From Dogma To Practice: Systematic Theology And Application In The Sermons Of The Scottish Commissioners To The Westminster Assembly

By Breno Macedo

[Breno Macedo is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPB). He serves as Assistant Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Teresina, Brazil, and is Professor of Historical Theology and Homiletics at the Presbyterian Seminary in Teresina.]

Many still tremble when they hear the term Reformed orthodoxy. This reaction, far from being positive, expresses the reproof and rejection that some scholars nurture for the theological works produced from the late sixteenth century to the beginning of the seventeenth century.[1] These scholars’ reproof has probably best been described by Richard Muller, who writes that “protestant orthodoxy has, in general, been declared ‘rigid,’ ‘dry,’ and ‘dead.’ Reformed orthodoxy in particular has been accused of being ‘speculative’ and ‘metaphysical,’ ‘decretal,’ ‘predestinarian,’ and ‘legalistic.’ It is said to deduce entire systems of theology from the central dogma of an eternal divine decree—and to draw its principles entirely from Aristotle. It is called by turns ‘biblicist’ and ‘proof-texting,’ or ‘rationalistic’ and ‘philosophical.’”[2] It would seem obvious that a theological tradition with so many negative characteristics is unlikely to draw much attention to the works produced by its proponents.

Surprisingly, recent studies have turned the tables. Muller himself, along with many other able scholars, has demonstrated that instead of distancing themselves from the theology and principles of the Reformation, especially as articulated by John Calvin, the theologians who came after Calvin maintained the same principles and kept in line with the same thought.[3] This continuity between the thought of the Reformation and that of the post-Reformation was demonstrated, in general, through the analysis and study of the dogmatic works produced during both eras. It was particularly through the comparison and contrast of their systematic theologies that the similarities of ideas and differences of focus were detected and identified. But while the highly elaborated theological treatises were examined, the more practical and pastoral works were not so much investigated. Mark Beach rightly observes that there remains “a rich field awaiting further exploration … in how the Reformed orthodox engaged in the practical labor of ministry—especially catechesis and homilesis.”[4]

This article aims to contribute to the “mining” of this rich field in search of those “golden nuggets” that reveal the theology produced by Reformed orthodoxy to be formulated for the instruction and practice of the Christian minds and hearts sitting in the pew. This article will attempt to show that the highly elaborate and technical theological treatises that marked this period were translated through the pulpit to the ears of the less theologically astute in a way that was consistent with the treatises but in simple and practical form. In order to demonstrate this kind of preaching, I will examine sermons preached during the meetings of the Westminster Assembly before the English House of Lords by two Scottish commissioners, Alexander Henderson and Samuel Rutherford. This study is particularly relevant because it seeks to demonstrate how such eminent and learned men, who contributed to such a complex document as the Westminster Standards, moved from dogma to practice. As Robert L. Dabney once said, “Had we no histories of its members, and no record of its discussions, the contents of the Confession itself are enough to teach us that those profound and illustrious scholars were enriched with all the stores of sacred learning gathered from previous ages, and culminating in their epoch.”[5] But did they make such marvelous and complex learning accessible to simpler minds? How did they accomplish such a challenging task?[6]

In terms of method, this article will seek to identify the dogmatic loci present in the sermons. It will explore how the dogma was presented and what level of detail and minutia the divines used in their approach to preaching doctrine. Next it will compare the dogma exposed in the sermon with the formulation of the same dogma in the Westminster Standards, aiming to determine how much of the official teaching of the assembly was present in the sermon. Finally, it will analyze the transition from dogma to practice and experience, aiming to determine if the divines were true to the meaning of the doctrine. It will be concluded that the Reformed orthodox theologians were not afraid of using their highly systematized doctrine in the pulpit. It was precisely the accuracy in definitions, the preciseness of the language, that made post-Reformation preachers so effective and pointed in their application.7

I. Dogma And Practice In Alexander Henderson

We begin this investigation of how highly systematized dogma is reflected in the practical and experimental level by examining a sermon preached by Alexander Henderson on May 28, 1645. This was a day appointed for solemn and public humiliation, and Henderson’s sermon was an exposition of John 18:36–37. Henderson wrote a brief introduction to the sermon in which he revealed the subject of his exposition, “the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”8 Right in the introduction the reader’s expectations are raised in regard to the applicatory and experimental nature of the sermon. Henderson points to several practical deficiencies caused by disregard for the doctrine of Christ’s kingly office. He affirms,

It has been of old and is at this day a just complaint, that of the offices of Christ, his kingdom is least considered of, and most mistaken; which as it is dishonor to his name, so is it a mighty hindrance of the comfort of some, to the sanctification of others, and to the salvation of many, and is a main cause of the many disorders and scandals in the Church of Christ.[9]

He emphasizes this point by explaining that some teachers of theology are content to have Christ as a prophet for their instruction and as a priest for their satisfaction and intercession before the Father, but they “are not willing to serve Christ as their king, that he may rule over them.”[10]

1. Doctrinal Elements In Henderson’s Sermon

From John’s verses Henderson extracts four points which are the main headings of his sermon: the dominion and sovereignty of Christ, the condition and quality of the kingdom of Christ, the end and use of Christ’s kingdom, and the subjects of the kingdom.[11] Henderson uses the first two headings to explain the first sentence Christ spoke to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” In the first heading he focuses only on the expression “my kingdom” and infers from it that Christ does have a kingdom and that therefore he is a king. This, then, becomes the perfect moment to explain how Christ functions as a king. “As our supreme Lord and King,” Henderson affirms, “by his mighty power and sovereignty, he rules in us and over us, and conserves and maintains our blessed estate thus revealed and purchased, against all enemies.”[12]

Henderson supports this description of Christ as king with four reasons.[13] He points first to the honorific titles that are used to address Christ in the Scriptures, titles such as “king of kings,” “lord of lords,” and “prince of the kings of the earth,” among others. These titles, according to Henderson, find in Christ their most eminent fulfillment both positively and negatively. Christ is the most powerful of the kings, his rule is the most supreme and sovereign, and none of the imperfections and infirmities of earthly kings are present in him. The second reason consists of the promises and prophecies about King Jesus present in the writings of the OT. The third reason is the obvious and clear execution of his office which he carries out “in giving laws unto his people, and executing them, in giving gifts unto his servants for the good of his people, in ruling his people by his Word and Spirit, in defending and delivering them from their enemies, and in subduing and destroying their enemies in the end.”[14] The fourth and last reason is the glory, honor, and worship that the entire church gives to him.

Having developed Christ’s kingship, Henderson moves on to describe the qualities of Christ’s kingdom as the fulcrum of his sermon’s second main heading. His emphasis here is on the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom: “His kingdom is not of this world; it is not an earthly or worldly kingdom, and therefore by consequence must be a spiritual and heavenly kingdom.”[15] Henderson mentions several similarities between Christ’s spiritual kingdom and earthly kingdoms in general: both belong to God, both are for God’s glory, both are for the good of the people, both have laws to govern them, and both have their particular enemies.[16] Nonetheless, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world is perceived when one pays attention to its particular and unique characteristics. Earthly kingdoms are temporal; once these kingdoms are established people speculate about their duration, and at some point they come to a tragic end. “But the kingdom of Christ shall not be destroyed forever.” Kingdoms of this world are ruled by human laws and policies; “but the kingdom of Christ, by the law of another kind, by the simplicity of the gospel, which to the natural man is foolishness.” Henderson pushes the differences between Christ’s kingdom and material kingdoms to a climactic end in a beautiful rhetorical way: “The kingdoms of the world consist in riches, honor, power of men, external splendor, and earthly greatness, but in the kingdom of Christ, poverty and humility triumph over the world, under the standard of the cross. The kingdoms of the world have carnal weapons and strength of arms to pursue their ends, but the weapons of the kingdom of Christ are spiritual, to procure spiritual obedience unto him.”[17]

The differences between these two kingdoms lead Henderson to draw some conclusions regarding the government of the church. “We are to distinguish between that which is of this world, and that which is external and visible in this world.”[18] Henderson makes a clear reference to the church as the temporal and material administration of Christ’s spiritual kingdom. In this world, Christ’s kingdom becomes visible through the ministry of the church. The administration of church ordinances is an evidence of Christ’s spiritual rule of his kingdom. The selection and installation of church officers is a visible fruit of the inward work of Christ’s Spirit making man to perform this ministry and to care for the kingdom of heaven. In Henderson’s words,

This part of the administration of Christ’s kingdom, although it be external, yet it is not of this world, but spiritual, for it comes from the Spirit, and is done by the gifts of the Spirit. The Word and sacraments, which are the matter of it, are things spiritual; for the manner of doing it is by the evidence of the Spirit; the spirits and souls of men are the object of it; the end thereof is spiritual edification, and the effect the ministry of the Spirit. So that in this respect also, the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but a spiritual kingdom in both parts of the administration thereof.[19]

Thus, Henderson characterizes the church as the visible manifestation of the kingdom of Christ, a kingdom completely separated from the domain of earthly rulers, governed only by God’s word and his Spirit.

2. Henderson’s Dogmatics In Light Of The Westminster Standards

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and Catechisms contain a detailed and theologically mature chapter on Christology. In the confession, this doctrine is found particularly in Chapter 8 entitled “Of Christ the Mediator.” In the Shorter Catechism (WSC) this doctrine is explained in Questions 21–28, and in the Larger Catechism (WLC) it is present in Questions 36–57.[20] Apparently the assembly debated the questions of the WLC regarding Christology around May 1647, and these discussions were not free of controversy.[21] But as early as March 1645, two months before Henderson delivered his sermon before the House of Lords, the assembly was already involved in debating the kingly office of Christ.[22] It seems safe to assume that Henderson’s sermon was at least informed by the debates and expressed the theology agreed on in the assembly after the sessions.[23] In the theological system of the assembly, the doctrine of Christ flows from the doctrine of God’s covenant with man, for “the only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ” (WLC Q. 36).[24]

It also involves aspects of ecclesiology since the mediator was called Christ, a name that expresses his being “fully furnished with all authority and ability to execute the Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church (WLC Q. 42).[25] It seems, therefore, more than natural that Henderson found the opportunity to approach both Christology and ecclesiology in his sermon.

The confession teaches that Jesus was appointed by God “to be the Mediator between God and Man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head, and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, the Judge of the World (WCF 8.1).[26] According to this document, Christ’s office is that of a mediator and surety. It does not apply the category of office to the titles prophet, priest, and king. On the other hand, the WLC uses the title mediator as a reference to the manifestation of God’s grace in the post-lapsarian covenant but does not classify it as an office; under this category the catechism places the triple titles previously mentioned (WLC Q. 42; cf. WCF 8.3, 4). It seems that here the assembly made an inconsistent and confusing use of the office category. David Dickson, in his famous commentary on the confession, is not of much help in understanding the assembly’s thought here since he creates a different category, considering Christ’s mediation as a work and not as an office. On the other hand, he labels as office Christ’s triple titles.[27] It is important to note, nevertheless, that he makes a distinction of categories. Apparently A. A. Hodge noticed this problem of categories in the Westminster Standards and attempted to clarify it. According to him, to be the mediator is the office while to be prophet, priest, and king are functions one executes in the exercise of the office. In his words, “Hence, the mediatorial office involves all the three great functions of prophet, priest and king, and Christ discharged them all, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation. These are not three distinct offices meeting accidentally in one office, but three functions inhering essentially in the one office of mediator. And they each so belong to the very essence of the office that the quality peculiar to each gives character to every mediatorial action.”[28]

The confession does not explain in detail the functions of the mediator, but the catechisms do. The WLC deals particularly with Christ’s kingly function in Q. 45, and the WSC in Q. 26. This last text bears a remarkable resemblance to Henderson’s words in his sermon. It affirms that “Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.”[29] Out of the four reasons Henderson used to support his statement about Christ’s function as king, three could be supported through the proof texts in the WSC, although he himself does not care to support them. Isaiah 32:1–2 is one of the OT prophetic promises of the coming Messiah. Isaiah 33:22 depicts the Lord as a law giver. Psalm 110:3 depicts the people of the promised king living under his rule and participating in his government. Henderson seems to support his statement with the central idea of certain biblical texts, although he does not explicitly mention them.[30]

Henderson’s ecclesiological views are also in line with the theology of the Westminster Symbols. Henderson’s recognition of the universal rule of Christ while having the focus of his government over the church finds clear support in the text of the WLC Q. 45, which affirms that “Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them.” Thomas Ridgley’s comments on this question are particularly helpful. He affirms that the “divines generally distinguish his [Christ’s] kingdom into that which is natural, and that which is Mediatorial.” He further explains that the first is that which is naturally his due to his deity, the second is his due to his Father’s commission.[31] That the church is the visible manifestation of Christ’s kingdom is completely in line with the confession when it affirms that

the visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25.2)[32]

Commenting on this section, Hodge explains that “this visible Church is called ‘the kingdom of heaven’ on the earth, and its nature and progress are set forth in the parables of the ‘sower of the seed,’ the ‘field and the tares,’ the ‘mustard seed,’ the ‘leaven,’ the ‘net which was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind,’ etc.”[33]

In regard to the spirituality of the church and of the total separation of its government from the earthly government of worldly kingdoms, Henderson’s teachings are in complete harmony with the confession which affirms that “the Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate” (WCF 30.1).[34] The confession thus makes a complete separation between church and state, avoiding any intervention or intrusion from civil authorities, and making Christ’s kingdom completely spiritual. Robert Shaw’s comments on this chapter of the confession are most valuable. He, using the same text Henderson used in his sermon, draws the exact same truth preached by the old Scottish divine. He affirms that “that remarkable declaration of Christ, ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ plainly shows that his kingdom, though in this world, is totally and specifically distinct from all others in it; and when he forbade the exercise of such dominion over his subjects as the kings of the Gentiles exercised, the different nature of the government to take place in it was clearly pointed out.”[35]

Therefore, Henderson’s sermon on Christ’s kingly office and his kingdom “prophetically” expressed in full in 1645 what would be the official position of the assembly by the end of that decade. It does so in a simple and persuasive manner, fit for the pulpit, shining light onto complicated matters of theology and educating his hearers on important issues of dogmatics.

3. From Dogma To Practice In Henderson’s Sermon

After explaining the doctrines of the text, Henderson moves to their practical and experimental applications. He leaves all his applications to the end of the sermon. It is very important to note how crucial this part of the sermon was for him. Suppose for the sake of argument that the printed sermon represented the manuscript Henderson took into the pulpit. There are thirty-three pages total in the edition and format consulted, of which twenty-two are totally dedicated to application. In other words, Henderson used over 65 percent of his time in the pulpit to draw the doctrine he had explained into the hearts, consciences, and lives of his listeners. One can only conclude that Henderson held application in very high regard. He draws five applications from the text: two are dedicated to issues of church polity and the relationship between church and state; the last three are intended for the Christian life in the different spheres.

In the applications regarding church and state relations, Henderson seeks to emphasize the separation between each institution while preserving their harmonious and parallel functions. Both institutions are divinely appointed and they have some overlapping characteristics. “There is nothing so ecclesiastical,” he says, “but it belongs some way to the magistrate, he being keeper of both tables, nor is there anything so secular, but it concerns the ministry, in so far as secular things fall under obedience or disobedience to God.”[36] They must, therefore, coexist harmoniously and cooperatively. In light of this, Henderson moves to some exhortations regarding the responsibility the state has in seeking the preservation and reformation of the church. This involves resistance to the pope and to his claims of authority over temporal affairs. In this way, Henderson finds room to reprove kings who do not rebel against papal authority, civil authorities who procrastinate in the pursuit of the reformation of the church in those places where the Roman pontiff does not have authority, and those who want to replace the pope with the state. This last group, which he sees as proponents of a “new papacy,” he identifies with strong and convicting language as “court-parasites,” “politicians,” “enemies of the kingdom of Christ,” who “would introduce into the reformed churches, ascribing to the highest civil authority, or to the supreme magistrate, the same place in the reformed church within his dominion, that the pope has in the Roman church, and making him head of the church, by which the pope is changed, but not the papacy, the dominator but not the domination.”[37]

The three last applications regard the relationship between Henderson’s hearers and Christ’s kingship and his kingdom. First, Henderson focuses on those who oppose Christ’s rule either openly or secretly. He affirms that this resistance is the fruit of a heart that rejects Christ’s spiritual kingdom and falls into Satan’s temptation to love this present world and earthly kingdoms. The root of this sin is in the heart and simply expresses one’s love for the things of this world. Henderson warns,

If men might be pleased to examine themselves narrowly, and descend into their own hearts, they would find that their hearts deceive them, and while they seem to others and to themselves to be despisers of the world, they are either by covetousness or vain-glory, or love of carnal liberty, or some other tie, entangled and kept fast by the world, and are either, directly or indirectly, drawn to oppose the kingdom of Christ.[38]

Instead of loving the world, man must love the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Because they know such a kingdom exists, it is their duty to know more about this kingdom. They must seek active participation and membership in Christ’s kingdom, acknowledging their fallen state, recognizing Christ as their king, and sacrificing themselves for his sake. They must also seek the advance and establishment of Christ’s kingdom.[39] Henderson concludes his sermon with a word of consolation. If one is truly under the rule of Christ and bows to his royal position, this is a matter of great comfort to his soul. First, in spite of all the present difficulties and struggles, ultimately Christ reigns as absolute king. No one can remove him from his seat, and he will bring all under subjection to him. Second, because he is king he is bound by office to protect and bring salvation unto all those under his rule. “Because his is the kingdom, he is bound by right to fight for, to defend, and to deliver his own subjects that are fighting for his kingdom. His is power in heaven and on earth, over angels, over devils, over armies of men, and over all creatures. And his is the glory; the honor of his own actions will return upon himself.”[40] It is not only Christ’s obligation to save his people; it is also an ability that he, and only he, has.

II. Dogma And Practice In Samuel Rutherford

Another Scottish commissioner who preached during the Westminster Assembly was Samuel Rutherford.[41] The sermon selected for this study was that preached before the House of Lords on June 15, 1645, almost a month after Alexander Henderson preached his sermon to the same group. Rutherford’s approach to preaching, at least in this sermon, is quite different from Henderson’s. Instead of using a verse from which to bring out topical subjects, he uses a more expository approach in which an entire pericope is explained and the exegetical details of the passage are explored. During his sermon, Rutherford makes extensive reference and usage of the original biblical languages and expresses his rich scholarship making use of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The passage preached is Luke 8:22–25, the famous narrative of Jesus calming a storm, and Rutherford also refers to the parallel passages in Mark 4:38–40 and Matt 8:26. It is also worth noting the use of allegory in his sermon. Rutherford considers the boat and the storm as representations of the church and of her struggles while living in a fallen world.

1. Doctrinal Elements In Rutherford’s Sermon

Rutherford divides this passage into six particular ideas: (1) Christ’s going on a sea journey, (2) the condition of the ship and of the crew, (3) the disciples’ attitude amidst danger, (4) Christ’s response to the disciples’ behavior, (5) Christ’s rebuking of the storm, and (6) the effect of the miracle upon the crew. While all of these points or headings are very textual, they do not clearly express any dogmatic loci; but as he develops them, Rutherford formulates his systematic theology.

On the second heading, for example, Rutherford uses his allegory of the storm as the struggles of the church in order to explain his views on providence. He affirms that “Christ, his ship, his Church, and the passengers have in their sailing more than ordinary storms.”[42] He goes on to explain the relationship between believers, suffering, and God. He demonstrates from the Scriptures that suffering is a characteristic of the Christian life. He points to Job’s experience, to the testimony of the book of Psalms and of the prophets (Ps 102:3–5; Ezek 3:10), and to the experience and teaching of the NT apostles (1 Cor 4:9; Heb 11:35–37) to support his assertion. This suffering comes from the hands of God, affirms Rutherford, because of his displeasure toward the sins of his own people, but it is very different from that displeasure that God has against unbelievers.

The reason of the Lord’s so dealing is, 1. God declares himself more impatient of sin in his own children than in the wicked. I mean of God’s impatience evangelic, in regard that it is a sin of higher ingratitude to sin against: (1) the Gospel; (2) Illumination; (3) And the mercy of regeneration than to sin against the Law, and common favors and gifts; though God’s legal impatience in regard of revenging justice be far more against the sins of the wicked, than against sins of believers, it being an act of vengeance which God cannot exercise towards believers.[43]

Thus, Rutherford organizes the way in which God administers affliction into two categories: evangelic and legal. The sufferings of the saints are a fruit of God’s design and are under his control. They are different from the sufferings of unbelievers in that for them they are not demonstrations of God’s love and care towards them. Rutherford also affirms that these sufferings are temporary and they are not to be compared to the torments unbelievers will experience in hell. “The sufferings of the saints in this life is their whole hell,” he affirms.[44] Christians should not try to understand God’s plans, for their ultimate purpose is hidden from them. “God’s deep counsels work underboard; providence is a great mystery.… The end, cujus gratia, which seasons God’s works with wisdom and grace, is unseen. Honey is sweet, but tasting only discerns it. Neither eye can see it, nor ear can hear of it; our senses cannot reach the reason of his counsel, who will have the godly plague every morning [Ps 73:14].”[45]

Still under this heading, Rutherford finds opportunity to discourse on the humanity of Christ. Considering the portion of the narrative in which Christ is described as sleeping, he teaches that Christ embraced in his divinity a true human nature. This embracement of fleshly frailty, explains Rutherford, is the greatest demonstration of God’s love toward humanity. He says, “How then can God sleep? He that is in one person God-man can sleep. (1) Because in this rare piece of redemption, Christ-God took all our infirmities on him, except sin; as he took our nature, so he took our condition and place, to express the depth of the love of God to mankind; the lower and baser our glorious redeemer was, it has the greater impression of love.”[46] Christ’s humanity is not only a demonstration of love towards sinful man, but it is a necessary element for the redemption of sinners. Salvation required a sacrifice that no mere creature, either of the material world or of the spiritual world, could offer. “Man as man is but a creature, and all the angels could not endure the infinite wrath of God, and therefore God must be in this play, unless all had been marred.”47 Therefore, Christ, the God-man, took upon his divine person a human nature so that the infinite wrath of God could be satisfied by the infinite merit of his divine sacrifice, something that no mere creature could do even if God had bestowed upon it supernatural powers and abilities. “But here [in Christ] all strength, and which is more all worth and merit of suffering came from the Godhead.”[48]

2. Rutherford’s Dogmatics In Light Of The Westminster Standards

The assembly’s position regarding the providence of God can be found in WCF 5. It seems that the assembly of divines debated this chapter, along with other subjects, from July 16 to December 2, 1645.[49] Of particular interest in regard to Rutherford’s doctrinal statements are sections 4–7. WCF 5.1, along with WLC Q. 18 and WSC Q. 11, teaches that by providence it means God’s absolute control of his creation and particularly of his rational creatures and their actions. This is clearly understood from the plain reading of its text.[50] This statement raises the thorny question of the relation between God and evil. This issue is addressed in 5.4 in which, while not explaining precisely the relationship and how exactly one harmonizes God’s holy providence with the appearance of sin, the confession affirms that God’s providence involves even the fall of rational creatures “and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends.” At the same time sinfulness itself is only to be attributed to the creation and not to the creator, and therefore God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” In spite of the clarity of its language, the confession does not attempt to solve this apparent paradox but only attempts to establish that nothing, even the worst things, escapes the rule and government of God. As Robert Shaw in commenting on this section concludes, “The full elucidation of this abstruse subject, so as to remove every difficulty, surpasses the human faculties. We are certain that God is concerned in all the action of his creation; we are equally certain that God cannot be the author of sin; and here we ought to rest.”[51]

This paves the way to deal with the issue of difficulties and struggles in the Christian life. The confession deals with this subject in the next paragraph, 5.5. It approaches an issue which became known as spiritual desertion and further develops it in Chapter 12 in reference to assurance of salvation.[52] The confession teaches that believers are sometimes left for a specific period of time to many temptations and to the sinfulness of their own hearts. These seasons, nevertheless, are under God’s control and they serve several godly purposes including chastisement, self-awareness, humbleness, dependence, and watchfulness. According to Hodge, this section teaches that “hence in the way of discipline for their own good, to mortify their sins and to strengthen their graces, God does often wisely and graciously, though never finally, for a season and to a degree, withdraw his spiritual influences from his own children, and ‘leave them to the manifold temptations and corruptions of their own hearts.’”[53] Thus the assembly, in harmony with Rutherford, affirms that God is behind the sufferings of his people. And what a comforting assurance this is! As Edward Morris wrote, this section “is a beautiful description … of the tender ministries of God by his providence toward his own children by grace.”[54]

The confession also teaches that the divine providence that determines and controls the adversities in the life of believers is the same that withholds divine grace, withdraws gifts, and leaves unbelievers to their own corruptions. This is the content of 5.6. The purpose of this demonstration of divine providence, or desertion, is very different from that bestowed upon believers. Through it, “it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others” (WCF 5.6). Thus, with Rutherford, the confession does affirm that by the same act of divine providence God is involved in the affliction of both believers and unbelievers but with very different ends. This seems to be in line with Rutherford’s division of God’s anger into legal and evangelical categories. As Morris affirmed,

We are certainly not to conceive of two schemes of providence, working by divergent methods, and bringing to pass one result for the wicked, and another for the holy. But while as our Lord taught, the plan of God in providence does include all men, it still is true that this providence is administered in the interest of grace, and in many ways concerns itself specifically with the welfare and the culture of those who believe.[55]

In regard to the doctrine of the humanity of Christ, the Westminster Standards adopted the language and theology of the old creeds of the church. In fact, it seems that here we find the best formulation of the doctrine of Christ ever written in a public and official church document. As Morris assesses, “In the Westminster Symbols taken in their entirety, we find a completer description of Christ in his being, his personality human and divine, his mission and offices and states whether of humiliation or of exaltation, than can be found in any of these preceding creeds. Here the Christology of Protestantism reaches its full and beautiful consummation.”[56]

As already noted, the confession deals with Christology in Chapter 8, right after addressing covenant theology. WLC Q. 36 clearly makes the connection between the two doctrines. It asks, “Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?,” making a harmonious transition from one subject to the other. The answer is a short but detailed articulation of the doctrine of the person of Christ: “The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, for ever.”[57] Thus, in clear language, the WLC teaches, like Rutherford, that Christ’s divine person embraced a human nature. It was the second person of the Trinity who became incarnate without giving up anything in regard to his divinity. Even the language used in the Westminster documents replicates that found in the ancient creeds. Ridgley rightly notes,

He [Christ] is styled the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, and, with respect to his personality, equal with him. This is the same mode of speaking that was used by the Nicene fathers, in defense of our Savior’s divinity against the Arians, which we have largely insisted on, in our defense of the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity.[58]

The Westminster Standards also express the idea of the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice and its relation to his divine person. In WCF 8.5, the assembly expressed their idea regarding Christ’s obedience and God’s wrath in the following way: “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto him.” The assembly, like Rutherford, taught that Christ had performed a sacrifice most perfect and pure, the only sacrifice able to satisfy the demands of the Father, to pay the wages of sin, and to procure the eternal redemption of his people. Hodge sheds light on the theology of this paragraph by explaining,

Christ suffered only in this single human soul and body, and only for a time. Nevertheless, his person was the infinite and transcendently glorious person of the eternal Son of God. Consequently his sufferings were precisely both in kind and degree what the infinite righteous wisdom of God saw to be in strict rigour a full equivalent in respect to the demands of legal justice, for the eternal sufferings of all for whom he suffered. This is the doctrine of the whole Christian Church.[59]

The link between the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice and his divine person is clearly expressed in WLC Q. 38: “Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?”60 The answer can be divided into three reasons: (1) a divine person was needed to empower the human nature to tolerate all its burdens and sufferings, (2) it was only as God that Christ’s sacrifice could have infinite worth, and (3) only a divine person could execute and accomplish the much needed redemptive work. As Robert Shaw explains, “His [Jesus’] sufferings were, from the dignity of his person, of infinite value for the expiration of our sins.”[61] Therefore, salvation could only be accomplished by the Son, by the second person of the Godhead, and not by any other creature either from the material or from the spiritual world.[62]

Just like Henderson, Rutherford did not refrain from using doctrine in his sermons. He explains it in plain language, and its content, in full, was already in harmony with what would become the positions agreed upon by the assembly at Westminster.

3. From Dogma To Practice In Rutherford’s Sermons

As in Alexander Henderson’s sermon, Rutherford uses his exposition on dogmatics to bring relevant practical applications to his listeners. It is important to note that he does not wait until the end of his sermon to begin the application. Right after explaining the doctrines, as one who does not let the main dish of a banquet go cold, he applies them. In regard to the doctrine of providence, Rutherford uses it, first, to alarm unbelievers and call them to repentance. If he is right in his exposition, if God casts towards them his legal afflictions and they are not the fruit of his grace and love but of his wrath, these are the most horrifying of afflictions and sinners must flea from them, they must repent. Such terrible afflictions come most unexpectedly, and therefore they must repent now! “If it be so, that the godly, the green tree, suffer such a fire, it must be more than fire that is abiding the enemies,” Rutherford concludes. And, thus, he warns, “Wrath, wrath creeps on the sinners in Zion by theft, without a cry or noise of feet; you hear not the rattling of your sun’s wheels, when it is setting, and the night falls on you.”[63] As an able homiletician, Rutherford uses a series of probing questions to engage his listeners’ reason and to stir up their consciences. The questions are crafted to provoke, in those who hear, the self-application of the doctrine explained. Through his questions, Rutherford creates a frightening scenario of war in which sinful mortal men fight against the eternal Almighty God, a battle impossible to win. Here are some examples of this homiletical tool:

O enemies of the gospels, O malignants and haters of the Lord and his saints, have you castles and strongholds to run to in the day of wrath? Or are your castles judgment proof? Cannot death and hell scale your walls, and though you shut your doors, climb in at your windows? Are your bulwarks and wall salvation?… Has not the second death long and sharp tusks? Will you endure the siege and batteries of everlasting death?[64]

He also makes a second application, this time to believers, reminding them that the Christian life is full of afflictions and believers should be ready to face them comforted in the fact that they were designed by God himself. “We desire to go to paradise through no other way but paradise, and a way strewn with roses. Nay but we must endure hardness, and resolve the way cannot be changed to flatter our softness; it is as God has carved it out.”[65] Christians must face their hardships and struggles inspired by the example of Christ and in a way that resembles his sufferings in completing his redemptive work. “Heaven was not so feasible to Christ, but it was to him sweating. If Christ had taken the fair way and a street to heaven like paradise, and left the rough way to us, we had the more reason to complain. But it should silence us that Christ says, you have no harder usage than the Captain of your salvation.”[66] Rutherford concludes his application of this doctrine with a call to arms. Christians are part of a holy army and there is no place for cowards among those who are led and guided by Christ. “God has drawn and molded the topography of heaven, and set all our guest before; he is a bad soldier who follows such a captain of salvation as Christ, weeping and murmuring.”[67]

Regarding the doctrine of Christ’s person, Rutherford uses it to encourage his hearers, here the House of Lords, in their task of reforming the kingdom. They must not simply accept that in their fight for reformation there will be adversities and opposition, they must fight against them. He affirms that “the church of Christ must have also strength against all the persecutions of men. There is a bone in the head of the church, that is, strength in Christ that cannot be broken. Malignants shall fight against Mount Zion, but shall not prevail.”[68] In this fight the enemies are many and one stronger than the other, but the House of Lords should fear no one while they are fighting for the cause of Christ, even if the opposition comes from a royal seat. “Christ has endured more than the wrath of the King of Britain, and believe it, he shall be victorious and shall prevail.”[69]

Rutherford also uses this doctrine to encourage the magistrates in their fight against Rome and Erastians. He appeals to the fact that if Christ truly is fully God and fully man, “it is neither piety nor good policy to take anything from him that is his due.”70 Kings should not want to take the throne of Christ from his kingdom, they should not attempt to be rulers of a kingdom that is not his.

“If Caesar had stept in and usurped a headship over the assembly convened in the name of Christ … I conceive the apostles would have called it a wronging of Christ the King of the church, in his prerogative royal, and an abridging of the freedom of his court.”[71] On the other hand, the church should not attempt to manipulate the civil authorities to do the church’s bidding.

They are not puppets in the hands of the church, neither blinds who find the Church their walking stick. Nor was it ever in our hearts to teach that the Christian magistrate is with blind obedience to execute the decrees of the church; for this poor argument, if it has any nerves, as it would cast upon us the doctrine of Papists and Jesuits to make the ways of Christ odious, it has a great strength against the preaching of the Gospel.[72]

Rutherford thus uses this application to explain briefly the role of the magistrates in relation to the church and concludes with an appeal that his hearers would honor their role and the expectation of the reformed community as a whole. “But we shall hardly believe that the honorable Houses will take on them supreme authority above the assemblies and courts of the Lord Jesus, or that they will give occasion to all the Protestant Churches in the world who pray for them, to write against their proceedings.”[73]

III. Conclusion

Far from being dry, rigid, or dead, the sermons of the Scottish commissioners demonstrate a lively, practical, and experimental link between dogma and the Christian life in the mind of the Reformed orthodox theologians. These sermons are of great value for the historical theologian in that they reveal the picture some portray of the theology produced during this time and of the divines to be just poorly drawn caricatures! These sermons demonstrate that, against the accusation of being biblicist or proof-texting, the post-Reformation theologians sought to be faithful to Scripture and to interpret it in its own context. This is clearly evident from the heavy use of the original biblical languages and the use of historical background to determine the meaning of the preaching passage, a true demonstration of the practical use of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. It also shows that they were neither alienated from the theology of the church as catholic nor isolated from other sources of knowledge. This is evident from their use of ancient creeds, the writings of church fathers, medieval theologians, and Greek philosophers, and even of other non-theological sources.

But the most striking characteristic observed in these sermons is their use of systematic theology and movement from doctrine to practice. On the one hand, they demonstrate that the preachers were not afraid to use doctrine in the pulpit. They made use of dogmatic language and content to instruct their listeners, a language very similar to that used in what would become the standard documents for theological and catechetical instruction in the church. On the other hand, these sermons demonstrate that the preachers were concerned to find ways to make doctrine become part of the personal experience of those in the pews. The applications of the dogma were relevant, addressing contemporary issues and problems, such as the relation between church and state and the reformation of the church. They were also listener-driven, considering the target audience and the learning of the listeners. They passionately aimed at changing hearts and practice through the use of pointed and specific applications, suggesting godly alternatives to sinful patterns and probing and provoking the hearers’ consciences.

In our own times, when preaching has frequently become an opportunity for self-promotion, ego-massaging, and self-help encouragements, the sermons of the post-Reformation preachers are a remarkable source from which modern preachers must learn. These preachers of old challenge those whose responsibility is to unveil God’s will as he has revealed it in his infallible Word; to know their sheep and their needs individually and corporally; to be familiar with the modern challenges of the Christian life and to address them from the pulpit along with practical and experimental biblical remedies; to make use of the doctrinal formulations of the church without fear of boring listeners, but effectively making the connection between dogma and practice.

Notes

1. In his published inaugural address, historical theologian Richard Muller defines this period of church history as follows: “‘Reformed orthodoxy’ indicates both the confessionally defined teaching of the Reformed churches and the era, ca. 1565-1700 or 1720, during which Reformed theologians made their greatest effort in the definition and defense of that confessional teaching. This orthodoxy implies the confessional acceptance, the systematic elaboration, and polemical defense of such teachings as the famous ‘five points of Calvinism,’ but also the acceptance, elaboration, and defense of the doctrines of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and infant baptism” (Richard A. Muller, Scholasticism and Orthodoxy in the Reformed Tradition: An Attempt at Definition [Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1995], 26).
2. Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 47-48.
3. See Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’ : Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 1,” CTJ 30 (1995): 345-75; Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’ : Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 2,” CTJ 31 (1996): 125-60; Andrew Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought : A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly” (PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1988); J. Mark Beach, “Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005).
4. J. Mark Beach, “Preaching Predestination: An Examination of Francis Turretin’s Sermon De l’affermissement de la vocation et de l’élection du fidìle,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 133, emphasis added.
5. Robert L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession: Its Fundamental and Regulative Ideas, and the Necessity and Value of Creeds,” in Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly, 1647-1897 (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897), 92.
6. For more relevant questions regarding this subject, see Beach, “Preaching Predestination,” 133-34.
7. I consulted several resources regarding the preaching during the period of Reformed orthodoxy that, due to space limitations, I did not cite or reference in this article. For more on the preaching during the Westminster assembly and the assembly’s view on preaching, see Robert M. Norris, “The Preaching of the Assembly,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, ed. John L. Carson and David W. Hall (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994), 65-81; Alan D. Strange, “Comments on the Centrality of Preaching in the Westminster Standards,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 (1999): 185-238. For more on the Puritan practice of preaching to civil magistrates, see Ethyn Williams Kirby, “Sermons before the Commons, 1640-1642,” AHR 44 (1939): 528-48; James Fulton Maclear, “The Influence of the Puritan Clergy on the House of Commons, 1625-1629,” CH 14 (1945): 272-89. For the historical value of the Puritan sermons preached during the Westminster assembly, see James C. Spalding, “Sermons before Parliament (1640-1649) as a Public Puritan Diary,” CH 36 (1967): 24-35. For the Puritan philosophy and practice of preaching, see John Brown, Puritan Preaching in England: A Study of Past and Present (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1900).
8. Alexander Henderson, “A Sermon Preached before the Right Honorable House of Lords in the Abbey Church at Westminster, Upon Wednesday the 28th of May, 1645. Being the Day Appointed for Solemn and Public Humiliation,” in Sermons Preached Before the English Houses of Parliament by the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1643-1645, ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2011), 137.
9. Ibid., 138.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 142.
12. Ibid., 143.
13. Ibid., 143-44.
14. Ibid., 144.
15. Ibid., 146.
16. Ibid. It is interesting to note the side application Henderson makes here in reference to a kingdom being for the good of the people. On the basis of this statement he explains the difference between a tyrant and a king. “A tyrant conceives the people to be for him and his ends, but a king knows that he is set over the people for their good,” he affirms. Although he does not make explicit reference to a king in particular, one wonders if he has in mind Charles I. Regardless of whether or not he has a specific king in mind, it is remarkable to witness Henderson using his sermon, especially in his historical setting, to educate the leaders of England regarding the true characteristics of a monarch.
17. Ibid., 147-48.
18. Ibid., 148, emphasis added.
19. Ibid., emphasis added.
20. Morton H. Smith, Harmony of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms: 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1993 (Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2010), 34-44.
21. Alexander F. Mitchell and J. P. Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons, 1874), 360-69. The minutes register that during session 841 on May 12, 1647, Sidrach Simpson and another member whose last name was Ny (probably a misspelling for either Henry Nye or Phillip Nye) dissented from the sentence “by which he visibly governs them” present in Q. 45 in reference to Christ’s giving his church officers, laws, and censures (see p. 365).
22. Ibid., 430-32.
23. The minutes show that Henderson was active during these debates. It registers his bringing to the attention of the assembly Martin Bucer’s work on the kingdom of Christ, De regno Christi (Minutes of the Sessions, 432). Apparently, this was a very important work for Henderson for he also cites it in his sermon’s introduction to the reader (“Sermon Preached Before the Right Honorable House of Lords,” 138-39).
24. Quotations from the WLC are taken from “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Larger Catechism, Presented by Them Lately to Both Houses of Parliament,” in The Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile (Audubon, NJ: Old Paths Publications, 1997).
25. Emphasis added.
26. Quotations from the WCF are taken from “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith, With the Quotations and Texts of Scripture Annexed. Presented by Them Lately to Both Houses of Parliament,” in Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile.
27. David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error; or, The True Principles of the Christian Religion Stated and Vindicated (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1764), 77-78.
28. Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869), 186, emphasis added.
29. Quotations from the WSC are taken from “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Shorter Catechism, With the Proofs Thereof out of the Scriptures, Presented by Them Lately to Both Houses of Parliament,” in Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile.
30. Thomas Vincent interprets these biblical texts in the exact same manner. See Thomas Vincent, An Explanation of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1854), 103-6.
31. Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion Are Explained and Defended (1815; repr., Gale ECCO, Print Editions [print on demand], 2010), 2:352.
32. Emphasis added.
33. Hodge, Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 425.
34. Emphasis added.
35. Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, rev. ed. (1845; repr., Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Heritage, 2008), 303.
36. Henderson, “Sermon Preached Before the House of Lords,” 152. It is interesting to note that here Henderson makes use of the medieval scholastic Bernard of Clairvaux who, according to him, taught that the church had two swords, one spiritual and one temporal, that were used in different ways. Regardless of whether or not Henderson used Bernard correctly, this Scottish Presbyterian demonstrates no animosity toward the medieval catholic scholars.
37. Ibid., 155. Here Henderson extensively combats Erastian thought. He reminds his listeners that comparisons between OT Israelite monarchy and contemporary England were inappropriate. Readers of the Bible should be able to distinguish between times, cases, and jurisdictions. Here he makes use of the writings of Augustine. Henderson uses his last minutes to make comments regarding the application of the text to matters of church and state, answering what seems to have been a common objection raised by Erastians, namely, the unavoidable collision between church and state if one did not rule over the other. He proposes a threefold remedy “which being well observed, will cure all this unnecessary and groundless jealousy.” The threefold remedy recognizes the subjection of both spheres to God, the mutual respect these spheres must nurture, and the people under their mutual care (see pp. 157-60).
38. Ibid., 161.
39. Ibid., 161-65. Henderson also proposes seven practical attitudes his listeners must have to carry out the execution of their duties: they must beware of (1) self-respect, (2) lukewarmness and indifference in matters of religion, (3) divisions, (4) delays and procrastinations in the settling of Christ’s kingdom, (5) discouragements coming from those who oppose Christ’s kingdom while they are building and furthering it, (6) imprudence in choosing and employing instruments for the growth of the kingdom, (7) fainting and wearying in the setting up of the kingdom. For how Henderson develops each one of these practical actions, see pp. 165-70.
40. Ibid., 171.
41. For more on Rutherford’s theology and practice of preaching, see Matthew Vogan, “Samuel Rutherford and the Theology and Practice of Preaching,” Scottish Reformation Society Historical Journal 1 (2011): 13-37.
42. Samuel Rutherford, “A Sermon Preached Before the Right and Honorable the House of Lords at Their Monthly Fast, June 25, 1645, in the Abbey Church at Westminster,” in Sermons Preached Before the English Houses of Parliament, 473.
43. Ibid., 475-76.
44. Ibid., 476.
45. Ibid., 476-77.
46. Ibid., 484.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 485. Here Rutherford uses two illustrations to impress upon the mind of his listeners the relation between Christ’s humanity and divinity. The second is noteworthy due to its simplicity and wit. In it Rutherford makes an analogy between Christ and Noah’s ark, between the ark’s materials and Christ’s divine and human nature: “The iron wedges of Noah’s Ark separated from the Ark, and cast into the waters would sink to the bottom, but being fastened to the Ark they float above the water. The manhead separated from the Godhead should sink under the wrath that Christ did sustain, but being wedged and united to the Godhead, in a personal union, could not but ride out against all the storms” (pp. 485-86).
49. Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes of the Sessions, 114, 167.
50. The text of WCF 5.1 reads: “God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”
51. Shaw, Reformed Faith, 70.
52. Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 197.
53. Hodge, Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 114.
54. Edward D. Morris, Theology of the Westminster Symbols: A Commentary Historical, Doctrinal, Practical, on the Confession of Faith and Catechism and the Related Formularies of the Presbyterian Churches (Columbus, OH: Champlin, 1900), 226. The comfort for believers in this section becomes even clearer when it is read in light of section 7 of the same chapter which reads: “as the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after the most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof” (WCF 5.7).
55. Morris, Theology of the Westminster Symbols, 227.
56. Ibid., 304.
57. Emphasis added. This question is also reflected in WSC Q. 21: “Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect? The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever.”
58. Ridgley, Body of Divinity, 2:220.
59. Hodge, Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 207.
60. The answer to this question is: “It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God’s justice, to procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.”
61. Shaw, Reformed Faith, 109.
62. For more on this subject, see a thorough discussion in Ridgley, Body of Divinity, 2:235-44.
63. Rutherford, “Sermon Preached Before the Right and Honorable the House of Lords,” 477.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., 477-78.
67. Ibid., 478.
68. Ibid., 486.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid., 486-87.
73. Ibid., 487.

Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution To Reformed Orthodox Trinitarian Theology

By Ryan M. McGraw

[Ryan M. McGraw is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Greenville, SC, and Research Fellow for the University of the Free State, South Africa. This article grew out of and expands upon the conclusions of his previous research in A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology 29 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), to which has been added new material and further conclusions.]

I. Introduction

Reformed orthodox theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) referred to the doctrine of the Trinity as “the foundation of fundamentals.”[1] Although Richard Muller dissuades scholars from searching for a “central dogma” in historic Reformed theology,[2] he notes that if any dogma comes close to achieving such status, it is the doctrine of the Trinity.[3] In light of this fact, it is somewhat surprising that most modern treatments of Trinitarian theology assume that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy had virtually nothing to contribute to this vital doctrine.[4]

The recent Cambridge Companion to the Trinity and The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity both reflect this assumption. The Cambridge volume leaps four centuries from John Calvin (1509–1564) to Karl Barth (1886–1968), implying that little of consequence appeared in between.[5] The Oxford Handbook devotes one out of forty-three chapters to the Reformed construction of the Trinity.

However, this chapter addresses how Reformed authors tried to harmonize the historical doctrine of the Trinity with their principle of sola scriptura.[6] It does not treat positive developments or applications of the doctrine. Calvin has received significant scholarly attention, but predominantly in relation to his construction of the doctrine rather than to his use of it or its influence on his system of theology.[7] The void left in the secondary literature has not adequately probed the bold claims of Voetius or the scholarly reflections of Muller.[8]

Recent studies of John Owen (1616–1683) are a growing exception to this trend. Both historians and theologians are starting to recognize his significance as a theologian in general and a Trinitarian theologian in particular. Even the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, in spite of bypassing Reformed orthodoxy, includes scattered references to Owen.[9] While such treatments have contributed much to understanding the Trinitarian structure of Owen’s theology and piety, they often stop short of observing how he intertwined his Trinitarian theology and piety throughout his writings. The lens through which he did this was the theme of public worship.

Owen regarded public worship as the highest expression of communion with God as triune. The connection that he drew between Trinitarian piety and public worship illustrates how he integrated his Trinitarian theology into his entire system of theology. This article will reassess Owen’s contribution to Reformed Trinitarian theology in two major segments. The first does so by critiquing two recent treatments of his work. The remaining material explores the theological foundations of Owen’s Trinitarian doxology followed by the theological and practical conclusions that he drew from his theology in relation to Scripture, spiritual affections, covenant theology, and ecclesiology. Owen illustrates that one of the primary contributions of Reformed orthodoxy to Trinitarian theology lies in its integration into Reformed soteriology and piety. This article reassesses Owen’s contribution to Trinitarian theology and provides clues for scholars to trace the significance of the Reformed contribution to Trinitarian theology in other authors within that tradition.[10]

II. Identifying The Problem: Two Recent Treatments Of Owen’s Trinitarianism

The significance of Owen’s contribution to Reformed orthodox Trinitarian theology is illustrated through interacting critically with two recent treatments of his thought. The first is Robert Letham’s essay on Owen’s Trinitarianism. The other is Paul Lim’s chapter on Owen’s and Francis Cheynell’s (1608–1665) practical Trinitarianism in his recent work on Socinianism. While both studies are valuable, Letham appears to import modern Trinitarian questions into his historical analysis, while Lim diminishes the distinctiveness of Owen’s practical use of the doctrine. Both of these approaches illustrate different reasons why Owen’s practical use of the Trinity has been partially underdeveloped and why contemporary authors assume that Reformed orthodoxy contributes little to Trinitarian theology. This analysis sets the backdrop for the study of how Owen intertwined the Trinity and public worship into his theological system.

1. Asking The Wrong Question Of The Wrong Century: Robert Letham

One of the reasons why some contemporary authors likely have missed the contribution of Reformed orthodoxy to Trinitarian theology is that they ask different questions than those that occupied Reformed authors.[11] This is evident in Robert Letham’s article in the recent Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology.[12]

Letham asks whether Owen’s Trinitarian emphases have eastern or western tendencies. He argues that Owen’s views on matters such as the fililoque clause were western, but that his stress on distinct communion with the divine persons was eastern in tone.[13] In Letham’s other works on the Trinity, he often gives readers the impression that western Trinitarians are the “bad guys.”[14] This essay is no exception.[15] Citing an earlier publication, he notes, “Owen is not so much an innovator as a brilliant synthesizer.”[16] The synthesis that he has in mind is between western emphasis on the unity of God and eastern emphasis on the divine persons. He adds, “[Owen’s] focus on the three persons was and is missing from the West in general.”[17]

Letham does not sufficiently base his claims on seventeenth-century evidence, by comparing or contrasting Owen to his contemporaries. By contrast, Richard Muller argues that it is impossible to classify Reformed Trinitarianism as either eastern or western.[18] Showing similarities between Owen and eastern authors in their emphasis on the divine persons means less if we find that other western authors expressed a similar emphasis for different reasons. Although Owen is distinctive among most English writers in terms of Trinitarian piety, he shows affinity with Dutch authors such as Voetius and Hoornbeeck (1617–1666), both of whom he cited periodically.[19] Such authors developed a devotional emphasis on the divine persons in response to Arminianism, which denied that the Trinity was a fundamental article of the faith because it had no practical value.[20]

While Owen was less directly concerned with Arminian views of the Trinity than these Dutch writers were, it is plausible that his emphasis on the divine persons stems more from continental influence than from eastern theology. One historian warns against relying too much on English books in studying English Reformed theology following the advent of Early English Books Online.[21] Continental authors produced Trinitarian emphases that were less common in an English context due to differing theological concerns. This is not to say that eastern concerns were not present, but the evidence that Letham produces arises from contemporary questions rather than from seventeenth-century literature. Moreover, he overlooks Muller’s defense of Reformed orthodoxy against the charge of abstracting the divine essence and attributes from the Trinity.[22] Muller argues that the tables of contents of dogmatic works are not reliable guides to discern the relative importance of the divine attributes and the divine persons in these works. This is precisely the mistake that Letham makes in his essay.[23]

Exploring the broader context of seventeenth-century western Trinitarianism more fully might reveal that the question of eastern versus western Trinitarianism was not on the Reformed horizon,[24] at least not with respect to every Reformed author.[25] One gets the impression from Letham that he is asking the wrong question of the wrong century. The context that he sets for Owen is too narrow in relation to primary sources and too broad in terms of historical setting.

2. Diminishing Owen’s Distinctiveness: Paul C. H. Lim

Paul Lim’s analysis slightly diminishes Owen’s distinctiveness within the Reformed tradition. He devotes significant attention to Owen’s Trinitarian theology in his recent book, Mystery Unveiled.[26] The primary thesis of this book is that the Socinian position on the Trinity represented a consistent application of the Reformed principle of sola scriptura.[27] He includes a chapter on Owen and Cheynell and argues that such men tried to revive the doctrine of the Trinity by weaving it into devotion. His assessment is significant, although it fails to show the integral function of the Trinity in Owen’s theology and especially the recurring connection between this doctrine and public worship.

Lim provides valuable insights into how Cheynell and Owen formulated Trinitarian spirituality in a polemical context.[28] Cheynell has received little attention in the secondary literature. Lim shows that most authors treat Puritan spirituality and polemics in isolation from one another instead of as informing one another. Cheynell and Owen remedy this misconception by stressing the devotional aspects of their Trinitarian theology in the context of controversy. However, contra the impression given by Lim, Cheynell and Owen are not fully comparable in this regard. Cheynell stressed the Trinity as the object of worship while Owen emphasized the importance of the Trinity in relation to the manner of worship and the personal experience of the worshipers.[29] Also, much of Cheynell’s “practical” exhortations refer to rejecting Socinian fellowship and to the magistrate’s duty to remove them from society.[30] The material below will show how widely this differs from Owen’s practical use of the doctrine.

Lim’s treatment of Owen contributes several things to Owen studies. He demonstrates that “Owen’s Trinitarian theology hinged on his Christological formulations.”[31] He provides a detailed analysis of how Owen and other Reformed authors largely adopted the medieval interpretation of the Song of Solomon as well.[32] The most important contribution of Lim’s treatment is that he shows how, at various stages in Owen’s career, he sharpened his Trinitarian spirituality through polemical encounters. This is similar to this writer’s observation above regarding the way in which the Arminian context influenced Trinitarian piety on the continent. The primary difference here is that Owen aimed at the Socinians rather than the Arminians, while Dutch authors aimed at both.[33]

In spite of its value, Lim’s section on Owen contains some deficiencies. He overstates his case in comparing Owen’s teaching to the eastern view of theosis/deification, in depending too much on Calvin’s construction of the ontological Trinity in order to explain Owen’s position, and in warning of “the inherent antinomian potential” that he attributes to Owen’s view of Christ’s imputed righteousness in justification.[34]

First, Lim inappropriately compares Owen’s views to Vladimir Lossky’s doctrine of theosis.[35] Lossky is a (controversial) twentieth-century Eastern Orthodox theologian. Lim later refers to Owen’s “theosis-sounding divinity.”[36] Apart from the anachronistic risk involved in comparing a seventeenth-century Reformed theologian with a twentieth-century Eastern Orthodox theologian, the evidence points to the fact that in his mature years Owen believed that being “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) entailed renewal in God’s image rather than deification.[37] Ironically, Lim reflects this fact by citing the relevant passage from Owen’s Glory of Christ, where he interprets being “partakers of the divine nature” as being endued with “the gracious qualifications” with which Christ is endued “in his human nature.”[38] Bruce McCormack’s research and arguments against importing theosis into Calvin’s theology apply with equal force to Owen.[39] Moreover, later Reformed authors, such as Mastricht, regarded the language of deification as dangerous at best and openly blasphemous at worst.[40] Lim’s comparisons approach the same error of east/west categorization that Letham makes and that Muller rejects.

Second, Lim states that Owen followed Calvin in asserting that the Father was the fountain of the deity.[41] However, Calvin departed from patristic expressions on this point, and the evidence is that most of the Reformed orthodox tradition did not follow his construction.[42] Calvin taught that the Father was the fountain of the Trinity, but he denied that he was the fountain of the deity. The difference was that while other Reformed authors believed that eternal generation had reference to the Son’s deity and to his personal subsistence, Calvin denied the former while affirming the later. Perhaps Lim’s confusion stems from the fact that Cheynell devoted a section in his massive work on the Trinity to argue that Calvin did not detach Christ’s deity from his personal subsistence in reference to eternal generation.[43]

Third, Lim criticizes Owen for going “slightly” in the direction of Antinomianism by saying that we are freed from obedience.[44] He does not, however, properly acknowledge the Reformed distinction between freedom from obedience in justification as contrasted to sanctification. Owen’s position is antinomian only from the standpoint of Richard Baxter’s (1615–1691) neonomian position, since Baxter regarded the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as inherently antinomian.[45] If Owen “tilted” in an antinomian direction, then his teaching on freedom from the law with respect to justification is not proper evidence of the fact. Later Lim adds that Owen was decidedly not antinomian. Later still, however, he wrote of the “inherent antinomian potential” of Owen’s views of imputed righteousness.[46] This is a theological rather than a historical judgment that assumes the validity of Baxterian and Catholic criticisms against the Reformed doctrine of justification. If the Reformed view of imputed righteousness preceded or was divorced from union with Christ, then it would not simply have “inherent antinomian potential,” but would be theological antinomianism outright.[47] By rooting justification in existential union with Christ, however, Reformed orthodoxy had inherent anti-antinomian tendencies, since union with Christ included renewal in Christ’s image. Lim’s citation of Richard Hooker concerning participating in Christ by way of imputation and infusion is evidence in this direction.[48]

Lim’s treatment reveals that Owen (and Cheynell) stressed the practical use of the Trinity, but he falls short of revealing how this was so or what this looked like in practice. Upon examination, Cheynell’s model was very different from Owen’s in that he relegated application to treating the divine persons as the object of worship. The material below shows that Lim’s analysis leaves Owen’s Trinitarian piety vague and underdeveloped.

III. Foundations Of Owen’s Trinitarian Theology

This preliminary analysis enables us to begin to ask what was distinctive about Owen’s Trinitarian theology and how his teaching related to seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy. Owen’s Trinitarian theology was the foundation of his Trinitarian piety, and his Trinitarian piety permeated every area of his theology. This cycle began with his teaching on the knowledge of God and true theology, and found its highest expression in public worship. This section of our study sets the stage for the theological connections drawn in subsequent sections.

1. The Trinity And True Theology

Owen laid a Trinitarian foundation for the knowledge of God. This is particularly evident in his definitions of true or evangelical theology.49 Objectively, he defined true theology as a communication from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, to the church.[50] This communication took the form of objective divine revelation through the prophets and apostles. The triune God committed some of this revelation to writing in Holy Scripture, which constitutes the exclusive saving divine revelation to the church.[51]

Owen added that true theology had a subjective element. The knowledge of God was not only possible because the triune God revealed himself in Scripture. The renovation of the human mind by the power of the Spirit was needed as well.[52] This subjective aspect of theology mirrored his objective definition of theology. He defined it as a communication from the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is that which is given as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation.[53] In his view, possessing a true theological system without the internal saving work of the triune God is philosophy rather than Christianity.[54]

This conviction resulted in Owen giving great attention to the character of the true theologian. The last section of his massive Theologoumena pantodapa is devoted to this theme. According to his introduction, this section was the primary aim of the book. In contrast to the claims of some scholars, Owen’s Theologoumena was not merely an attempt to present theology in historical progression.[55] Richard Muller rightly observes that this work was a seventeenth-century theological prolegomena.[56] Owen limited his subject matter to issues affecting the knowledge of God, which included items such as sin and regeneration, and the knowledge of God through Scripture. This is why the book contains lengthy digressions on subjects such as the divine inspiration of Hebrew vowel points. The fact that Theologoumena pantodapa was a work of prolegomena rather than a historical treatment of the system of theology is readily apparent when comparing its contents to other treatments of the subject, such as that of Johannes Hoornbeeck.[57] The fact that this work follows a historical order along the lines of divine covenants does not necessarily indicate that it was a covenant theology. His Pneumatologia likewise follows a historical order,[58] but to this writer’s knowledge, no one has claimed that it is a work of covenant theology. We must judge the nature of the treatise by its character and contents rather than by its theological methodology. The material below will demonstrate that covenant theology stood at the heart of his doctrine of the knowledge of God. In this light, it is questionable whether he could have written a prolegomena that was not heavily steeped in covenant theology.

God revealed himself through the united action of all three divine persons. This included the objective content of what God revealed and the subjective appropriation of his revelation by the elect. This involved the ancient doctrine that the works of the Godhead ad extra are undivided. It included the perichoresis or mutual interpenetration of the divine persons. Owen’s doctrine of the knowledge of God in this regard reflected not only the Reformed orthodox theological tradition, but the historical expressions of the ancient church. The fact that the subjective appropriation of the revelation of the triune God was part of true theology meant that all true theologians were worshipers of the triune God. In order to worship him, they must know him by experiencing communion with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.

These emphases laid the foundation both for Owen’s entire system of theology and for his theology of worship. They also represent the reasons why these themes converge. If all theology involves knowing God, and knowing God involves knowing him as triune, then all theology will be permeated with the Trinity. Continental authors, such as Johannes Wollebius (1589–1629), made this connection explicit by relating almost every major division of theology to the appropriate and distinct, yet united work of all three divine persons.[59] Other theologians, such as William Ames (1576–1633), Herman Witsius (1636–1708), Hoornbeeck, Voetius, and Mastricht included the character of the true theologian in their definitions of theology and the knowledge of God.[60] Owen’s later stress on communion with God in public worship combined the ideas that revelation is Trinitarian and that the true theologian is a true worshiper.[61]

2. Communion With The Divine Persons

Owen’s clearest treatment of what communion with the triune God looks like is his work Communion with God.[62] This book is the central focus of the handful of treatments of his Trinitarian piety, such as Lim, Kapic, and Kay.[63] The themes presented in this work pervade the rest of his writings. His two sermons on “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” are illuminating in this regard.[64] Here he chose a Trinitarian text (Eph 2:18: “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father”) to describe the primary glory of NT worship. This reflects Owen’s conviction that knowing God as triune was the primary glory of new covenant worship.[65] William Perkins (1558–1602) similarly concluded his short book on public worship with a Trinitarian doxology.[66] In order to understand the function of the Trinity in Owen’s doctrine of public worship, it is necessary to sketch briefly his conception of communion with the persons of the Godhead in his historical context.

Although authors such as Perkins and Cheynell shared Owen’s enthusiasm for making the triune God the explicit object of worship, few did so in the way that Owen did. For example, Stephen Charnock (1628–1680) and Jeremiah Burroughs (1600–1646) treated public worship extensively without making explicit reference to the Trinity at all.[67] Owen stood out from others in the way that his doctrine of communion with God as triune informed the experience of the worshiper.

Two overarching principles mark Owen’s doctrine of communion with God. The first principle is that since the persons of the Godhead are inseparable yet distinct, they interpenetrate one another (perichoresis).[68] The second is that the external works of the Godhead are undivided (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt).[69] The result of combining these principles is that no one can have communion with one divine person without holding communion with all three simultaneously.[70] Nevertheless, the Scriptures often ascribe some aspect of a divine work peculiarly to one divine person. These were called opera appropriata.[71] In his Hebrews commentary, Owen illustrated this principle in relation to the doctrine of revelation. Since the Father is the fount of the deity, he is the origin of all divine works.[72] His appropriate work is initiation.[73] As the Son fulfills the Father’s plan respecting the elect and the Spirit brings this plan to fruition by applying redemption to them,[74] so divine revelation in Scripture originates with the Father.[75] The Father revealed his counsel to his Son who, in turn, revealed it to mankind.[76] The Spirit takes the Father’s revelation, both through reading and preaching the word, and he applies it to his people.[77] Though all three persons work simultaneously, they do not act in the same way.[78] However, they do not contribute to three parts of a single work. They accomplish a single work in a threefold manner. It is clear that this observation parallels his treatment of true theology. It shows where the objective and subjective elements of theology converge in regenerate people. The same pattern is present in Christ’s incarnation, which Owen treats elsewhere.[79]

These distinctions shape how believers hold communion with all three divine persons. The Trinitarian doxology found in 2 Cor 13:14 sets the tone for the nature of communion with each person. In this text, the Father is characterized by love, the Son by grace, and the Spirit by comfort.[80] The fact that the Father is characterized by love does not exclude the Son and the Spirit from the exercise of divine love. However, the Father is viewed as the fountain of divine love.[81] The Father’s love is like the sun while the Son’s love is like the rays of the sun.[82] Interestingly, medieval theology, following Augustine, associated love primarily with the Holy Spirit, who was the bond of love between the Father and the Son.[83] Owen reassessed this trend in light of passages such as 1 John 4, which declares that “God is love” because he sent his Son to die for sinners. “God” in this and other passages refers clearly to the Father.[84] This observation opens the door to further research regarding the interaction between Reformed Trinitarianism and the medieval tradition.[85] Owen did not merely regurgitate this tradition. He was willing to modify it in light of his exegetical labors.[86]

Without repeating what I have written elsewhere,[87] it is sufficient to summarize how these principles applied to public worship. Owen taught that the primary goal in public worship was to come to the Father.[88] However, both in terms of space and emphasis, most of his attention went to the person and work of the Son.[89] Communion with God in public worship, or anywhere else, would be impossible without communion with the Son in grace.[90] In his personal grace, the Son is endowed with every excellence of divine wisdom and power needed to save sinners.[91] Through his purchased grace, believers receive forgiveness of sin and imputed righteousness through his obedience.[92] No one can know the Father’s love except through the Son’s grace.[93] Christ is the covenant bond that unites believers to him and brings them into communion with the Father.[94] The Spirit is the comforter because the Spirit applies the grace of Christ so that believers can know the love of the Father.[95]

If the work of any divine person is omitted or altered, then people cannot hold communion with God at all. In Owen’s view, Roman Catholicism obliterated communion with God by altering Christ’s work. As a result, the outward pomp and ceremony of their worship services reflected an attempt to compensate for the absence of the Holy Spirit.[96] Positively, because the knowledge of God is Trinitarian, communion with God involves all three persons.[97] Regenerate people are worshipers. True worshipers desire to be where God is present most gloriously and powerfully. This occurs in public worship above all other places.

3. Conclusion: Public Worship As The Culmination Of Trinitarian Piety

Owen’s associate minister, David Clarkson (1622–1686), published a sermon entitled Public Worship to Be Preferred Before Private.[98] He argued that this was the case based, among other things, on God’s promises and on the fact that he loves to have all of his children present at once.[99] Owen and Clarkson clearly shared an emphasis on communion with God in public worship. However, Owen’s treatment of this theme was consistently Trinitarian while Clarkson’s was not. Even where Clarkson addressed communion with the Godhead elsewhere, he highlighted communion with the Father and the Son to the neglect of the Spirit.[100] What makes Owen distinctive is that where he treated communion with the triune God, he included public worship as its high point,[101] and where he treated public worship, he included communion with the triune God as its highest privilege.[102] This feature of his theology is frequently neglected in recent treatments. The rest of this article solidifies this point by showing how these themes pervaded every major area of his theology.

IV. Trinity And Scripture

The Trinitarian foundations of the knowledge of God and the Trinitarian experience of communion with God are two streams that frequently flow together in Owen’s writings. One obvious place where this is the case is in regard to his doctrine of Scripture. The reason is that the doctrine of Scripture was intimately tied to Reformed prolegomena on the one hand,[103] and served as the foundation for the Reformed doctrine of worship on the other.[104] Owen’s Trinitarian construction of the knowledge of God, combined with the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, resulted in a doctrine of public worship that was both Reformed and devotionally Trinitarian.

The Reformed principle of public worship teaches that the church must limit the ordinances of public worship to those which God has appointed in Scripture.[105] The form of these ordinances should be informed and directed by Scripture, while falling short of imposing a set form of words.[106] For instance, it is a divine ordinance to pray; however, the church cannot require ministers to submit to pre-composed prayers in a prayer book.[107] Owen argued that imposing prayers composed by the church upon ministers would prevent them from exercising spiritual gifts in prayer, and that if ministers did not exercise these gifts they would lose them.[108] Anything that has religious significance in worship that God has not required in Scripture is forbidden by Scripture. Decades prior to Owen, William Ames noted that the Church of England, mistakenly in his view, tried to introduce new ordinances of worship by saying that they were merely circumstances surrounding worship and that they did not alter the substance of the divine service.[109] George Gillespie (1613–1648) later clarified that genuine circumstances of worship could be no essential part of worship; they must be necessary in order to observe the ordinances that God had commanded, and they must not be determinable by Scripture.[110] Thus, the church must select a time of day on the Lord’s Day in order to hold services,[111] but the church cannot use candles in the worship service for anything other than lighting.[112] I have shown elsewhere that Owen and his contemporaries developed these principles from the second commandment.[113]

Owen’s treatment of the principles governing biblical worship was distinctively Trinitarian. This is obvious on the surface from his two sermons on “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship,” which argue for the principles stated above in connection to a passage that teaches communion with God as triune. This was not the case with many of his contemporaries, who often treated the biblical principles governing worship and the need to come to God with a regenerate heart. Charnock and Burroughs did not treat the Trinity at all in their treatises on worship.[114] As noted above, authors who did connect the Trinity to worship, such as Perkins and Cheynell, treated the triune God as the object of worship without showing how communion with the three persons affected the manner of worship.[115] The principles of regeneration and worship overlap with Reformed prolegomena in relation to the knowledge of God, as shown above. However, the former group of authors cited here treated communion with God to the neglect of the Trinity while the latter included the Trinity to the neglect of distinct communion with the divine persons. Owen stands out by self-consciously interweaving these themes. As a result, his treatment of the Reformed doctrine of public worship represents a consistent outworking of his Trinitarian prolegomena, of which the doctrine of Scripture was one of the two primary principles. Owen’s Trinitarianism worked itself out with at least more consistency and rigor than other British Reformed orthodox theologians.

V. Trinity And Spiritual Affections

Owen’s teaching on spiritual affections integrated the themes of Trinity and public worship in several ways. He illustrated this connection particularly in relation to proper and improper affections towards the ordinances of worship and the related topic of apostasy. He included chapters on public worship both in his book on The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded and in his work on Apostasy from the Gospel.[116] These connections not only strengthened Owen’s teaching on the Trinitarian nature of communion with God, but they reinforced the distinctive nature of his contribution to Reformed Trinitarian theology by his intentional inclusion of public worship in works such as these.

In Puritan thought, the affections ordinarily encompassed the emotive capacity of the soul, which sometimes included the will.[117] The subject of the spiritual affections lay at the heart of Puritan experimental piety.[118] Renewed affections that love the divine persons are perhaps the primary mark of a regenerate soul.[119] In relation to the ordinances of public worship, spiritual affections are necessary in order to hold communion with the triune God. Owen developed this theme both positively and negatively.

First, and positively, believers must love the ordinances of worship that God has appointed.[120] A regenerate soul only loves those things that God has commanded. The better informed such affections are, the more closely will worship naturally follow the principles outlined above in relation to Scripture. Regenerate souls love the Scriptures because they love God through the Scriptures.[121] They will love only those ordinances that God appointed. Right affections should love no other ordinances. This is merely one example of his positive treatment of the importance of the affections in communing with God in public worship.[122]

Second, however, people may have wrong or misplaced affections in relation to the true ordinances of God. For example, they may trust in them instead of using them as divinely appointed means of communion with God. They may love the right way of worship for the wrong reasons. They may also love their own particular faction more than God, and thus their zeal for the ordinances of worship degenerates into spiritual pride instead of genuine fellowship with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.[123]

The consequence of this negative point is apostasy from the gospel, which Owen described as a gradual and incremental process. This process begins with neglecting the ordinances of public worship and then moves through adding man-made ordinances to divine worship and trusting the ordinances themselves instead of God through them.[124] Similarly, he asserted in The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded that while neglecting the ordinances of God entirely is not the only means of apostasy, it is a sure path to apostasy.[125] All three of these points together reflect the fact that just as public worship is the climax of communion with God, so communion with God must be the goal of public worship. Exalting anything else above the triune God and communion with him is the essence of apostasy.

The connection between spiritual affections, Trinitarian theology, and public worship in communion with the triune God must always be the goal of public worship. In other words, since public worship is the highest possible experience of communion with God, Owen saw fit to include this subject in his treatments of the spiritual affections and of apostasy, which address the progress and decline of communion with God, respectively. He did not always treat all three divine persons in the same sections of these works as he did elsewhere, but all three persons pervade these discussions as a whole. This material further strengthens the fact that the connection between communion with God and public worship was intentional and a self-conscious emphasis. This connection grew out of the practical emphasis of Reformed Trinitarianism, which I have argued above was one of its distinguishing traits and one of its primary contributions to the history of the doctrine.

VI. Trinity And Covenant

In Reformed theology, Trinity, covenant, and the experiential knowledge of God are intertwined. Owen made this clear by including the covenantal bond between God and believers in Christ at the heart of his definition of communion with God.[126] As it relates to the Trinity, there are two primary aspects of covenant theology in relation to Christ: the eternal covenant of redemption and the historical covenant of grace. The first covenant stressed the work of the Son in relation to the Father, while the second shifted emphasis to the work of the Son in relation to the Spirit. There is also a difference in the degree of communion with God in worship under the old and new covenants. This meant that Owen’s covenant theology was both Trinitarian in its structure and doxological in its goals.

The intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption rose to prominence in the 1640s.[127] The idea existed much earlier, but the terminology describing it evolved gradually.[128] Some authors referred to it as the covenant of redemption[129] while others called it the counsel of peace.[130] Owen most commonly called this covenant the “covenant of the Mediator.”[131] The covenant of redemption involves primarily the Father and the Son as parties to the covenant.[132] The Son voluntarily condescended to purchase the people whom the Father chose to salvation.[133] This meant that he would become incarnate, live, die, rise, and ascend into heaven as the God-man. The Father promised to assist the Son in his work and to give him a redeemed people out of all the nations of the earth as his inheritance.[134] This covenant represents the eternal decree of God as it relates to the plan of redemption.[135]

Where does the Holy Spirit factor into this construction of covenant theology? Robert Letham’s preoccupation with the question of East versus West spills over into his examination of Owen on the covenant of redemption. He criticizes Owen for his “binitarian construction” of the covenant of redemption.[136] He regards this as reflecting the western tendency to subordinate and depersonalize the Holy Spirit.[137] However, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) later clarified the role of the Spirit in the covenant of redemption. He argued that the Spirit is active in the covenant of redemption, but he is not a party in that covenant because he is not humiliated. The Son’s humiliation is vital to his being a party in the covenant of redemption. On the other hand, the Spirit is actively involved in the covenant because he cannot be inactive without dividing the Godhead.[138] Edwards did not invent this explanation, but he elaborated it more clearly than most earlier Reformed authors.[139] Letham argues that Owen was allegedly aware of the danger that the covenant of redemption posed to the Trinity and that it implied that the persons of the Godhead needed a covenant to unite them in their purpose.[140] He concluded that Owen’s difficulty with treating the divine persons adequately betrays his western roots.[141] He adds that the East stresses that we know the persons by our relation to them in redemption rather than by definition. However, this was precisely Horrnbeeck’s conclusion to his treatment of the Trinity,[142] and it pervades Mastricht’s chapters on the three persons.[143] In the Ashgate volume, Willem van Asselt argues that the Trinitarian structure of the covenant of redemption was precisely what enabled Owen and Cocceius to emphasize communion with all three divine persons.[144]

The covenant of grace completes the Trinitarian picture of Reformed covenant theology. In the covenant of grace, the Son fulfills the terms of the Father’s plan in the eternal covenant of redemption by actually purchasing salvation. In the covenant of grace, Christ fulfilled the covenant of works that Adam broke in the Garden of Eden.[145] This covenant required perfect and perpetual obedience in order to receive the promise of eternal life.[146] Christ not only kept the law of the covenant of works for his people, but he bore the curse of the covenant, which Adam brought upon himself and his posterity.[147] The covenant of grace fulfills the covenant of redemption by satisfying the terms of the covenant of works. One difference between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption is that the covenant of grace requires a response from the elect in order to make them partakers of Christ and his benefits. This response is faith in Christ, which unites the souls of believers to their Savior. This is where the Holy Spirit becomes prominent, since it is he who applies the redemption purchased by Christ to his people.[148] This means that even though Christ and the Father are the parties of the covenant of redemption, and Christ and believers are the primary parties of the covenant of grace, neither covenant could come to fruition or fulfill the divine plan of redemption without the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Mirroring his description of communion with God,[149] Owen portrays Christ as the centerpiece of both covenants since he is the ground of communion between God and sinners.

How does Owen’s theology of public worship relate to this Trinitarian structure of Reformed covenant theology? The answer lies in the relationship between what Owen and others called the old covenant and the new covenant. Based largely on Heb 8, most Reformed authors agreed that the “old covenant” referred to the Mosaic covenant.[150] The primary point of dispute was how the old covenant related to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Mark Jones argues that most Reformed authors believed that the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace with the covenant of works present in a subordinate and declarative sense.[151] John Ball made a similar claim about his contemporaries.[152] Under this view, the old covenant people of God were not under the law as a covenant of works. They lived by and under the terms of the covenant of grace in light of the promises that God gave to Abraham. However, the Ten Commandments were not only a rule of life for believers within the covenant of grace. They represented the standard and the sanction of the broken covenant of works that Christ needed to keep in order to fulfill the covenant of redemption.[153] By contrast, Owen taught a minority view that the old or Mosaic covenant was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but that it was a “superadded covenant.”[154] A few others, such as John Cameron and Samuel Petto, held a similar view.[155] In Owen’s view, Israel could not be under the covenant of works, since it was abrogated as a way of life immediately upon Adam’s fall.[156] However, the Mosaic covenant could not be an administration of the covenant of grace, since Owen believed that Hebrews contrasted this covenant with the benefits of the new covenant, such as the forgiveness of sins. Instead, the Mosaic covenant presents the “legal condition” of the covenant of grace as the means by which Christ would redeem his people.[157] The OT saints did not directly have any relationship to the covenant of works or the covenant of grace by virtue of the Mosaic covenant.[158]

Although the end results of Owen’s minority construction of the Mosaic covenant differed little from other Reformed authors, he used it as an avenue to draw attention to the superior glory of new covenant worship.[159] As noted above, he believed that the primary advantage of new covenant worship was knowing God as triune.[160] This does not mean that the OT did not include hints at God’s triunity. He argues at length that it did in the first two volumes of his work on Hebrews. His colleague and friend Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680) went so far as to argue that if the doctrine of the Trinity was not at least present seminally in the OT, then it is not a biblical doctrine, since the NT expands the doctrines of the OT.[161] What Owen was driving at was that the new covenant revealed the experimental knowledge of all three persons in the Godhead in a way that surpassed the experience of the old covenant saints, both in its revelation and in its power. The book of Hebrews was particularly important in this connection, since Owen believed that the primary purpose of the book was to argue that Christ had the authority to change and remove the Mosaic ordinances of public worship.[162] Elsewhere, he argued that this meant that Christ exchanged the outward glory of old covenant temple worship for “a few and simple ceremonies.”[163]

In the old covenant, the external ordinances of worship were more glorious, while the saints’ internal communion with God was less powerful. In the new covenant, the external ordinances of worship were reduced to elements such as prayer, the ministry of the word, and the administration of the sacraments, but the saints enjoyed communion with the triune God that surpassed anything that the old covenant saints knew.[164] In this way, Owen’s covenant theology wove together his Trinitarian theology as it related to the knowledge of God, Scripture, spiritual affections, and other subjects. Once again, public worship is the common thread tying these doctrines together. Simultaneously, his treatment of communion with God in new covenant worship is intertwined with his ecclesiology.

VII. Trinity And Ecclesiology

Ecclesiology is the locus of theology in which Owen gave concrete expression to how believers hold communion with the triune God in public worship. Most of the sections above refer to the ordinances of public worship. Seventeenth-century ecclesiology treated these ordinances directly. This is the point at which Owen showed how divine ordinances related to communion with the Godhead. Due to space limitations, our analysis is limited to the role of the ministry in public worship, preaching, and the Lord’s Supper.

The purpose of public worship is to bless the congregation of God’s people. According to Owen, the Christian ministry was the primary instrument through which this blessing is conveyed from God to the saints.[165] The ministerial office is benedictory, and ministers bless the congregation by administering public ordinances.[166] This means that ministers are instruments of divine blessing and not causes of them. The reason why he placed emphasis on the Christian ministry in connection to public worship was because of the common Reformed principle that God appointed ordained ministers alone to administer the ordinances of worship.[167]

The function of the ministry in public worship means that the primary task of ministers is to preach the word of God.[168] The passage already cited above from Owen’s Hebrews commentary regarding the appropriate works of the Father illustrates how this ordinance relates to communion with the divine persons. There Owen argued that the Father is the origin of all divine revelation, including the application of that revelation through preaching.[169] The Father commits his self-revelation to the Son and communicates it only through the Son, whether through the prophets of the OT or the ministers of the word of the NT.[170] The Spirit then applies this revelation to the elect to make it effectual for salvation, both for preachers and for hearers.[171] Note again the parallel between Owen’s treatment of preaching and his exposition of the Reformed doctrine of the knowledge of God. Preaching is the primary means by which God brings his people to the knowledge of himself through Christ.[172]

The sacraments are a corollary to and concomitant of the word of God.[173] They have no independent efficacy apart from the preaching of the word.[174] This means that the sacraments aim at the same kind of Trinitarian communion as does preaching. Owen wrote very little about baptism,[175] but he argued that believers held greater communion with God in the Lord’s Supper than in any other ordinance.[176] This was partly due to the promise of the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament and partly due to the fact that this was one of the few ordinances that appealed to the whole person, including sense as well as faith.[177] Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) made the Trinitarian emphasis of the Lord’s Supper explicit by treating it as a feast setting forth the love of the Father. Christ is the object of faith in the Supper, yet the Father sent the Son. Christ is then present by the Holy Spirit to the faith of believers.[178] This matches Owen’s teaching closely, and in this regard he did not stand out nor was he unusual. He fit within a Reformed tradition that placed a premium on communion with God through word, sacrament, and prayer.

Owen’s treatment of Trinity and ecclesiology ties together all of the themes examined above in this article. The purpose of administering ordinances in public worship is to promote the true knowledge of God. The triune God administers these ordinances in the context of the church through ordained ministers of the word.[179] This experience of God is the apex of new covenant worship, and it is the outlet of affections that are renewed by the Holy Spirit.

VIII. Conclusion

Owen’s distinctive contribution to Reformed orthodox Trinitarian theology and the reasons behind the general neglect of the Reformed contribution to Trinitarian theology converge. Although Owen emphasized communion with the divine persons and communion with God in public worship more fully than most of his contemporaries, what they held in common was a commitment to the practical use of the doctrine. This appears to be why this area has been largely overlooked in Owen studies and one reason why contemporary treatments often bypass Reformed authors.

For most scholars of historical theology, the conjunction between Owen’s Trinitarian theology and public worship is not even a topic of discussion. The two secondary works that treat the connection between his Trinitarianism and worship stress communion with God in private worship rather than through the ordinances of public worship.[180] Many modern treatments of the Trinity are interested in how the doctrine functions in the entire system of theology. The practical use of the doctrine is ordinarily relegated to mystical contemplation and apophatic theology.[181] By contrast, Reformed Trinitarian piety reflected Reformed soteriology.[182] This is precisely what is missing in most contemporary conversations.

John Owen’s teaching on communion with the triune God in public worship represents one avenue that Reformed Trinitarian piety could take. His treatment on this subject is comprehensive and profound, covering the scope of most major areas of the system of doctrine. This connection that he made between the Trinity and public worship is not all that he had to contribute to Trinitarian theology either.[183] Ironically, the most profound Reformed application and development of Trinitarian theology is not found in popular works by English Puritans, but in Latin theological treatises, such as those of Hoornbeeck, Voetius, and Mastricht. In order to assess Reformed Trinitarian theology in general and Owen in particular, more historical investigation is needed. But scholars will not begin looking unless they believe that there is something worth finding. In order to appreciate what historic Reformed orthodoxy has to offer contemporary Trinitarian theology, we must look for a Reformed Trinitarian piety that asks Reformed questions and reflects Reformed soteriology. This will also help place John Owen in proper historical context in order to understand how he was distinctive from other writers and why he is worth studying.

Notes

1. Gisbertus Voetius, Selectarum disputationum theologicarum, 5 vols. (Utrecht, 1648-1669), 1:472: fundamentum fundamenti. See the discussion of “fundamental articles” in Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 vols., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), vol. 1.
2. Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). See also Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, Reformed Historical Theology 17 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), ch. 1.
3. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:4.
4. Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004), 1-3.
5. Peter C. Phan, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
6. Scott R. Swain, “The Trinity in the Reformers,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 227-39.
7. For a notable example, see Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
8. Muller notes that Reformed Trinitarian theology is a neglected field. He suggests that the primary contribution of Reformed authors to this subject was exegetical (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:24-25).
9. Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, 246, 506-9. Drawn into Controversie (ed. Haykin and Jones) includes Owen in nine of twelve chapters.
10. Thus expanding the groundwork laid in my Heavenly Directory.
11. This material is modified from Ryan M. McGraw, “The Rising Prominence of John Owen: A Review Article of The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 24 (2013): 105-20.
12. Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones (Burlington, VT; Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2012), 185-98.
13. Ibid., 186, 191.
14. Letham, Holy Trinity, passim; 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), 10-20.
15. E.g., Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” 188.
16. Ibid., 190; citing Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and Its Significance for Today,” 11.
17. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” 196. The recent Oxford Handbook of the Trinity assumes that such assertions have not been taken seriously in scholarly circles for several decades (see p. 123).
18. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:72.
19. E.g., John Owen, Theologoumena pantodapa (Oxford, 1661), 522 (Voetius) and 519 (Hoornbeeck).
20. See Voetius, Selectarum disputationum, 1:472. Voetius added that the doctrine of the Trinity was fundamental because it was the foundation of so many practical uses, personal holiness and divine worship (p. 473). For Hoornbeeck’s view, see Johannes Hoornbeeck, Theologiae practicae, 2 vols. (Utrecht, 1663-1666), 1:136. For the Arminian denial that the Trinity is a “fundamental article” of the faith, see Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:109.
21. Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson, eds., The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain, Proceedings of the British Academy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 235-36.
22. See Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:144-49.
23. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” 189. Sebastian Rehnman strengthens Muller’s case in “The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 40 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 353-401.
24. As Muller argues in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:109.
25. A. C. Neele has alerted me to Mastricht, who showed some concern for eastern Trinitarianism. In any case, I have not found sufficient evidence of contemporary eastern influences in Owen.
26. Paul Chang-Ha Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
27. Ibid., 1, 13-14.
28. Ibid., 215.
29. For Owen, see below. Francis Cheynell, The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (London, 1650), 6-7, 182, and esp. 272-305. These themes continue through the remainder of the book. These observations also apply to William Perkins, A Warning Against the Idolatrie of the Last Times (Cambridge, 1601), passim.
30. Cheynell, Divine Trinunity, 417-80.
31. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 187.
32. Ibid., 193-200.
33. See references above.
34. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 207.
35. Ibid., 382n72.
36. Ibid., 209.
37. E.g., Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, in The Works of John Owen, D.D., ed. William Goold (London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-1855), 11:402. In A Heavenly Directory, I compare the Goold edition of Owen’s works with original printings. In every case that I have researched, Goold has retained the exact words of the original text. The only changes that he made are with reference to numeric variation in Owen’s outlines to make reading easier. For this reason, the rest of this article will cite the Goold edition on the assumption that it reflects the original text accurately.
38. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 215.
39. Bruce L. McCormack, “Union with Christ in Calvin’s Theology: Grounds for a Divinization Theory?,” in Tributes to John Calvin: A Celebration of His Quincentenary, ed. David W. Hall (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2010), 504-29.
40. Peter van Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologia (Amsterdam, 1724), 792.
41. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 190.
42. Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son, ch. 1.
43. Cheynell, Divine Trinunity, 232-35.
44. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 201.
45. Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity (Burlington, VT; Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2011), 78-83.
46. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 207-8.
47. See Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2013).
48. Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 210.
49. This terminology comes from book 6 of Owen’s Theologoumena.
50. Ibid., 462-63 (6.2): 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.
51. See John V. Fesko, “The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 429-64.
52. Owen, Theologoumena, 487 (bk. 4, digression 1): mentis hominis per Spiritum Sanctum renati.
53. Ibid., 491 (6.6). E.g., Nam a Patre hoc donum est per Christum. Datur autem Spiritus Sapientiae et Revelationis.
54. Ibid., 466 (6.8): Doctrinae autem Evangelicae eo modo traditae et expositae notitia aut comprehensio mere naturalis, est Philosophia quaedam Christiana; quae sapientiae omni Graecanicae, seu mere humanae plurimis praeit parasangis.… Eius autem generis est Philosophia haec Christiana, ad omnem ethinicorum hominum sapientiam sive scienciam collata.
55. Stephen Westcott’s English “interpretation” of Owen’s Theologoumena work gives this impression (John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ, trans. Stephen P. Westcott [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994]). Sebastian Rehnman refers to this translation as being of “inferior quality” (Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 17). It should be noted, however, that even more scholarly treatments of Owen, such as Trueman, treat Owen’s book as a work on covenant theology (Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man [Burlington, VT; Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2007], 5).
56. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:118. See also ch. 2 of my Heavenly Directory for a fuller reevaluation of the nature of this work.
57. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae-practicae, vol. 1, ch. 1.
58. On the methodology of Owen’s work on the Spirit, see Maarten Wise and Hugo Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 487-88. The remainder of their chapter provides an extensive analysis of Owen’s Pneumatologia with an insightful analysis of medieval influences on the work.
59. Joannes Wollebius, Compendium theologiae christianae, 9th ed. (Cambridge, 1654). But Wisse and Meijer note that Wollebius was not always consistent on this point (“Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” 494).
60. William Ames, Medulla s.s. theologiae, 3rd ed. (London, 1629), 1; Herman Witsius, On the Character of a True Theologian (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 27; Hoornbeeck, Theologicae-practicae, 1:4-16; Voetius, Selectarum disputationum theologicarum, 1:12-28, where he distinguishes “scholastic theology” from “true and genuine” theology, even while arguing for the legitimacy of “scholastic theology.” For Mastricht’s theological method, see Adriaan Cornelis Neele, Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706); Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
61. This idea is also present explicitly in Theologoumena, 465 (6.3).
62. John Owen, Communion with God (vol. 2 of Works).
63. Lim, Mystery Unveiled; Kelly Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); Brian Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007).
64. John Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” (Works, 9:53-84).
65. See Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open” (Works, 8:555-56).
66. Perkins, Warning Against the Idolatrie, 181.
67. Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 1:89-275; Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel-Worship, or, The Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God (London, 1658). For an analysis of these authors, see ch. 3 of my Heavenly Directory.
68. Owen, Vindiciae evangelicae (Works, 12:73).
69. Owen, Pneumatologia (Works, 3:66-68, 93). See also Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity (London, 1662), 205.
70. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:268-69).
71. For opera appropriata, see Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:267-69.
72. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 20:23, 34); The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Works, 10:163-73). Chapters 4-6 of The Death of Death treat the appropriate works of the Father, Son, and Spirit in redemption, respectively.
73. Owen, Communion with God (Works, vol. 2, ch. 4).
74. Owen, Death of Death (Works, 10:174-77 and 178-79, respectively).
75. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 20:34-35).
76. Ibid., 20:35, 97. See also the section above treating Owen’s Theologoumena.
77. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 20:35-36).
78. See Leigh, Body of Divinity, 205.
79. Owen, Pneumatologia (Works, 3:162-87).
80. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:19-20).
81. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” (Works, 9:58-59).
82. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:27).
83. This is reflected repeatedly in most of the chapters of the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity.
84. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:19-20).
85. Some of Owen’s contemporaries did not share these emphases. Byfield ignored the person of the Father when treating “God is love,” even though his book included the divine persons in its title (Richard Byfield, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law Shining Forth in the Glory of God the Father, the Sonne, the Holy Ghost [London, 1659], 58-59).
86. This vindicates Muller’s assertion that the primary contribution of the Reformed to Trinitarian theology was likely exegetical (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4:25). For Owen’s exegetical method, see Henry M. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-Century Exegetical Methodology” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002).
87. McGraw, Heavenly Directory, ch. 2.
88. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” (Works, 9:58-60).
89. This is true both in regard to Communion with God and to “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship.”
90. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” (Works, 9:61).
91. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:59-117). Byfield called this “the grace of personal union” (Gospel’s Glory, 73).
92. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:159-64). For Owen’s views on justification, including the “active obedience” of Christ, see Trueman, John Owen, 101-21; and Carl R. Trueman, “John Owen on Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2007), 81-98. For arguments that the Westminster documents imply the active obedience of Christ, see Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Drawn into Controversie, 31-51. Strange also attempts to explain the changes between Westminster and Savoy (p. 31).
93. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” (Works, 9:61).
94. See Mastricht, Theoretico-practica, 791: Quid sit unio cum Christo?… quod sit mystica illa relatio, per quam uniti cum Christo ius acquirunt ad omnes illas benedictiones, qua in ipso preparantur (“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”).
95. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” (Works, 9:70). For more about Owen’s teaching on the Spirit, see Ryan M. McGraw, “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, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Joseph A. Pipa (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), 267-84. For a groundbreaking treatment of the medieval background of Owen’s treatment of the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ’s humanity, see Wise and Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” 465-518.
96. Owen, “Chamber of Imagery” (Works, 8:557-60).
97. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship” (Works, 9:57).
98. David Clarkson, Public Worship to Be Preferred Before Private, in The Works of David Clarkson, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988), 3:187-209.
99. Ibid., 3:190-94.
100. David Clarkson, Believers’ Communion with the Father and the Son, in The Works of David Clarkson, 3:166-86.
101. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:259-60).
102. E.g., the two sermons on “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” (Works, 9:53-84).
103. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2.
104. Savoy Declaration of Faith, 1.6.
105. Savoy Declaration 22.1; Westminster Confession 21.1; George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland, ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1993), 112; William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (London, 1633).
106. E.g., this terminology is applied to prayer in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 99; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 186.
107. Westminster Assembly and 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 (London, 1646), 1-4; Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (Works, 4:339).
108. Owen, Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (Works, 4:239-40).
109. Ames, Fresh Suit, 1, 37.
110. Gillespie, Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, 112-15. I am grateful to Chris Caldwell for this reference.
111. Ames, Fresh Suit, 58-59.
112. Ibid., 16, 17-18. Tyacke notes that in 1640 Thomas Warmstry complained that churches had introduced “candles in the day time” (Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590-1640, Oxford Historical Monographs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1987], 241).
113. McGraw, Heavenly Directory, ch. 3.
114. Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:204-75; Burroughs, Gospel-Worship.
115. Perkins, Warning Against the Idolatrie, passim; Cheynell, Divine Trinunity, 272-305.
116. Both treatises are found in vol. 7 of Works. The chapters on worship in The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded are found on pp. 416-45, and Apostasy from the Gospel is ch. 6 of that volume.
117. Owen, Grace and Duty (Works, 7:270); Edward Reynolds, A Treatise on the Passions and Faculties of the Soul (London, 1658), 896, 1104-5; Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 25.
118. E.g., see Edward Reynolds, 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.”
119. Jonathan Edwards, “True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 2:48-49.
120. Owen, Grace and Duty (Works, 7:432).
121. Ibid., 7:434. Here he explains that the saints have communion with God in worship through faith, love, and delight.
122. For a fuller analysis, see McGraw, Heavenly Directory, ch. 4.
123. Owen, Grace and Duty (Works, 7:424-25, 428).
124. See McGraw, Heavenly Directory, ch. 3.
125. Owen, Grace and Duty (Works, 7:434).
126. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:8).
127. See Trueman, John Owen, 71, where he notes the importance of David Dickson in the English-speaking context. For Dickson’s exposition of the covenant of redemption, see his comments on Ps 2:7-9 in David Dickson, A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms, 2nd ed. (London, 1655), 11-13.
128. Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11-65.
129. Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened, or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ (London, 1677).
130. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), vol. 1, chs. 4-7.
131. E.g., Owen, Hebrews (Works, 20:61). This terminology appears throughout the Hebrews commentary.
132. The Sum of Saving Knowledge with the Practical Use Thereof (Edinburgh, 1671), heading 2 (unpaginated).
133. Owen, Death of Death (Works, 10:174).
134. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 20:61-62). Owen listed sixteen actions of the Father towards the Son in the covenant of redemption (20:194-95).
135. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61-63.
136. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” 196.
137. Carl Trueman criticizes in passing Letham’s charge that the covenant of redemption introduced tension into the theology of the Westminster Standards (Carl R. Trueman, “Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain,” in Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 282n82).
138. Jonathan Edwards, “Economy of the Trinity in the Covenant of Redemption,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 20:441-42, edwards.yale.edu.
139. Van Asselt makes a similar observation about Cocceius’s position (Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669), Studies in the History of Christian Tradition 100 [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 235).
140. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context,” 196.
141. Ibid., 197.
142. Hoornbeeck, Theologiae practicae, 1:139-41.
143. Mastricht, Theoretico-practica, 235-70.
144. Willem J. van Asselt, “Covenant Theology as Relational Theology,” in Ashgate Research Companion, 77.
145. Herman Witsius, De œconomia foederum dei cum hominibus libri quatuor (Utrecht, 1694), 1:126 (1.9.23): Foedus gratia non est abolitia foedus operum, sed confirmatio illius, in quantum Mediator omnes conditiones foederis implevit, adeo ut juxta foedus operum, cui a Mediatore satisfactum est, fideles omnes justificentur et serventur.
146. Savoy Declaration 7.2.
147. Savoy Declaration 8.1-3.
148. Owen, “The Everlasting Covenant” (Works, 9:418).
149. Owen, Communion with God (Works, 2:8).
150. Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, Reformed Historical Theology 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), ch. 3.
151. Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie, 200.
152. John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1645), 95.
153. J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, Reformed Historical Theology 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 311-16.
154. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 23:70).
155. See, e.g., Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant (London, 1674), 162. Michael Brown has recently misconstrued the relationship between Owen’s and Petto’s views in this regard (Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto [1624-1711] [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012]; see Ryan M. McGraw, review of Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto [1624-1711], by Michael Brown, Mid-America Journal of Theology 23 [2012]: 152-55, for my critique of his analysis).
156. Ball, Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 107.
157. Petto, Difference Between the Old and New Covenant, 168: “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” (emphasis original).
158. See Jones, “‘Old’ Covenant,” 199-200.
159. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 23:73-75).
160. Owen, “Chamber of Imagery” (Works, 8:555-56).
161. Thomas Goodwin, The Knowledge of the Father and of His Son Jesus Christ, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin (Edinburgh: J. Nichol, 1862), 4:352-53.
162. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 18:5-9).
163. Owen, Theologoumena, 501 (6.7); Owen, A Discourse Concerning Liturgies and Their Imposition (Works, 15:9).
164. Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Public Worship” (Works, 9:57).
165. Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor” (Works, 9:456-57).
166. Owen treats the nature of benedictions in relation to the ministerial office in Hebrews (Works, 22:316-20, 368-75). He argued that ministers are benedictory to the congregation by faithfully exercising the duties of their office in obedience to Christ (see McGraw, Heavenly Directory, ch. 6).
167. E.g., Wollebius, Compendium, 159-60; Leigh, Body of Divinity, 461-66.
168. See Leigh, Body of Divinity, 461-66, who treats the nature and ends of preaching at length as the primary calling of pastors. This is the burden of Owen’s sermon on “The Duty of Pastors” in vol. 9 of Works (see esp. Works, 9:453).
169. Owen, Hebrews (Works, 20:34-35).
170. Owen, A Discourse on Spiritual Gifts (Works, 4:491).
171. Ibid., 4:438.
172. Andreas Hyperius, The Practice of Preaching, Otherwise Called the Pathway to the Pulpit, trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 9; Oliver Bowles, De pastore evangelio tractatus (London, 1659), 2.
173. Wollebius, Compendium, 124.
174. Leigh, Body of Divinity, 655-57.
175. He included scattered references to baptism throughout his Works and a few very short treatments of infant baptism, but he did not devote an extended exposition to this sacrament in any place. For a treatment of his arguments for infant baptism, see Lee Gatiss, “From Life’s First Cry: John Owen on Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation,” in Ashgate Research Companion, 271-82.
176. Owen, “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.”
177. In every other case, Owen regarded sight and sense as contrary to faith. See the appendix on Owen’s view of images of Christ in my Heavenly Directory.
178. Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863), 4:329.
179. Contra Petto, with whom Owen otherwise shared much agreement both in covenant theology and ecclesiology. See John Martin, Samuel Petto, and Frederick Woodal, The Preacher Sent, or, A Vindication of the Liberty of Public Preaching, by Some Men Not Ordained (London, 1658).
180. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality; Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and Its Significance for Today.”
181. As is the case throughout the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity.
182. Wisse and Meijer make a similar observation in relation to pneumatology and soteriology (“Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” 500-505).
183. See Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), for the Trinity in relation to the overarching content of Owen’s theology.