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.

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.