Meet the Puritans is pleased to partner with EP Books to give away four (4) sets of Daniel R. Hyde's expositions of From the Pen of Pastor Paul: 1-2 Thessalonians and Content Yet Contending: Jude.

USA mailing addresses only. One entry per household. Deadline to register is Friday, February 24.

Sign up today here.

Young John Bunyan (1628–1688) hardly seemed fit for preaching. He was a coarse person with little education and a mouth full of foul language. He had lost his mother and sister to death and was exposed to the evils of military service before his seventeenth birthday. As a young man, he worked with his hands as a tinker or worker in soft metals. His soul was probably much like his body after carrying his sixty-pound portable anvil: outwardly tough and calloused, though inwardly bruised and burdened. Marriage to a church-going woman brought some moral improvement and produced much self-righteousness, but it was not until Bunyan overheard a few poor women talking about the new birth and the grace of God in Christ for sinners that he realized his greatest need.
 
The faithful pastor of those women, John Gifford, taught Bunyan about the grace of God. Bunyan read Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians and learned how Jesus Christ made satisfaction to divine justice for our sins by His death. Bunyan was transformed, and others soon called upon him to speak in meetings for evangelism and exhortation. Feeling very unworthy, he nevertheless was able to speak from his experience of the truth: “I preached what I felt, what I smartingly did feel, even that under which my poor soul did groan and tremble to astonishment.” He was not a fire-and-brimstone preacher who looked down on unbelievers, but one who lived with a “fire in mine own conscience.”
 
After two years, the Lord brought Bunyan to a stronger faith in Christ when He revealed Christ’s righteousness to Bunyan’s soul powerfully one day when walking through a field. Bunyan later wrote of this experience: “Now did my chains fall off my legs indeed, I was loosed from my afflictions and irons, my temptations also fled away. . . . Now I went also home rejoicing for the grace and love of God. . . . I lived, for some time, very sweetly at peace with God through Christ. O I thought Christ! Christ! There was nothing but Christ that was before my eyes.”
 
Bunyan’s preaching changed substantially. While still attacking self-righteousness, Bunyan dwelt more upon Jesus Christ. Sin and Christ as the Savior of sinners became the major themes of his preaching. Through it all, Bunyan said, “I preached what I saw and felt.” His pastor John Burton (John Gifford had died) commended Bunyan as a man “not chosen out of an earthly, but out of the heavenly university, the church of Christ,” who “has not the learning or wisdom of man, yet, through grace, he has received the teaching of God.” Already the church had recognized Bunyan’s sound doctrine, holy life, and giftedness in preaching. 
 
Bunyan’s preaching soon provoked opposition. He was indicted around 1658 by the authorities for the offense of preaching without a license from church authorities in a village near his hometown of Bedford. A Cambridge scholar publicly attacked him the next year for preaching as a mere tinker and not a university-trained man. This prompted a fellow Baptist to say in Bunyan’s defense, “You seem angry with the tinker because he strives to mend souls as well as kettles and pans,” He pointed out that Bunyan did not preach on his own initiative but at the call of the church in Bedford. Bunyan was the target of rumors that he was a witch, a robber, and had two wives at once. However, Bunyan went on preaching.
 
When we read Bunyan’s treatises, we can almost hear the tinker’s voice as he preached in the villages of Bedfordshire. We sense his earnest desire that his hearers may be granted spiritual senses to see, hear, and taste invisible spiritual realities. He cried out, “O that they who have heard me speak this day did but see as I do what sin, death, hell, and the curse of God is; and also what the grace, and love, and mercy of God is, through Jesus Christ.” 
 
His preaching drew his listeners into the divine drama of salvation. He addressed people directly, graphically, and simply in common language. He answered their objections, and pressed them to respond. For example, Bunyan depicted the following dialogue on the day of Pentecost:
Peter: Repent, every one of you; be baptized, every one of you, in his name, for the remission of sins, and you shall, every one of you, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Objector: But I was one of them that plotted to take away his life. May I be saved by him?
Peter: Every one of you.
Objector:  But I was one of them that bare false witness against him. Is there grace for me?
Peter: For every one of you….
Objector: But I was one of them that cried out, Crucify him, crucify him; and desired that Barabbas, the murderer, might live, rather than him. What will become of me, think you?
Peter: I am to preach repentance and remission of sins to every one of you.
Objector: But I railed on him, I reviled him, I hated him, I rejoiced to see him mocked at by others. Can there be hope for me?
Peter: There is, for every one of you. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Bunyan passionately urged his listeners to respond with faith in the warning of judgment to come as well the promise of forgiveness and life, by the grace of God: “Poor sinner, awake; eternity is coming. God and his Son, they are both coming to judge the world; awake, art thou yet asleep, poor sinner? Let me set the trumpet to thine ear once again! The heavens will be shortly on a burning flame; the earth, and the works thereof, shall be burned up, and then wicked men shall go into perdition; dost thou hear this, sinner?”
 
Bunyan pleaded with people to flee from God’s wrath: “The soul that is lost will never be found again, never be recovered again, never be redeemed again. Its banishment from God is everlasting; the fire in which it burns, and by which it must be tormented, is a fire that is everlasting fire, everlasting burning. That is fearful.” He continued, “Now tell [count] the stars, now tell the drops of water, now tell the blades of grass that are spread upon the face of all the earth, if thou canst; and yet sooner mayest thou do this than count the thousands of millions of thousands of years that a damned soul shall lie in hell.” 
 
While Bunyan pleaded with people to see the sinfulness of sin and the torments of hell, he also proclaimed the mercies of God: “Cast but up thine eyes a little higher, and behold, there is the mercy-seat and throne of grace to which thou wouldest come, and by which thou must be saved.” He added, “Coming sinner, what promise thou findest in the word of Christ, strain it whither thou canst, so thou dost not corrupt it, and his blood and merits will answer all.” 
 
Bunyan was particularly focused on moving his hearers to praise the Savior: "O Son of God! Grace was in all thy tears, grace came bubbling out of thy side with thy blood, grace came forth with every word of thy sweet mouth. Grace came out where the whip smote thee, where the thorns pricked thee, where the nails and spear pierced thee. O blessed Son of God! Here is grace indeed! Unsearchable riches of grace! Grace enough to make angels wonder, grace to make sinners happy, grace to astonish devils."
 
Bunyan’s preaching was not only doctrinal, dealing with the weighty matters of the faith; it was doxological, calling forth from awakened hearts the praise of their Redeemer: “O grace! O amazing grace! To see a prince entreat a beggar to receive an alms would be a strange sight; to see a king entreat a traitor to accept of mercy would be a stranger sight than that; but to see God entreat a sinner, to hear Christ say, ‘I stand at the door and knock,’ with a heart full and a heaven full of grace to bestow upon him that opens, this is such a sight as dazzles the eyes of angels.” 
 
Though sometimes slandered as an antinomian, Bunyan promoted the pursuit of holiness and godly behavior. We are justified by faith in Christ alone, but we demonstrate the reality of that faith by our good works. Bunyan preached that a holy life is “the beauty of Christianity.” He called men and women to turn from sin, “and let your minds and affections be yielded up to the conduct [guidance] of the word and Spirit of God.” He exhorted them to separate themselves from sinful occasions, sinful examples, and all enticements to sin. He warned, “A man cannot love God that loves not holiness; he loves not holiness that loves not God’s word; he loves not God’s word that doth not do it.”
 
Bunyan suffered for his preaching. In 1660 the authorities arrested Bunyan for non-conformity, failing to attend the services of the parish church, holding conventicles (illegal assemblies for worship), and preaching without a license from the Church of England. Bunyan was offered release if he promised to stop, but he refused, saying, “If I was out of prison today, I would preach the gospel again tomorrow, with the help of God.”
 
Though Bunyan remained in prison for years, the jailers occasionally gave Bunyan freedom to leave for short times and preach. George Offer noted, “It is said that many of the Baptist congregations in Bedfordshire owe their origins to his midnight preaching.” He also preached to those with him in prison, though at times he himself was deeply discouraged.
 
After twelve years, Bunyan was finally released in 1672, when King Charles II issued the Royal Declaration of Indulgence. However, government officials quickly moved to restrict that freedom. Bunyan was imprisoned again from December 1676 until June 1677, when the Puritan theologian John Owen interceded with the Bishop of London for Bunyan’s release. Owen famously told King Charles II that he would gladly trade his vast learning for the tinker’s ability to touch men’s hearts.
 
Bunyan’s greatest book, The Pilgrim’s Progress, written in that prison, contains poignant examples of his lofty ideals for the ministry of the Word. In the house of Interpreter, the pilgrim sees a portrait on the wall. It is a picture of the kind of minister God authorizes to be a spiritual guide to others, one who “had eyes lifted up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, the law of truth was written upon its lips, the world was behind his back; it stood as if it pleaded with men, and a crown of gold did hang over its head.” In the Delectable Mountains, the pilgrims meet shepherds of the flock for whom Christ died, teachers whose names are Knowledge, Experience, Watchful, and Sincere. They showed the pilgrims the horrible consequences of doctrinal error, the dangers of spiritual blindness, the fearful reality of hell, and a glimpse of the glories of heaven. In the second part of The Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian’s wife and children receive guidance from “Great-heart,” a valiant warrior well-equipped with sword, helmet, and shield. He teaches them of Christ, fights against a giant that assaults them in the way, and leads them safely past roaring lions—yet not of his own will or for his own glory, but as a servant of the Lord.
 
Bringing these images together, we see Bunyan’s vision of the godly pastor. He is a heavenly-minded man, scorning the pride and pleasures of this world to live for treasures that last. He is a humble man, enduring trouble and sorrow to care for the lambs of the Lord. He is a holy man, knowing experientially the truths that he declares to others and fighting with all his heart against the powers of darkness. In all things, he is a preacher of the Word of God, a living trumpet that sounds the alarm to sinners and lovingly calls them to God.
Biblical theology has become a popular topic in recent years. While all theology should be biblical, this oft difficult to define discipline stresses the gradual historical unfolding of God’s self-revelation in redemptive history. People like biblical theology because they want to understand the Bible better.
 
In this light, would it sound too good to be true if you discovered that John Owen wrote a long-lost early modern biblical theology? As you search the Internet, you might discover a volume by him entitled, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. Is this what it appears to be? Unfortunately, no it is not. This is an English “interpretation” of Owen’s Latin lectures to his students at Oxford bearing the title, Theologoumena Pantodapa, sive de Natura, Ortu, Progressu, et Studio Verae Theologiae… While few agree over how to translate the main title, the subtitle tells us that the book is about the nature, rise, progress, and study of true theology. This reviewer believers that, while it is not a biblical theology, this is one of Owen’s most important books. In it, he teaches us how to know God and how to grow in godliness as we learn theology through studying the Bible
 
What exactly is Theologoumena Pantodapa and why did the translator give the impression that it was a biblical theology? This work comprised most of volume 17 of the nineteenth-century Goold edition of Owen’s Works. When Banner of Truth reprinted this set, they removed volume 17, since most of its contents were in Latin. Stephen Westcott rendered the book into English in the late twentieth-century. Because Owen treated his subject by tracing the teaching of Scripture related to it from Genesis to the New Testament, Westcott chose to title the work, Biblical Theology.
 
Determining what Owen’s subject was shows us the true character and importance of this book. The Latin title is very similar to standard books on prolegomena (or, first principles) of theology from the time. For example, the title of Franciscus Junius’ (1545-1602) prolegomena is De Theologia Vera: Ortu, Natura, Formis, Partibus, et Modo. Owen’s preface and first four chapters treat the nature and definitions of theology. Book six applies the teaching of these chapters by teaching us how to study “evangelical theology.” The eighty-percent left in the middle shows the progress of the true and false knowledge of God throughout the Bible. Though it may be hard for many readers to fathom, Owen tells us that most of his book was a preface to what he really intended to write. He aimed to teach us the principles needed to know God, to study his Word, and to produce godly theological students.
 
Though it is plausible for the translator to mistake this volume to be a biblical theology, the poor translation quality goes beyond the title. The translator often misses Owen’s trinitarian themes, particularly references to the Holy Spirit. At times, full sentences from the original text are omitted while new sentences are added. The biggest frustration this reviewer faces in comparing the translation to the original is that the translator has reorganized the paragraph breaks continually, making it hard to track where he is in relation to the original. The translation is easy to read and the content is edifying, but most of the time it is like reading a paraphrase of Owen rather than reading Owen himself.
 
In spite of the deficiencies of the translation, why should English readers read this book?
 
First, we should read this English “interpretation” because those who cannot read Latin do not have any other options. Even if Owen did not write a biblical theology, this book will still help you understand the Bible better. The fact that most of the book is a “preface” to its primary aim does not make its contents less profound and helpful. Owen teaches us how to know God and how to study theology in light of what the entire Bible says about these topics.
 
Second, we should read this volume because of Owen’s trinitarian definitions of theology. He describes theology essentially as the doctrine of living to God, through Christ, by the Spirit. This means that true theology is not merely an intellectual endeavor. It is an act of communion with the Father, through Christ as the pattern and ground of our knowledge of God, by people who are born of the Spirit and are filled with the Spirit. This trinitarian description of theology is needed today because it simultaneously places God at the heart of the gospel and promotes personal godliness in every student of the Bible. A potentially misleading translation of Owen on these themes is better than no Owen at all.
 
If we learn anything from the strange case of an old Latin book with a misleading title in a loosely translated form, then maybe it is that there is not such a great dichotomy between what we now call biblical theology and theology in general. Christians have always wanted to know the Bible better and they have always recognized its historical character. If you read Owen’s so-called Biblical Theology prayerfully then you will read it profitably as well. However, if you think that what Owen has to say is worthwhile, then you can also click here to help fund and promote a new translation of his work.

Meet the Puritans is pleased to announce our first book, Knowing the Trinity: Practical Thoughts for Daily Life by Dr. Ryan M. Mcgraw. Dr. McGraw is not only a contributor to Meet the Puritans but serves as Professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He has written numerous books including The Foundation of Communion with God: The Trinitarian Piety of John Owen and Is the Trinity Practical?, also available at the ReformedResources.org store.

It was John Owen who said, “there is no grace whereby our souls go forth unto God, no act of divine worship yielded unto him, no duty or obedience performed, but they are distinctly directed unto Father, Son, and Spirit” (Of Communion with God). Everything we do in relationship to our God is related to him as Triune. The reality, though, is that we hardly think of the Trinity except merely as a doctrine we affirm against false theologies. This is where Dr. McGraw’s work is so helpful. He seeks to explain and apply God as Triune for all of our lives: how we think, how we speak, and how we act. The Trinity is not just the structural background of Christian theology it is the substance of living out Christian faith, hope, and love in relationship with the one true God and with each person in particular as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Dr. Carl Trueman says of this book, "In the tradition of John Owen. Dr. McGraw here offers a lively and accesible account of the doctrine and its practical and doxological implications for every Christian."

In conjunction with his new book, Dr. McGraw also did two interviews recently about the theme of this book, which will be helpful preparation or follow-up to reading his book:

Christ the Center with Camden Bucey and Jim Cassidy

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio with Chris Arnzen

*Alternatively, you can give directly to the work of Meet the Puritans by donating $25 and receiving a copy of the book here.

In our previous posts (#1, #2), we considered questions from Christopher Love’s (1618-1651) Heaven’s Glory, Hell’s Terror (1653). In this post, we will consider some more key questions that he asks on hell before considering his position on the controversial doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell in the next post. Again, I will pose Love’s questions then answer them  in his words summarized, paraphrased, or quoted almost in the form of a catechism. 
 
What are the torments of the damned in hell? This very question makes our hearts “tremble” as we relate its answer. Hell conveys deprivation, for example, as being present means being kept from heaven and the presence of God. It also brings torments that are unceasing in body and soul, as the wicked: are made miserable in hell; experience agony entirely; suffer in a way that cannot be quenched or tolerated; undergo such forever with no intermission at all; suffer with a “society” of others making hell all the more grievous; endure such in a miserable place devoid of all comfort and pleasure; face cruel treatment at the hands of demons (Matt. 18:34) and the devil himself; and possess no hope that these “pains shall be ended.” In this way, sinners must tremble at what they will lose as they see the madness of failing to do so. Will they “run the hazard” of entering an eternal hell for the pleasures of sin in this life?
 
Are there degrees of torment in hell? Yes, contrary to the Stoics, who equate all sins and punishments. While all the latter share an eternal character, there exists degrees of pain in the eternal state (e.g. Matt. 10:15, 11:22, 23;14,15; Luke 12:47-48; John 19:11). Thus, as those “most eminent in grace” enjoy heaven more, those “most vile in sin” will suffer torment more. So, they who “rush into the vilest sins” should tremble.
 
Are the torments of hell eternal? Yes, for Scripture, refers to hell as unquenchable (Matt. 18:8), eternal (Jude 7), and everlasting in terms of torment (Matt. 25:46) and destruction (2 Thess. 1:9). The justice of God demands this, unless we escape them through Christ, who takes such on our behalf. 
 
Is there literal fire in hell? No, hell is not a physical or “corporeal” in terms of heat and light but one causing agony like a literal fire on the body. Still, there will be a corporeal fire in the resurrection, one that burns without consuming yet forever tormenting. In the end, we should not “Cavil about hell fire so much as to make it” our care to avoid it.”
 
What is meant by the worm that shall never die but shall gnaw the conscience forever? From Mark 9:44 and Luke 13:28, we are not understand this as a “corporeal worm, that shall be gnawing the flesh of the body, after the Resurrection.” Instead, it denotes the continual “gnawing” horror of consciences that were once hardened to and unbothered by sin. Furthermore, the gnashing of teeth in hell (Luke 13:28) refers to the “implacable enmity that the damned carry in their hearts towards all them that shall be saved.” Such individuals will express indignation toward Jesus Christ that he did not save them and they cannot take revenge upon him. They will be enraged that they spurned the opportunity to embrace Jesus Christ. Laments Love, “O this shall greatly torment the damned, even the thought of this, that they have had many an opportunity of grace here in this world, yet have neglected them all."
 
As you can see, Love’s answers to these questions seek to be straightforward and, more importantly, simply biblical. As we considered in our first post on hell, the church needs to declare such truths, for they are needful even if not desireable. This approach emerges as that which is truly “seeker-sensitive,” as it points men from the terrors of hell to the glories of heaven through Christ Jesus.
Protestants who are unfamiliar need to hear the voice of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion in this anniversary year of the Reformation (see post 1). The Articles are also a great encouragement to those in North American Anglican churches who long for a continual reformation back to the Word of God. But before we begin to examine Article 1, I need to explain the unique confessional nature of the Articles as part of what Anglicans term the “historical formularies.” In other words, The Articles of Religion are not meant to stand alone, as it were.
 
The Articles in Relation to the Prayer Book
When we ponder the doctrinal statements in The Thirty-Nine Articles to which all ministers must subscribe, Anglicans do not simply finish there. We must go further. The Prayer Book is included in our subscription. The Prayer Book informs the Articles, the Articles regulate The Prayer Book. The doctrinal becomes doxological through the underlying theology of the authorized rites and order of worship in The Prayer Book. Anglicans may contemporize Prayer Book language so that it is understood clearly (Article 24), but they must not change its underlying theology. The Articles regulate The Prayer Book.
 
As Robert Barron wrote in the first line of an article on St. Augustine: “…in the end it all comes down to a correct description of God.” There is meant to be a proper balance between doctrine - proper descriptions of the realities of God with Christ at the center that glorifies the Godhead and is faithful to the scripturally sourced and regulated tradition of the church - and worship.
 
This is the genius of Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556). His theology is expressed in the Articles and Prayer Book. It is in the selection, arrangement, and composition of the prayers and exhortations, the selection and arrangement of daily Scripture readings (the lectionary), and in the stipulation of the rubrics for permissible liturgical action and any variations in the prayers and exhortations. Cranmer’s Articles, selections, and arrangements were based on established continental Reformed theology. He recast the principle of “the way we worship” is “what we believe” (lex orandi, lex credendi) to teach the English congregations the Reformed doctrines of Scripture alone, Christ alone, grace alone, justification by faith alone, to the glory of God alone.
 
This is why The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion were bound with the services of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer! It was so that people could see the doctrinal basis of the liturgy in the established church. Thus, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer’s order and liturgy retain a confessional quality. This is the Anglican principle of doctrine and worship being relationally constitutive. Let us examine this principle in the first article on the nature of God.
 
Article 1
I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
This article is unchanged since Cranmer penned it in 1553. Gerald Bray comments that it has an underlying tri-fold structure: 
  1. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions. 
  2. Of infinite power, wisdom and goodness.
  3. The Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.
This language is repeated from article 1 in the Augsburg Confession (1530), as is the statement that both visible and invisible creation is accomplished and sustained by the Godhead as a whole: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it would be wrong to think that Cranmer merely had the Augsburg in mind. The Augsburg article is much longer, with a preface that confirms that its doctrine is from the Nicene Creed. There is also a second paragraph that denounces the heresies of the church, including Islam among them. 
 
We get a clearer idea of what Cranmer was doing when we turn to the Book of Common Prayer. The article’s title and content correspond much more closely to the tri-fold structure of what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed, also known by its Latin title, Quicunque vult. For example the Athansian has: "And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity." We see it again in the special prayer ("collect") said on Trinity Sunday:
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity; We beseech thee, that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith, and evermore defend us from all adversities; who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen. 
The collect affirms that when we are clear about God’s revelation as Trinity, we remain “steadfast in this faith” and it will defend us. If we know the truth about God, it will defend us from serious heresies.
 
Cranmer again reprises the doctrine in his "Preface" that introduces the "Prayer of Consecration" in the Holy Communion communion service for Trinity Sunday:
WHO art one God, one Lord; not only one Person, but three Persons in one substance. For that which we believe of the glory of the Father, the same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference or inequality. 
And when we examine the rubric for the Athanasian Creed we discover that at Morning Prayer it is to be said instead of the Apostle’s Creed in the worship on the five “evangelical feast days” (on these, see Danny Hyde's article) of the Reformed tradition (as well as another seven observable days in the calendar!).
 
Consider also that those evangelical feast days would have continued in a service of Holy Communion using Nicene Creed, add the Trinitarian structure of the additional collects for the evangelical feast days, we can readily see how the nature of Anglican worship remains confessionally and profoundly Trinitarian. Cranmer’s simple clarity and tri-fold structure in article 1 gains a depth, repetition, and further nuance throughout the Prayer Book.
As we've seen so far in our survey of John Knox's theology of the Lord’s Supper (part 1, part 2, part 3), it is ordained by God and Christ is present in the sacrament. It is also an inestimable blessing for God’s people and is for their benefit in many ways. Let me give a number of examples from his writings on this theme.
 
A Sign and Seal
The Lord Supper is a confirmation and seal of the promises of the gospel. In the sacrament Christ “confirmeth and sealeth up to us his promise and communion, (that is, that we shall be partakers with him in his kingdom)” (Works, 3:73). The Lord’s Supper then is a confirmation and pledge of the certainty of heaven to the believer. Listen to these beautiful words: “The Father … doth … acknowledge and avow us yet to be of his heavenly household. And to seal the same, his everlasting mercy, more deeply in our heart, and to declare the same before the world, he sendeth us to the table of his dear Son…” (Works, 4:123-124).
 
A Help to our Weakness
In the Supper Christ “maketh plain to our sense, his heavenly gifts; and also giveth unto us himself, to be received with faith…” (Works, 3:73). Because we are frail creatures it is a help to our faith to have plain and physical signs in the Lord’s Supper, to see signs that are visible to our senses of what Christ did for us in his once for all sacrifice for sin. Thus it is a great blessing that Christ condescends to strengthen our faith in this way. 
 
A Means of Sanctification
The Lord’s Supper is also an instrument in our sanctification. It impacts the lives of those who partake as “through the verity of the Holy Ghost … we, being fed with his flesh, and refreshed with his blood … [are] renewed both unto true godliness and to immortality” (Works, 3:73). 
 
A Time to Remember
The Lord’s Supper was also an occasion to remember the great work of Christ and praise his name as “by the same Sacrament, the Lord calleth us to remembrance of his Death and Passion, to stir up our hearts to praise his most holy name” (Works, 3:73). The Lord’s Supper then should be an occasion of great praise to God as we are called to remember Christ’s work for us (Works, 3:65).
 
A Pledge and Promise
The Lord’s Supper was also a pledge or promise to the Church that as long as the world endures Christ will have a people for “there is included and contained in this Sacrament, [a promise] that he will preserve his Kirk. For herein we be commanded to show the Lord’s death until he comes” (Works, 3:74). Whenever the sacrament is celebrated it is a reminder that Christ will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
 
Union With Christ
The Lord’s Supper also testifies to “the wonderful society and knitting together of the Lord Jesus and of the receivers” (Works, 3:74). It speaks to us then of our wonderful union with Christ. 
 
The Sheep and the Goats
The Lord’s Supper serves to make “a visible difference betwixt His people and those that were without His league” ("Scots Confession" in Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 2:201). The Lord’s Supper is a picture of the division that there is in the world, between those who are Christ’s body, and those who are not.
 
A Family Meal
The finally, but by no means unimportantly blessing noted here is that it the Lord’s Supper shows the “band of mutual love among us,” that is, among God’s people (Works, 3:74). The Lord’s Supper shows the unity of God’s people in that “herewith the Lord Jesus gathereth us unto one visible body, so that we be members one of another, and make altogether one body, whereof Jesus Christ is only head” (Works, 3:73).
 
Conclusion
Thus the Lord’s Supper is a great blessing designed to “exercise the faith of His children and by participation of the same … to seal in their hearts the assurances of His promises and of that most blessed conjunction, union and society which the elect have with their head, Christ Jesus” ("Scots Confession" in Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 2:201).
Generally speaking, a covenant, according to Reformed theology, is a legal relationship between two parties that involves promises and conditions. A covenant, therefore, has three basic elements: parties, promises and conditions. My goal is to expound the Westminster Standards’ teaching on the Covenant of Grace in light of these three basic elements, beginning with the parties.
 
Identifying the two parties of this covenant is not as straightforward as one might expect, and has been a bone of contention among the Reformed. In his discussion of the contracting parties of the Covenant of Grace, Louis Berkhof readily admits that “it is not easy to determine precisely who the second party is.” All are agreed who the first party is, namely God, but many have found it difficult and confusing as to who is the second party. Is it all of mankind, the visible church, the elect only, Christ and the elect in him or all of the above? According to the Westminster Standards, the answer is multifaceted and is largely dependent upon which perspective of the covenant is being considered.
 
First, in contrast to the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Grace is a covenant that God establishes with sinners. WCF 7.3 notes that after the fall and due to man’s inability to secure life, the Lord was pleased to make the Covenant of Grace, “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved.” WLC 32 says that God’s grace is demonstrated in the Covenant of Grace by his freely providing and offering to sinners a mediator through whom they can receive life and salvation.  Hence, in a general sense, the Covenant of Grace is offered to sinners.  
 
Second, the Covenant of Grace is made or established with believers and their children, that is, those within the visible church, which includes the elect and the reprobate. Sacraments are for those “within the covenant of grace (WLC 162),” and baptism “is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church (WLC 166).” Thus, baptism, which is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace (WCF 28.1), is not to be administered to unbelievers until “they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him (WLC 166, WSC 95),” while it is to be administered to children of professing believers because they are “within the covenant (WLC 166)” and “members of the visible church (WSC 95).” Since not all baptized and/or professing members of the visible church are saved or of the elect (WLC 61; WCF 28.5-6), it follows that membership of the Covenant of Grace is broader than the elect.  
 
Third, the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and the elect in him. WLC 31 says that the Covenant of Grace “was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.” Consequently, God promises in the Covenant of Grace “to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe (WCF7.3; cf. WLC 32).” And that the grace promised in baptism “is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time (WCF 28.6).” Thus, in one sense, the Covenant of Grace is identified with the elect.
 
This multifaceted approach to the parties of the Covenant of Grace reflects the Reformed understanding that the Covenant of Grace may be viewed from different perspectives. A number of different contrasting terms have been employed to express this point with one popular being the external/internal distinction. John Ball believed that “externally” the Covenant of Grace is made with every member of the visible church but “savingly, effectually, and in a speciall manner it is made only with them, who are partakers of the benefits promised.” In his work on the covenants written after the Assembly, Samuel Rutherford said that the covenant must be considered in two ways, “As Preached according to the approving and commanding will of God,” and “as it is internally and effectually fulfilled in the elect according to the decree and the Lords will of purpose.” This external/internal distinction, for Rutherford, results in a corresponding two-fold identity of the human party of the Covenant of Grace, namely, the members of the visible church and the elect. Rutherford wrote, “The parties contracters in the Covenant preached, are God, and all within the Visible Church, whether Elect or Reprobate, and their seed, they professing the Gospel…But the parties contracters of the Covenant in the latter respect are, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. only, the house of Judah, the taught of God, the people in whose heart the Law is ingraven.” Thus, from one perspective the Covenant of Grace is made with all those who have made a profession of faith, and their children. All those who come under the “the call and offer of Christ in the Preached Gospel,” and give their consent by making a profession and receiving the seals, along with their children, are “externally in Covenant” and “under the Covenant of Grace.” Yet, from another perspective, that is, of the thing promised and of special promises, the covenant is only established with the elect.

Thanks to our official book sponsor, Reformation Heritage Books, we have a 4-book bundle of Simonetta Carr's Christian Biographies for Young Readers that we are giving away: Martin LutherJohn Calvin, John Knox, and John Owen. Deadline to register is Friday, February 24.

Enter here.

 
As we've seen, the Puritans had a rich understanding of Christian marriage (part 1, part 2, part 3). In this final post, I'd like to show that they also believed marital love must be sexual. Both marital partners should give themselves fully to each other with joy and exuberance in a healthy sexual relationship marked by fidelity. Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin re-established this aspect of marriage by abandoning medieval Roman Catholic notions that marriage was inferior to celibacy leading to “religious” (clergy, monks, nuns) and “profane” (laity) classes of Christians, that all sexual contact between marital partners was only a necessary evil to propagate the human race, and that any procreative act that involved passion was inherently sinful. This negative view was rooted in the writings of the ancient church fathers, such as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome, all of whom believed that, even within marriage, sexual intercourse necessarily involved sin (see Packer, A Quest for Godliness, 261).
 
Puritans preachers taught that the Roman Catholic view was unbiblical, even satanic. They cited Paul, who said that prohibition of marriage is a “doctrine of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Puritan definitions of marriage implied the conjugal act. For example, William Perkins (1558-1602) defines marriage as “the lawful conjunction of the two married persons; that is, of one man and one woman into one flesh” (“Christian Oeconomy,” 419). The Puritans viewed sex within marriage as a gift of God and as an essential, enjoyable part of marriage. William Gouge (1575-1653) said that husbands and wives should cohabit “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully” (Quoted in Ryken, Worldly Saints, 44). “They do err,” added Perkins, “who hold that the secret coming together of man and wife cannot be without sin unless it be done for the procreation of children” (“Christian Oeconomy,” 423).
 
Perkins went on to say that marital sex is a “due debt” or “due benevolence” (1 Cor. 7:3) that married persons owe to their spouses. That debt must be paid, he says, “with a singular and entire affection one towards another” in three ways: “First, by the right and lawful use of their bodies or of the marriage bed.” Such physical intimacy by “holy usage” should be “a holy and undefiled action (Heb. 13:4)...sanctified by the word and prayer (1 Tim. 4:3–4).” The fruits of God-honoring, enjoyable sex in marriage are the blessing of children, “the preservation of the body in cleanness,” and the reflection of marriage as a type of the bond between Christ and His church. Second, married couples must “cherish one another” intimately (Eph. 5:29) rather than having sex in the impersonal way of an adulterer with a prostitute. Third, a couple should be intimate “by an holy kind of rejoicing and solacing themselves each with [the] other in a mutual declaration of the signs and tokens of love and kindness (Prov. 5:18–19; Song 1:1; Gen. 26:8; Isa. 62:7).” In this context, Perkins particularly mentions kissing (“Christian Oeconomy,” 423-427).
 
Other Puritans stressed the romantic side of marriage as they compared the love of a husband to God’s love for His people. Thomas Hooker (1586–1647) wrote, “The man whose heart is endeared to the woman he loves, he dreams of her in the night, hath her in his eye and apprehension when he awakes, museth on her as he sits at table, walks with her when he travels and parlies with her in each place where he comes” (The Application of Redemption, 137).
 
Rightfully so, the emphasis on finding romance within marriage (rather than in extramarital relations, common in the Middle Ages) has been attributed to the Puritans. Herbert W. Richardson wrote that “the rise of romantic marriage and its validation by the Puritans represents a major innovation within the Christian tradition” (Nun, Witch, Playmate: The Americanization of Sex, 69). And C. S. Lewis said, “The conversion of courtly love into romantic monogamous love was largely the work of... Puritan poets” (“Donne and Love Poetry in the Seventeenth Century,” in Seventeenth Century Studies Presented to Sir Herbert Grierson [Oxford University Press, 1938], 75). Thus the Puritans emphasized that marital love, in addition to being spiritual love, must also be sexual love. In this way, they embraced God’s gift of marriage as the superlative or highest form of human love known on earth. Though the Puritans honored the sexuality of marriage, they did not reduce marriage to sex. Rather, they maintained a view of marital love as broad as life itself. Marital love must fill every room of the home and spill out into the world.