It’s what he goes on to say, though, that is really the substantive material. If the Spirit is Christ’s vicar in this age, what does that mean for us? Let me let Owen speak for himself:

Some begin to say in our days, that Christ is no otherwise present than by the outward ordinances of it [the church],—his word and sacraments. I grant he is present with them, as pledges of his presence, and instruments wherewith, by his Spirit, he doth effectually work; but to make them the whole presence of Christ with us, I do not know what better church-state we have than the Jews, when they had the law of old (Works 9, 444).

Is Christ with us today by the word and sacraments or by the Holy Spirit? Too often we who have come to the Reformed church from all forms and manifestations of evangelicalism have replaced the Holy Spirit with the word and sacraments. I have been guilty of this. Of course Owen shows that this is a false dichotomy, but the emphasis needs to be on the Holy Spirit, and not the instruments of his presence. I once heard Hywel Jones give a lecture at Westminster Seminary California on this very point as he said his coming to the States was a shock to him. He said he heard so much emphasis on the sacraments, on law-gospel preaching, on biblical theological preaching, on Christ-centered preaching, but almost no talk of what makes those methods effectual: the Holy Spirit. May God give us the sensitivity to the need of the work of the Spirit in our churches today with and through the word and sacraments.

The sermon picks up Matthew 17:5, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased; hear ye him.” He begins this sermon by setting out the scopus of the text as being “to set forth the Lord Jesus as the great mediator” (Works 1, 392) and further narrowing that down to the prophetical office. Manton then stated the doctrinal theme of the text: “That Christ is appointed by God the Father to be the great prophet and teacher, whose voice alone must be heard in the Church” (Works 1, 393).

What I found so helpful was his discussion of what it means to “hear” Christ. He distinguished three types of hearing: first, the receiving of sounds, which animals can do; second, the understanding of the sense and meaning of these sounds, which all humanity (ordinarily) can do; and third, assenting and consenting with the mind, which disciples alone can do (Works 1, 395). And this hearing that disciples engage in was to lead to obedience.

He then asked the great pastoral question his hearers must have been thinking: “How can we now hear Christ, since he is removed into the heaven of heavens, and doth not speak to us in person?” (Works 1, 396) Manton’s answer? He cited passages such as Hebrews 2:3–4 and 2 Corinthians 5:20 to show that Christians are to hear Christ through the writings of the apostles—the Scriptures.

It so so wonderful to know that the Scriptures are the viva vox Christi and that we are enabled to hear his voice in the reading and especially preaching of the Word by the power of the Holy Spirit. Hear him!

Ames begins by defining the nature of theology as he did in his Medulla theologica, also published in 1623, in which Ames said so famously, “Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God.” In his exhortation, Ames said it was necessary for the University to “call theology away from questions and controversies, obscure, confused, and not very essential, and introduce it to life and practice so that students would begin to think seriously of conscience and its concerns.” No doubt Ames’ definition and populist concern reflects his relationship towards Johannes Maccovius, whom he considered too speculative.

First among Ames’ concerns was to counter what he perceived as a lack of understanding by students of “the proper end of theology.” He discussed this using 1 Timothy 4:16 as his text, which says the minister must be aware of his teaching since it saves himself and his hearers. This meant that students need to know that they were to be devoted to the glory of God and the edification of the church. Contrary to this concern for the proper end of theology were those who entered the ministry for financial gain or just like they would enter a business. God help us from this attitude in ourselves and for us so privileged, in purging this attitude from those we are shepherding towards the ministry as seminary students.  While these were “useless weights to the church,” Ames said “the greater marvel is the grace and providence of God, by which it has come about that up till now the church has lived on, although burdened to an unhappy degree by men of this hireling kind.” Amen! Ames also linked his concern for the proper end of theology with the conscience, saying, “The mirror in which the image of eternal truth is reflected must be pure and clean. As far as possible there ought to be no stains of vice or flaws of selfishness in that heart in which the divine wisdom is to tabernacle.” How important a godly character is to the preparation for the ministry! Cleanse your mind, seminary students, of greed, pride, arrogance, anger, envy, and contentiousness, to name a few areas. I remember those seminary days well.

Ames’ second concern was to impress upon his students the high calling of the ministry: “What can be thought more important or useful than the profession of the ministry? Here one does not treat of lands and estates and similar earthly matters, as in civil law, but of the supremest good and the highest heaven, not of temporal bodily health, as in medicine, but of salvation and eternal life. Not here, as elsewhere, do they enquire into the sentiments, orders, decisions, and rulings of men, but into the eternal wisdom of God and His perfect will.” I don’t know if I’ve ever read it better than this.

Ames’ third concern was to show that the ministry concerned not only doctrine, but method and practice, using the illustration of physicians of old who divided their discipline into these three areas. This was important, because, as Ames said, “Our ministers, however, think themselves to be quite prepared for all the parts of their office if they know only the doctrines—and would they knew them!” It is for this reason that the Scriptures were to be studied for doctrine and for the practice of godliness. What does this mean for us? It means that just because you like to read, just because you like theology, and just because you are able to cite a few passages of Scripture, from Calvin, or from the Confessions to make a point does not mean you are being called into the ministry.

In conclusion, like a good Ramist, Ames ended his exhortation with the use of his word concerning the end of theology, the high calling of the ministry, and the need to study for purposes of doctrine and godliness. Here Ames spoke to his students about “theological exercises,” which were the ways the things they learned were sharpened and put into practice. Ames’ exhortation to his students was that they participated in disputations, that is, formal theological debate. They needed to engage in rehearsing their sermons so that they would benefit their hearers; they need to pray; they needed to engage in holy meditation; and as fellow students, they needed to exhort, admonish, and console each other as brothers in the Lord. May God help us to do so.

Many speak from pulpits—but they do not preach the gospel. They suggest that their hearers try to be good. They recommend self-fulfilment and getting rid of inhibitions. They may offer whimsical comments on current events or new-age spirituality with a Christian veneer. Some choose to ridicule the supernatural or attack the absolutes of God’s law. But there is no declaration of what God has done in Christ for the salvation of the lost. There is not a word of grace or of real hope. Their poor people listen in ignorance and die in their sins.

Some do preach the gospel—but not powerfully. These are good men, eager to be faithful. They have trusted Christ for themselves and know that they are commissioned to proclaim him as Saviour to others. But most of their regular listeners are professing Christians and there seems little point in telling them again what they already know. So the gospel tends to be tacked on to sermons which are designed primarily for believers. It becomes the predictable formula with which every message closes. The idea is that, if a casual visitor attends the service, enough information will be provided about salvation to enable him or her to come to faith. But no-one really expects this to happen. Many ministers will admit that they feel more comfortable in teaching Christians than when they are preaching evangelistically. This awkwardness is reflected in their sermons and they communicate the gospel in a hesitant and ineffective way.

Rev. Donnelly’s words have humbled me today. I pray the Holy Spirit works in me and that I fan into flame my gift to preach the gospel and to do so with power. This article has also done what a good article should do: lead me back to Scripture. As I prepared to prepare a sermon today, I meditated upon the words of 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:5 for the umpteenth time. What have I learned again?

I have learned just how amazing our God is! Pause and reflect with me upon the depths of his wisdom. He has chosen a message—the work of our Lord Jesus Christ—he has chosen a method—audible preaching—he has chosen messengers—men like Paul, men like you, men like me, whom Paul calls “fools for Christ” in 4:10—and he has chosen masses—those who are saved through the above—and all of these are admittedly weak, lowly, despised, and powerless as far as human opinion goes.

Because of this I have learned that I need to trust God’s promise to work through me, his messenger here at the Oceanside United Reformed Church, and to be obedient to his calling upon my life to utilize his method and to preach his message. Period. End of story! I need to get out of the way and let God do his work. I need to decrease so that he can increase. I need to become a fool that his wisdom may shine. I need to be humbled that he may be exalted.

I have also learned how to preach and to do so in power. As Paul says in these verses—and as Hywel Jones once preached at the Chapel of Westminster Seminary—the keys are two: close living and plain speaking. We as pastors need to live “among” our people as Paul did, as a shepherd does with his sheep, as our Lord has done with us. We need to be among our people in “weakness and fear,” being humble yet reverent, accessible yet serious. We need to preach Christ in plainness of speech that there is no doubt that what people have heard is not only words about Christ but the word of Christ.

Will you fall down with me in adoring this amazing God? Will you believe with me that our God can and will do amazing things through us when we get out of his way? Will you dedicate yourself alongside of me that we will live among and love our people and that we will preach Christ and the riches of our life in him?

May God grant his Spirit to me, to you, and to a generation of pastors to do so. Amen.

Interpreting Canticles along the lines of a believer’s communion with Christ is not, of course, peculiar to the Early Church or to the Puritans.  In fact, the Reformation theologian, Theodore Beza wrote a fine exposition of the Song of Solomon, which contains not only many important Christological insights, but glimpses into the nature of our communion with the Lord.

In the seventeenth century Canticles was often translated and sung to various Psalter tunes. One anonymous work is titled: The Song of Solomon, called The song of songs. Translated into English meeter, and fitted to be sung with any of the common tunes of the psalms. Besides that, we have Henry Ainsworth’s Solomon’s Song of songs In English metre, which could also be sung in church. Wouldn’t that be interesting? When was the last time you were in a church that sang the Song of Songs?

Beza’s work on Canticles is titled: Master Bezaes Sermons upon the first three chapters of the Canticle of Canticles (wherein are discussed the chiefest points of religion). This really is a fine work on Christology.  Beza argues that the Song is to be taken in a Spiritual sense and not to be taken as a marriage song between Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter, as some have insisted (1 Kings 11 condemns this marriage). Rather, this is a most excellent psalm touching on the spiritual bond between Christ and his Church (Genesis 2 & Eph. 5).  For Beza, the Song speaks of betrothing (engagement) and marriage that refers to Christ in his infirmities (betrothal) and Christ in his glory (marriage).

Incidentally, one of the best sermon series I have ever heard was on the Song of Songs; the series was preached by a South African preacher who understood it in much the same way as Beza, James Durham, John Owen, Samuel Petto, Thomas Brightman, John Cotton, Edward Leigh, Richard Sibbes, Matthew Henry and Johannes Cocceius (to name a few).

For your information, the Westminster Assembly condemned those who understood the Song of Songs as “a hot carnal pamphlet formed by some loose Apollo or Cupid”.  Moreover, John Wesley found the literal reading repulsive.  And, after reading Longman’s commentary on the Song of Songs, I felt like it was a complete waste of time.  Indeed, some of his own interpretations seemed to me to be far more “allegorical” than the stuff I’ve read from Beza and the Puritans!

If Canticles does describe the communion that a believer ought to have with his Savior, then I suspect that not a few of us will be exposed for having such a dry and boring relationship with the one who is “chief among ten thousand!”