For Goodwin, the title of ‘the Word’ (ho logos) is not a reference to Christ being the thought or counsel of the Father’s mind since this ‘inclines too much unto the Notion of Plato, and other Heathen Philosophers’ (Of the Knowledge, 60). Goodwin is not unaware that the logos title had been used before John’s time by various Greek philosophers. However, in Goodwin’s mind, John refers to Christ as ‘the Word’ (logos) not because of Greek influences but because of the evidence in the Old Testament itself.

As a result, both Philo and Plato, by using the terminology of ‘ho logos’, are guilty of stealing ‘their knowledge from the Jews, and vend[ing] it as their own’ (Ibid, 62). Goodwin shows that the title, ‘the Word’, was used by the Jews, as a reference to the Messiah, in the Aramaic Targums, what Goodwin called the ‘Caldee Paraphrasts’ (Ibid). So, for example, Goodwin quotes the Isaiah Targum (Isa. 45:17) which makes several references to the divine Word (Memra). Hence, ‘Israel is saved by the Memra of the LORD with an everlasting salvation’. The KJV, based on the Masoretic Text (MT) in the OT, reads: ‘But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation’ (Isa. 45:17). Moreover, the MT text of Hosea 1:7 (… and will save them by the LORD their God …) is transliterated by the Aramaic Targum as ‘I will redeem them by the Word of the Lord their God.’

Referring to Christ as ‘the Word’, then, is Christologically loaded in terms of his divinity because of how the Aramaic Targums make use of the title, ‘the Word’ (Owen, 21:354). Not only, then, does the immediate context of John 1 show that Christ is the divine Word who existed in eternity, but the very fact that John calls Christ ‘the Word’ is evidence in itself for the deity of Christ because of how the Jews would have understood such terminology.

Here is where this short letter gets interesting. The Commissioners described their desire for their University and the training of men for the ministry in these words:

Wherein we desire that the educating of youth in the knowledge of God and the principles of piety may be in the first place promoted, experience having taught that where learning is attained before the work of grace upon the heart, it serves only to make a sharper opposition against the power of godliness (The Correspondence of John Owen, ed. Peter Toon, 50–51).

The two constituent parts that these Commissioners desired for a thoroughly Reformed and Puritan education were theology and piety. That sounded so odd to me as I read this letter, since I have been conditioned by our current theological training system in which what is emphasized is the school you go to (Westminster CA v. Westminster PA, RTS–Jackson v. Covenant, etc.), the degree you earn, the GPA you receive, your GRE score if you desire to go to grad school in a University, and the amount of reading you have done. Our current system is utterly focused on knowledge—systematics, biblical theology, exegesis, history, etc.

The Commissioners of the University of Dublin were on to something, though. Their experience taught them the necessity of piety in training students. What is interesting is how they qualify what they meant by piety: “where learning is attained before the work of grace upon the heart, it serves only to make a sharper opposition against the power of godliness.” Seminary students need to be born again, they need to be converted, and they need to have experienced the power of grace in their souls. Is it any different today?

Goodwin and Owen both wrote works on justification (and on the Holy Spirit).  There are, of course, similarities, but there are also differences.  Goodwin had a special concern with assurance and his work is more pastoral than Owen’s.  Owen’s work is technically superb, but I would rate Goodwin’s work above Owen’s on account of better pastoral emphases.

In his work on justification, Goodwin had a burden to maintain the graciousness of the covenant of grace. Chief among his concerns was that graces and grace had been confused, not only by the Arminians, Socinians, and Catholics, but by some of his own (Calvinistic) brethren who were heavily emphasizing the conditional character of the covenant of grace. For example, Goodwin writes:

“When Paul disputes, as we do against the papists, that no man is justified by works; what! doth he mean external works only? No; but he excludes from our justification our whole righteousness, both root and branch, the inward as the root, and the outward as the branches, because under works of the law is comprehended a complete conformity to the law, and to what the law requires, and so he means hereby inward as well as outward holiness …. And thus when the law forbids any evil work, it forbids original sin as well as actual, for the law binds the whole man” (8:292).

Richard Sibbes, who was a significant influence on Goodwin, was careful to sharply distinguish between justification and sanctification. Indeed, confusing justification with either sanctification or regeneration was tantamount to deserting the faith.

“But some others there are amongst us, that regard not Christ and his satisfaction alone, but join faith and works together in justification; they will have other priests, and other intercessors than Christ. Alas! beloved, how are these men fallen from Christ to another gospel, as if Christ were not an all-sufficient Saviour, and able to deliver to the uttermost! What is the gospel but salvation and redemption by Christ alone?” (Works, 1:388)

Ussher makes a similar point when he speaks of sola fide: [justification is] not considered as a virtue inherent in us, working by love; but only as an instrument or hand of the soul stretched forth to lay hold on the Lord our righteousness” (Ussher, 193).

These sentiments are, of course, standard Westminster orthodoxy where justifying faith is “not because of those other graces which doth always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (WLC, 73).

For Goodwin, then, the unconditional nature of the covenant of grace is essential to the doctrine of justification and assurance. Goodwin concludes: “He [who comes to faith] cannot rest on promises conditional, for he sees no qualifications of faith or any grace in himself” (8:245). Goodwin is so concerned to not make faith a work, as the Arminians do, that he is far more comfortable speaking of the covenant of grace as unconditional.

This comes out in Goodwin’s doctrine of assurance that Mike Horton has written on.  Goodwin came to the opinion that the subjective element (internal graces) were becoming unhelpful to his people and so, in trying to evade an overly-subjective view of assurance, he looked to the unconditional nature of the covenant of grace while, at the same time, holding to a “sealing-of-the-Spirit” view where believers, some time later in their lives, receive full assurance of their faith through the Spirit’s work.  This may raise some eyebrows, but what Goodwin was trying to do was emphasize the unilateral, unconditional aspect of the covenant of grace. Horton doesn’t think Goodwin succeeded – nor do I – but it’s an interesting point of historical reference nevertheless.

Francis Roberts wrote the longest work on covenant theology in the seventeenth century and his thoughts on grace in the covenant of works are interesting.  He argues that God’s entering into the covenant of works with Adam was an “act of divine grace and favour, not of debt” (God’s Covenants, 23).

God could have dealt only in terms of “command”, requiring duty from Adam without a reward.  However, because he condescended to Adam and entered into a covenant with him, it was “meer grace” (Ibid).  Roberts insists that Adam could not merit any reward.  In fact, even if Adam had rendered perfect obedience he would still have “been an unprofitable servant, having done nothing but what was duty” (Ibid).  On account of Creation, Adam owed God obedience.  On account of God instituting a covenant at creation, Adam had to be “double dutiful” (Ibid).  In fact, Roberts suggests that if God’s dealings with Adam in the covenant of works was an “Act of Divine Grace”, then God’s covenant of grace was an act of “superabounding and transcendent grace” (Ibid).

What is interesting is that Thomas Goodwin takes a rather different approach than Roberts, which is yet more evidence of the diversity among theologians in the Reformed tradition.  Sure, the covenant of works became firmly entrenched in our confessional tradition, but the details of the covenant of works have never been fully agreed upon.

Goodwin calls the estate into which man was born the estate of pure nature by “creation law”.  He recognizes that “our divines” rightly call it the Foedus Naturae, the Covenant of Nature (Goodwin also uses the term “covenant of works”).  This covenant is “founded upon an equitable intercourse set up between God the Creator, and his intelligent unfallen creatures, by virtue of the Law.”  We, as creatures, are therefore bound to deal with God according to that bond and obligation which is a result of the imago Dei.

Interestingly, Goodwin prefers, instead of “the covenant of works/nature”, the term “The Creation Law, Jus Creationis“.  In other words, “of what was equitable between God, considered merely as Creator, on one part; and his intelligent Creatures that were endued with understanding and will, on the other, simply considered as such creatures.”  This “law” between the Creator and creatures “lay in an equitable transaction between God and them, a congruity, dueness, meetness, on either part.”

Since God is Creator it became him to do for his creatures what was worthy of the Creator-creature relationship.  He was under no obligation to exceed what his position required as a Creator.  He gave all that was due for his creatures to attain their end of happiness because, as Creator, “his will regulated itself by what was meet for their (the creatures) Natures, as such, to receive from him, and for him as a Creator to give.”

During the pre-Fall administration, God bestowed “such faculties and powers, as the creature itself could any way judge requisite to his performing the work of a creature of an intelligent Nature.”   Specifically, then, when God created Adam and Eve, it became him to endow them with his own image of holiness “whereby they might be able to know, to love, and to enjoy a Communion with him … as their chiefest good.” Moreover, on God’s part, as a Creator, he was bound to continue his favor and goodness to Adam and Eve if they would remain in their estate of holiness.

Hence, the promise, “if you do these things, you will live”, was their life on account of “creation dues” and “an equity by creation law”. (All quotes from “Of the Creatures, and their Condition”, Works, 1691-1704, vol. II:20-21.)

Goodwin continues by asserting that though God bound himself to certain “dues” to his creatures, by virtue of his being, he was not obliged to preserve his creature in their state of innocence.  Importantly, Goodwin argues that we must not lay upon God any blame for the Fall (James 1:13-14). God stands free; it is “not upon prerogative, but Equity, that he is a Debtor unto Man.”  God was at perfect liberty to give or not to give what he had not compacted for.

Of course, Goodwin argued in this same work that Adam’s reward could not have been heavenly life; only Christ could merit such blessings.

Finally, regarding grace in the covenant of works, Thomas Boston says that “it was certainly an act of grace, favour, and admirable condescension in God, to enter into a covenant, and such a covenant, with his own creature.” For Boston, man was still bound to obey, perfectly, before the covenant “in virtue of his natural dependence on God.” Man could not have “required eternal life as a reward of his work” before the covenant. The entering into the covenant was itself an act of grace.  However, once the covenant had been instituted, man “may crave the reward on the ground of the covenant.” (T. Boston, The Complete Works of the Late  Rev. Thomas Boston, 12 Vols. (1853; repr., Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1980), VIII:18-19).

The Scot, Hugh Binning, describes grace in the covenant of works in the following way:

there were some outbreakings of the glorious grace and free condescendency of God; for it was no less free grace and undeserved favour to promise life to his obedience, than now to promise life to our faith. So that if the Lord had continued that covenant with us, we ought to have called it grace, and would have been saved by grace as well as now (Common Principles of Christian Relg., lec. 6).

There are, of course, a number of issues that need to be discussed in relation to what has been said.  There are important reasons, both theological and exegetical, why the majority of Reformed theologians have spoken of grace in the covenant of works; and, as you well know, there are reasons why a small minority (very, very small) have resisted the language of grace in the Adamic administration.

So, you see, there are some real points of disagreement on this issue, and I haven’t even touched on Adam’s reward, which was either continued life in Eden or the reward of heaven.  Important Christological issues are connected with this issue!

Notice the similarities. First, from “Of Christ the Mediator”:

Now the next thing to be considered is, how this motion takes with Christ’s heart, which his Father makes, and what he says to it, how he answers it again, and how willingly. And this is as necessary as the former; for besides that it could not be forced on him; for, John v. 26, ‘the Father hath given him to have life in himself, and so to have power over his life.’ John X. 18, ‘I have power over my life, and none can take it from me.’ Besides that, if it came not of him freely, it had not been satisfactory; for satisfactio est redditio voluntaria, it must be a voluntary payment; and as our disobedience was free, so must his satisfaction be. Though he had at last yielded, yet if he sticks at it we are undone, if he makes but an objection. And is it not infinite love he should not, being he was the party to undergo so much debasement?

How did the eldest son’s stomach rise, when but the fat calf was killed for the prodigal? But the eldest, only begotten Son of God, must sacrifice himself for enemies (not the sacrificing of worlds would serve, whereof he could have created enough), and yet not a thought did arise contrary to the Father’s will. So his own words, in answer to the former call of his Father, do shew, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,’ Heb. x.7. The Psalmist, from whence the words are borrowed, hath it, ‘I delight to do thy will,’ Ps. xl. 8. ‘Lo, I come’ (says Christ); I am as ready, as forward, O God, as thou to have me; not willing only, but glad; I delight to do thy will. As the sun rejoiceth to run his race, so the Sun of righteousness to run his, for he was ‘anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows,’ Ps. xlv. 7. He was as glad to do this work as ever he was to eat his meat: John iv. 34, ‘Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.’ ‘With desire’ (saith he) ‘have I desired it’: Luke xxii. 15, ‘And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.’ He longed as much, and was as much pained, as ever woman with child longed to be delivered, till this work was accomplished. Luke xii. 50, ‘But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.’ Christ the Mediator, Works, 5:24

Alright then, now notice that Goodwin uses essentially the same wording in his sermon upon Heb. X, 4-7 called “The One Sacrifice.” I would also like to point out that the similarities are even more obvious in the 1691-1704 edition of Goodwin’s Works because the Nichols editors were rather free in their editing. Hence, there are a few differences in these comparisons that are not in the original edition.

Now then, the second thing remains, how the motion takes with Christ, which his Father makes to him, which was as necessary as the former. For besides that, it could not have been forced on him; for John v. 26, the Father hath given him life in himself, and so to have power over his life: John x.18, ‘I have power over my life, and none can take it from me.’ I say besides, that if it come not off freely, it had not been satisfactory; satisfactio est redditio voluntaria. Our disobedience was free, so must his satisfaction be, ‘ a free will offering of himself.’ God stands more upon the will than the deed; as a kindness is spoked in the doing if it be unwillingly done, so would his satisfaction be. This therefore is another difficulty, and but that his Father struck in so, likely to have been greater than the former. Though he had at last yielded. yet if he sticks as it we are undone; if he makes but one objection, we perish. And is it not infinite love that he should not, being the party to undergo such debasement?

How did the eldest son’s stomach rise when but the fatted calf was killed for the prodigal? But he, the eldest, only begotten Son, must sacrifice himself (worlds would not serve, whereof he could have created enough) for enemies. but not a thought arose contrary to his Father’s will. So his own words in the text shew, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,’ The Psalm, from whence the words are borrowed, Ps. xl. 8., hath it, ‘I delight to do thy will. As the sun rejoiceth to run his race, so the Sun of righteousness to run his, for he was ‘anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows,’ Ps. xlv. 7. As glad as ever he was to eat his meat: John iv. 34, ‘With desire have I desired it,’ yea, and longed as much pain as ever woman with child longed to be delivered, Luke xii. 50. Sermon on Heb. X.4-7, Works, 5:497.

There are a number of small differences and omissions/additions. But, generally, the wording is the same, the Latin phrase is the same, and the proof-texts are the same. I wonder how common it was for writers to simply copy from other places in their writings? By the way, in the original Works (1691-1704), Goodwin does not cite his own work.

1. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, pages 418-419. For example, Witsius writes:

Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge, being delegated to that office by the Father, Acts x.42. Acts xvii. 32. will pronounce two things concerning his elect. 1st. That they are truly pious, righteous and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former; for by that the ungodly is justified, Rom. iv.5. Whereas here, God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, ‘gather my saints together’ … these words refer to the last judgment …. The ground of the former is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the Spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom …

2. Thomas Goodwin. See: Works, 7:181ff. Goodwin affirms a double justification by God; the first authoritative, the second declarative or demonstrative.

3. John Owen. See: Works, 5:161ff. Similarly to Goodwin, Owen argues that while we are not justified on account of our works, God will judge all men, “and rendereth unto all men, at the last judgment, according to their works”(5:161). Furthermore, the “end of God in the last judgment is the glory of his remunerative righteousness, 2 Tim. 4:8)” (Ibid).

4. John Calvin. Institutes, III.17.10.  For example, Calvin writes: “As we ourselves, when we have been engrafted into Christ, are righteous in God’s sight because our iniquities are covered by Christ’s sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are thus regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ’s purity, and is not charged to our account. Accordingly, we can deservedly say that by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified” (Institutes. III.17.10).

5. Samuel Rutherford. The Covenant of Life Opened. Actually, this work is more frustrating than enjoyable for me; it’s way too verbose.

6. Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p. 94ff.

7. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 261-287.

8. Herman Ridderbos, Paul …, pp. 178-81 (“Judgment According to Works”)

9. John Murray, Commentary on Romans, pp. 78-79.

10. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, pp. 181-86.

Owen continues: “Wherever fear and caution have not infused the student’s heart, God is despised.  His pleasure is only to dwell in hearts which tremble at His Word.  Light or frivolous perusal of the Scriptures is a sickness of soul which leads on to the death of atheism” (699).

Moreover, according to Owen, it is imperative, for the good of the student, “that he carefully weigh up and monitor what progress he is making both (a) in all of the truth which he is busy digging out of the Word, and (b) in acceptable worship of God. Let the latter be the first and main purpose of all his studies and meditations in the Holy Scriptures….Our studies are useless if they do not teach us about our own standing before God and our Lord Jesus.” (700)

The blogosphere is no doubt filled with godless fools who rampage around insulting others they have never personally met and would never speak in the tone they do if they were face-to-face with the person.  In Seminaries in particular you will no doubt find a host of students who are quite willing to polemicize with one another, but have never prayed with their fellow classmates.

Owen continues, “If a student has labored merely to equip his mind with a store of facts, and has neglected the high and holy means of sacred meditation, he will look in vain for progress in his labors, for any real or practical value to the Church at large – or for his own eternal security” (Ibid).

Another point Owen reminds us of is the importance of the original languages, Greek and Hebrew: “Not only is this the only well from which we can draw the original force and meaning of the words and phrases of divine utterance, but also those languages (esp. Hebrew) possess a weight of their own – a vividness which brings home to the understanding fine shades of meaning with power which cannot survive the passage into another tongue.”

Lastly, all of our study should be “preceded, accompanied, and closed by continuous and heart-felt prayer. This is the most effectual means ordained of God for discovering that heavenly wisdom for which we are seeking” (701).  Again, how many people blast others on the internet after having had serious dealings with God in prayer?

At an earlier point in Owen’s magnificent treatise, he speaks of youths “who profess to have dedicated themselves to this study but who have hardly gone further in evangelical studies than the reading of three or four volumes, to behave as if they alone were the experts, and to consider that they are deserving of a glorious reputation among the great scholars. Such arrogance.  Better it would be if such Suffenuses did not also go on to despise those who are truly endowed with the wisdom that they so foolishly boast of having attained to” (592).  In line with this contention, Owen quotes Seneca approvingly: “Many might have attained to wisdom, if they had not thought that they already had it!” (Ibid).

It is interesting in Owen’s work that he breaks forth into prayers! For example, in his work he actually writes: “Dear Lord Jesus, in your infinite mercy, never allow me, the chief and greatest of sinners, to ever think that I am indebted to You by fewer or lesser ties of gratitude than I am, or in any degree to reduce or slight that merciful grace which is dearer to me than life and soul itself” (625).  I can’t imagine publishers allowing this sort of doxology in the middle of a work on Christology.  Plus, imagine the loss of academic credibility?

In Thomas Goodwin’s sermons on Hebrews he speaks to this matter as well (see Works5:529):

It may humble young Christians, that think, when they are first converted, that they have all knowledge, and therefore take upon them to censure men that have been long in Christ; and out of their own experience they will frame opinions, comparing but a few notes together. Alas, ye know but a piece of what you shall know! When you have been in Christ ten or twenty years, then speak; then those opinions which you have now will fall off, and experience will show them to be false. They think themselves as Paul, that nothing can be added unto them; but what says Paul, 1 Cor. 13:11? “When I was a child,” He takes a comparison from a child, as being a man, but raised up to his spiritual estate, and thou also wilt then ‘put away childish things.’

If God in former ages did reveal himself but by piecemeal, and if that piecemeal knowledge, which they had by inch and inch, did make them holy; for how holy was Enoch and Abraham that had but one promise; then how much more holy should we be, that have had so full a discovery! If one promise wrought so much on their hearts, how much more should so many promises on ours!”

These are timely reminders to those of us who have itching fingers or those of us engaged in theological studies, whether young or old.  The Puritans not only knew how to write good theology, but they also focused on how we do that theology.

I suppose I’m one of those Presbyterians who believe that salvation is more than justification.  Just as I affirm that we are justified through faith alone, I also affirm that we cannot enter heaven unless we are also sanctified (i.e. made holy).  In other words, moral renovation is necessary!  This may sound to some like Shepherdism, but I think such language sounds more like the majority of our Reformed orthodox forefathers.

Geerhardus Vos has noted that Reformed theologians have, unlike the Lutherans, included evangelical/new obedience as a condition of the covenant of grace because salvation is broader than justification (see “Doctrine of Covenant … p. 234, note 1).  John Owen, for example, argued that faith and new obedience are conditions of the new covenant.  Francis Turretin suggests that “there is not the same relation of justification and of the covenant through all things. To the former, faith alone concurs, but to the observance of the latter other virtues also are required besides faith” (Inst. II.189).  I would commend to you reading Turretin’s argument (17^th Topics) on the question whether good works are necessary for salvation, a question that he affirms.

Consider “A New Confession of Faith”, written after the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was penned by both Congregationalists and Presbyterians in 1654.  Authors included Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Philip Nye, Sydrach Simpson, Richard Vines, and Thomas Manton.  The language of the Confession on the need for godliness is striking:

XII. All true believers are partakers of Iesus Christ and all his benefits freely by grace, and are justified by faith in him, and not by works, he being made of God righteousness unto us.

XIII. That no man can be saved unlesse he be born again of the holy Spirit, Repent, Believe, and walk in holy conversation and godliness.

XIV. That whosoever do not prize and love Iesus Christ above himself, and all other things, cannot be saved.

XV. Whosoever allows himself to live in any known sin, upon any pretence or principle whatsoever, is in a state of damnation.

They certainly do not deny sola fide; but, importantly, they also maintain that holiness is a necessary component of the Christian life; and they language they use is rather strong.

The famous English theologian, John Ball, makes a similar statement regarding the necessity of good works: “In the Covenant of Nature obedience and workes were commanded as the cause of life and justification: in the Covenant of Grace, Faith is required as the instrumental cause of Remission and Salvation, obedience as the qualification of the party justified, and the way leading to everlasting blessedness” (Covenant of Grace, p. 26).

Robert Shaw, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, writes similarly: “Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are ‘heirs of the grace of life.’” (this can be found in the chapter on “good works”).

The Bible is pretty clear on this: “For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13).  Christ died to make us holy (2 Peter 2:24), which is a blessing since without holiness no one will see God (Heb. 12:14).

We don’t need to mess around with justification to talk about the necessity of holiness.  The doctrine of sanctification will look after that just fine.   Let’s be clear, good works are not necessary for justification, but they are for salvation.  I think the Puritans had such a robust doctrine of sanctification because they believed, like Sinclair Ferguson and Richard Gaffin, that both justification and sanctification were benefits of being brought into union with Christ.  There may be a logical order, but one is as necessary as the other.

Because of the above, not a few people accuse the Puritans of being moralists.  This is regrettable, principally because there were Puritans who were antinomians and there were Puritans who vigorously opposed antinomianism.  As I’ve argued before, theologically speaking, the term Puritanism is as problematic as it is helpful.  But it is even more regrettable that the accusation is completely unfounded.  When people accuse the Puritans of being moralists we might ask them who they are talking about and what they mean by “moralism”.

It seems to me that the Apostle Paul would have preached on justification in such a way that he would have been called an antinomian.  But that same Apostle also wrote Romans 8:13!  He evidently saw no tension with the doctrine of justification when he said that you must put to death your sinful nature if you are to live, and I hope we don’t, either.

Both Thomas Goodwin and John Owen held to weekly communion.  In Owen’s work, Brief Instruction in the Worship of God (1667), he writes: ‘How often is that ordinance to be administered? …. Every first day of the week, or at least as often as opportunity and conveniency may be obtained’ (Works, 15:512).  For the most part, however, the Supper was administered once a month where Owen ministered.

Goodwin’s point of departure for discussing the how often the Lord’s Supper ought to be administered is Acts 2:42. The ‘breaking of bread’ is a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Acts 2:42ff speaks of the customs of Christians, that is, what they did continually (Works, 11:390). Goodwin’s argument proceeds along the lines of the regulative principle. He makes the distinction between the elements of worship (e.g. prayer, reading of Scripture, preaching, sacraments) and the circumstances (time, place, etc.). Regarding the circumstances, in his time, 9am was the best time for meeting on the Lord’s day to allow for preparation before.

The congregation should also meet in the afternoon (after meals), ‘to prevent dulness, or hurt by indigestion’ (Ibid, 391). The question Goodwin sets before the reader is whether the Lord’s Supper falls under an element or a circumstance of worship. And this has constitutive significance, for ‘when God hath once stamped his institution on a thing, about his worship, man is not to stamp his, for it were a false coinage, which is against God’s prerogative’ (Ibid, 393).

Regarding how often the Lord’s Supper should be administered, ‘there must necessarily be an institution somewhere in Scripture left and to be found. This has reference to many aspects of congregational life, like the Lord’s day. God commands the setting apart of the Lord’s day because if it were left to man, ‘the public worship of God would soon have fallen to the ground’ (Ibid, 398). Another point of interest concerns ‘… the papists, who alone bore the face of the church many hundred years, … because they thought the institution thereof every week to be apostolical (being sounder in the point than many of our divines), therefore they have transmitted the observation of it every week, down unto our times’ (Ibid). The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a continual standing ordinance that finds its root in the Lord’s day itself which gives rise to the ordinances of God.

The Lord’s Supper is the ‘only proper badge of the church’s communion; and in this respect church members are called ‘one bread,’ as well as ‘one body,’ and therefore they are to take it together’ (Ibid, 402). But does this mean ‘every week’? After all, as Goodwin recognizes, ‘The Apostle seems there (1 Cor. 11:26) to speak of it as an indefinite ordinance, and not as a continual …’ (Ibid, 403). However, 1 Cor. 11:26 does not refer to the frequency of the supper, ‘but only to inform them of the high end, and nature, and intention of this ordinance …. It is a manner of speech’ explaining to them what actually happens when they partake of the Lord. Therefore, Acts 2:42 is determinative for the life of the church and has pointed application (demands) for the church and how, each Lord’s day, she is to conduct herself. The logical result, then, is that God commands the ‘breaking of bread’ as an ordinance of perpetual administration for the building of his church.

Further, if the Lord’s Supper is not to be administered each week, , ‘there would be nothing to determine and call for ordinances, so as to oblige the conscience. And so such ordinances … should have become the most uncertain …’ (Ibid, 406). And the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is for the good of the church:

As good housekeepers have some constant provision of store, as corn, beef, and the like, beside all occasional dainties that, like fowl and fish, come in to their tables, so God hath laid up all spiritual provisions for us; and to be sure you have Christ himself for one standing dish continually served up to you … a dish that fills all, and serves all tastes … Many things in a sermon thou understandest not … but here to be sure (in the Lord’s Supper) thou mayest … Of sermons, some are for comfort, some to inform, and some to excite; but here in the sacrament is all thou canst expect’ (Ibid, 408).

Goodwin, who is usually quite irenic in his writings, becomes rather polemic in suggesting that those who determine when the Lord’s Supper should be, whether yearly, as the papists, or quarterly, are arrogant.

‘I will never believe that God would trust officers with settling such circumstances of worship … No; God would never have left matters of so great importance at uncertainties; he would never have left the revenues of his crown lands to those landlords … And the fruit of their assuming power you may see in the Lord’s Supper, which is absolutely by them commanded to be received at some certain times of the year, no oftener than necessary to be received, which is their poor allowance for that ordinance’ (408).

Incidentally, in the church where I minister we only observe the Lord’s Supper monthly.  But, clearly, the desire of Goodwin and Owen was for weekly observance.  The question I have for those who practice weekly communion is this: if Word and Sacrament must go together, then why don’t you practice communion twice on Sundays, assuming you have a morning and evening service?