If you listen to some in the modern American Reformed movement today, you would be led to think that the concept of revival is an 18th century phenomenon. You would also be led to think that everyone who believes in revival is a “revivalist,” that is, one who is no different than Charles Finney and his ilk in the 19th century. There’s at least one little problem with this presentation: it does not fit the evidence of history. The fact is, the concept of revival was not an 18th century concoction of those in the “First Great Awakening.” A case in point is the giant of 17th century English Reformed orthodoxy, 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.”

Notice that last phrase: “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.”

Later, in his posthumously published treatise of 1684, Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, in His Person, Office, and Grace: with the Differences Between Faith and Sight; Applied unto the Use of Them That Believe (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 “due use of the ordinary means,” to cite the Westminster Standards. What are those means? The Word, the sacraments, prayer, meditation, etc.

Allow me to engage in some practical reflections. These observations have far reaching consequences for the human race. All faith ultimately rests upon the testimony of another rather than upon bare evidence. This is the primary point of John Owen’s (1616–1683) book, The Reason of Faith (Works, 3:1ff). Owen argued that it is the nature of faith to rest upon the authority of testimony.  For this reason, the primary reason why believers have faith in the divine authority of Scripture is that God Himself has spoken. In light of a Brakel’s comments, it is interesting that Adam and Eve accepted the word of the serpent without prior evidence. Their true trial was considering whether they would rest upon the authority of God alone, or upon the authority of a creature. This accurately describes the history of faith in the Triune God versus unbelief ever since man’s Fall into sin. Those who reject the Word of God act as though they do so upon evidence, but they have unknowingly believed the lie of Satan by faith. The ultimate lie of Satan is that man’s reason and judgment rather than God determines the nature of reality, truth and falsehood, and right and wrong. Was this not the sin of our first parents?

Today, people trust in the authority of scholars who assure them that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, or that Christianity has perverted the story of the “real Jesus.” People rest upon the authority of scientists to tell them about the origins of the universe rather than the Word of God. When individuals consider the diversity of religious opinions among humanity, many conclude that no one can know “the meaning of life” or that all truth is relative, otherwise all human beings would agree over these questions. The thread that ties all of these thought together is faith in the creature rather than faith in the creature. If man cannot determine truth by himself, then there must be no such thing as truth. Conversely, what man has determined to be “true” is true, regardless of what God or anyone else says to the contrary.

At the bottom of our thinking, we all rest upon the testimony of someone by faith. What a Brakel illustrates is that, like Adam and Eve, our faith either rests upon the Word of God or the word of a creature. Fallen human beings have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, by believing Satan’s original lie to our first parents. The question that continues to confront the human race continues to be, “Whose authority shall you receive by faith: God’s or the creatures?” Do not be devieved when the non-Christian tells you that you rest upon faith and that they rest upon reason and evidence. As with Adam and Eve, all reason and evidence begins with faith in some authority. Just as we receive justification by faith in Christ, our first parents received damnation by faith in the serpent.

(ADDENDUM: In another place, one friend has criticized me of reading Van Tillian presuppositionalism into Protestant Scholasticism. This is not a “scholarly” post, but a meditation, yet let me say here that I by no means impute Van Tillianism into the Protestant Scholastics such as a Brakel. There are significant differences between them. I will simply say this, let us hold to our differing positions on apologetics, yet be sure to read Richard Muller (PRRD vol. 1) on the manner in which the use of reason and natural theology shifted substantially in Reformed Orthodoxy following the Enlightenment. I fear that many modern discussions of apologetics do not adequately taken into account the diversity of views in the history of the Reformed tradition on this point.)

That beats working at Starbucks, right?

You’ll also get copies of the books I’m editing and writing.

When the spouse hath gone thus far in the description of him, she concludes all in this general assertion: “He is wholly desirable,—altogether to be desired or beloved.” As if she should have said,—”I have thus reckoned up some of the perfections of the creatures (things of most value, price, usefulness, beauty, glory, here below), and compared some of the excellencies of my Beloved unto them. In this way of allegory I can carry things no higher; I find nothing better or more desirable to shadow out and to present his loveliness and desirableness: but, alas! all this comes short of his perfections, beauty, and comeliness; ‘he is all wholly to be desired, to be beloved;’”—

Lovely in his person,—in the glorious all-sufficiency of his Deity, gracious purity and holiness of his humanity, authority and majesty, love and power.

Lovely in his birth and incarnation; when he was rich, for our sakes becoming poor,—taking part of flesh and blood, because we partook of the same; being made of a woman, that for us he might be made under the law, even for our sakes.

Lovely in the whole course of his life, and the more than angelical holiness and obedience which, in the depth of poverty and persecution, he exercised therein;—doing good, receiving evil; blessing, and being cursed, reviled, reproached, all his days.

Lovely in his death ; yea, therein most lovely to sinners;—never more glorious and desirable than when he came broken, dead, from the cross. Then had he carried all our sins into a land of forgetfulness; then had he made peace and reconciliation for us; then had he procured life and immortality for us.

Lovely in his whole employment, in his great undertaking,—in his life, death, resurrection, ascension; being a mediator between God and us, to recover the glory of God’s justice, and to save our souls,— to bring us to an enjoyment of God, who were set at such an infinite distance from him by sin.

Lovely in the glory and majesty wherewith he is crowned. Now he is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; where, though he be terrible to his enemies, yet he is full of mercy, love, and compassion, towards his beloved ones.

Lovely in all those supplies of grace and consolations, in all the dispensations of his Holy Spirit, whereof his saints are made partakers.

Lovely in all the tender care, power, and wisdom, which he exercises in the protection, safe-guarding, and delivery of his church and people, in the midst of all the oppositions and persecutions whereunto they are exposed.

Lovely in all his ordinances, and the whole of that spiritually glorious worship which he hath appointed to his people, whereby they draw nigh and have communion with him and his Father.

Lovely and glorious in the vengeance he taketh, and will finally execute, upon the stubborn enemies of himself and his people.

Lovely in the pardon he hath purchased and doth dispense,—in the reconciliation he hath established,—in the grace he communicates,— in the consolations he doth administer,—in the peace and joy he gives his saints,—in his assured preservation of them unto glory.

What shall I say? there is no end of his excellencies and desirableness;—”He is altogether lovely. This is our beloved, and this is our friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Works, 2:77–78 )

Happy reading.

One main point that flowed out of this liberty and that is of immense practical relevance today is in regards to pastoral prayer. Owen’s point was simple and powerful: Jesus Christ gifts those who serve as his ministers with all they need to accomplish their ministry, not only in terms of preaching, but also in terms of praying publicly. In what follows let me present Owen’s argument and then make some applications for us today.

Owen’s Teaching

Owen contrasted the ordinances of worship under Moses, which were many and burdensome, with those ordinances instituted under Christ in the New Covenant, which were few, and consisted of “preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline,” and all “with prayer and thanksgiving”(Works, 15:8, 10).

Importance of Ephesians 4

In proposing this, Owen went on to substantiate this spiritual ability of prayer that Christ has given pastors to administer his worship in an exposition of one of his favorite texts: Ephesians 4. How were pastors enabled to build up the Church? Based on Ephesians 4 Owen said, “by the communication of grace and spiritual gifts from heaven unto them by Christ himself” (Works, 15:11). God had done this with the Levites of the Old Testament, enabling their shoulders to bear the ark and their arms to slay the sacrifices. Now that these ordinance were removed and the gospel’s spiritual worship put in their place, God again has “undertaken to supply the administrators of it with spiritual strength and abilities for the discharge of their work, allowing them supply of the defect of that which he hath taken upon himself to perform” (Works, 15:11). In summary, Owen’s point was that since the Lord Jesus Christ delivered his disciples from the yoke of Mosaic ceremonies, God has appointed the ordinances, those to be ordained to administer them, and the gifts necessary to administer these ordinances in the New Covenant (Works, 15:12).

Why was this so important to Owen? It was because of the context in which he pastored and wrote. The prelates of the restored Church of England justified their imposition of the Book of Common Prayer by insisting that the apostles used liturgies. Owen saw this as a denigrating of the ministry, and therefore of Christ himself. In a moment of sarcastic humor, Owen said that anyone who believed Peter composed forms of prayer and homilies for the disciples “must fetch his evidence out of the same authors that he used who affirmed that Jesus Christ himself went up and down singing masses!” (Works, 15:16) Underlying the prelates’ position was the objection that while the apostles had extraordinary gifts, ordinary ministers did not have these gifts and therefore needed the Prayer Book. Those who desired to impose a liturgy said the ministers of England had a disability “to celebrate and administer the ordinances of the gospel, to the honour of God and edification of the church, without the use of them” (Works, 15:17). Owen responded by saying that if the bishops and pastors after the apostles did not need forms of prayer, from where did their ability to pray and lead the people of God come? If their ability came from Jesus Christ, did these ordinary bishops and pastors have any gifts beyond what Jesus promised? Moreover, if this was the case with these ordinary ministers, did Jesus promise these gifts for all ordinary ministers to the end of the world? (Works, 15:17–18) Again, Owen said that to say Christ’s provision was not sufficient for goals of edification and glorification or that he no longer gifted ministers as he did with the apostles were both “equally blasphemous; the one injurious to his wisdom, the other to his truth, both to his love and care of his church” (Works, 15:48).

Evidence from the Church Fathers

In refuting the imminent imposition of the Prayer Book, Owen delved into patristic history to show that there was not “any attempt to invent, frame, and compose any liturgies for prescribed forms of administering the ordinances of the gospel.” He even cited the Roman cardinal, Baronius, who said the ancient churches’ practice of prayer “is wholly silent as to the use of any forms amongst them” (Works, 15:21, 22). Owen adduced the writings of Eusebius, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, especially noting that Origen, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr spoke not of imposed prayers, but only described prayers that were offered. Justin even spoke of prayer “according to our abilities” (Works, 15:22, 23; cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 67).

Improving Christ’s Gifts

To say that Christ no longer gifted his ministers as he did the apostles was either blasphemy because it meant he no longer kept his promise or it was an indictment upon ministers who were negligent and careless in not improving whatever gifts they did have. It was incumbent, then, upon ministers to stir up and make effectual their gifts. As Owen said, in an expression of his experimental theology,

I suppose all impartial men will grant that there ought to have been a return unto Him endeavoured from whom that were gone astray . . . Finding themselves at the loss wherein they were, should they not have searched their hearts and ways, to consider wherefore it was that the presence of Christ was so withdrawn from them, that they were so left without the assistance which other ministering in their places before them had received? Should not they have pulled out their single talent, and fallen to trading with it, that it might have increased under their care? Was not this the remedy and cure of the breach made by them, that God and man expected from them? Was it just, then, and according to the mind of Christ, that, instead of an humble returnal unto a holy, evangelical dependence on himself, they should invent an expedient to support them in the condition wherein they were, and so make all such returnal for hereafter needless? (Works, 15:27–28).

So what of those in the ministry who seemed not to be gifted as others? Owen’s first response was to question their calling: “I shall desire them to consider whether indeed such persons be rightly called unto the ministry . . . there seems to be a direct failure of the promise of Christ, which is blasphemy to imagine” (Works, 15:48–49). Owen’s second response was more positive. Those who were truly called but did not feel they had the requisite gifts needed were called upon “to stir up the gifts that they have received by the use and exercise of them” (Works, 15:49).

Since the using of Christ’s gifts edifies the church, Owen inquired how these gifts “may be improved, so that they may ‘excel to the edifying of the church,’ which is expressly required of them” (Works, 15:52). The word “improve” was used in the seventeenth century to mean using something in a profitable way; to benefit from something (e.g., Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 167). How does a minister do this? “Edification, then, depends on the improvement of gifts, and the improvement of gifts on their due exercise according to the mind of Christ” (Works, 15:52). To improve the gift of prayer a minister had to use his gift. This meant he needed to pray, and not merely to read. This was essential as any lack of exercise of these gifts, whether by neglect or hindrance of them by others, was to hinder the church’s edification (Works, 15:53).

Contemporary Application

What can we learn from John Owen’s teaching on pastoral prayer in A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their Imposition? There are four areas of application that I believe are good and necessary for us to draw from his work.

First, he would have us as pastors and those studying for the ministry pray fervently that the Lord would enable us to “fan into flame the gift of God” within us (2 Tim. 1:6; ESV). We must not neglect our gifts (1 Tim. 4:14) but must improve them. Paul uses a word here in 2 Timothy 1:6, anazopurein, that is used nowhere else in the New Testament. This word signifies giving new life to a fire; to rekindle it. We fan our gift, which is likened to a flame, as Owen said, by using our gift. One of his contemporaries, Matthew Poole (1624–1679), elucidated upon this idea when he said,

He adviseth him to put new life unto that holy fire (the word signifies the recovering of fire choked with ashes or decaying) which God had kindled in him, by daily prayer, and meditating on the things of God and use of his gifts, improving those spiritual abilities which God had given him (A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Volume III: Matthew–Revelation, 791).

To fan into flame our gift of prayer we need to pray in private, we need to mediate upon the Word and the Lord, and we need to use our gift in public.

Second, Owen would have pastors and ministerial students study prayer and pray during their study. To study prayer may seem an odd suggestion, but it is helpful. While the Holy Spirit teaches us how to pray by praying through us (Rom. 8:26), he also uses the means of other ministers as models of prayer. The studious pastor and student should be acquainted with the development of liturgical prayer from the patristic era through the modern period by acquaintance with Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, and William D. Maxwell, An Outline of Christian Worship: Its Development and Forms. To read some of the best prayers in the Reformed tradition, we need to read Charles W. Baird, The Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches. Two of the great Puritan works that deal with public prayer are William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, and Matthew Henry, A Method for Prayer. Finally, two recent works that discuss and give samples of prayer are Hughes Oliphant Old, Leading in Prayer: A Workbook for Worship, and Terry Johnson, Leading in Worship.

We also need to pray during our study. Reading and translating Hebrew and Greek, reading commentaries, and writing sermons must not be academic or perfunctory. It must be saturated in prayer. I have found the longer I am in the ministry the less time I take in actually reading and writing and the more time I spend praying over what I have read and written as I prepare for preaching on the Lord’s Day.

Third, Owen would have us challenge ourselves. If fanning into flame our gift of prayer means that we need to exercise ourselves in public prayer, then we need to challenge ourselves week after week to pray in public and not merely to read prayers. To young ministers I would issue this challenge: at the beginning of your ministry write out your prayers as you do your sermons, but little by little take less and less into the pulpit until you are able to pray extemporaneously. When we challenge ourselves in this holy manner, we decrease and the Lord increases; we are humbled and he is exalted; we are weak but he is strong. And in doing this, the Lord will begin to use us in leading our people before the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16).

Fourth and finally, Owen would have our institutions that prepare men for the ministry to teach public prayer. Speaking from a North American vantage point, the “art of prophesying” has been falsely divided. Our seminaries teach preaching, but not prayer. For the Puritan father William Perkins, these two were held together. The art of prophesying meant both the art of preaching as well as praying. In the former, students need to be taught how to speak from God to his people, but in the latter, how to speak from the people to their God.

According to John Owen, then, Jesus Christ as head of the Church has gifted those who minister in his name to exercise their ministry for his people’s edification and for the glory of God. We need to believe this; and believing, we need to act upon it, working hard to fan our flame in studied prayer, in challenging ourselves to pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in teaching our students to do so as doctors, professors, theologians, and pastors.