wallace, Dewey 119, 127, 139 Ward, Rowland S. 98, 102 Waterland, Daniel 213 Watson, Thomas 58 f., 90 f., 98, 108, 221 Webster, Tom 16, 22, 95, 136 Westcott, Stephen 34 – 35, 44 – 45, 89, 120, 212 Whitaker, William 86, 98 White, J. Wesley 40 White, John 146 Wilbur, Earl Morse 49 Witsius, Herman 37 f., 46, 58, 142, 148 – 149, 157, 168

Yates, John

97

Zwingli, Uldrich

21

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

Index of Subjects

Act of Uniformity 24 ad extra 40, 53, 55, 61, 73, 147, 161, 165, 195 adoption 60, 63 f., 67 f., 75, 134 f. Antipuritan 14 Antipuritanism 14 f., 18 Aristotelian 36 f., 41 Arminianism 11, 14, 23, 216 f.

Hebrews 11, 26, 29, 31, 61, 73 f., 78, 106, 132, 142, 147, 153, 159, 162, 166 – 169, 172, 174 – 176, 180 – 183, 188 – 194, 215, 218 Heidelberg Catechism 150

baptism 15, 102, 110, 150, 174, 204, 218 Baptists 96, 105, 150, 174 Belgic Confession 150 benedictions 30, 188 – 192, 216

KJV

Cathari 15 Christ Church 22 f., 34 circumincessio 53 Clarendon Code 24 Coggeshall 23 Congregationalist 21, 23 f., 32, 83, 119, 194, 198, 202, 216, 218 Conventicle Act 24 Cromwellian Settlement 113 Dublin 19, 23 Dutch Annotations Ecclesiology

189

11, 30, 199

filioque 32, 53, 76, 217 f. Five Mile Act 24 Fourth Lateran Council 71 fundamental articles 31, 58, 213, 217

images 21 f., 29, 73, 92, 106, 111, 118, 128, 177, 180, 183 142, 147

Liturgies 24, 29 f., 77, 104, 176 f., 182 – 183, 206, 216 Lord Protector 24 Lord’s Supper 19, 21 f., 31, 97, 102 – 104, 107, 109 f., 204 f. means of grace 30, 111, 135, 137 f., 192 Mosaic Covenant 166 Mosaic economy 149 f., 155, 166, 170, 175, 177 New England 17 f., 96 Nicene Creed 32, 53, 76 Nonconformists 16, 24 f. opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa 53, 55, 73 ordinances 21, 30, 65, 69, 88, 94, 101 f., 107 – 114, 118 f., 121, 123, 125, 128 – 133, 135 – 137, 168, 175 – 178, 181 f., 187, 189, 192 – 194, 198, 200, 206, 208 – 210, 214, 216

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756

256

Index of Subjects

Oxford 11, 14, 21 – 23, 32, 34, 39, 41 f., 49 f., 53, 87, 104, 106, 117, 119 perichoresis 53, 68, 73 persecution 18, 21, 26, 49, 93 f., 96 f., 130 piety 12, 16 – 19, 27, 30 – 34, 46, 48, 51 f., 55 f., 58, 69, 73 f., 80, 98, 106, 111, 115, 118, 132, 137, 186, 203, 205, 207, 213 f., 216 f., 228 Pilgrim’s Progress 26 principium congnoscendi 39, 82 f., 88 principium essendi 39, 82, 214 Protestant Scholasticism 13, 16, 20, 33, 35, 37 – 39, 151, 218 Puritan 13 – 22, 31 – 33, 35, 49, 51, 55, 60, 65 f., 70, 80, 98 f., 105, 111, 113, 118, 122, 135, 137 f., 144, 150, 167, 184, 203, 212, 214 f., 217 Puritanism 12 – 19, 22, 33 f., 47 f., 87, 93, 95 f., 105, 118, 150, 160, 218 Quakers

109, 132, 150

Raccovian Catechism 49 f. Reformed orthodoxy 13, 28 f., 32, 58, 71 f., 80 f., 83 – 86, 89, 92, 98, 101, 117 – 119, 123, 129, 146 f., 151, 153, 156, 158, 162, 167 f., 171, 214, 217 – 219 sacramental union 110 Savoy Declaration 12, 23 f., 63 f., 74 f., 82,

85, 88, 94, 101 f., 110, 141, 145 – 148, 151, 156, 193, 205, 207 Scholastic 13, 20, 33, 35, 38 f., 80 Science 40, 42 Scots Confession of Faith 110 Scottish Presbyterians 17 Second Helvetic Confession 204 Socinianism 48 – 50, 179, 217 Socinians 14, 30, 52, 54, 113, 190, 217 Solemn League and Covenant 24, 144 Song of Solomon 62, 90 spiritual desertion 65, 136 superstition 65, 73, 94 f., 127 f., 183 Synod of Dort 157 vestments 15, 22, 105 f., 177, 183, 185 Vice Chancellor 22, 106 Westminster Annotations 122, 190 Westminster Assembly 17, 50, 63, 97, 101, 141, 146, 148, 190, 194 Westminster Confession of Faith 23, 35, 85, 89, 94, 101 f., 110, 141, 145, 147, 151, 156 f., 184, 193, 207 Westminster Directory of Worship 102, 105, 192, 194 Westminster Larger Catechism 46, 61 f., 77, 82, 90 f., 104, 154, 157, 163, 196 Westminster Shorter Catechism 55, 88, 91, 104, 117, 135, 146 f., 149, 206, 209

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550755 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550756