One of the great benefits of reading the Puritans is that they open our eyes to how wonderfully useful and practical doctrine is. "Theology," William Ames famously wrote, "is the doctrine of living unto God." The doctrine of union and communion with Christ is certainly no exception to this. In their sermons on this doctrine, they provided, as they were wont to do in their sermons, a number of practical uses. Also, some harnessed this doctrine in order to bring help and comfort to Christians in their time of need. Edward Reynolds expounded it in order to assure and comfort repentant Christians who had fallen into sin. Thomas Case, a Westminster divine, explained it in a work that he wrote to bring comfort to himself and his family on the death of his 10-year-old grandson, Benjamin, whom he was raising because the boy’s mother (Case’s daughter) had died in childbirth. In this article, I want to discuss two practical uses of this great doctrine, one for non-Christians and one for Christians.
One use for non-Christians is to motivate and exhort them to be united to Christ by faith. Reynolds said that “absolute necessity lies upon us having Christ because with him we have all things, and can do all things: without him, we are poor and can do nothing.” Thomas Jacomb made a similar point in one of his sermons on Romans 8. He urged his audience “to get into Christ” because union with Christ opens the floodgates. In terms of salvation applied, it is the fundamental blessing. Jacomb wrote:
“To enforce the exhortation [to endeavour to get into Christ], I will give you but one motive, but that will be a very comprehensive and considerable one: it is this, Union with Christ is the foundation of all good by and from Christ. It is the fundamental blessing, I mean with respect to application. There can be no application of what Christ hath purchased without antecedent union with his person; it is the very basis upon which all is built—the leading blessing—the inlet to all the grace of the gospel—the ground of all communion and communication. Ah, sinner! thou canst hope for nothing from Christ unless thou beest in Christ; without Christ and without hope go together, Eph. 2:12.”
According to Reynolds, heeding the exhortation to be united to Christ is all the more necessary and the neglect of it all the more sinful because Christ will not reject any person who sincerely comes to him. Indeed, Christ calls, invites, entreats and commands all to come to him.
One use of this doctrine for Christians is to assure and comfort them when they feel burdened by their sin. Reynolds encouraged repentant Christians who were “seriously and searchingly humbled with the sense and consciousness of some great relapse” to consider their union and communion with Christ. In so doing they would be reminded that they are safe, secure and saved in Christ because in him they possess the death and merit of Christ, the life of Christ, the sonship of Christ, the victories of Christ, and the benefit of Christ’s intercession. If Christ is in us and we in him, who can be against us? Certainly not our sins. Reynolds wrote:
“The sum of all is this. Since we stand not like Adam, upon our own bottom, but are branches of such a vine as never withers; members of such a head as never dies; sharers in such a spirit as cleanseth, healeth, and purifieth the heart; partakers of such promises, as are sealed with the oath of God; since we live not by our own life, but by the life of Christ; are not led or sealed by our own spirit, but by the spirit of Christ; do not obtain mercy by our own prayers but by the intercession of Christ; stand not reconciled unto God by our own endeavours, but by the propitiation wrought by Christ, ‘who loved us when we were enemies, and in our blood’ who is both ‘willing and able to save us to the uttermost,’ and to preserve his own mercies in us; to whose office it belongs to take order that none who are given unto him, be lost:--undoubtedly that life of Christ in us, which is thus underpropped, though it be not privileged from temptations, no not from back-slidings, yet is an abiding life: he who raised our soul from death, will either preserve our feet from falling; or, if we do fall, will heal our backslidings, and will save us freely.”
In the next article, I hope to consider some more practical uses of the doctrine of union and communion with Christ.
Our friends at Reformation Heritage Books have given us a giveaway copy of Meet the Puritans by Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson.
USA mailing addresses only. One entry per household. Deadline to register is Friday, July 7.
Enter here.
Thanks the our friends at The Latimer Trust in the U.K. we have four (4) copies of The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles by Dr. Gerald Bray to give away.
USA mailing addresses only. Deadline to register is Friday, June 23.
Continuing in our series on Puritan preachers (parts #1, #2), we come to Richard Sibbes (1577–1635). One source in which he reveals his view of preaching is The Fountain Opened, a collection of his sermons on 1 Timothy 3:16 (Works, vol. 5), where he addresses the office of the preacher particularly when he comes to the phrase “preached unto the Gentiles.”
When a king is enthroned, both his nobles and his common subjects must know it. Therefore, it is not enough for Christ to be “seen of angels,” His heavenly nobility. His kingdom must also be proclaimed to the entire world, all men called to submit to Him. He must be preached before He can be “believed on in the world,” Sibbes writes, for “faith is the issue and fruit of preaching” (Works 5:504). Sibbes says, “Preaching is the ordinance of God, sanctified for the begetting of faith, for the opening of the understanding, for the drawing of the will and affections to Christ.” This is the ladder of heaven that we must ascend one step at a time: first preaching, then faith, then prayer (Works 5:514).
Sibbes advocates world missions, even though English exploration of other continents was in its infancy in his day. Taking up the words “preached unto the Gentiles,” he boldly says, “Hence we have a ground likewise of enlarging the gospel to all people, because the Gentiles now have interest in Christ; that merchants, and those that give themselves to navigation, they may with good success carry the gospel to all people.” The gospel, like the sun, is traveling from east to west until it shall illuminate all nations (Works 5:512). Though a people be “savages, ever so barbarous,” Christians must “labor to gain them for Christ.” Along these lines, Sibbes calls upon explorers and merchants not to compel people into Christianity by force: “There is nothing so voluntary as faith. It must be wrought by persuasions, not by violence” (Works 5:513). Preaching, not the sword, is the means by which the nations find Christ, whether in England or India.
Preaching is the instrument for the application of redemption. Christ is medicine that must be taken, clothing that must be put on, a foundation on which we must build, a treasure to be dug up, a light to be set forth, and a food that must be eaten. Therefore, the preacher must “open the mystery of Christ” in His natures; His offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; His state of humiliation to work our salvation for us; His state of exaltation to apply our salvation to us; and His promises, which are “but Christ dished and parceled out” (Works 5:505). Even when we listen to Sibbes preaching about preaching, we sense the centrality of Christ and the usefulness of imaginative and affectionate language.
He anticipates this question: “But must nothing be preached but Christ?” He replies, “Nothing but Christ, or that that tends to Christ.” The law serves Christ. The threats of the law bring men low so that Christ may lift them up. Moral duties show us what it means to walk worthy of Christ (Col. 1:10). Sibbes says, “The graces for these duties must be fetched from Christ; and the reasons and motives of a Christian’s conversation [or conduct] must be from Christ, and from the state that Christ hath advanced us unto.” This concern for solus Christus drove Sibbes’s opposition to Romanism: “Why is the Church of Rome so erroneous, but because she leaves Christ and cleaves to other things?” (Works 5:509–510)
Preaching is more than teaching; it is the language of divine love. Sibbes says that “it is not sufficient to preach Christ” merely by teaching people the doctrines of the Bible; rather, “there must be an alluring of them, for to preach is to woo” (Works 5:505). He compares the preacher to a friend of the Bridegroom, who seeks to win the soul to marry Christ (on this imagery, see John 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2). On the one hand, marriage must be entered with eyes wide open, based on a factual knowledge of the other person. So the friend of the Bridegroom makes known to the woman both her desperate need and her heavenly Suitor’s riches and nobility (Works 5:514). On the other hand, this is not just an intellectual matter, so the preacher must “entreat for a marriage,” employing all his abilities and powers to woo a bride for Christ (Works 5:506).
Sibbes’s matrimonial language does not negate the necessity of preaching the law and its curses against sinners, but it does give a sweet purpose to severe preaching. Preaching of sin and misery is not an end to itself; it “makes way for the preaching of Christ.” Sibbes queries, “Who cares for Christ, that sees not the necessity of Christ?” Yet preaching the terrors of divine judgment should arise from a tender and humble heart. Preachers must “beseech” or beg sinners to be reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:20); indeed, “Christ, as it were, became a beggar himself, and the great God of heaven and earth begs our love, that we would so care for our own souls that we would be reconciled unto him.” The fact that we should be the ones begging God for mercy makes God’s sweet beseeching of us all the more poignant (Works 5:506). Like Paul, who wept over the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), preachers must preach with “grief and compassion” for lost sinners, “because they are led by the Spirit of Christ, who was all made of compassion” (“Exposition of Philippians Chapter III,” in Works 5:126).
Seeing preaching as divine wooing also highlights the power of the ministry of the Word above other means of grace. Sibbes commends the personal reading of the Bible to learn the truth, but “the truth unfolded hath more efficacy” (Works 5:507). Preaching not only offers Christ, but through it, Christ is given to the heart: “Together with it goes a power—the Spirit clothing the ordinance of preaching—to do all.” That is why Paul calls preaching of the gospel “the ministration of the spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:8 (Works 5:514).
Some people might object that they already know enough and do not need more teaching. Sibbes says, “The word of God preached, it is not altogether to teach us, but, the Spirit going with it, to work grace, necessary to ‘strengthen us in the inward man’ (2 Cor. 4:16).” It is hard enough to learn how to talk and think rightly about the things of God—far harder than learning a trade, for which men train for several years. But true religion is not just the ability to talk and think, but a mysterious knowledge in the heart. We do not really know God’s grace until His grace is within us. This indwelling of grace is effected by preaching: “Preaching is the chariot that carries Christ up and down the world. Christ doth not profit but as he is preached” (Works 5:508). Preaching does more than inform; by God’s grace, it unites us to Christ.
Preaching is a profoundly relational act joining preacher and listener in Christ. This is part of the reason why God decided that mere men would preach His Word. That is not to say that the preacher wins his hearers by his personal charisma; he calls them to “obedience to the truth.” Nevertheless, in preaching, God aims to “knit man to man by bonds of love.” He does not terrify us by a cloud of fire or an angelic visitation, but magnifies His power by working through weak men like us. It helps “our weakness to have men that speak out of experience from themselves that preach the gospel, that they have felt the comfort of [it] themselves.” When Paul and Peter preached, they did so as men humbled by their sins and astonished by the mercy of God. Such preaching by redeemed sinners gives much hope to fearful sinners (Works 5:507).
Thus, Sibbes makes preaching a thoroughly experiential work, a vital triangle drawing together Christ, the preacher, and the hearers. It is a net thrown wide to catch the nations and a wooing of souls by the agent of a heavenly Lover. Preaching includes doctrinal teaching and goes beyond it, engaging the affections and most fundamental commitments of the will. In all this, the ministry of the Word is an instrument in the hands of the sovereign, electing God of grace.
The purpose of this series, “Bite-Size Bunyan,” is to share John Bunyan’s writings in summary form. Most Christians know such works as The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678, 1684), The Holy War (1682), and Grace Abounding (1666), but what about the foundational Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded (1659) or the antithesis to the Pilgrim’s Progress called The Life and Death of Mr. Badman (1680)? My hope (in different installations and not all at once!) is to make these publications more accessible.
This first “bite” concerns Bunyan’s first official writing, Some Gospel Truths Opened According to the Scriptures (1656), written at the tender age of 28 yet with a clear grasp of Reformation theology and the need to defend it from error. It arose out of earlier public debate with the Quakers or “Society of Friends,” a prominent sect in Bunyan’s Bedfordshire due to the toleration under the Cromwellian regime. The recently converted Bunyan had already become a popular lay preacher and one opposed by groups such as the Quakers who rejected his biblical orthodoxy.
The Quaker movement was founded (1647) by George Fox who fled the vanities of organized religion to embrace the transforming light of the Christ within. Within this scheme, Christ teaches people directly through the Spirit and apart from the Scriptures as they strive for purity and the realization of their salvation. This subjective focus pushed aside outward forms of religion (e.g. tithes and sacraments) and even rebelled against social order (e.g. customary etiquette). The Quakers (named for the trembling experienced during spiritual visitations) at times became violent as seen in the disruption of other groups’ worship services. Beginning with Cromwell but especially during Charles II’s Restoration, they faced severe persecution.
Bunyan opposed them with his voice and pen informed by Scripture. More than simply attacking the Quakers, his book primarily defends orthodox Christology and soteriology. Still, without question, Bunyan targets the Quakers as seen in his frequent mention of them by name, his reference to their teachings, and his “Questions to the Quakers” at the very end of the book. These seven questions or “a few queries to those possessed with a spirit of delusion in this generation,” show knowledge of their major doctrines and what he regarded as a serious departure from the gospel.
In general, Bunyan deals with Quaker errors on Scripture, Christ, and salvation. For example, he mentions how the devil distorts the gospel of salvation in Christ by a “spirit of delusion,” which by pretending “some higher light” works upon the soul to “hold forth its new gospel; shewing the soul a new Christ, and new scriptures.” Most importantly, Bunyan in the work focuses on the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ. He literally and historically must be the Christ born of Mary, crucified, resurrected, ascended, seated, and coming again. In this way, the spiritualized and ahistorical “new and false Christ” of the Quakers must be opposed: “a Christ crucified within, dead within, risen again within, and ascended within, in opposition to the Son of Mary, who was crucified without, dead without, risen again without, and ascended in a cloud away from his disciples into heaven without them (Acts 1:9-11).”
Reminiscent of the ancient docetic heresy, Quaker theology eradicated the humanity of Christ. In fact, Scriptural mention of the body of Christ, as Bunyan attests, they saw as referring to “no other body but his church.” The most they could say was that Jesus became attached to a human body not truly a part of him. With John 1:9 in hand, they focused on Christ spiritually as “the true Light, which lighteth every man,” and to which every man must respond for the transformational realization of salvation. Thus, they swept aside the objective and historical elements of the Christian faith: the birth, life, death, ascension, intercession, and second coming of Jesus Christ. They trample rather than start with the grand “indicatives” (realities to embrace) to get to the “imperatives” (things to do) and, in the process, reject salvation by free grace alone and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.
As in public debate, the Quakers would not sit in silence to such a book. So, in our second “bite,” we will turn to the response of Quaker Edward Burrough and (primarily) Bunyan’s to him.
This post is the final in a series of four (see #1, #2, #3), which outlines and annotates Patrick Gillespie’s (1617-1675) treatment of the Covenant of Works. In this section, Gillespie illustrates how Adam’s failure in the Covenant of Works paves way for the Covenant of Grace. I will conclude this section with some observations on his treatment of the Covenant of Works as a whole.
The material in [brackets] are my comments.
Outline
I. “How the breach of the covenant of works made way for the covenant of grace” (p. 207). [Mistakenly listed as “4” in Gillespie’s text]
A. Adam’s fall came by the Lord’s holy and wise providence. Adam did not fall by “bare permission” (207). [This affirms the Lord’s sovereignty over Adam’s Fall without alleviating his responsibility in breaking the covenant. See WCF 5.4 states similarly that God’s providence “extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with is a most wise powerful bounding … yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God…”]
B. Yet there was no necessity of Adam’s sin neither was God “the author and cause of sin” (207). [See the end of WCF 5.4] There was a necessity by way of decree, but without violating the liberty of Adam’s will, “for all necessity is not contrary to freedom, but that which destroyeth spontaneous acting” (208). Divine necessity was not the moral cause of Adam’s obedience, but the physical cause only.
C. Want of influence and help from God to stand could not excuse Adam’s sin (207).
1. God was not bound by obligation to help him.
2. Man was bound by duty to depend upon God’s help, but God was not so bound to help him. God’s supernatural influences are not the rule of duty, but are exercises of his Sovereignty (207-208). [See comments in my previous post].
3. Adam only lacked influences of divine help by his own will and neglect (208).
4. God’s withdrawal of help followed Adam’s willingness to sin. (209). Citing Rutherford, Influence of the Life of Grace, 1.
5. Adam sinned willingly without compulsion and with delight in his sin (209). Gen. 3:6. [See WSC 13; WCF 6.1, which point to Adam and Eve being left to the council of their own wills and succumbing to Satan’s temptation, respectively]
D. The nature of Adam’s sin is best determined by Scripture. It is unnecessary to determine whether it was pride, pleasure, unbelief, or the want of divine influences (209). [For example, Wilhelmus a Brakel chose unbelief towards God and faith in Satan as the cause of the Fall] Rom. 5 calls it simply disobedience. Citing Augustine, Calvin, and Rivetus, further citing A. Burgess, Ball, Rutherford, Roberts, and Cocceius in the margin for more detail.
E. No man was predestined to life by means of the Covenant of Works, but only by the “way of free Gospel grace” obtained through faith in Christ (210). The Covenant of Works was not meant to continue but it gave way immediately to the first promise of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3:15. (211). [In his commentary on Genesis 1-3, Westminster divine John While argued that this text pitted the woman against the Serpent, Christ against Satan, and Christ’s people against Satan’s people. Petrus van Mastricht included a similar construction in his chapter on the Covenant of Grace, which revolves around this text]
1. Adam made that way of life impossible through sin. Rom. 10:3, 3:20. 8:3 (211).
2. God repealed all saving intent of the Covenant of Works in order to bring in the promise of eternal life by the Covenant of Grace (211-212). [See Herman Witsius on the Covenants for a similar point] Rom. 3:11; 4:15.
3. God took the occasion of Adam’s fall to bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel. 1 Tim. 1:10 (212). This was to the praise of God’s glory (Eph. 1:6) and to the increase of man’s happiness beyond his unfallen state. 1 Cor. 15:47.
4. The Lord used this opportunity to show the designs of his love in free grace (212).
a. By “setting up a new court of righteousness and life” through faith. Rom. 1:17; 3:21-22, etc.
b. If man will “come under the Covenant of Grace he shall be loosed from the sentence of the law.” Lk. 1:77-78; Rom. 7:4 (213).
c. The Lord keeps the Covenant of Works in force to convict men of their state of sin (213). Gal. 3:24-25; Rom. 10:4. [This explains why the commands and threats of the Covenant of Works remain under the Mosaic covenant, even though that Covenant was itself abolished as a way of life. Since the moral law constituted the terms of the Covenant of Works, the moral law always reminds sinners of the broken Covenant of Works without being conflated with that Covenant]
II. Uses (214)
A. The Covenant of Works shows the woeful condition of Adam’s posterity (214). Rom. 5; Jn. 5:24.
B. To humble man’s flesh and to beat down his pride under the consideration of what he lost through Adam (214). Rom. 7:24 (215).
C. “To admire the unsearchable riches of the Wisdom and Grace of God” (215). 2 Cor. 4:6. “Who but God could have raised man by his fall to a greater height of glory and happiness, could bring life out of death?” Rom. 5:20.
D. To excite us to change our covenant state “from Nature to Grace” (216).
1. All unregenerate man since the Fall continue under the Covenant of Works (217). Rom. 5:12. This includes both Original Sin and corruption of nature. [Original Sin entails the guilt of Adam’s first sin as well as the corruption of nature. Actual sin then flows from Original Sin as from a fountain. WSC 18]
2. A “short view” of those remaining under the Covenant of Works in order to alarm them to get out of that state (217).
a. He is in a state of bondage. Gal. 4:22ff, etc.
b. They are cut off from the hope of internal inheritance. Gal. 4:30; Eph. 2:12 (218).
c. They are under a covenant without a Mediator (218).
d. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.” Heb. 10:30-31 (218).
1. They must bring perfect obedience to God (219). Gal. 3:10.
2. Sin is imputed to them (219).
3. They have judgment without mercy and wrath without mixture (219).
4. This covenant rejects even their best works (219).
5. The Lord hates those who are under the Covenant of Works for their works’ sake (219).
6. All things become a curse to them (219). Ps. 69:22; Deut. 28:7. These things are preludi judicii futuri. [Trans: preludes to future judgments]
Observations
This last part of the outline brings Gillespie’s treatment of the Covenant of Works to practical resolution. It illustrates that Adam is responsible for the guilt of his sin under divine sovereignty and that those who have died in Adam are condemned in him as well. Yet the Covenant of Works was not the last word for fallen mankind. Not only did it result in the need for the Covenant of Grace, but the broken Covenant of Works paved the way for more excellent fellowship with God through redemption in Christ and our union with him through faith. The bottom line is that the gospel employs the Covenant of Works to drive sinners to Christ. The Covenant of Works could never serve this end apart from the gospel. We must recognize and acknowledge our sinfulness and misery in order to turn to Christ, who delivers us into “an estate of salvation” from both as our Redeemer (WSC 20).
We first mentioned Article 8 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion in our discussion of Article 2. We saw how the articles as a narrative whole link Article 8 and Article 2 on understanding the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. But we can also see how Article 8 concludes the triad of the Anglican rule of faith in a clear statement that the three central creeds of Anglicanism are the hallmarks of an authentic Christian faith because they summarize the doctrines of the Scripture.
VIII — Of the Three CreedsThe Three creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.
Article 8 is only slightly altered from the 1553 original by Thomas Cranmer. Archbishop Parker strengthens the quality of their reception in adding the phrase, "…and believed" after the clause, "ought thoroughly to be received." The Anglican divines understood that these three creeds were universally agreed across the Church, both east and west. They summarize the core doctrines of the catholic church. However, they also knew that merely having a creed is no guarantee that a church will be free from error. Creeds are not inspired, they are composed by sinful men (as Article 21 explains). Therefore, they must be subject to Scripture. The wording of the revision is important. The Latin original has the adverb omnino, “thoroughly,” “utterly,” “entirely." There is no room for disagreeing or even of taking exception at any point of the three creeds here. Grounded in sola scriptura, Anglicans are to uphold the three creeds ex animo in each and every clause they contain because "they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture."
When we search the historical formularies, we find that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer requires Anglicans to recite the Apostles Creed every day in Morning and Evening Prayer, and the Nicene Creed follows the reading of the Scriptures in the service of Holy Communion. Athanasius' Creed is required instead of the Apostles Creed on fourteen days during the Christian year that includes the five major gospel days of Christmas Day, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Pentecost, and Trinity Sunday. However, problems arise when creeds or confessions like the Thirty-nine Articles, are ignored or reinterpreted. The rise of the parish communion movement in the 1960’s Episcopal Church and the displacement of Sunday worship by an increasingly secular society has brought about the loss of public services of morning and evening prayer for one service of Holy Communion in our Anglican churches. When we add those who have come from evangelical churches that have minimalist “statements of faith” that function like the creeds but are poorly or carelessly written, we can start to see how of the three creeds the Apostles and Athanasian became irrelevant to North American Anglicans.
Thus, far from being a measure of biblical faithfulness as they were intended, they are seldom heard or taught, leading to even deeper divisions within Anglicanism on this continent. A sobering fact, especially in light of the opening and closing words of the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved must above all things hold the catholic faith, which except a man do believe wholly and undefiled, he shall perish everlastingly!" Why would the Athanasian Creed make such a claim? It is because our faith demands knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel, an active assent, and a continual trust in our Savior described in these biblical truths. The act of knowing, consenting, and trusting to the biblical beliefs of the Church is necessary for salvation. This is more than a recitation of the creeds, but certainly not less than this! The creeds are not just a quiz. They are a point-by-point summary of how you are saved. We need to hear them every week, if not every day.
Consider the solidarity in fellowship that the three creeds provide for Christians today. In countries where Christianity is a minority religion or restricted by the government and culture, to recite the creeds, and the biblical affirmations they share is a witness and sign of protest. It is one of the most counter-cultural things they, or any Christian, can do. There are a gradual narrowing and clarity in the creeds that separate the biblical gospel from other religions of the world. The creeds give us specificity.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the revival of North American Anglicanism is defined more by our political views: "Oh, you’re the ones against gay clergy and gay marriage." Never once being pulled back as being biblically faithful, apostolically historical, and profoundly Trinitarian because we confess and affirm ("I believe") the three creeds of Christendom. They are our pledge of allegiance. All three coming as they do in the structure of the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer after our confession of sin and hearing the refreshing good news of the gospel in the reading of the Scriptures and the singing of psalms, the three creeds bring us to the adoration of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Joel Beeke, the name of William Perkins (1558-1602) is becoming known again. The first two video addresses from the recent conference on Perkins are now available online (with several more to follow here):- "A Plain Preacher" by Sinclair Ferguson
- "William Perkins' Largest Case of Conscience" by Joel R. Beeke
As well, Reformation Heritge Books is in the process of re-packaging and re-publishing the massive Works of Perkins in ten volumes. The first four volumes that make up his exegetical works are now available on special offer for $130.
For more details on this new/old series of Perkins' works can be found at www.worksofperkins.com.
Thanks to our friends at The Banner of Truth we have two (2) copies of The Pastor in Prayer: A Collection of C.H. Spurgeon's Sunday Morning Prayers to give away.
USA mailing addresses only. One entry per household. Deadline to register is Friday, June 9.
Enter here.
Way back when (Feb. 15, 2010) in the previous incarnation of Meet the Puritans, I posted on John Owen's use of the phrase "spiritual revivalls" (sic.). This post was subsequently cited in Kenneth J. Stewart's Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition (p. 103 n10) as the evidence that Owen made the earliest use of the term revival in English despite the Oxford English Dictionary's attributing it to Cotton Matther in 1702. What follows is an expanded version of that orginal post.
If you listen to some of our modern American Reformed historians today, you've been led to believe that the buggaboo of (cue the spooky music) "revival" is an 18th century phenomenon of the First Great Awakening. You've been led to believe that every pastor who believes revival is a legitimate work of the Holy Spirit is a "revivalist" no different than Charles Finney and his ilk in the 19th century Second Great Awakening. There's just one teeny tiny problem with this presentation: it doesn't fit the evidence of history. The fact is, the concept of revival was not a 19th or even 18th century deviation from the Reformation. A case in point is the giant of 17th century English Reformed Orthodox theologian, John Owen. In "Letter 85: To Charles Fleetwood" written in 1674 (The Correspondence of John Owen, ed. Peter Toon, 159–160), Owen wrote at a time when he and his wife were sick, and he thought the Lord was preparing him for death. Listen to what he said to his close friend:
"The truth is, if we cannot see the latter rain in its season as we have seen the former, and a latter spring thereon, death, that will turne in the streams of glory unto our poor withering souls, is the best relief. I begin to feare that we shall die in this wilderness; yet ought we to labour and pray continually that the heavens would drop downe from above, and the skies poure downe righteousness—that the earth may open and bring forth salvation, and that righteousness may spring up together. If ever I return to you in this world, I beseech you to contend yet more earnestly than ever I have done, with God, with my own heart, with the church, to labour after spiritual revivalls."
When I originally posted this quote from Owen in an effort to recover this part of our tradition, one historian immediately rebuked me for "going after one of our own" and "abandoning the cause" while saying a la the great wide receiver Rod Tidwell "Show me the Latin!" Unfortunately Owen wrote the letter in English. I guess this is the Reformed version of "98% of climate scientists agree."
Notice again Owen's last phrase above: "to labour after spiritual revivalls." This exhortation was not penned by some 17th century Quaker or Shaker or 19th century advocate of "new measures" a la Finney, but arguably the greatest of English Reformed theologians. As a Reformed theologian this meant Owen believed Scripture to be principium cognoscendi—the basis of knowledge of God, his world, and his redemptive plan. We see that here in Owen's letter as he looks to the pattern of the biblical prophets for spiritual revival, citing Isaiah 45:8, "Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it" (KJV). Later, in his posthumously published treatise of 1684, Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ (Works 1, 395–396), we read Owen describing the reality that Jesus Christ at times withdraws our experience of him from us because of our sins:
"Do any of us find decays in grace prevailing in us;—deadness, coldness, lukewarmness, a kind of spiritual stupidity and senselessness coming upon us? Do we find an unreadiness unto the exercise of grace in its proper season, and the vigorous acting of it in duties of communion with God? and would we have our souls recovered from these dangerous diseases? Let us assure ourselves there is no better way for our healing and deliverance, yea, no other way but this alone,—namely, the obtaining a fresh view of the glory of Christ by faith, and a steady abiding therein. Constant contemplation of Christ and his glory, putting forth its transforming power unto the revival of all grace, is the only relief in this case; as shall farther be showed afterward."
Here Owen wrote that faith in and meditation upon Christ and his glory was the means by which we are revived from our spiritual slumber. What is fascinating is what he goes on to say in this regard:
"Some will say, that this must be effected by fresh supplies and renewed communications of the Holy Spirit. Unless he fall as dew and showers on our dry and barren hearts,—unless he cause our graces to spring, thrive, and bring forth fruit,—unless he revive and increase faith, love, and holiness in our souls,—our backslidings will not be healed, nor our spiritual state be recovered. Unto this end is he prayed for and promised in the Scripture. See Cant. iv. 16; Isa, xliv. 3, 4; Ezek, xl 19, xxxvi. 26; Hos. xiv. 5, 6. And so it is. The immediate efficiency of the revival of our souls is from and by the Holy Spirit. But the inquiry is, in what way, or by what means, we may obtain the supplies and communications of him unto this end. This the apostle declares in the place insisted on: We, beholding the glory of Christ in a glass, "are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even by the Spirit of the Lord." It is in the exercise of faith on Christ, in the way before described, that the Holy Spirit puts forth his renewing, transforming power in and upon our souls. This, therefore, is that alone which will retrieve Christians from their present decays and deadness."
Read closely what Owen says there. Some answered the question of how we are revived from spiritual decay by pointing to the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. To this Owen agreed: "And it is so." What Owen did, though, was to make the distinction between the efficient cause of revival—the Holy Spirit—and the instrumental cause—our faith in Christ and meditation upon his glory. What this illustrates is this: say what you want about the First and Second Great Awakenings and modern-day "revivalism," but the language and concept of "revival" is a part of the Reformed Orthodoxy of the 17th century that so many today who profess adherence to Reformed Orthodoxy reject. As a good Orthodox and Puritan theologian, Owen also noted in the above, that we labor for the Holy Spirit's work of revival not as mystics, pietists, revivalists, or Pentecostals, but by the "diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation," to cite the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 153. What are those means? There are many, such as meditation per Owen above, but especially the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. Use the means; wait for the Holy Spirit to bless them to our souls as he wills, when he wills, as much as he wills. This is Reformed revival according to John Owen.
