McGraw, Ryan M. - Owen, John - John Owen - Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology-Palgrave Macmillan (2017) PDF

; @ 9 ? @ H 6 ?
Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology
RYA N M . M C G R AW
John Owen
Ryan M. McGraw
John Owen
Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology
Ryan M. McGraw
Department of Systematic Theology
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Taylors, SC, USA
and
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Grand Rapids, MI, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-60806-8 ISBN 978-3-319-60807-5 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944579
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: 19th era/Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due first to the publishers who gave permission to reprint
in revised and updated form the essays included in this volume.
Though each chapter includes the appropriate information related
to original publications, I wish here to thank publicly Westminster
Theological Journal, Calvin Theological Journal, Journal of Reformed
Theology, Reformation Heritage Books, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, The
Confessional Presbyterian Journal, and Mid-America Journal of Theology
for allowing me to expand and republish much of the material found in
this volume.
I also thank my students at Greenville Presbyterian Theological
Seminary and those at our extension campus in Gateshead, England for
providing the proving ground for teaching what I have learned through
researching these essays. It is a privilege to serve Christ by the Spirit
among you to the glory of God the Father.
I am grateful to Phil Getz and to Amy Invernizzi at Palgrave
Macmillan for their enthusiastic help in bringing this project to fruition.
Lastly, I thank my wife, Krista, and my children, Owen, Calvin,
Jonathan, and Meghan, who have always taken an interest in my work
and offered fervent prayer on my behalf. Anything worthwhile in these
essays (and in everything that I write) is no doubt largely due to the
Lord answering your prayers for me. Your encouragements and compan-
ionship double the joy of my work. I thank the Triune God for you all.
v
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Part I Trinity, Exegesis, and Law and Gospel
2 Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John

Owen’s Contribution to Reformed Orthodox
Trinitarian Theology 9
3 “The Foundation of the Old Testament”: John Owen

on Genesis 3:15 as a Window into Reformed
Orthodox Old Testament Exegesis 43
4 The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen on What the

Law/Gospel Distinction Is not 71
Part II Practical Issues and Systematic Reflection
5 Faith Versus Sight: Owen on Images of Christ,

the Second Commandment, and the Role of
Faith in Reformed Theology 113
vii
viii Contents
6 John Owen on the Holy Spirit: In Relation to the

Trinity, Christ’s Humanity, and Believers 135
7 Quid Est?: Theologoumena Pantodapa and

John Owen’s Trinitarian Prolegomena 157
8 The Rising Prominence of John Owen: An Analysis

of the Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s
Theology as a Window into the State of Owen Studies 189
Works Cited 207
Index 227
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
John Owen is quickly gaining attention in recent historical and

theological scholarship. As the essays below demonstrate, he is increas-
ingly recognized as one of the greatest Reformed theologians Great
Britain has ever produced, as well as one of the most significant theolo-
gians of the Reformed orthodox period. His theological interests were
eclectic and exegetically based, and he sought to meet the needs of his
times. As Owen rises in prominence in historical and theological schol-
arship, it is possible to make too much or too little out of his influence
and theology simultaneously. The chapters in this volume treat key areas
in Owen’s thought, including the Trinity, Old Testament exegesis, cov-
enant theology, the law and the gospel, the nature of faith in relation
to images of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and prolegomena. The common
theme tying them together is that John Owen helps us better understand
the development and interrelationship of theology, exegesis, and piety in
Reformed orthodox theology. By setting him in his international theo-
logical and cross-confessional context, the author seeks to use Owen as a
window into the trajectory of Reformed thought in several key areas.
The essays in this volume spun out of the author’s Ph.D. studies
on Owen’s Trinitarianism in relation to his views of public worship.1
1 Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and
a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).
© The Author(s) 2017 1

R.M. McGraw, John Owen,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_1
2 R.M. McGRAW
However, only the first essay in this present work is related directly to
this previous project. Owen’s voluminous writings are ripe for scholarly
research, and the articles presented here represent attempts at explor-
ing various areas of his exegesis and theology in their historical context.
The aim in all of these essays is to use Owen as a means of evaluating
broader trajectories in the development of Reformed thought in criti-
cal areas. This fits into the growing interest in the historical-theological
study of Reformed orthodoxy in general. While the essays in this volume
fit the genre of historical theology, their author hopes that they will be
of use to historians, theologians, and ministers. All of these essays have
appeared in print previously in seed form, and publication information
is noted in each appropriate place. However, most of them have under-
gone dramatic and substantial revision, with much rewriting and many
added sections to reflect recent scholarship and to further establish the
thesis of each chapter. This further research, at times, challenges recent
trends in Owen scholarship by setting his work in his broad international
theological context.2
The material is divided roughly by theme and genre. The first sec-
tion treats Owen’s trinitarianism and various issues drawn from the
relationship between theology and exegesis in his writings. The first
essay, which treats Owen’s trinitarianism in relation to his theology in
general, explores some of the questions raised in the conclusion of my
PhD work. It does so by expanding Owen’s trinitarianism, not only as it
functioned in his theology, but also as it contributed to trinitarian piety
in its broader relation to Reformed orthodoxy. It serves primarily as a
challenge to the assumption that Reformed writers contributed nothing
of significance to trinitarian theology by pressing scholars to reassess the
practical development and relevance of the Trinity in Reformed ortho-
dox theology.
The second essay analyzes Owen’s treatment of Genesis 3:15. By
comparing him primarily to the Reformed Bible commentary tradition
as well as to samples of didactic (systematic) theology, this essay serves
as a window into the vital relatitonship between theology and exegesis in
Reformed orthodoxy. It illustrates partly that, in addition to numerous
historical factors, a historical figure’s interpretation of the Bible could
2 This is true preeminently of Chaps. 4 and 7.

1 INTRODUCTION 3
contribute to shaping his or her context in its own right. This is an oft-
underappreciated aspect of Reformed thought in historical studies.
The third and final essay in this section addresses Owen’s assertion
that “evangelical” threats were an indispensable component of the gos-
pel as a covenant. This material demonstrates how the development of
Reformed covenant theology altered the way in which Reformed authors
formulated the law/gospel distinction in partial contrast to Lutheran
constructions. It contends that post-Reformation theology was marked
by continuities and discontinuities with earlier presentations of the law/
gospel distinction. While this chapter will likely be regarded as contro-
versial to some in light of contemporary theological debates over this
subject, the primary purpose of the article is to provide clarity on the
subject in light of an international and cross-confessional seventeenth-
century context. Though the essay is historical in character, the author
hopes that it will bring greater light and clarity to contemporary conver-
sations over this topic as well.
The second major section of this book draws attention to practi-
cal issues in Owen’s theology. Two out of the three essays present here
include systematic and practical reflection on Owen’s work. This empha-
sis arose partly from the context in which these essays originated. Owen
on the Holy Spirit was developed from a conference address at Greenville
Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Owen on True Theology arose
from a lecture delivered to faculty and students at Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary. While these articles aim primarily at answering
historical questions, the author had a partial eye on drawing conclusions
and applications from Owen for use in the church today. This is particu-
larly true with relation to the essay on Owen’s views of the Holy Spirit. I
have tried to make these distinctions clear while maintaining the contex-
tual character of the historical investigations. All three essays in this sec-
tion have been expanded and altered substantially in order to strengthen
the historical-theological character of each of them.
Chapter 5 expands and redirects the context and thesis of a subject
that began as an appendix on images of Christ in my Heavenly Directory.
The primary expansions of the material consist in altering the thesis of
the original appendix in light of further primary and secondary material.
This chapter contends that Owen, and the Reformed tradition at large,
rejected the use of images of Christ in any form primarily on the grounds
that they negated the biblical emphasis on walking by faith in this world
rather than by sight. This meant that the rejection of images of Christ
4 R.M. McGRAW
was central rather than peripheral to Reformed theology and that it tied
together several strands of the Reformed system of thought into a practi-
cal expression. Owen thus represents clearly what became a standard and
pivotal feature of Reformed theology, distinguishing it from Lutheranism
and others.
Chapter 6 is the most directly theological contribution to this vol-
ume. It examines Owen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit in relation to the
Trinity, to Christ, and to believers. The aim is to show how the Spirit’s
ontological relationships with the Father and the Son determined the
nature of his work in the incarnate Christ, which, in turn, served as a pat-
tern for his work in believers. As the chapter demonstrates, while some
authors have traced these themes in Owen, few have adequately exam-
ined how his work on the Spirit related to general trends in Medieval
and Reformed theology. The result is that Owen often appears as an
exceptional thinker who dropped out of the theological sky. I have
expanded the historical research of this chapter significantly in light of
recent research related to the Spirit and Christology in historic Reformed
thought. I have also added substantial primary source material, especially
from Thomas Goodwin’s work on the Spirit in salvation. The most sig-
nificant change to the original essay consists in the new material connect-
ing the Spirit’s work in the incarnate Christ to the theologia unionis and
the beatific vision. This illustrates how and why a Christological vision of
God was integral to Reformed prolegomena and why the Spirit’s work
was the link between these ideas. This provides one of the clearest exam-
ples of a general theme of this book that it is easy to make too much
and too little out of Owen’s contribution to Reformed orthodoxy at
the same time. The essay closes with practical conclusions and applica-
tions, which incorporate systematic and practical theology into historical
reflection.
Chapter 7 illustrates ways in which Owen’s prolegomena was both
standard and distinctive among other Reformed precedents. The original
version of Chap. 7 was designed to assist theological students to pursue
their studies in the right way by drawing lessons from Owen. However,
this chapter as revised and presented here provides what is likely the
most substantial, if potentially controversial, contribution to histori-
cal research in this volume. It contends that, in contrast to the assump-
tions of most scholars, both past and present, Owen’s Theologoumena
Pantodapa was a large-scale work of theological prolegomena rather than
“a history of theology from Adam to Christ” or a large-scale covenant
1 INTRODUCTION 5
theology. In the revisions, I have made substantial additions from Latin

works of prolegomena and I have included much material from the
Latin original of Owen’s text in order to clarify the claims of the essay.
In addition to seeking to determine the nature of this book, this essay
argues that Owen’s primary contribution to Reformed prolegomena
lay in his trinitarian conceptions of true theology and the knowledge
of God. This means that Theologoumena Pantodapa is less subversive
to Reformed thought than some authors have assumed and more valu-
able in its contributions than others have realized. Such conclusions help
expand our understanding of the nature and development of Reformed
prolegomena.
The last chapter of this volume is an article assessment of the Ashgate
Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology. The Ashgate Companion
is the first full-scale edited volume on Owen’s thought. The title of
this article supplies the title for this collection of essays. This essay uses
this multi-author volume as an occasion to evaluate and to provide
a glimpse into the current state of Owen research. This has the added
advantage of covering a wide range of theological and practical top-
ics that reflect Owen’s wide range of interests and influence. In a way,
this final piece helps justify the need for the preceding articles included
in this present volume. The Ashgate Companion illustrates the growing
scholarly attention Owen is receiving currently. The general strengths
of this volume relate to its recognition of Owen’s significance as a
Reformed theologian. Its general weaknesses lie in the failure of many of
its contributors to connect Owen to the trajectories of Reformed ortho-
doxy, which is the primary theme of this present volume. The evalua-
tions presented in this book of each chapter in the Ashgate Companion
serve as a fitting conclusion to the preceding chapters, since it solidifies
this author’s contention that as Owen rises in prominence in historical
research, it is possible to make too much and too little of his significance
at the same time.
The author has not added a general introduction treating Owen’s
political and social context. However, these aspects of his life and
thought appear at key moments in various chapters. The author has pri-
oritized Owen’s theological context in relation to British, continental,
Medieval, and, where appropriate, early church theology. While it is vital
to understand Owen in the context of British Puritanism, the primary
aim of these essays is to highlight international continuities and discon-
tinuities within the development of Reformed theology and both to
6 R.M. McGRAW
evaluate Owen’s place in this context and to understand the Reformed

tradition better in light of Owen.
As Owen gains prominence in historical and theological research, it
is important to keep him tied to his international theological moorings.
While the essays in this volume are organized thematically, they do not
progress systematically. This is appropriate for a subject like Owen, who
never produced a full-scale system of theology, but who preferred to
present his theology in the context of his teaching and exegetical labors.
This feature also reflects the author’s conviction that Reformed ortho-
doxy did not revolve around a central dogma, but that its proponents
sought to discern the mind of God in Scripture in their historical con-
texts. It is this author’s hope that this collection of essays will provide
a realistic and sober view of the importance of Owen’s contribution to
Reformed theology, appreciating most where he is most distinctive and
seeing him blend into the crowd of Reformed authors where he best
fits in.
PART I
Trinity, Exegesis, and Law and Gospel

CHAPTER 2
Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John

Owen’s Contribution to Reformed
Orthodox Trinitarian Theology
Reformed orthodox theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) referred

to the doctrine of the Trinity as “the foundation of fundamentals.”1
While Richard Muller dissuades scholars from searching for a “central
dogma” in historic Reformed theology,2 he notes that if any dogma
1 “Fundamentum fundamenti.” Gisperti Voetii, Selectarum Disputationum

Theologicarum, Pars Prima (Utrecht, 1648), 1:472. See Richard A. Muller, Post
Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1 for “fundamental articles.”
2 Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed
Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008); Michael A.G.
Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity
and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, vol. 17, Reformed Historical
Theology (Göttingen; Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), Chap. 1.
This article has been updated and modified from Ryan M. McGraw, “Trinitarian
Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution to Reformed Orthodox
Trinitarian Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (Fall 2015):
293–316. It expands upon the conclusions of my book, A Heavenly Directory:
Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). The article is not an abridgement
of this work, but it is a summary and an expansion with fresh analysis and further
conclusions.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_2
10 R.M. McGRAW
comes close to achieving such status, it is the doctrine of the Trinity.3 In

light of this fact, it is somewhat surprising that most modern treatments
of trinitarian theology assume that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
Reformed orthodoxy had virtually nothing to contribute to this vital
doctrine.4
The recent Cambridge Companion to the Trinity and the Oxford
Handbook of the Trinity both reflect this assumption.5 The Cambridge
volume leaps four centuries from John Calvin (1509–1564) to Karl
Barth, implying that little of consequence appeared in between. The
Oxford Handbook devotes one out of forty-three chapters to the
Reformed construction of the Trinity. However, this chapter addresses
how Reformed authors tried to harmonize the historical doctrine of the
Trinity with their principle of sola scriptura.6 It does not treat positive
developments or applications of the doctrine. Calvin has received signifi-
cant scholarly attention, but predominantly in relation to his construc-
tion of the doctrine rather than to his use of it or its influence on his
system of theology.7 The void left in the secondary literature has not ade-
quately probed the bold claims of Voetius or the scholarly reflections of
Muller.8
John Owen (1616–1683) is a growing exception to this trend. Both
historians and theologians are starting to recognize his significance as
a theologian in general and a trinitarian theologian in particular. Even
3 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development

of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 vols., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academics, 2003), 4.
4 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004), 1–3. MacLean observes the same trend in his
recent work on James Durham: Donald John MacLean, James Durham (1622–1658): And
the Gospel Offer in Its Seventeenth-Century Context, vol. 31, Reformed Historical Theology
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 97–98.
5 Peter C. Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011); Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, eds., The Oxford
Handbook of the Trinity (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
6 Scott R. Swain, “The Trinity in the Reformers,” Oxford Handbook of the Trinity,
227–239.
7 For a notable example, see Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the
Aseity of the Son. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

8 Muller notes that Reformed trinitarian theology is a neglected field. He suggests that
the primary contribution of Reformed authors to this subject was exegetical. Muller,
PRRD, 4:24–25.
2 TRINITARIAN DOXOLOGY: REASSESSING JOHN OWEN’S CONTRIBUTION … 11
the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, despite largely bypassing Reformed

orthodoxy, includes scattered references to Owen.9 Moreover, both the
Oxford Handbooks of Christology and Early Modern Theology include
references to Owen in relation to historical and systematic theology.10
While such broader treatments of Owen’s theology have contributed
much to understanding the trinitarian structure of Owen’s theology and
piety, they often stop short of observing how he intertwined his trinitar-
ian theology and piety throughout his writings. The lens through which
he did this was the theme of public worship.
Owen regarded public worship as the highest expression of commun-
ion with God as triune. The connection that he drew between trinitarian
piety and public worship illustrates how he integrated his trinitarian the-
ology into his entire system of theology. This article will reassess Owen’s
contribution to Reformed trinitarian theology in two major segments.
The first does so by critiquing two recent treatments of his work. The
remaining material explores the theological foundations of Owen’s trini-
tarian doxology, followed by the theological and practical conclusions
that he drew from his theology in relation to Scripture, spiritual affec-
tions, covenant theology, and ecclesiology. Owen illustrates that one of
the primary contributions of Reformed orthodoxy to trinitarian theology
lies in its integration into Reformed soteriology and piety.11 This arti-
cle reassesses Owen’s contribution to trinitarian theology and provides
clues for scholars to trace the significance of the Reformed contribution
to trinitarian theology in other authors within that tradition.12
9 Emery and Levering, Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, 246, 506–509. Drawn into
Controversie, cited above, includes Owen in nine of twelve chapters.
10 Francesca Aran Murphy, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Christology (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2015), 619; Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A.G. Roeber, eds.,
The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2016), 181–95, 245.
11 For a less scholarly treatment of Owen’s teaching on the Trinity in relation to soteriol-
ogy, see Matthew Barrett and Michael A.G. Haykin, Owen on the Christian Life: Living
for the Glory of God in Christ, Theologians on the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2015), 53–88.
12 As such, it is not merely a restatement of the material from my Heavenly Directory.
12 R.M. McGRAW
Identifying the Problem: Two Recent Treatments

of Owen’s Trinitarianism
The significance of Owen’s contribution to Reformed orthodox trinitar-

ian theology is illustrated through interacting critically with two recent
treatments of his thought. The first is Robert Letham’s essay on Owen’s
trinitarianism. The other is Paul Lim’s chapter on Owen and Francis
Cheynell’s (1608–1665) practical trinitarianism in his recent work on
Socinianism. While both studies are valuable, Letham appears to import
modern trinitarian questions into his historical analysis, while Lim dimin-
ishes the distinctiveness of Owen’s practical use of the doctrine. Both of
these approaches illustrate different reasons why Owen’s practical use of
the Trinity has been partially underdeveloped and why contemporary
authors assume that Reformed orthodoxy contributes little to trinitarian
theology. This analysis sets the backdrop from the analysis below of how
he intertwined the Trinity and public worship into his theological system.
Asking the Wrong Question of the Wrong Century13

One of the reasons why some contemporary authors likely have missed
the contribution of Reformed orthodoxy to trinitarian theology is that
they ask different questions from those that occupied Reformed authors.
This is evident in Robert Letham’s article in the recent Ashgate Research
Companion to John Owen’s Theology.14
Letham asks whether Owen’s Trinitarian emphases have eastern or
western tendencies. He argues that Owen’s views on matters such as
the filioque clause were western, but that his stress on distinct commun-
ion with the divine persons was eastern in tone.15 In Letham’s other
works on the Trinity, he often gives readers the impression that western
13 This material is modified from Ryan M. McGraw, “The Rising Prominence of John
Owen: A Review Article of The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology,”
Mid-America Journal of Theology 24 (2013): 105–120.
14 Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,”
Ashgate Companion to Owen’s Theology, 185–198.

15 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” 186, 191.
Trinitarians are the “bad guys.”16 This essay is no exception.17 Citing

an earlier publication, he notes, “Owen is not so much an innovator as
a brilliant synthesizer.”18 The synthesis that he has in mind is between
western emphases on the unity of God and eastern emphases on the
divine persons. He adds, “[Owen’s] focus on the three persons was and
is missing from the West in general” (196).19
Letham does not sufficiently base his claims on seventeenth-century
evidence by comparing or contrasting Owen to his contemporaries. By
contrast, Richard Muller argues that it is impossible to classify Reformed
trinitarianism either as eastern or western.20 Showing similarities between
Owen and eastern authors in emphasizing the divine persons means less if
we find that other western authors expressed similar emphases for differ-
ent reasons. Owen is distinctive among most English writers in terms of
Trinitarian piety. However, he shows affinity with Dutch authors such as
Voetius and Hoornbeeck (1617–1666), both of whom he cited periodi-
cally.21 Such authors developed a devotional emphasis on the divine per-
sons in response to Arminianism because Arminians denied that the Trinity
was a fundamental article of the faith since it had no practical value.22
16 For example, throughout his work, The Holy Trinity, and in Robert Letham,
“John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and its Significance for Today,” in Where Reason
Fails: Papers Read at the 2006 Westminster Conference (Stoke on Trent, UK: Tentmaker
Publications, 2006), 10–20.
17 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” 188, for
example.
18 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” 190. Cited
from Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and its Significance for Today,” 11.
19 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” 196. The
recent Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, assumes that such assertions have not been taken
seriously in scholarly circles for several decades. Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, 123.
20 Muller, PRRD, 4:72.
21 For example, John Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu Progressu,
Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus
Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur
…. (Oxoniæ: Excudebat Hen. Hall … impensis Tho. Robinson …, 1661), 522 (Voetius)
and 519 (Hoornbeeck).
22 See Gisperti Voetii, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Prima (Utrecht,
1648), 1:472, who called the Trinity the fundamentum fundamenti. He added that the
doctrine of the Trinity was fundamental because it was the foundation of so many prac-
tical uses, personal holiness, and divine worship (473). For Hoornbeeck, see Johannes
14 R.M. McGRAW
While Owen was less directly concerned with Arminian views of the
Trinity than these men were, it is more plausible that his emphasis on
the divine persons stems from continental influence than from east-
ern theology. One historian warns against relying too much on English
books in studying English Reformed theology following the advent of
Early English Books Online.23 Continental authors produced trinitarian
emphases that were less common in an English context due to differ-
ing theological concerns. This is not to say that eastern emphases were
not present, but the evidence that Letham produces arises from con-
temporary questions rather than from seventeenth-century literature.
Moreover, he overlooks Muller’s defense of Reformed orthodoxy against
the charge of abstracting the divine essence and attributes from the
Trinity.24 Muller argues that the tables of contents of dogmatic works are
not reliable guides to discern the relative importance of the divine attrib-
utes and the divine persons in these works. This is precisely the mistake
that Letham makes in this essay.25
Exploring the broader context of seventeenth-century western trini-
tarianism more fully might reveal that the question of eastern versus
western trinitarianism was not on the Reformed horizon26—at least not
with respect to every Reformed author.27 Letham gives the impression
that he is asking the wrong question of the wrong century. The context
that he sets for Owen is too narrow in relation to primary sources and
too broad in terms of historical setting.
Footnote 22 (continued)
Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae (Utrecht, 1663), 1:136. For the Arminian denial that
the Trinity is a “fundamental article” of the faith, see Muller, PRRD, 4:109.
23 Polly Ha, Patrick Collinson, eds., The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain
(Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2010), 235–236.

24 Richard A. Muller, PRRD, 4:144–149.
25 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” 189.
Sebastian Rehnman strengthens Muller’s case in his contribution to A Companion to

Reformed Orthodoxy.
26 As Muller argues, PRRD, 4:109.
27 A.C. Neele has alerted directed me to Mastricht, who showed some concern for
eastern trinitarianism. In any case, I have not found sufficient evidence of contemporary
eastern influences in Owen.
Diminishing Owen’s Distinctiveness

Paul Lim’s analysis slightly diminishes Owen’s distinctiveness within the
Reformed tradition. He devotes significant attention to Owen’s trinitar-
ian theology in his recent book, Mystery Unveiled.28 The primary thesis
of this book is that the Socinian position on the Trinity represented a
consistent application of the Reformed principle of sola scriptura.29 He
includes a chapter on Owen and Cheynell and argues that such men tried
to revive the doctrine of the Trinity by weaving it into devotion. His
assessment is significant; however, it fails to show the integral function of
the Trinity in Owen’s theology and especially the recurring connection
between this doctrine and public worship.
Lim provides valuable insights into how Cheynell and Owen for-
mulated trinitarian spirituality in a polemical context.30 Cheynell has
received little attention in the secondary literature. Lim shows that
most authors treat Puritan spirituality and polemics in isolation from
one another instead of as informing one another. Cheynell and Owen
remedy this misconception by stressing the devotional aspects of their
trinitarian theology in the context of controversy. However, contra the
impression given by Lim, Cheynell and Owen are not fully comparable in
this regard. Cheynell stressed the Trinity as the object of worship while
Owen emphasized the importance of the Trinity in relation to the man-
ner of worship and the personal experience of the worshipers.31 Also,
many of Cheynell’s “practical” exhortations refer to rejecting Socinian
fellowship and to the magistrate’s duty to remove them from society.32
28 Paul Chang-Ha Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern
England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

29 Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 1, 13–14.
30 Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 215.
31 For Owen, see below. Francis Cheynell, The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, Or, the Blessed Doctrine of the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall
Godhead Without Any Confusion or Division of the Distinct Subsistences or Multiplication
of the Most Single and Entire Godhead Acknowledged, Beleeved, Adored by Christians, in
Opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, Blasphemous and Antichristian Hereticks, Who
Say They Are Christians, but Are Not (London: Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Samuel
Gellibrand …, 1650), 6–7, 182, and especially 272–305. These themes continue through
the remainder of the book. These observations also apply to William Perkins, Idolatrie of
the Last Times, throughout.
32 Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 417–480.
16 R.M. McGRAW
The material below will show how widely this differs from Owen’s prac-
tical use of the doctrine.
Lim’s treatment of Owen contributes several things to Owen stud-
ies. He demonstrates that “Owen’s Trinitarian theology hinged on his
Christological formulations.”33 He provides a detailed analysis of how
Owen and other Reformed authors largely adopted the medieval inter-
pretation of the Song of Solomon as well.34 The most important contri-
bution of his treatment is that he shows how, at various stages in Owen’s
career, he sharpened his trinitarian spirituality through polemical encoun-
ters. This is similar to this writer’s observation above regarding the way
in which the Arminian context influenced trinitarian piety on the conti-
nent. The primary difference here is that Owen aimed at the Socinians
rather than the Arminians, while Dutch authors aimed at both.35
Despite its value, Lim’s section on Owen contains some deficien-
cies. He overstates his case in comparing Owen’s to the eastern view
of theosis/deification, his dependence upon Calvin’s construction of
the ontological Trinity, and “the inherent antinomian potential” that
he attributes to Owen’s view of Christ’s imputed righteousness in
justification.36
First, endnote seventy-two37 inappropriately compares Owen’s views
to Vladimir Lossky’s doctrine of theosis. Lossky is a (controversial)
twentieth-century Eastern Orthodox theologian. Lim later refers to
Owen’s “theosis-sounding divinity.”38 Apart from the anachronistic risk
involved in comparing a seventeenth-century Reformed theologian with
a twentieth-century Eastern Orthodox theologian, the evidence points
to the fact that in his mature years Owen believed that being “partak-
ers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) entailed renewal in God’s image
rather than deification.39 Ironically, Lim reflects this fact by citing the
relevant passage from Owen’s Glory of Christ, where he interprets being
“partakers of the divine nature” as being endued with “the gracious
33 Lim,Mystery Unveiled, 187.

34 Lim,Mystery Unveiled, 193–200.
35 See references above.
39 For example, Owen, The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed,
Works, 11:402.
qualifications” with which Christ is endued “in his human nature.”40

Bruce McCormack’s research and arguments against importing theosis
into Calvin’s theology apply with equal force to Owen.41 Moreover, later
Reformed authors, such as Mastricht, regarded the language of deifi-
cation as dangerous at best and openly blasphemous at worst.42 Lim’s
comparisons approach the same error of East/West categorization that
Letham makes and that Muller rejects.
Second, Lim states that Owen followed Calvin in asserting that the
Father was the fountain of the deity.43 However, Calvin departed from
patristic expressions on this point and the evidence is that most of the
Reformed orthodox tradition did not follow his construction.44 Calvin
taught that the Father was the fountain of the trinity, but he denied that
he was the fountain of the deity. The difference was that while other
Reformed authors believed that eternal generation had reference to the
Son’s deity and to his personal subsistence, Calvin denied the former
while affirming the latter. Perhaps Lim’s confusion stems from the fact
that Cheynell devoted a section in his massive work on the Trinity to
arguing that Calvin did not detach Christ’s deity from his personal sub-
sistence in reference to eternal generation.45
Third, Lim criticizes Owen for going “slightly” in the direction of
Antinomianism by saying that we are freed from obedience.46 However,
he does not properly acknowledge the Reformed distinction between
freedom from obedience in justification as contrasted to sanctification.
Owen’s position is antinomian only from the standpoint of Richard
Baxter’s (1615–1691) neonomian position, since Baxter regarded the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness as inherently antinomian.47 If Owen
“tilted” in an antinomian direction, then his teaching on freedom from

41 Bruce L. McCormack, “Union with Christ in Calvin’s Theology: Grounds for a
Divinization Theory?,” in Tributes to John Calvin: A Celebration of His Quincentenary, ed.
David W. Hall (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2010), 504–529.
42 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 792.
44 Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son, Chap. 1.
45 Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 232–235.
47 Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity
(Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 78–83.

18 R.M. McGRAW
the law with respect to justification is not proper evidence of the fact.
Later Lim adds that Owen was decidedly not antinomian.48 However,
later still he wrote of the “inherent antinomian potential” of Owen’s
views of imputed righteousness.49 This is a theological rather than a
historical judgment that assumes the validity of Baxterian and Catholic
criticisms against the Reformed doctrine of justification. If the Reformed
view of imputed righteousness preceded or was divorced from union
with Christ, then it would not simply have “inherent antinomian poten-
tial,” but it would be theological antinomianism outright.50 However, by
rooting justification in existential union with Christ, Reformed ortho-
doxy had inherent anti-antinomian tendencies, since union with Christ
included renewal in Christ’s image. Lim’s citation of Richard Hooker
concerning participating in Christ by way of imputation and infusion is
evidence in this direction.51
Lim’s treatment reveals that Owen (and Cheynell) stressed the practi-
cal use of the Trinity, but he falls short of revealing how this was so or
what this looked like in practice. Upon examination, Cheynell’s model
was very different than Owen’s in that he relegated application to treat-
ing the divine persons as the object of worship. The material below
shows that Lim’s analysis leaves Owen’s trinitarian piety vague and
underdeveloped.
Foundations of Owen’s Trinitarian Theology

This preliminary analysis enables us to begin to ask: what was distinctive
about Owen’s trinitarian theology, and how does his teaching relate to
seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy? Owen’s trinitarian theology
was the foundation of his trinitarian piety, and his trinitarian piety perme-
ated every area of his theology. This cycle began with his teaching on the
knowledge of God and true theology, and it found its highest expression
in public worship. This section sets the stage for the theological connec-
tions drawn in subsequent sections.

50 See Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? 2013.
The Trinity and True Theology

Owen laid a trinitarian foundation for the knowledge of God. This is
particularly evident in his definitions of true or evangelical theology.52
Objectively, he defined true theology as a communication from the
Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, to the church.53 This took the
form of objective divine revelation through the prophets and apostles.54
The triune God committed some of this revelation to writing in Holy
Scripture, which constitutes the exclusive saving divine revelation to the
church.55
Owen added that true theology had a subjective element. The knowl-
edge of God was not only possible because the triune God revealed him-
self in Scripture. The renovation of the human mind by the power of the
Spirit was needed as well.56 This subjective aspect of theology mirrored
his objective definition of theology. He defined it as a communication
from the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is that which is given
as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation.57 In his view, possessing a true theo-
logical system without the internal saving work of the triune God is phi-
losophy rather than Christianity.58
52 This terminology comes from Book 6 of Owen’s Theologoumena Pantodapa.

53 Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. II, 462–463: “Revalatio autem haec voluntatis divinae, a
Patre Christo data, atque ab illo per Spiritum Sanctum cum Apostolis suis aliisque, in usum
totius Ecclesiae communicate, Theologiae ista Evangelica, prout in abstracta sumpta doctri-
nam divinam denotat, quam summus enarraturi.”
54 For a similar, albeit brief, Trinitarian construction of divine revelation, see Roelf T. te
Velde, ed., Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/ Synopsis of a Purer Theology, trans. Reimer A. Faber,
vol. 1, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 41.
55 See John V. Fesko, “The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy,” in Herman
J. Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, Brill’s Companions to the

Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 429–464.
56 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487: “mentis hominis per Spiritum Sanctum
renati.”
57 Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. VI, 491. For example, “Nam a Patre hoc donum est per
Christum. Datur autem Spiritus Sapientiae et Revelationis.”

58 Owen, Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. III, 466: “Doctrinae autem Evangelicae eo modo
traditae et expositae notitia aut comprehensio mere naturalis, est Philosophia quaedam
Christiana; quae sapientiae omni Graecanicae, seu mere humanae plurimis praeit parasan-
gis…. Eius autem generis est Philosophia haec Christiana, ad omnem ethinicorum hom-
inum sapientiam sive scienciam collata.”
20 R.M. McGRAW
This resulted in Owen giving great attention to the character of

the true theologian. The last section of his massive Theologoumena
Pantodapa is devoted to this theme. According to his introduction, this
section was the primary aim of the book. In contrast to the claims of
some scholars, Owen’s Theologoumena was not merely an attempt to pre-
sent theology in historical progression.59 Richard Muller rightly observes
that this work was a seventeenth-century theological prolegomena.60
Owen limited his subject matter to issues affecting the knowledge of
God, which included items such as sin and regeneration, and the knowl-
edge of God through Scripture. This is why the book contains lengthy
digressions on subjects such as the divine inspiration of Hebrew vowel
points. The fact that Theologoumena Pantodapa was a work of prolegom-
ena rather than a historical treatment of the system of theology is readily
apparent when comparing its contents to other treatments of the subject,
such as that of Johannes Hoornbeeck.61 The fact that this work follows
a historical order along the lines of divine covenants does not necessary
indicate that it was a covenant theology. His Pneumatologia likewise
follows a historical order,62 but to this writer’s knowledge, no one has
claimed that it is a work of covenant theology. We must judge the nature
of the treatise by its character and contents rather than by its theological
methodology. The material below will demonstrate that covenant theol-
ogy stood at the heart of his doctrine of the knowledge of God. In this
light, it is questionable whether he could have written a prolegomena
that was not heavily steeped in covenant theology.
God revealed himself through the united action of all three divine per-
sons. This included the objective content of what God revealed and the
subjective appropriation of his revelation by the elect. This involved the
59 Stephen Westcott’s English “interpretation” of this work gives this impression.
Sebastian Rehnman refers to this translation as being of “inferior quality.” Sebastian

Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2002), 17. However, even more scholarly treatments of Owen, such as
Trueman, treat this book as a work on covenant theology. Trueman, John Owen, 5.
60 Muller, PRRD, 1:118. See also Chap. 2 of my Heavenly Directory for a fuller reevalua-
tion of the nature of this work.

61 Hoornbeeck, Theologiae-Practicae, 1, Chap. 1.
62 On the methodology of Owen’s work on the Spirit, see Maarten Wise and Hugo
Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy,

487–488. The remainder of their chapter provides an extensive analysis of Owen’s
Pneumatologia with an insightful analysis of Medieval influences on the work.
ancient doctrine that the works of the Godhead ad extra are undivided.
It included the perichoresis, or mutual interpenetration of the divine per-
sons. Owen’s doctrine of the knowledge of God in this regard reflected
not only the Reformed orthodox theological tradition, but the historical
expressions of the ancient church. The fact that the subjective appropria-
tion of the revelation of the triune God was part of true theology meant
that all true theologians are worshipers of the triune God. In order to
worship him, they must know him by experiencing communion with the
Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.
These emphases laid the foundation both for Owen’s entire system of
theology and for his theology of worship. They also represent the rea-
sons why these themes converge. If all theology involves knowing God,
and the knowing God involves knowing him as triune, then all theol-
ogy will be permeated with the Trinity. Continental authors, such as
Johannes Wollebius (1589–1629), made this connection explicit by
relating almost every major division of theology to the appropriate and
distinct, yet united work of all three divine persons.63 Other theologi-
ans, such as William Ames (1576–1633), Herman Witsius (1636–1708),
Hoornbeeck, Voetius, and van Mastricht included the character of the
true theologian in their definitions of theology and the knowledge of
God.64 Owen’s later stress on communion with God in public worship
combined the ideas that revelation is trinitarian and that the true theolo-
gian is a true worshiper.65
63 Joannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ … Editio Ultima Prioribus
Multo Correctior, 9th ed. (Cantabrigiæ: ex celeberrimæ Academiæ Typographeo, 1654).

Though Wisse and Meijer note that he was not always consistent on this point. Maarten
Wisse and Hugo Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” in Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy, 494.
64 William Ames, Medulla S.s. Theologiæ … in Fine Adjuncta Est Disputatio De Fidei
Divinæ Veritate. Editio Tertia Priori Longe Correctior (Apud Robertum Allottum:
Londini, 1629), 1; Herman Witsius, On the Character of a True Theologian (Greenville,
SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 27; Hoornbeeck, Theologicae-Practicae, 1:4–16;
Voetius, Selectarum Dispuationum, 1:12–28, where he distinguishes “scholastic theol-
ogy” from “true and genuine” theology, even while arguing for the legitimacy of “scho-
lastic theology.” For Mastricht’s theological method, see Adriaan Cornelis Neele, Petrus
Van Mastricht (1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2009).
65 This idea is also present explicitly in Theologoumena, lib. VI, cap. III, 465.
22 R.M. McGRAW
Communion with the Divine Persons

Owen’s clearest treatment of what communion with the triune God
looks like is his work, Communion with God.66 This book is the central
focus of the handful of treatments of his trinitarian piety, such as Lim,
Kapic, and Kay.67 However, the themes presented in this work pervade
the rest of his writings. His two sermons on The Nature and Beauty of
Public Worship are illuminating in this regard.68 Here he chose a trini-
tarian text69 in order to describe the primary glory of New Testament
worship. This reflects the fact that knowing God as triune was the pri-
mary glory of new covenant worship.70 William Perkins (1558–1602)
similarly concluded his short book on public worship with a trinitarian
doxology.71 In order to understand the function of the Trinity in Owen’s
doctrine of public worship, it is necessary to sketch briefly his conception
of communion with the persons of the Godhead in his historical context.
Although authors such as Perkins and Cheynell shared Owen’s enthu-
siasm for making the triune God the explicit object of worship, few did
so in the way that he did. For example, Stephen Charnock (1628–1680)
and Jeremiah Burroughs (1600–1646), treated public worship exten-
sively without making explicit reference to the Trinity at all.72 Owen
66 John Owen, Communion with God, in The Works of John Owen, D.D., ed. William
Goold (London; Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850), 2. In A Heavenly Directory,

I compare the Goold edition of Owen’s works with original printings. In every case that I
have researched, Goold has retained the exact words of the original text. The only changes
that he made are with reference to numeric variation in Owen’s outlines to make reading
easier. For this reason, the rest of this essay will cite the Goold edition on the assumption
that it reflects the original text accurately.
67 Lim, Mystery Unveiled; Kapic, Communion with God; Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality.
68 Owen, “The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship,” Works, 9.
69 Eph. 2:18: “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”
70 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open,” Works, 8:555–
556.
71 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, 181.
72 Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God. 2 Vols. ([S.l.]:
Baker Book House, 1853), 109 ff; Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel-Worship, Or, the Right
Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God in General and Particularly in These Three Great
Ordinances, Viz. 1. Hearing of the Word, 2. Receiving the Lords Supper, 3. Prayer (London:
Printed by Peter Cole …, 1658). For an analysis of these authors, see Chap. 3 of my book,
A Heavenly Directory.
stood out from others in the way that his doctrine of communion with
God as triune informed the experience of the worshiper.
Two overarching principles mark Owen’s doctrine of communion
with God. The first principle is that since the persons of the Godhead
are inseparable yet distinct, they interpenetrate one another (perichore-
sis).73 The second is that the external works of the Godhead are undi-
vided (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt).74 The result of combining
these principles is that no one can have communion with one divine
person without holding communion with all three simultaneously.75
Nevertheless, the Scriptures often ascribe some aspect of the divine pecu-
liarly to one divine person. These were called opera appropriata.76 In his
Hebrews commentary, Owen illustrated this principle in relation to the
doctrine of revelation. Since the Father is the fountain of the deity, he
is the origin of all divine works.77 His appropriate work is initiation.78
As the Son fulfills the Father’s plan respecting the elect and the Spirit
brings this plan to fruition by applying redemption to them,79 so divine
revelation in Scripture originates with the Father.80 The Father revealed
his counsel to his Son who, in turn, revealed it to mankind.81 The Spirit
takes the Father’s revelation, both through reading and preaching the
word, and he applies it to his people.82 Though all three persons work
simultaneously, they do not act in the same way.83 However, they do
not contribute to three parts of a single work. They accomplish a single
73 Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, Works, 12:73.

74 Owen, Pneumatologia, Works, 3:66–68, 93. See also Edward Leigh, A Systeme or
Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of
Religion Are Opened…. (London: Printed by A.M. for William Lee …, 1662), 205.
75 Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2:268–269.
76 For opera appropriata, see Muller, PRRD, 4:267–269.
77 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:23, 34; Salus Electorum Sanguis Christi, or, The Death
of Death in the Death of Christ, Works, 10:163–173. Chapters 4–6 of this work treat the
appropriate works of the Father, Son, and Spirit in redemption, respectively.
78 Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2, Chap. 4.
79 Owen, Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Works, 10:174–177 and 178–179, respec-
tively.
80 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:34–35.
81 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:35, 97. See also the section above treating Theologoumena
Pantodapa.
83 Leigh, Body of Divinity, 205.
24 R.M. McGRAW
work in a threefold manner. It is clear that this observation parallels his

treatment of true theology. It shows where the objective and subjective
elements of theology converge in regenerate people. The same pattern is
present in Christ’s incarnation, which Owen treats elsewhere.84
These distinctions shape how believers hold communion with all three
divine persons. The trinitarian doxology found in 2 Cor. 13:14 sets the
tone for the nature of communion with each person. In this text, the
Father is characterized by love, the Son by grace, and the Spirit by com-
fort.85 The fact that the Father is characterized by love does not exclude
the Son and the Spirit from the exercise of divine love. However, the
Father is viewed as the fountain of divine love.86 The Father’s love is like
the sun while the Son’s love is like the rays of the sun.87 Interestingly,
medieval theology, following Augustine, associated love primarily with
the Holy Spirit, who was the bond of love between the Father and the
Son.88 Owen reassessed this trend in light of passages such as 1 John 4,
which declared that “God is love” because he sent his Son to die for sin-
ners. “God” in this and other passages refers clearly to the Father.89 This
observation opens the door to further research regarding the interaction
between Reformed trinitarianism and the medieval tradition.90 Owen did
not merely regurgitate this tradition. He was willing to modify it in light
of his exegetical labors.91
84 Owen, Pneumatologia, Works, 3:162ff.

86 Owen, Nature and Beauty of Public Worship, Works, 9:58–59.
87 Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2:27.
88 This is reflected repeatedly most of the chapters of the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity.
89 Owen, Communion with God, 17–18; Works, 2:19–20.
90 Some of his contemporaries did not share these emphases. Richard Byfield ignored
the person of the Father when treating “God is love,” even though his book included
the divine persons in its title. Richard Byfield, The Gospels Glory, Without Prejudice to the
Law Shining Forth in the Glory of God [brace] the Father, the Sonne, the Holy Ghost, for the
Salvation of Sinners, Who Through Grace Do Believe According to the Draught of the Apostle
Paul in Rom. 8. ver. 3.4. Held Out to Publick View (London: Printed by E.M. for Adoniram
Byfield, 1659), 58–59.
91 This vindicates Muller’s assertion that the primary contribution of the Reformed to
trinitarian theology was likely exegetical. Muller, PRRD, 4:25. For Owen’s exegeti-
cal method, see Henry M. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and
Seventeenth-Century Exegetical Methodology,” 2002.
Without repeating what I have written elsewhere,92 it is sufficient to

summarize how these principles applied to public worship. Owen taught
that the primary goal in public worship was to come to the Father.93
However, both in terms of space and emphasis, most of his attention
went to the person and work of the Son.94 Communion with God in
public worship, or anywhere else, would be impossible without com-
munion with the Son in grace.95 In his personal grace, he is endowed
with every excellence of divine wisdom and power needed to save sin-
ners.96 Through his purchased grace, believers receive forgiveness of sin
and imputed righteousness through his obedience.97 No one can know
the Father’s love except through the Son’s grace.98 Christ is the covenant
bond that unites believers to him and brings them into communion with
the Father.99 The Spirit is the comforter because the Spirit applies the
grace of Christ so that believers can know the love of the Father.100
92 A Heavenly Directory, Chap. 2.
93 Owen, Nature and Beauty of Public Worship, Works, 9:58–60.
94 This is truth, both in regard to Communion with God and to The Nature and Beauty of
Public Worship.
95 Owen, Nature and Beauty of Public Worship, Works, 9:61.
96 Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2:59–117. Byfield called this “the grace of per-
sonal union.” Richard Byfield, The Gospel’s Glory Without Prejudice to the Law, 73.
97 Owen, Communion with God, 181–187; Works, 2:159–164. For John Owen’s views on
justification, including the “active obedience” of Christ, see Carl R. Trueman, John Owen,
101–121; and “John Owen on Justification,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for us in
Justification, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Geanies House, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications,
2007), 81–98. For arguments that the Westminster documents imply the active obedience
of Christ, see Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the
Westminster Assembly,” in Drawn into Controversie, 31–51. Strange attempts to explain
the changes between Westminster and Savoy as well (31).
98 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” Works, 9:61.
99 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 791: “Quid sit union cum Christo?… quod
sit mystica illa relatio, per quam uniti cum Christo ius aquirunt ad omnes illas benedic-
tiones, qua in ipso preparantur.” (Trans: “What is union with Christ?… That it is a mystical
relation, by which we are united with Christ and acquire the right to all his blessings, which
are provided in him.”).
100 Owen, Nature and Beauty of Public Worship, Works, 9:70. For more about Owen’s
teaching on the Spirit, see Ryan M. McGraw, “John Owen on the Holy Spirit in Relation
to the Trinity, the Humanity of Christ, and the Believer,” in The Beauty and Glory of the
Holy Spirit, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Joseph A. Pipa (Grand Rapids, 2012), 267–284. For a
groundbreaking treatment of the medieval background of Owen’s treatment of the Holy
Spirit in relation to Christ’s humanity, see Wise and Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and
Renewal,” in Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 465–518.
26 R.M. McGRAW
If the work of any divine person is omitted or altered, then peo-

ple cannot hold communion with God at all. In Owen’s view, Roman
Catholicism obliterated communion with God by altering Christ’s work.
As a result, the outward pomp and ceremony of their worship services
reflected an attempt to compensate for the absence of the Holy Spirit.101
Positively, because the knowledge of God is trinitarian, communion with
God involves all three persons.102 Regenerate people are worshipers.
True worshipers desire to be where God is present most gloriously and
powerfully. This occurs in public worship above all other places.
Conclusion: Public Worship as the

Culmination of Trinitarian Piety
Owen’s associate minister, David Clarkson (1622–1686), published
a sermon entitled Public Worship to be Preferred Above Private.103 He
argued that this was the case based, among other things, on God’s
promises and on the fact that he loves to have all of his children pre-
sent at once.104 Owen and Clarkson clearly shared an emphasis on com-
munion with God in public worship. However, Owen’s treatment of
this theme was consistently trinitarian while Clarkson’s was not. Even
where Clarkson addressed communion with the Godhead elsewhere,
he highlighted communion with the Father and the Son to the neglect
of the Spirit.105 What makes Owen distinctive is that where he treated
communion with the triune God, he included public worship as its high
point,106 and where he treated public worship, he included communion
with the triune God as its highest privilege.107 This feature of his theol-
ogy is frequently neglected in recent treatments. The rest of this article
solidifies this point by showing how these themes pervaded every major
area of his theology.
101 Owen, The Chamber of Imagery, Works, 8:557–560.

102 Owen, The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship, Works, 9:57.
103 David Clarkson, Public Worship to be Preferred Before Private, The Works of David
Clarkson (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1988), 3:187–209.

104 Clarkson, Public Worship, Works, 3:190–194.
105 Clarkson, Believers’ Communion with the Father and the Son, Works, 3:166–186.
107 For example, the two sermons on The Nature and Beauty of Public Worship, cited
above.
Trinity and Scripture
The trinitarian foundations of the knowledge of God and the trinitar-
ian experience of communion with God are two streams that frequently
flow together in Owen’s writings. One obvious place where this is the
case is in regard to his doctrine of Scripture. The reason is that the doc-
trine of Scripture is intimately tied to Reformed prolegomena on the one
hand,108 and it served as the foundation for the Reformed doctrine of
worship on the other.109 Owen’s trinitarian construction of the knowl-
edge of God, combined with the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency
and authority of Scripture, resulted in a doctrine of public worship that
was both Reformed and devotionally trinitarian.
The Reformed principle regulating public worship teaches that the
church must limit the ordinances of public worship to those that God
has appointed in Scripture.110 The form of these ordinances should be
informed and directed by Scripture, while falling short of imposing a
set form of words.111 For instance, it is a divine ordinance to pray; how-
ever, the church cannot require ministers to submit to pre-composed
prayers in a prayer book.112 Owen argued that imposing prayers com-
posed by the church upon ministers would prevent them from exercis-
ing spiritual gifts in prayer and that if ministers did not exercise these
108 Muller, PRRD, 2.
109 Savoy Declaration of Faith, 1.6.
110 Savoy Declaration 22.1; Westminster Confession 21.1; George Gillespie, A Dispute
Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland: Wherein Not
Only Our Own Arguments Against the Same Are Strongly Confirmed, but Likewise the
Answers and Defences of Our Opposites, Such as Hooker, Morton, Burges, Sprint, Paybody,
Andrews, Saravia, Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey, Forbes, etc., Particularly Confuted, ed.
Christopher Coldwell (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1993), 112; William Ames, A Fresh
Suit Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship or a Triplication Unto D. Burgesse His
Rejoinder for D. Morton, … (by William Ames.). ((S. l.), 1633).
111 For example, this terminology is applied to prayer in Westminster Shorter Catechism
99; Westminster Larger Catechism 186.

112 Church of Scotland. General Assembly, England and Wales. Parliament, and
Westminster Assembly, A Directory for the Publique Worship of God Throughout the Three
Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland Together with an Ordinance of Parliament for
the Taking Away of the Book of Common-Prayer: And for Establishing and Observing of This
Present Directory Throughout the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales (London:
Printed by M.B. and A.M. for the Company of Stationers, 1646), 1–4. Owen, The Work of
the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Works, 4:339.
28 R.M. McGRAW
gifts then they would lose them.113 Anything that has religious signifi-
cance in worship that God has not required in Scripture is forbidden by
Scripture. Decades prior to Owen, William Ames noted that the Church
of England, mistakenly in his view, tried to introduce new ordinances of
worship by saying that they were merely circumstances surrounding wor-
ship and that they did not alter the substance of the divine service.114
George Gillespie (1613–1648) later clarified that genuine circumstances
of worship could be no essential part of worship; they must be necessary
in order to observe the ordinances that God had commanded, and they
must not be determinable by Scripture.115 Thus, the church must select
a time of day on the Lord’s Day in order to hold services,116 but the
church cannot use candles in the worship service for anything other than
lighting.117 I have shown elsewhere that Owen and his contemporaries
developed these principles from the second commandment.118
Owen’s treatment of the principles governing biblical worship was dis-
tinctively trinitarian. This is obvious on the surface from his two sermons
on the Nature and Beauty of Public Worship, which argue for the prin-
ciples stated above in connection to a passage that teaches communion
with God as triune. This was not the case with many of his contemporar-
ies, who often treated the biblical principles governing worship and the
need to come to God with a regenerate heart. Charnock and Burroughs
did not treat the Trinity at all in relation to their treatises on worship.119
As noted above, authors who did connect the Trinity to worship, such
as Perkins and Cheynell, treated the triune God as the object of wor-
ship without showing how communion with the three persons affected
the manner of worship.120 The principles of regeneration and worship
overlap with Reformed prolegomena in relation to the knowledge of
113 Owen, Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, Works, 4:239–240.

114 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 37.
115 Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 112–115. I am grateful to Chris Caldwell for this
reference.
116 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 58–59.
117 Ames, A Fresh Suit, Part I, 16, 17–18, respectively. Nicholas Tyacke notes that in
1640,Thomas Warmstry complained that churches had introduced “candles in the day
time.” Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, C. 1590–1640
(Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1987), 241.
118 McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, Chap. 3.
119 Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:109ff.; Burroughs, Gospel Worship.
120 Perkins, Idolatry of the Last Times, throughout; Cheynell, Divine Triunity, 272–305.
God, as shown above. However, the former group of authors cited here
treated communion with God to the neglect of the Trinity, while the lat-
ter included the Trinity to the neglect of distinct communion with the
divine persons. Owen stands out by self-consciously interweaving these
themes. As a result, his treatment of the Reformed doctrine of public
worship represents a consistent outworking of his trinitarian prolegom-
ena, of which the doctrine of Scripture was one of the two primary first
principles. Owen’s trinitarianism worked itself out with at least more
consistency and rigor than that of other British Reformed orthodox the-
ologians.
Trinity and Spiritual Affections

Owen’s teaching on spiritual affections integrated the themes of Trinity
and public worship in several ways. He illustrated this connection par-
ticularly in relation to proper and improper affections toward the ordi-
nances of worship and the related topic of apostasy. He included chapters
on public worship both in his book on The Grace and Duty of Being
Spiritually Minded and in his work on Apostasy from the Gospel.121 These
connections not only strengthened Owen’s teaching on the trinitar-
ian nature of communion with God, but they reinforced the distinctive
nature of his contribution to Reformed trinitarian theology by his inten-
tional inclusion of public worship in works such as these.
In Puritan thought, the affections ordinarily encompassed the emotive
capacity of the soul, which sometimes includes the will.122 The subject of
the spiritual affections lay at the heart of Puritan experimental piety.123
121 Both treatises are found in Owen, Works, 7. The chapters on worship in The Grace
and Duty are found on pp. 416–445. The material in Apostasy from the Gospel is found in
Chap. 6 of that book.
122 Owen, Grace and Duty, Works, 7:270; Edward Reynolds, A Treatise on the Passions
and Faculties of the Soul, With the Several Dignities and Corruptions Belonging Thereunto.
(London, 1658), 896, 1104–1105; Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, in The
Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Perry Miller, John E. Smith, and Harry S. Stout (New
Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press; Oxford University Press, 2008), 2:96.
123 For example see, Edward Reynolds, Meditations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter
(London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst …, 1677). 58: “Christ is not truly apprehended
either by the fancy or the understanding. He is at once known and possessed. It is an
experimental, and not a speculative knowledge that conceives him; he understands him that
feels him. We see him in his grace and truth, not in any carnal or gross pretense.”
30 R.M. McGRAW
Renewed affections that love the divine persons are perhaps the primary
mark of a regenerate soul.124 In relation to the ordinances of public
worship, spiritual affections are necessary in order to hold communion
with the triune God. Owen developed this theme both positively and
negatively.
First, and positively, believers must love the ordinances of worship
that God has appointed.125 A regenerate soul only loves those things
that God has commanded. The better informed such affections are,
then the more closely will worship naturally follow the principles out-
lined above in relation to Scripture. Regenerate souls love the Scriptures
because they love God through the Scriptures.126 They will love those
only ordinances that God appointed. Right affections should love no
other ordinances. This is merely one example of his positive treatment
of the importance of the affections in communing with God in public
worship.127
However, second, people may have wrong or misplaced affections in
relation to the true ordinances of God. For example, they may trust in
them instead of using them as divinely appointed means of communion
with God.128 They may love the right way of worship for the wrong rea-
sons.129 They may also love their own particular faction more than God,
causing their zeal for the ordinances of worship to degenerate into spirit-
ual pride instead of genuine fellowship with the Father, through the Son,
by the Spirit.130
The consequence of this negative point is apostasy from the gospel.
Owen described this apostasy as a gradual and incremental process. This
process begins with neglecting the ordinances of public worship and then
moves through adding manmade ordinances to divine worship and trust-
ing the ordinances themselves instead of God through them.131 Similarly,
124 Jonathan Edwards, “True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils,” in The
Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 2:48–49.
125 Owen, Grace and Duty, 234; Works, 7:432.
126 Owen, Grace and Duty, 237; Works, 7:434. Here he explains that the saints have
communion with God in worship through faith, love, and delight.

127 For a fuller analysis, see McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, Chap. 4.
128 Owen, Grace and Duty, Works, 7:424.
131 See Chap. 3 of McGraw, A Heavenly Directory.
he asserted in the Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded that while
neglecting the ordinances of God entirely is not the only means of apos-
tasy, it is a sure path to apostasy.132 All three of these points together
reflect the fact that just as public worship is the climax of communion
with God, so communion with God must be the goal of public worship.
Exalting anything else above the triune God and communion with him is
the essence of apostasy.
The connection between spiritual affections, trinitarian theology, and
public worship is that communion with the triune God must always be
the goal of public worship. In other words, since public worship is the
highest possible experience of communion with God, Owen saw fit to
include this subject in his treatments of the spiritual affections and of
apostasy, which address the progress and decline of communion with
God, respectively. He did not always treat all three divine persons in the
same sections of these works as he did elsewhere, but all three persons
pervade these discussions as a whole. This material further strengthens
the fact that the connection between communion with God and public
worship was intentional and a self-conscious emphasis. This grew out of
the practical emphasis of Reformed trinitarianism, which I have argued
above was one of its distinguishing traits and one of its primary contribu-
tions to the history of the doctrine.
Trinity and Covenant
In Reformed theology, Trinity, covenant, and the experiential knowl-
edge of God are intertwined. Owen made this clear by including the cov-
enantal bond between God and believers in Christ in the heart of his
definition of communion with God.133 As it relates to the Trinity, there
are two primary aspects of covenant theology in relation to Christ: the
eternal covenant of redemption and the historical covenant of grace.
The first covenant stressed the work of the Son in relation to the Father,
while the second shifted emphasis to the work of the Son in relation to
the Spirit. There is also a difference in the degree of communion with
God between worship under the old and new covenants. This meant that
132 Owen, Grace and Duty; Works, 7:434.

32 R.M. McGRAW
Owen’s covenant theology was both trinitarian in its structure and doxo-
logical in its goals.
The intra-trinitarian covenant of redemption rose to prominence
in the 1640’s.134 The idea existed much earlier, but the terminology
describing it evolved gradually.135 Some authors referred to it as the cov-
enant of redemption,136 while others called it the counsel of peace.137
Owen most commonly called this covenant as the “covenant of the
Mediator.”138 The covenant of redemption involves primarily the Father
and the Son as parties of the covenant.139 The Son voluntarily conde-
scended to purchase the people whom the Father chose to salvation.140
This meant that he would become incarnate, live, die, rise, and ascend
into heaven as the God-man. The Father promised to assist the Son in
his work and to give him a redeemed people out of all the nations of the
earth as his inheritance.141 This covenant represents the eternal decree of
God as it relates to the plan of redemption.142
Where does the Holy Spirit factor into this construction of covenant
theology? Robert Letham’s preoccupation with the question of East
134 Trueman, John Owen, 71, where he notes the importance of David Dickson in the
English-speaking context. For Dickson’s exposition of the covenant of redemption, see his
comments on Psalm 2:7–9. David Dickson, A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms, 2nd
ed. (London, 1655), 11–13.
135 Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,”
Mid-America Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11–65.

136 Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened, Or, a Treatise of the Covenant of
Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace the Second
Part, Wherein Is Proved, That There Is Such a Covenant, the Necessity of It, the Nature,
Properties, Parties Thereof, the Tenor, Articles, Subject-Matter of Redemption, the Commands,
Conditions, and Promises Annexed, the Harmony of the Covenant of Reconciliation Made
with Sinners, Wherein They Agree, Wherein They Differ, Grounds of Comfort from the
Covenant of Suretiship (London: Printed for Thomas Pankhurst, 1677).
137 Wilhemus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel
Elshout, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012). See volume 1,
Chaps. 4–7.
138 For example, Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:61. This terminology appears throughout the
Hebrews commentary.
139 The Sum of Saving Knowledge with the Practical Use Thereof (Edinburgh, 1671), head-
ing 2 (unpaginated).
140 Owen, Death of Death, Works, 10:174.
141 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:61–62. On pp. 194–195, Owen listed sixteen actions of
the Father towards the Son in the covenant of redemption.

142 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61–63.
versus West spills over into his examination of Owen on the covenant
of redemption. He criticizes Owen for his “binitarian construction” of
the covenant of redemption.143 He regards this as reflecting the western
tendency to subordinate and depersonalize the Holy Spirit.144 However,
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) later clarified the role of the Spirit in
the covenant of redemption. He argued that the Spirit is active in the
covenant of redemption, but is not a party in that covenant because he
is not humiliated. The Son’s humiliation is vital to his being a party in
the covenant of redemption. On the other hand, the Spirit is actively
involved in the covenant because he cannot be inactive without dividing
the Godhead.145 Edwards did not invent this explanation, but he elab-
orated it more clearly than most earlier Reformed authors.146 Letham
argues that Owen was allegedly aware of the danger that the covenant
of redemption posed to the Trinity and that it implied that the persons
of the Godhead needed a covenant to unite them in their purpose.147
He concluded that Owen’s difficulty with treating the divine persons
adequately betrays his western roots.148 He adds that the East stresses
that we know the persons by our relation to them in redemption rather
than by definition. However, this was precisely Horrnbeeck’s conclusion
to his treatment of the Trinity,149 and it pervades Peter van Mastricht’s
chapters on the three persons.150 Earlier in the Ashgate volume, Willem
van Asselt argued that the trinitarian structure of the covenant of
143 Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in its Catholic Context,” Ashgate
Research Companion, 196.

144 Carl Trueman criticizes in passing Letham’s charge that the covenant of redemption
introduced tension into the theology of the Westminster Standards. Carl. R. Trueman,
“Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain,” in Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 282, fn 82.
145 Jonathan Edwards, “Economy of the Trinity in the Covenant of Redemption,” The
Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 20:441–442.

146 Van Asselt makes a similar observation about Cocceius’s position. W. J. van Asselt, The
Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 235.


149 Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae, 1:139–141.
150 Peter van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita
Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione

34 R.M. McGRAW
redemption was precisely what enabled Owen and Cocceius to empha-

size communion with all three divine persons.151
The covenant of grace completes the trinitarian picture of Reformed
covenant theology. In the covenant of grace, the Son fulfills the terms
of the Father’s plan in the eternal covenant of redemption by actually
purchasing salvation. In the covenant of grace, Christ fulfilled the cov-
enant of works that Adam broke in the Garden of Eden.152 This cov-
enant required perfect and perpetual obedience in order to receive the
promise of eternal life.153 Christ not only kept the law of the covenant
of works for his people, but he bore the curse of the covenant, which
Adam brought upon himself and his posterity.154 The covenant of grace
fulfills the covenant of redemption by satisfying the terms of the cove-
nant of works. One difference between the covenant of grace and the
covenant of redemption is that the covenant of grace requires a response
from the elect in order to make them partakers of Christ and his ben-
efits. This response is faith in Christ, which unites the souls of believers
to their Savior. This is where the Holy Spirit becomes prominent, since
it is he who applies the redemption purchased by Christ to his people.155
This means that even though Christ and the Father are the parties of the
covenant of redemption, and Christ and believers are the primary par-
ties of the covenant of grace, neither covenant could come to fruition or
fulfill the divine plan of redemption without the powerful operation of
the Holy Spirit. Mirroring the description of communion with God,156
Christ is the centerpiece of both covenants since he is the ground of
communion between God and sinners.

Conjugantur. (Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1724),
235–270.
151 Van Asselt, “Covenant Theology as Relational Theology,” Ashgate Research
Companion, 77.
152 Herman Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor, 2 vols.
(Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water, 1694). lib. 1,
cap. 9, paragraph XXIII (p. 126): “Foedus gratia non est abolitia foedus operum, sed con-
firmation illius, in quantum Mediator omnes conditiones foederis implevit, adeo ut juxta
foedus operum, cui a Mediatore satisfactum est, fideles omnes justificentur et serventur.”
153 Savoy Declaration 7.2.
154 Savoy Declaration 8.1–3.
155 Owen, “The Everlasting Covenant,” Works, 9:418.
How does Owen’s theology of public worship relate to this trinitar-

ian structure of Reformed covenant theology? The answer lies in the
relationship between what Owen and others called the old covenant and
the new covenant. Based largely on Hebrews 8, most Reformed authors
agreed that the “old covenant” referred to the Mosaic covenant.157 The
primary point of dispute was how the old covenant related to the cov-
enant of works and the covenant of grace. Mark Jones argues that most
Reformed authors believed that the Mosaic covenant was an adminis-
tration of the covenant of grace with the covenant of works present in
a subordinate and declarative sense.158 John Ball made a similar claim
about his contemporaries.159 Under this view, the old covenant people
of God were not under the law as a covenant of works. They lived by
and under the terms of the covenant of grace in light of the promises
that God gave to Abraham. However, the Ten Commandments were not
only a rule of life for believers within the covenant of grace. They repre-
sented the standard and the sanction of the broken covenant of works
that Christ needed to keep in order to fulfill the covenant of redemp-
tion.160 By contrast, Owen taught a minority view that the old or Mosaic
covenant was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace,
but that it was a “superadded covenant.”161 A few others, such as John
Cameron and Samuel Petto, held a similar view.162 In Owen’s view, Israel
could not be under the covenant of works, since it was abrogated as a
157 Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), Chap. 3.

158 Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Michael A.G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds.,
Drawn into Controversie: Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century

British Puritanism (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecth, 2011), 200.
159 John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace Wherein the Graduall Breakings Out of
Gospel Grace from Adam to Christ Are Clearly Discovered, the Differences Betwixt the Old
and New Testament Are Laid Open, Divers Errours of Arminians and Others Are Confuted,
the Nature of Uprightnesse, and the Way of Christ in Bringing the Soul into Communion
with Himself … Are Solidly Handled (London: Printed by G. Miller for Edward Brewster,
1645), 95.
160 J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a
Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 311–316.
161 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 23:70.
162 Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and
Explained with an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal Concernments

of It (London: Printed for Eliz. Calvert …, 1674), 162. Michael Brown has recently
36 R.M. McGRAW
way of life immediately upon Adam’s fall.163 However, the Mosaic cov-
enant could not be an administration of the covenant of grace, since he
believed that Hebrews contrasted this covenant with the benefits of the
new covenant, such as the forgiveness of sins. Instead, the Mosaic cove-
nant presents the “legal condition” of the covenant of grace as the means
by which Christ would redeem his people.164 The Old Testament saints
did not directly have any relationship to the covenant of works or the
covenant of grace by virtue of the Mosaic covenant.165
While the end result of Owen’s minority construction of the Mosaic
covenant differed little from those of other Reformed authors, he used
it as an avenue to draw attention to the superior glory of new covenant
worship.166 As noted above, he believed that the primary advantage of
new covenant worship was knowing God as triune.167 This does not
mean that the Old Testament did not include hints at God’s triunity.
He argues at length that it did in the first two volumes of his work on
Hebrews. His colleague and friend Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680) went
so far as to argue that if the doctrine of the Trinity was not at least pre-
sent seminally in the Old Testament, then it was not a biblical doctrine,
since the New Testament expands the doctrines of the Old Testament.168
What Owen was driving at was that the new covenant revealed the exper-
imental knowledge of all three persons in the Godhead in a way that

misconstrued the relationship between Owen and Petto’s views in this regard. See Michael
Brown, Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624–1711)
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012); and Ryan M. McGraw, “A
Review of Michael Brown, Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel
Petto (1624–1711),” Mid-America Journal of Theology 23 (2012): 152–155 for my cri-
tique of his analysis.
163 Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 107.
164 Petto, The Difference, 168: “I do not call it, the Covenant of Grace, nor the Covenant
of Works; but to express the formality and essential nature of it, I call it, the Covenant of
Grace as to its legal condition, or a covenant concerning the legal condition of the covenant of
grace.” Emphasis original.
165 See Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” 199–200.
167 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open,” Works,
8:555–556.
168 Thomas Goodwin, The Knowledge of the Father and of His Son Jesus Christ, The Works
of Thomas Goodwin (Edinburgh: J. Nichol, 1861), 4:352–353.

surpassed the experience of the old covenant saints, both in its revelation
and in its power. The book of Hebrews was particularly important in this
connection, since Owen believed that the primary purpose of the book
was to argue that Christ had the authority to change and remove the
Mosaic ordinances of public worship.169 Elsewhere, he argued that this
meant that Christ exchanged the outward glory of old covenant temple
worship for “a few and simple ceremonies.”170
In the old covenant, the external ordinances of worship were more
glorious, while the saints’ internal communion with God was less pow-
erful. In the new covenant, the external ordinances of worship were
reduced to elements such as prayer, the ministry of the word, and the
administration of the sacraments, but the saints enjoyed communion
with the triune God that surpassed anything that the old covenant saints
knew.171 In this way, Owen’s covenant theology wove together his trini-
tarian theology as it related to the knowledge of God, Scripture, spiritual
affections, and other subjects. Once again, public worship is the common
thread tying these doctrines together. Simultaneously, his treatment of
communion with God in new covenant worship is intertwined with his
ecclesiology.
Trinity and Ecclesiology
Ecclesiology is the locus of theology in which Owen gave concrete
expression to how believers hold communion with the triune God in
public worship. Most of the sections above refer to the ordinances of
public worship. Seventeenth-century ecclesiology treated these ordi-
nances directly. This is the point at which Owen showed how divine
ordinances related to communion with the Godhead. Due to space limi-
tations, this analysis is limited to the role of the ministry in public wor-
ship, preaching, and the Lord’s Supper.
The purpose of public worship is to bless the congregation of God’s
people. According to Owen, the Christian ministry was the primary
instrument through which this blessing is conveyed from God to the

170 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. VI, cap. 7, 501; A Discourse Concerning
Liturgies and their Imposition, Works, 15:9.
171 Owen, “Nature and Beauty of Public Worship,” Works, 9:57.
38 R.M. McGRAW
saints.172 The ministerial office is benedictory, and ministers bless the

congregation by administering public ordinances.173 This means that
ministers are instruments of divine blessing and not causes of them.
The reason he placed emphasis on the Christian ministry in connection
to public worship was because of the common Reformed principle that
God appointed ordained ministers alone to administer the ordinances of
worship.174
The function of the ministry in public worship means that the primary
task of ministers is to preach the word of God.175 The passage already
cited above from the Hebrews commentary regarding the appropriate
works of the Father illustrates how this ordinance relates to commun-
ion with the divine persons. There Owen argued that the Father is the
origin of all divine revelation, including the application of that revela-
tion through preaching.176 The Father commits his self-revelation to the
Son and communicates it only through the Son, whether through the
prophets of the Old Testament or the ministers of the word of the New
Testament.177 The Spirit then applies this revelation to the elect to make
it effectual for salvation, both for preachers and for hearers.178 Note
again the parallel between Owen’s treatment of preaching and his exposi-
tion of the Reformed doctrine of the knowledge of God. Preaching is
the primary means by which God brings his people to the knowledge of
himself through Christ.179
The sacraments are a corollary to and concomitant of the word of
God.180 They have no independent efficacy apart from the preaching
172 Owen, “The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:456–457.

173 Owen treats the nature of benedictions in relation to the ministerial office in Hebrews
in Works, 22:316–320, 368–375. He argued that ministers are benedictory to the congre-
gation by faithfully exercising the duties of their office in obedience to Christ. See McGraw,
A Heavenly Directory, Chap. 6.
174 For example, Wollebius, Compendium, 159–160; Leigh, Body of Divinity, 461–466.
175 See Leigh, Body of Divinity, 461–466, who treats the nature and ends of preaching
at length as the primary calling of pastors. This is the burden of Owen’s sermon on “The
Duty of Pastors” in Works, 9, as cited above (see esp. Works, 9:453).
177 Owen, A Discourse on Spiritual Gifts; Works, 4:491.
178 Owen, A Discourse on Spiritual Gifts; Works, 4:438.
179 Andreas Hyperius, The Practice of Preaching, Otherwise Called the Pathway to the
Pulpit, trans. John Ludham (London, 1577), 9; Oliver Bowles, De Pastore Evangelio
Tractatus (London, 1659), 2.
of the word.181 This means that the sacraments aim at the same kind of
trinitarian communion as does preaching. Owen wrote very little about
baptism,182 but he argued that believers held greater communion with
God in the Lord’s Supper than in any other ordinance.183 This was partly
due to the promise of the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament
and partly due to the fact that this was one of the few ordinances that
appealed to the whole person, including sense as well as faith.184 Richard
Sibbes (1577–1635) made the trinitarian emphasis of the Lord’s Supper
explicit by treating it as a feast setting forth the love of the Father. Christ
is the object of faith in the Supper, yet the Father sent the Son. Christ is
then present by the Holy Spirit to the faith of believers.185 This matches
Owen’s teaching closely, and in this regard, he did not stand out nor was
he unusual. He fit within a Reformed tradition that placed a premium on
communion with God through word, sacrament, and prayer.
Owen’s treatment of Trinity and ecclesiology ties together all of the
themes treated above in this essay. The purpose of administering ordi-
nances in public worship is to promote the true knowledge of God. The
triune God administers these ordinances in the context of the church
through ordained ministers of the word.186 This experience of God is the
apex of new covenant worship, and it is the outlet of affections that are
renewed by the Holy Spirit.
180 Wollebius, Compendium, 124.
181 Leigh,Body of Divinity, 655–657.
182 He included scattered references to baptism throughout his Works and a few very
short treatments of infant baptism, but he did not devote an extended exposition to
this sacrament in any place. For a treatment of his arguments for infant baptism, see Lee
Gatiss, “From Life’s First Cry: John Owen on Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation,” in The
Ashgate Research Companion, 271–282.
183 Owen, “The Chamber of Imagery,” Works, 8:560: “The communication of Christ
herein, and our participation in him, are expressed in such a manner as to demonstrate
them to be peculiar—such as are not to be obtained in any other way or divine ordinance
whatever; not in praying, not in preaching, not in any other exercise of faith on the word of
promises.”
184 In every other case, Owen regarded sight and sense as contrary to faith. See the
appendix on Owen’s view of images of Christ in my Heavenly Directory.

185 Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, 7 vols. (Edinburgh: James
Nichols, 1862), 4:329.

186 Contra Petto, with whom Owen otherwise shared much agreement both in covenant
theology and ecclesiology. John Martin et al., The Preacher Sent: Or, a Vindication of the
Liberty of Publick Preaching, by Some Men Not Ordained; in Answer to Two Books: 1. Jus
Divinum Ministerii Evangelici: By the Provincial Assembly of London. 2. Vindiciæ Ministerii
40 R.M. McGRAW
Conclusion
Owen’s distinctive contribution to Reformed orthodox trinitarian theol-
ogy and the reasons behind the general neglect of the Reformed con-
tribution to trinitarian theology converge. While Owen emphasized
communion with the divine persons and communion with God in public
worship more fully than most of his contemporaries, what they held in
common was a commitment to the practical use of the doctrine. This
appears to be why this area has been largely overlooked in Owen stud-
ies and one reason why contemporary treatments often bypass Reformed
authors.
For most scholars of historical theology, the conjunction between
Owen’s trinitarian theology and public worship is not even a topic of
discussion. The two secondary works that treat the connection between
his trinitarianism and worship stress communion with God in pri-
vate worship rather than through the ordinances of public worship.187
Many modern treatments of the Trinity are interested in how the doc-
trine functions in the entire system of theology. The practical use of the
doctrine is ordinarily relegated to mystical contemplation and apophatic
theology.188 By contrast, Reformed trinitarian piety reflected Reformed
soteriology.189 This is precisely what is missing in most contemporary
conversations.
John Owen’s teaching on communion with the triune God in pub-
lic worship represents one avenue that Reformed trinitarian piety could
take. His treatment on this subject is comprehensive and profound, cov-
ering the scope of most major areas of the system of doctrine. This con-
nection that he made between Trinity and public worship is not all that
he had to contribute to trinitarian theology either.190 Ironically, the most
profound Reformed application and development of trinitarian theology

Evangelici. by Mr. John Collings. Published by J. Martin, S. Petto, F. Woodal. (London,
1658).
187 Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality; Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity and its
Significance for Today.”

188 As is the case throughout the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity.
189 Wisse and Meijer make a similar observation in relation to pneumatology and soteriol-
ogy. Wisse and Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” Companion to Reformed
Orthodoxy, 500–505.
is not found in popular works by English Puritans, but in Latin theo-

logical treatises, such as those of Hoornbeeck, Voetius, and Mastricht.
In order to assess Reformed trinitarian theology in general and Owen in
particular, more historical investigation is needed. But scholars will not
begin looking unless they believe that there is something worth finding.
In order to appreciate what historic Reformed orthodoxy has to offer
contemporary trinitarian theology, we must look for a Reformed trinitar-
ian piety that asks Reformed questions and reflects Reformed soteriology.
This will also help place John Owen in proper historical context in order
to understand how he was distinctive from other writers and why he is
worth studying.
190 See Trueman, The Claims of Truth, for the Trinity in relation to overarching content
of Owen’s theology.
CHAPTER 3
“The Foundation of the Old Testament”:

John Owen on Genesis 3:15 as a Window
into Reformed Orthodox Old Testament
Exegesis
Reformed orthodoxy spans roughly the post-Reformation period in the

late sixteenth century into the mid-eighteenth century.1 It was an inter-
continental theological movement that was increasingly saturated with
scholastic methodology.2 While many have studied the social and politi-
cal aspects of Reformed orthodoxy in various countries,3 and others
have rejected the idea that Reformed scholastics simply used Scripture
as “proof texts” to uphold preexisting theological assumption,4 few
have demonstrated the interrelationship between exegesis and theology
1 Willem van Asselt, “What is Reformed Scholasticism?” in W.J. van Asselt et al.,
Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2011).
2 See R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman, eds. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999); W.J. van Asselt and E. Dekker, Reformation and
Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001);
H.J. Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions
to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013). The Selderhuis volume treats Reformed
orthodoxy and scholasticism in relation to each nation and region throughout Europe and
even North America.
3 For example, Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of
Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002).

4 Carl R Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot, England;
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007); Chad B Van Dixhoorn, The Minutes and Papers of the
Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, 5 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). See
also Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for
Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 117–142.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_3
44 R.M. McGRAW
in Reformed orthodox theology.5 Reformed thinkers were shaped by

their national and social contexts as well as by personal habits.6 They
defined themselves against the backdrop of Roman Catholicism, and
they contrasted themselves with heretical teachings. A multitude of
contexts contributed to Reformed orthodoxy theology, resulting in a
complex environment in which ideas developed.7 However, it is often
overlooked that Scripture, treated as a stable canon of documents with
divine authority, was also part of the context that influenced Reformed
thought. Exegetical discoveries often molded and shaped theological
conclusions and vice versa.
John Owen is a useful test case for examining the interdependence of
Reformed theology and exegesis. His treatment of Genesis 3:158 illus-
trates how and why this is the case, since it involves his careful interac-
tion with the text in its context, while interlacing this exposition with
hermeneutical and theological concepts. Owen’s analysis of this passage
shows that his understanding of Scripture was a calculated mixture of
exegetical precision and theological assumptions. This essay examines
his exegesis of the passage, then steps back and looks at his principles
5 Henry Knapp’s Ph.D. dissertation is a notable exception, but it remains unpublished.
Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God.” A summary of his findings is available in

Henry M. Knapp, “Revealing the Mind of God: Exegetical Method in the Seventeenth
Century,” Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds., Church and School
in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of
a Theological Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 533–550. Kelly Kapic has attempted a simi-
lar study of Owen, but while he acknowledges the existence of Knapp’s work (145), he
provides almost no interaction with his conclusions. In stark contrast to Knapp’s magiste-
rial study, Kapic’s work cites almost no primary source material beyond Owen’s Works and
very little secondary literature. As a result, his study fails to evaluate Owen’s exegesis in its
historical context. Kelly M. Kapic, “Typology, the Messiah, and John Owen’s Theological
Reading of Hebrews,” in Christology, Hermeneutics and Hebrew: Profiles from the History
of Interpretation, ed. Jon Laansma and Daniel J. Treier (London: T & T Clark, 2012),
135–154.
6 See Tim Cooper’s intriguing assessment of the radically divergent effects of the English
Civil war on John Owen and Richard Baxter as a striking example of this principle. Cooper,
John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity.
7 For the complexities of the British context in particular, see Randall J. Pederson, Unity
in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–1689, vol. 68, Brill
Studies in Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
8 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her
seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
3 “THE FOUNDATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT”: JOHN OWEN … 45
of biblical and theological interpretation in dialogue with representative

contemporaries, and finally draws conclusions regarding the interrela-
tionship between exegesis and theology in his thought and in Reformed
orthodoxy.
Owen’s Exegesis of Genesis 3:15

After briefly painting a backdrop of early church exegesis, this section
explores Owen’s exposition of Genesis 3:15. The following section draws
out the theological implications of his exposition and the methodological
assumptions that informed it before comparing Owen’s exegetical and
theological methods with those of his contemporaries.
Glimpses from the Early Church on Genesis 3:15

Reformed theology and exegesis drew from earlier precedents, without
being chained to their conclusions. Early church exegesis provides an
example of this.9 Early church interpretations of Genesis 3:15 tended to
be moralistic, with little reference to Christ. The collection of authors
in the volume on Genesis 1–11 in The Ancient Christian Commentary
on Genesis surveys the comments of Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose,
Augustine, Cesarius of Arles, and Irenaeus.10 Ephrem treats the lack of
repentance in the serpent and the ironic curse laid upon him; namely,
that since he deceived man who should rule over the beasts, he should
be cursed more than all beasts.11 Ambrose made the entire discourse
9 For representative treatments of the interpretation of the church fathers in British and
continental Reformed orthodoxy, see Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and
Christian Antiquity the Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009); Martin I. Klauber, “Whose Side Are They On? John Daile
(1594–1670) on the Church Fathers,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches:
From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ed. Martin I. Klauber, Reformed
Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014),
237–250.
10 Since this is not a paper on the church fathers, the authors has borrowed from the
following compilation for the sake of brevity and simplicity. Andrew Louth, ed., Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture: Genesis 1–11, vol. 1, Ancient Christian Commentary
(Chicago, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 88–91.
11 Ancient Christian Commentay, 88–89.
46 R.M. McGRAW
allegorical or typological of human sensuality.12 Augustine observed

that the serpent’s “punishment” was that he should have in his power
“those who despise the command of God.”13 Cesarius observed that
the text condemned those living for the body more than for the soul.14
Out of the authors chosen in this compilation, Irenaeus is the only one
who mentioned Christ. He argued that Christ would renew all things
by taking up battle against the serpent on man’s behalf.15 He cited Gal.
3:19 to illustrate that Christ was the seed who was made of a woman and
who alone could conquer Satan.16 Just as death gained victory over man,
so by man we must receive victory over death.17 The material below
demonstrates the affinities between this last interpretation and later
Reformed exegesis. However, the former exegetical options presented
here are hardly reflected at all in Reformed orthodoxy.
Augustine is worthy of special attention due to his undisputed influ-
ence on Reformed theology.18 Three references to Genesis 3:15 in
his Psalms commentary shed greater light on his view of how or if the
text related to Christ and to his church. In his comments on Psalm 35
(36 in English), he treated the seed of the woman as the church, who
was in danger of the serpent “watching” her heel by tempting her to
pride.19 On Psalm 68 (69 in English), he applied the text to the indi-
vidual believer. He believed that, according to the text, the devil “mar-
keth” the heels of believers by waiting to overthrow them when they
12 Ancient Christian Commentay, 89.

13 Ancient Christian Commentay, 89. Augustine does not add anything in his Genesi ad
Litteram, but refers instead to the two treatises on Genesis against the Manicheans cited in
this compilation. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor,
2 vols., Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation (New York:
Newman Press, 1982), 2:169–170.
14 Louth, Ancient Christian Commentary: Genesis 1–11.
18 For an examination of the centrality of Augustine in the Reformation and the vari-
ous cross-confessional readings of him, see A.S.Q. Visser, Reading Augustine in the
Reformation: The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620, Oxford Studies
in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
19 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. A. Cleveland
Coxe, vol. 8, 14 vols., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 90.
slip into sin. Believers, in turn, “mark” Satan’s head by combating evil
suggestions as they arise.20 The last reference to Genesis 3:15 appears
in relation to Psalm 73 (74 in English). In this case, Augustine applied
the seed of the woman to the church exclusively, arguing that the text
warned her primarily against slipping into pride through the serpent’s
temptation.21 The Christological reading of the text that was prominent
both in Irenaeus and in later Reformed exegesis is surprisingly absent
from Augustine’s treatment of the passage. Instead, he primarily applied
the text moralistically by urging his readers not to fall into Adam’s bad
example of pride.
While examining Medieval exegesis would be useful in completing the
picture of precedents to Reformed conclusions, the space constraints of
this essay prevent such analysis here.22 In the analysis below, it will suffice
to compare in the footnotes Owen’s exegesis with those of contempo-
rary British, Continental, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic authors. This
sampling of exegetical options from the early church simply provides a
taste of what fuller treatments of exegetical trajectories might look like.
The Controlling Importance of Genesis 3:15 in Owen’s Thought

In a sermon dated 22 April 1675 entitled “The Beauty and Strength of
Zion,” Owen referred to Genesis 3:15 as “the foundation of the Old
Testament.”23 He preached this sermon roughly fifteen years after the
Restoration of the monarchy. Prior to that time, he and his friends in
the ministry held sway in powerful places in the nation.24 Owen was
20 Augustine, Psalms, 170.

21 Augustine, Psalms, 346.
22 For a treatment of Medieval approaches to the Bible and its interpretation in rela-
tion to Reformed theology, see Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics:

The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 2:23–62. Complications exists in tracing the
Medieval exegesis of Genesis 3:15 as well, such as lack of availability of sources and the
difficulty of determining the authenticity of texts, such as the spurious ascription of a com-
mentary on Genesis to Aquinas.
23 Owen, Works, 9:316.
24 For other influential “Puritans” during this time, see Mark Jones, Why Heaven
Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas
Goodwin (1600–1680), vol. 13, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2010); Pederson, Unity and Diversity; Benedict; Christ’s Churches Purely
Reformed, 384–421.
48 R.M. McGRAW
Vice-Chancellor of Oxford and Dean of Christ Church, as well as chap-

lain to Oliver Cromwell, until their friendship ended with Owen oppos-
ing the move to make Cromwell king.25 However, by the 1670’s, Owen
was on the “losing side” of history.26 Many of his sermons and practi-
cal discourses in the late 1670’s and early 1680’s have a pessimistic tone
to them, in which Owen confessed frustration over declining godliness
in churches with a general expectation of impending judgment and the
return of “Popery” to England.27 In the present sermon, he aimed at,
“A diligent search into, and consideration of, the means and causes of
the preservation and protection of the church in the greatest dangers and
difficulties, is a duty incumbent on us, for our own support against sinful
fears, and to enable us to [?] that testimony which is required for future
generations, to encourage them to trust in the Lord.”28 This statement
reflects the distress caused by the difficulties of the times. Simultaneously,
it reveals that his outlook was not entirely pessimistic, since he tried to
comfort his congregation from Scripture.
His statement concerning Genesis 3:15 as “the foundation of the Old
Testament” appears in the context of attempting to comfort the church
with the promises of God. This promise was “the foundation of the Old
Testament” because it was “the first promise” of the gospel, which was
his most common description of Genesis 3:15.29 Calling this passage
“the foundation of the Old Testament” described its theological function
for Owen, while referring to it as “the first promise” demonstrated its
function in the historical unfolding of redemption and of biblical revela-
tion. Later he wrote,
25 Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator,
Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971).

26 Trueman, John Owen, 1–2.
27 For examples see, Discourses XI–XIV in Works, 9:392–406 and his four sermons on
“The Use and Advantage of Faith,” Works, 9:490–516. For an analysis of Owen’s preach-
ing, see Martin C. Cowan, The Prophetic Preaching of John Owen from 1646 to 1659 in Its
Historical Context (Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Cambridge, n.d.). For the fear of a
revived Roman Catholicism, see his Church of Rome no Safe Guide and the short work by
his associate minister, David Clarkson, The Works of David Clarkson (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1988), 3:1–264.
29 Martin Luther noted that this promise is written in golden letters (Aureis litteris
scibenda esse haec promissio). It is the prima vox evangelii, in which Christ is promised.
Martin Luther, In Genesin, Mosi Librum Sanctissimum, D. Martini Lutheri Declamationes
Praeterea Index, Paucis Opusculi Totius Summam Continens (Hagenau, 1527), 27.
This, therefore, was the spring and measure of all other subsequent
promises. They are all of them but new assurances thereof; and accord-
ing as it fares with that, so it must do with all the rest. God gave out this
promise as that whereon he would depend the honor and glory of his
fidelity in all other promises that he should make. As we find him true or
failing herein, so he expects our faith and trust in all his other promises
should be. Hence this was the first and immediate object of faith in man
after the fall.30
This shows how important this text was to Owen’s understanding
of the Bible. His frequent citation or allusion to it testifies further to
this fact.31
Owen’s Textual Analysis of Genesis 3:15

Owen’s most extensive treatment of Genesis 3:15 appears in his com-
mentary on Hebrews.32 His Hebrews project took him over a decade to
publish and spans seven closely printed volumes in the Goold edition of
his Works.33 These volumes, together with his work on the Holy Spirit
and, arguably, his Latin Theologoumena Pantodapa, represent his magna
opera.34 His work on Hebrews and the Holy Spirit drew from virtually all
30 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 22:35. He later added, “This is the greatest promise that God
ever gave to the children of men” (36).

31 The clearest examples of this come from a survey of the expository volumes of his
Hebrews commentary. He cited or alluded to Genesis 3:15 hundreds of times through-

out these volumes in a way that, while obvious to the reader, cannot be reflected in the
Scripture index to his work. Since there are no references to Genesis 3:15 in the Book of
Hebrews, all of these references represent theological connections with the content of the
exposition of Hebrews.
33 This author references the Goold edition of the Hebrews commentary, primarily
because the number of volumes differs widely in different publications of this project. The
author has verified that Goold adhered faithfully to Owen’s original text, changing (and
improving) only the numbering system used in the outlines. The Hebrews material com-
prises volumes 18–24 of the Goold edition (vols. 17–23 of the Banner of Truth edition,
which omits the Latin material from volume 17). John Owen, The Works of John Owen., ed.
W. H Goold (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965).
34 See John W. Tweeddale, “John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context,” in
Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones, eds., The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s
Theology (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 49–64. For Theologoumena Pantodapa, see
Rehnman, Divine Discourse.
50 R.M. McGRAW
of his other earlier works, sometimes summarizing them or citing them

verbatim.35 His earlier Theologoumena, in turn, provided foundational
assertions that reappeared repeatedly in later works.
Owen’s treatment of Genesis 3:15 appeared in his “preliminary exer-
citations” to Hebrews.36 These exercitations addressed theological mat-
ters that would help readers profit better from his exposition of the
book. In the second major division of the exercitations, he examined the
nature of the Old Testament testimonies to the Messiah,37 followed by
a series of arguments that the Messiah has come already.38 His purpose
was to argue that Jesus was this promised Messiah, relying largely on
Scripture texts that the ancient Jews agreed must refer to the Messiah.39
His expositions of Old Testament citations throughout the remainder of
the commentary consistently examine the ancient Jewish interpretations
of these passages in contrast to Judaism after the advent of the Christian
era. There are no citations of Genesis 3:15 in the Book of Hebrews. If
this is the case, then why was Genesis 3:15 so important to Owen for
exposition of the book? As the “foundation of the Old Testament,” this
passage was the foundation of understanding the purpose and overarch-
ing biblical context of the numerous citations of the Old Testament in
the book of Hebrews. “The foundation of the Old Testament” and “the
first promise” became a fundamental promise for understanding the New
Testament use of the Old Testament in general.
35 See his use of his Dissertation on Divine Justice in Hebrews, Works, 20:401–410.
36 Kapic mentions Owen’s use of this passage, but offers no analysis of it. Kapic,
“Typology, the Messiah, and John Owen’s Theological Reading of Hebrews.” 142. Leslie
similarly refers to Owen’s use of the passage, but does not analyze it. Leslie, The Light of
Grace, 239–254.
37 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:141–262 (exercitations 8–11).
38 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:262–367 (exercitations 12–16).
39 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:367–446 (exercitations 17–18). Owen contended, “There
is not a line in the Epistle to the Hebrews that doth not virtually begin and end in these
principles—not an assertion, not a doctrine, not an exhortation, that is not built on this
triple foundation.” (142). While Kapic treats Owen’s interaction with Rabbinic schol-
arship, he appears to express surprise over Owen’s heavy use of Rabbinic authors. Kapic,
“Typology, the Messiah, and John Owen’s Theological Reading of Hebrews,” 142. In the
place cited here, Owen explained that Rabbinic interpretation was essential to understand-
ing the argument to Hebrews because the author of Hebrews selected his citation of Old
Testament texts based on common Jewish practices of treating such texts as Messianic.
According to Owen, the “first promise” included a promise of relief

from mankind’s fall into sin, and described the means through which
that relief would come.40 Mankind’s misery came through “the friend-
ship contracted between the woman and the serpent.”41 This may be an
ironic allusion to friendship had with God under the Covenant of Works,
since “covenant of friendship” was one of the common seventeenth-
century names for this covenant.42 Mankind lost friendship with God by
striking up a friendship with Satan. For this reason, the promised deliver-
ance would end this friendship by putting enmity between the woman
and Satan and changing the condition of her posterity to one of recon-
ciliation with God.43 This would come through bruising the Serpent’s
head, which represented “the seat of his power and craft.”44 God himself
would be the author of this enmity between the woman and Satan and
he would do so “in and by the nature of man” through the Seed of the
woman. This implies both that the woman’s Seed would destroy Satan’s
work of introducing sin and misery to the world and that he would suf-
fer in the process of doing so. This was the first promise of the coming
Messiah and the first and only promise of the gospel that God gave to
Adam and Eve.45 This promise of relief from the Fall and the means of
deliverance was also the primary promise of the gospel at least through
the time of Noah, and likely up to the time of Abraham.46

42 See Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened, Or, a Treatise of the Covenant of
Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace the Second
Part, Wherein Is Proved, That There Is Such a Covenant, the Necessity of It, the Nature,
Properties, Parties Thereof, the Tenor, Articles, Subject-Matter of Redemption, the Commands,
Conditions, and Promises Annexed, the Harmony of the Covenant of Reconciliation Made
with Sinners, Wherein They Agree, Wherein They Differ, Grounds of Comfort from the
Covenant of Suretiship (London: Printed for Thomas Pankhurst, 1677), 161.
43 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:171. Gillespie likewise opposed the covenant of friendship
(Covenant of Works) to the covenant of reconciliation (Covenant of Grace). Gillespie, Ark

of the Covenant, 161.
44 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:171. Repeated almost verbatim on p. 176.
46 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:172. Owen concluded, “This, then, we have obtained, that
God, presently upon the entrance of sin into the world, and the breach of its public peace
thereby, promised a reparation of that evil, in the whole extent of it, to be wrought in and
by the Seed of the woman—that is, the Messiah.”
52 R.M. McGRAW
Owen took it for granted here that the Seed of the woman referred
to a single person, namely, the Messiah. Not all Reformed authors
took this for granted. John Calvin represented a minority view when
he argued that the seed of the woman referred to the church rather
than to Christ in this text.47 This hesitancy to connect traditional Old
Testament texts to Christ directly led some of Calvin’s Lutheran oppo-
nents to accuse him of Judaizing.48 Other authors, such as Peter Martyr
Vermigli (1499–1562), zealously connected the text to Christ and said
less about the church, other than the fact that the church was the object
of the redemption purchased by Christ.49 Owen, however, argued that
Genesis 3:15 was a promise that Christ (the Seed of the woman) would
redeem his church (the seed of the woman). As Christ was united with
the humanity of his people, so his human people would be united to
him. As Christ suffered from the hands of Satan while obtaining vic-
tory over him, so his church would suffer opposition in this world
even while it shared in Christ’s victory. This made Genesis 3:15 simul-
taneously the first promise of Christ’s incarnation in the impetration of
redemption and of the believer’s union with Christ in the application of
47 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979),
1:170. In his sermon on this passage, Calvin noted, “God…will put enmity between
the serpent and the woman and the entire human race.” Later he added that some for-
cibly restricted the passage to Christ, but that the passage referred to humanity without
excluding Christ. John Calvin, Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 1:1–11:4: Forty-Nine Sermons
Delivered in Geneva Between 4 September 1559 and 23 January 1560, trans. Rob Roy
McGregor (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2009), 285 and 289, respectively.
48 G. Sujin Pak, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates Over the Messianic
Psalms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Owen acknowledged the Lutheran attacks
of Hunnius and Helvicus against Calvin’s hesitancy to regard Eve’s words in Gen. 4:1 as
an expression of faith that she gave birth to a God-man, listing Calvin alongside Junius,
Paraeus, and Piscator (177). This passing reference, however, while reflecting the Reformed
tendency to defend Calvin’s Old Testament exegesis, does not reflect the depths of the
controversy between Calvin and the Lutherans.
49 Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Primum Librum Mosis, Qui Vulgo Genesis Dicitur,
Commentarii Doctissimi (Tiguri: Excudebat C. Froschouerus, 1569), in loc. There are no

page numbers in Vermigli’s original text. For an analysis of Vermigli’s work on Genesis,
see Emidio Campi, Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition, vol. 27, Reformed Historical
Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 187–205. For other authors
on Genesis, see Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Casuality, and Law: A Study in the Theology
of Wolfgang Musculus, vol. 3, Refo500 Academic Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2012), 79–107.
redemption.50 This becomes clearer in light of Owen’s response to his

Jewish opponents.
In spite of the addition of their own “fables,” Owen acknowledged
that prior to the time of Christ, the Jews basically interpreted this pas-
sage correctly.51 They acknowledged the general facts that the serpent
was Satan’s instrument in tempting the first couple and that victory over
him would be “wrought by the Messiah,” who would thus reverse the
devastating effects of the fall.52 To this Jewish testimony, he added for
clarity that Genesis 3:15 affirmed that Adam and Eve’s sin was “the occa-
sion and cause of all that evil which is in the world,” that human beings
can neither deliver themselves from this evil nor find “relief from any
other part of God’s creation,” and that this verse gave the first intimation
of such relief.53 The older Jewish interpretation was basically correct, but
it required Christian supplementation. Later Jews would not only deny
that passages such as this one applied to Jesus Christ, but they would
even affirm that they did not refer to the Messiah at all.54
Owen argued further that both the grammar of the text and the
expansion of the promise in the Old Testament showed that Genesis
3:15 included both the Messiah (Seed) as an individual and his collec-
tive seed. For Satan to be defeated, his work must be destroyed. This
meant that, “Death must be removed, and righteousness brought in, and
acceptance with God procured, or the head of Satan is not bruised.”55
50 For the impetration and application of redemption in Owen’s thought, see Gert van
den Brink, “Impetration and Application in John Owen’s Theology,” in The Ashgate
Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 85–96. For Owen’s Christology in relation to his doc-
trine of union with Christ, see Edwin E.M. Tay, The Priesthood of Christ: Atonement in the
Theology of John Owen (1616–1683), Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton
Keynes: Paternoster, 2014).
51 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:172. For the nature of Hebrew and Jewish scholarship
in Reformed thought at the time, see the excellent work of Stephen G. Burnett, From
Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning
in the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden: Brill,
1996).
54 For example, see Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:424–446, but especially the Old
Testament expositions scattered throughout the remainder of the commentary.

54 R.M. McGRAW
In order to understand how this occurred, it is necessary to recognize

that the first reference to the “seed” referred collectively to the woman’s
posterity, while the second reference to the Seed (“it”) referred to “some
single person.” Since most of her seed would remain subject to Satan,
the Seed that would bruise the serpent’s head would do so for part of
her posterity only.56 The renewal of this promise in the Abrahamic cove-
nant was the primary confirmation of this individual and collective inter-
pretation of Genesis 3:15.57
Three particular aspects of this promise demonstrated that God gave
promises to Abraham “to be a means of accomplishing the former prom-
ise” of Genesis 3:15.58 First, Abraham would not only be blessed him-
self, but he would become a blessing to others. He was not a blessing
to the nations during his earthly life. The blessing residing in him being
“separated to be the peculiar channel by which the promised blessing,
the Seed, should be brought forth into the world.”59 Second, Owen
constructed a grammatical argument as to why the Hebrew text showed
that the coming of his promised “Seed” would be the means of bless-
ing the nations of the earth.60 This blessing consisted of God sover-
eignly bestowing “all the good things” that mankind was deprived of
56 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:176: “And as by ‘seed,’ in the first place, the posterity of
the woman, some to be born of her race, partakers of human nature may be intended, as
the subjects of the enmity mentioned; so in the latter some single person, some one of her
posterity or seed, that should obtain the victory, is expressly denoted: for as all her seed in
common do never go about this work, the greatest part of them continuing in a willing
subjection unto Satan, so if all of them should combine to attempt it, they would never
be able to accomplish it, as we have proved before at large. Some one, therefore, to come
of her, with whom God would be present in an especial and extraordinary manner, is here
expressly promised; and this is the Messiah.”
57 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 18:177–179. The primary relevant texts were, “Now the Lord
had said unto Abram, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy
father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation,
and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will
bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of
the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:1–3); “All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him”
(Gen. 18:18); and, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen.
22:18).

through the curse of Adam’s sin.61 Third, the person threatened with a
curse is a singular person. Rather than containing a general curse against
Abraham’s enemies, this text renewed the curse pronounced against
Satan in Genesis 3:15.62 In summary, God’s promises to Abraham would
come to many people through one Seed, and God’s threatened curse
would come to one serpent to the salvation of many seed.63 In this way
“the first promise” was also “the foundation of the Old Testament.”
Owen’s Exegetical and Theological Principles

The significance of Owen’s exegetical and theological principles is best
understood by extracting the exegetical tools and doctrinal connections
evidenced by the above sketch of his exposition. This becomes clearer by
comparing and contrasting his exposition with those of his contemporaries.
This author has chosen the exegetical work of John White (1575–1648)
and the theological work of Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) as the two
primary points of comparison. White was significant for Owen’s context
since he was a member of the Westminster Assembly and he wrote a practi-
cal commentary on Genesis 1–3. Mastricht stands out for treating Genesis
3:15 in the differing genre of systematic theology. He is useful since he
chose this text as his organizing proof text for his chapter on the covenant
of grace. Comparing Owen’s exegetical and theological principles used in
his treatment of Genesis 3:15 both with an exegetical and a theological
work reveals a glimpse of the trajectory of the relationship between exege-
sis and theology in Reformed orthodoxy.

63 John Flavel’s appeal to the promises of the Seed and the seed in Gal. 3 make this case
even stronger, since Paul argued explicitly from the singular promise to Abraham’s “Seed”
while promising simultaneously that those who are of the faith are Abraham’s seed. John
Flavel, Vindiciæ Legis & Foederis: Or, a Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call Wherein
He Pretends to Answer All the Arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr.
Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism,
by Proving the Law at Sinai, and the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham, Were the
Very Same with Adam’s Covenant of Works, and That Because the Gospel-Covenant Is
Absolute. by John Flavel Minister of the Gospel in Dartmouth (London, 1690).
56 R.M. McGRAW
Owen’s Principles Undergirding His Exposition

Two principles of biblical interpretation stand out in Owen’s treatment
of Genesis 3:15. These are the analogia scripturae and the analogia
fidei.64 The analogia scripturae referred to the practice of explaining
obscurer passages of Scripture with clearer parallel texts.65 The analogia
fidei interpreted individual passages of Scripture in harmony with well-
established overarching doctrinal conclusions.66 The building blocks of
both of these interpretive tools are embedded in the Savoy Declaration
of Faith, of which Owen was one of the primary authors.67
The analogia scripturae is evident, for example, where Owen did not
hesitate to confirm his interpretation of the singular and collective sig-
nificance of Genesis 3:15 by appealing to the terms of the Abrahamic
covenant.68 He treated God’s promises to Abraham not only as a con-
tinuation and expansion of Genesis 3:15, but as an analogous or parallel
passage.
Two doctrines stand out as well in the above exposition via the ana-
logia fidei. These are the doctrines of the incarnation and of union with
Christ. To put it differently, Owen stressed Christ’s union with believ-
ers through his humanity, and the believer’s union with Christ through
64 For a treatment of these principles in relation to Owen in particular, see Knapp,
Understanding the Mind of God. For their role and development in Reformed orthodoxy,
see Richard A Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of
Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academics, 2003), 2:493–497.
65 Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally
from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985).: “the
interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture by comparison with
clear and unambiguous passages that refer to the same teaching or event.”
66 Muller, DLGTT, 33: “the use of a general sense of the meaning of Scripture, con-
structed from the clear of unambiguous loci as the basis for interpreting unclear or
ambiguous texts. … the analogia fidei presupposes a sense of the theological meaning of
Scripture.”
67 Savoy Declaration 1.7 (analogia fidei) and 1.9 (analogia scriptura). For a his-
torical introduction to Savoy with a text that highlights the changes between Savoy and
Westminster, on which it was based, see A.G. Matthews, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and
Order, 1658 (London: Independent Press, 1959). Owen explained them explicitly as well in
Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God, Works, 4:196–198.
faith.69 The promise of the Seed of the woman being the agent of bruis-
ing the Serpent’s head implied Christ’s incarnation, since the woman and
her seed would be reconciled to God through a human Seed. While this
promise was “somewhat obscurely expressed” here, it would become
clear “unto us in the gospel.”70
Owen’s Principles Compared with John White

John White, a member of the Westminster Assembly and sometime
governor of Massachusetts, wrote extensively on Genesis 3:15.71 In his
Commentary on Genesis 1–3, he provided an extensive analysis of this
passage including thirty-four doctrinal observations.72
White argued that the text first stated that God would place
“enmity” between Satan and believers.73 Like Owen, he added that
this was a sovereign work of God in saving those who could not save
themselves. Building on this foundation, White divided the text into
three pairs of combatants: the Serpent against the woman, his seed
against her seed, and Satan against Christ as the “Captains of both
sides.”74 The first pair began the quarrel, the second pair continued
it, and the last pair ended it. He argued that the Seed of the woman
must refer to Christ as representing his people, though the primary
69 For an analysis of union with Christ in Reformed orthodoxy, see J.V. Fesko, Beyond
Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517–
1700), vol. 20, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2012).
71 The now standard work on the theology of the Westminster Assembly is van
Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly.

72 John White, A Commentary upon the First Three Chapters of the First Book of Moses
Called Genesis (London, 1656), 169–200. Note that even though White’s work was pub-
lished in one volume, the pagination starts over in each chapter. Thus the page numbers
listed here and below correspond to White’s comments on Genesis 3. A few sentences
of the following paragraph are adapted from Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory:
Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 146. Most of the mate-
rial below is fresh research.
73 White, A Commentary, 170.
58 R.M. McGRAW
reference was to Christ.75 People are the seed of the serpent when they
“bear his disposition.”76 So believers become Christ’s seed through
regeneration.77 Christ’s victory over Satan would cripple his power
by removing the devastating effects of the Fall. Instead of arguing, as
Owen did, that Christ’s human nature was proved through the appel-
lation, “Seed of the woman,” White inferred Christ’s humanity from
the bruising of his heel.78 This was an allusion to all of Christ’s suffer-
ings.79 The promise of this passage provided “the principal grounds of
religion” for the Patriarchs, and the Prophets later opened its mean-
ing more fully.80 In contrast to Owen’s simplification of the promise to
three headings, White argued that there were seventeen ways that the
substance of the promise continued to be valid for believers.81 While
the primary elements of Owen’s summary are common with White’s
75 White, A Commentary, 172: “By this seed of the woman then, we are to understand
the whole body of the Church, whereof Christ is the head, who is principally intended in
this name.” See also 192.
79 White, A Commentary, 173. For an analysis of imputation of Christ’s active and
passive obedience to believers and diverse positions within Reformed orthodoxy on

this point, see Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at
the Westminster Assembly,” in Michael A.G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into
Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century
British Puritanism, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2011), 31–50.
81 White, A Commentary, 173–175. These were: 1. God’s grace is free. 2. It is certain
and infallible. 3. It is constant and unchangeable. 4. That only some will be saved. 5. That
God sanctifies the hearts of those whom he saves. 6. That God involves man’s will and
affections in sanctification. 7. That these affections result in outward holiness. 8. That sanc-
tification is imperfect even in the best saints. 9. That Satan’s wounds will not be deadly to
the life of grace. 10. God by the Spirit is the author of sanctification. 11. That sanctification
flows from union with Christ. 12. That union with Christ means that Christ’s victory over
Satan is their victory over him. 13. That the incarnation was necessary. 14. That Christ was
the Seed of the woman and not the man (not through ordinary generation). 15. The bruis-
ing of Christ’s heel culminated in the cross. 16. Christ’s death would not be his permanent
end. 17. Christ’s victory will result in Satan’s final overthrow and the crushing of his power
in every respect.
Commentary, White’s emphasis fell clearly on sanctification through

union with Christ.82
While White alluded to several doctrines in his exposition, sanctifi-
cation stood out above the rest.83 While he began with the doctrine of
82 For an analysis of the doctrinal relationship between sanctification and union with
Christ among the Westminster divines and their contemporaries, see J.V. Fesko, The
Theology of the Westminster Standards, 245–258. Direction three of a well-known book
by Westminster divine Walter Marshall (1628–1680) is dedicated exclusively to sanctifica-
tion and union with Christ. Walter Marshall, The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification Opened
in Sundry Practical Directions Suited Especially to the Case of Those Who Labour Under the
Guilt and Power of Indwelling Sin: To Which Is Added a Sermon of Justification (London:
Printed for T. Parkhurst, 1692), 40–58. This includes a treatment of the indwelling of the
Spirit in Christ as a foundation and pattern for his indwelling in believers.
83 White’s thirty-four doctrinal observations (175–200) are as follows: 1. “Man’s salva-
tion is Satan’s grief and vexation” (175). 2. “God’s indignation is never so kindled against
the wicked, that he forgets his mercy toward his own” (176). 3. “God’s mercy toward
man, in the means of his salvation, proceeds merely from himself, and is free every way”
(176). White included the “renewing” of man’s heart in sanctification under this heading
(177). 4. “God sanctifies all those whom he saves” (177). 5. “It is a mark of true sanctifica-
tion, to hate both Satan himself, and all who bear his image” (178). 6. “Whosoever truly
abhors sin, must hate the very instruments of evil” (179). 7. “Godly men, the more they
are acquainted with sin and sinners, the more they should and do abhor them” (179). 8.
“Sanctification is the work of God’s Spirit” (180). 9. “The work of grace and sanctifica-
tion wrought in the heart of man is unresistable” (181). 10. “The work of man’s sanc-
tification is not forced upon him, though it cannot be resisted” (181). 11. “The state of
man unto which he is now restored, and established by grace, is unchangeable” (183). 12.
“Hatred and enmity is both itself a sin, and the fruit of sin” (183). 13. Satan is the first
author of all envy and malice, especially against God’s children” (185). 14. “The malice
and hatred between the godly and Satan, and his instruments, is by God’s appointment
and decree” (185). 15. “God directs and turns the malice of Satan, and his instruments
against the godly, to their good at the last” (186). 16. “God usually supplies most comfort
to those that most need it” (187). 17. God is able, and will strengthen the weakest of his
servants, against Satan and all his power” (187). 18. “The greatness of man’s sin is no bar
to God’s mercy” (188). 19. “God’s mercies are not only freely bestowed on the godly, but
are extended to their posterity after them (188). 20. “The promises of mercy and grace
belong only to the holy seed” (189). 21. “Only godly children are worthy to be called
and accounted children” (189). 22. “Wicked men be the devil’s children in true account”
(189). 23. “There is and shall be irreconcilable hatred an enmity, between the godly and
the wicked men of the world” (190). 24. “Enmity and malice against godly men, is an
evident mark of a child of the devil” (191). 25. “Christ is truly the woman’s Seed” (192).
He referred here to Christ’s incarnation (193). 26. “Christ, in the days of his flesh was in
his own person, wounded and bruised by Satan, and his instruments” (193). 27. “Christ
suffered nothing in his person, but what God himself had before determined and decreed”
(194). 28. “Though Satan by God’s permission wounded our Savior Christ, yet he could
60 R.M. McGRAW
justification, the bulk of his exposition stressed the necessity of sanctifica-

tion and personal holiness, as resulting from union with Christ.84 Luther
likewise began his exposition of Genesis 3:15 with the doctrine of jus-
tification, but he closed it with mortification and vivification as benefits
of the cross.85 The subject of sanctification included the initial habits of
holiness infused in the soul at the time of effectual calling,86 the relation-
ship between believers and the world, their relation to one another in the
church, how to rear their families, and the need for them to persevere
under hardships. White developed the covenantal principle undergirding
this passage on pages 188–189, though the term “covenant” does not
appear elsewhere in his treatment of the text.
While White’s exposition was similar to Owen’s grammatically, and
while he used the same hermeneutical principles, his doctrinal conclu-
sions differed in emphasis. Owen stressed the big-picture truths of
the union of Christ with his people and the union of the people with
Christ. White emphasized the doctrine of sanctification as one specific
aspect and application of union with Christ. This is partly the result of
the sermon-like format of White’s exposition. However, shifts in doctri-
nal emphases may have reflected an author’s historical setting, or simply
not conquer or destroy him” (194). 29. “Christ, and all that are members of his body, are
one.” This is the only observation that treated union with Christ directly and it is devoted
primarily to the sanctified conduct of believers toward one another in the church. (195).
30. “The members of Christ, may, and shall suffer by the malice of Satan and of his instru-
ments” (196). 31. “Christ himself in his own person, is he that takes up the quarrel of
his Church, against Satan and all his agents” (197). 32. “The wounds which the members
of Christ receive by the hand of Satan and his instruments, may be painful, but shall not
be mortal” (198). 33. “The combat between Christ, and Satan and his instruments, shall
end at last in the total and final subduing of them, and breaking in pieces all their power”
(199). 34. “Christ’s victory over Satan, though it be by, yet is not for himself alone, but for
all his members, who also subdue Satan in, and through him” (200).
84 Conversely, Marshall included an appendix on justification to his work on sanctifica-
tion, showing the inseparability of these benefits in Reformed orthodoxy. The pagination
starts over with his treatise on justification in the edition cited above.
85 Luther, Genesin, 26–27.
86 For an extensive treatment of infused habits of grace in Owen, see Christopher
Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen (Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2013), 69–120; For a brief treatment, see Andrew M. Leslie, The Light of Grace: John Owen
on the Authority of Scripture and Christian Faith, vol. 34, Reformed Historical Theology
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 107–115.
his own tastes as well. Thus, Owen’s exposition of Hebrews continually

had the Socinians in view,87 and his sermons and later writings display a
theological predilection for Christology.88 White’s target may have been
Antinomianism.89 Theological formulation gave expositors of Scripture a
measure of leeway to address the concerns that they believed were either
most pressing at the time, or simply held the most theological weight
in the minds of individual authors. As with people today, personal dis-
position and interests could sometimes prevail over historical and theo-
logical causes. Thus, is order to press people to look seriously toward
heaven, Owen gave first place to meditating on the glory of Christ, while
Thomas Watson (1620–1686) urged them to pray hard, work hard,
and use God’s means of grace.90 Owen would not have excluded such
emphases, but the theological balance of his treatment of Genesis 3:15
reflects a consistent theological balance in other parts of his work. Such
shifts in emphasis likely reflect a combination of historical circumstances,
differences in ability as theologians, theological convictions regarding
what was most important and pressing, and personal dispositions.
Owen’s Principles Compared with Petrus van Mastricht

The Dutch theologian Petrus van Mastricht structured his entire chapter
on the covenant of grace around Genesis 3:15. Mastricht proposed what
87 See especially Owen, Hebrews, Works, 19:3–260, on Christ’s priesthood. His mas-
sive Vindiciae Evangelicae, which occupies most of volume 12 in his Works, treats
the Socinian threat at length through a line-by-line refutation of John Biddle and the
Raccovian Catechism. For more information on English Socinianism, see Lim, Mystery
Unveiled; Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of
Socinianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
88 For example, his Christologia and Meditations on the Glory of Christ in volume 1 of his
Works.
89 See Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion &
Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638, Omohundro Institute of Early American

History & Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004); Ryan M.
McGraw, “The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen on What the Law/Gospel Distinction Is
Not,” Forthcoming. For the effects of Antinomianism on the doctrine of sanctification, see
J.V. Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 239–245.
90 Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, Or, the Holy Violence a Christian Is to Put
Forth in the Pursuit After Glory (London: Printed by R.W. for Thomas Parkhurst, 1669).
For more detail, see McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 58.
62 R.M. McGRAW
he believed to be a new theological method and structure in writing

his Theoretico-Practica Theologia.91 Each chapter of his theological text
included four sections consisting of exegesis, dogmatics, polemics, and
practica. While all of the elements comprising Mastricht’s method were
present in other theological works, the apparent difference lay in how
he combined them and the order in which he treated them. However,
as the Snopsis Purioris notes, most Reformed authors believed that the-
ology was a mixture of theoretical and practical components.92 Authors
such as Francis Turretin (1623–1687) wrote larger works on elenctic or
polemic theology.93 Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666) wrote a two-
volume Theologiae-Practicae.94 In general, the professors at the seven-
teenth-century Dutch universities rejected treating practical theology as
a distinct discipline, incorporating it instead into theological systems.95
Even Hoornbeeck’s work represented a shade of emphasis toward theol-
ogy as more practical than theoretical, while simultaneously upholding
the widely accepted idea that theology was both theoretical and practical
(hence the title of Mastricht’s work).96 Of course, all Reformed theolo-
gians desired to be biblical, and Scriptural references abounded in every
genre of theological writing at the time.
91 Adriaan C. Neele, Petrus Van Mastricht (1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and
Piety (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009).

92 Velde, Synopsis Purioris, 43: “Therefore in Theology theory and practice are not placed
in opposition to one another, but they are conditions associated with each other for the
purpose of obtaining everlasting life, and placed in their proper order.” [Non ergo theoria
et praxis sunt in Theologia differentiae oppositae: sed conditiones inter se ad vitam aeter-
nam consequendam consociatae, suoque ordine collocatae].
93 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George
Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992). The publication of
numerous disputations represented the conjunction of the theoretical and polemical aspects
of theology. For example, see Gijsbert Voetius, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum
Pars Prima (Quinta. Accedunt Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De
Prognosticis Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ), 5 vols. (Ultrajecti, 1648).
94 Hoornbeeck, Theologia Practica.
95 Donald Sinnema, “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden
University (1618–1626),” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H. J. Selderhuis,

vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 415–442.
96 See also, Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae, 1:5, who tilted the emphasis of theology
in the direction of praxis: “Quare ita tractabimus Theologiam in praesenti, ut not tantum
esse rerum divinarum sciendarum, sed et observandarum, appareat; non tantum Theologia
docens, sed quoque utens. Tota quipped est practica, non theoretica.” Emphasis original.
Mastricht began each chapter with a careful, albeit brief, exposition

of a passage of Scripture, the outline of which provided the primary fea-
tures and vocabulary for the rest of the chapter. The exegetical section of
Mastricht’s covenant theology, coupled with a brief survey of the doc-
trines that he connected to it, is most relevant in comparing his treat-
ment of the passage to Owen’s. The exegetical material in this chapter
is longer than those of many other chapters in Mastricht’s work.97 He
noted first that this passage begins with Satan’s temptation of our first
parents. The promise of the gospel here included not only the promise
of the restitution of those whom Satan seduced but also all the materi-
als and essential parts of the covenant of grace.98 Like Owen, Mastricht
began his exegesis of the passage by arguing that ancient Jewish inter-
preters connected this text to the Messiah, which he opposed to con-
temporary Jewish interpretations. This fulfilled a polemic purpose by
implying that the only reason to reject this text as the first promise of
the Messiah and of the covenant of grace was prejudice against accepting
Christian conclusions.99
Mastricht began his outline with God as the Judge. He believed that
the doctrine of the covenant of grace appeared in this text in terms of
pronouncing judgment against Satan (the seductor) and liberty to the
church (the seduced).100 Jehovah Elohim was the speaker in the text.
This pointed to the fact that he is one in essence and three in persons.101
Johann Buxtorf, Jr. (1599–1664) argued similarly for the Trinitarian
97 Peter van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita Theologica,
Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur

(Amsterdam, 1715), 89–92. The pagination is deceptive, since this material represents only
one paragraph division in Mastricht’s chapter. The print is very small and the outline of the
text is very detailed.
98 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 489: “Omnia materialia et essentialia foederis
gratia.”
99 For Reformed interaction with Jewish theology, see Burnett, From Christian Hebraism
to Jewish Studies.
100 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 489. Like Mastricht, the Roman Catholic
counter-Reformation Cardinal Cajetan, observed that the serpent referred to Satan and
not merely to a brute beast. Tommaso Cajetan, Commentarii Illustres Planeq́; Insignes
in Quinque Mosaicos Libros, Thomae De Vio, Caietani, Adiectis Insuper Ad Margine[m]
Annotationibus a F. Antonio Fo[n]seca Lusitano, Quibus Temporum & Locoru[m] Ratio,
Tropi, Phrases, Lociq́; Intellectu Difficiles Explicantur: Accessit Rerum Maxime Insignium
Index Copiosissimus (Paris: Apud Ioannem Paruum, 1539), xxxii.
64 R.M. McGRAW
significance of Elohim, as did Jerome Zanchi (1516–1590), who reflected

this idea in the very title of his work on the Trinity.102 Mastricht argued
that this name demonstrated that the Triune God was the author of the
covenant of grace. This Trinitarian emphasis of the exposition is missing
both from Owen and from White. This is perhaps more understandable
in Owen, who treated the text in connection to other topics, but it is
somewhat surprising in White, since he wrote a full commentary on the
text. Yet given his consistent trinitarian emphases elsewhere, this omis-
sion is perhaps surprising in Owen as well.103 This first promise of the
covenant of grace resided in the eternal counsels of God as well.104
He moved next from the Judge to the judgment, which occupied the
remainder and the bulk of his exposition.105 The text treated the con-
demnation of those who are in the seducer, with the liberation of those
who are in the seduced. This referred to Satan and to his people in oppo-
sition to Christ and to the church as God’s people. The relationship
between these two groups and the relationship that they bore to their
respective heads became the controlling factor in his subsequent exposi-
tion. This promise aimed at the restitution of friendship with God, which
parallels Owen’s observations noted above. Restoring friendship with
God entails enmity with the seducer by way of punishment.
Mastricht then introduced several observations about this point under
the headings of the enmity, the enemies, and the conflict.106 The enmity
or animosity between the two groups was perpetual.107 He identified
two sets of enemies in the text: the serpent and the woman, and his seed
and her seed.108 While this appears to differ from White’s three sets of
102 Johannes Buxtorf, Dissertatio De Nominibus Dei Hebraicis (Basel: König, 1645);
Jerome Zanchius, De Tribus Elohim, Aeterno Patre, Filio, Et Spiritu Sancto, Uno Eodemque
Iehova, Libri Xiii. in Duas Distincti Partes. Pars Prior: Ad Edmundum Grindallum,
Archiepiscopum Eboracensem, Angliaeque Primatem Amplissimum. in Qua, Tota Orthodoxa
De Hoc Magno Mysterio Doctrina, Ex Sacrarum Literarum Fontibus, Explicatur, &
Confirmatur. Cum Indice Triplici (Neostadii Palatinorum: Typis Matthaei Harnisii, 1589).
103 See Ryan M. McGraw, “Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s
Contribution to Reformed Orthodox Trinitarian Theology,” Westminster Theological

Journal, forthcoming.
105 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 489–492.
106 Inimicitia, inimici, and inimcatio.
108 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 490–491.
enemies, Mastricht combined Satan with the serpent and Christ with the
woman’s seed. This agrees with Owen’s exegesis, making White’s differ-
ing enumeration of involved parties an apparent rather than a substantive
difference. He cited Rivetus (1572–1651) and Pareus’s (1548–1622)
arguments as to why the serpent was not merely an animal, but Satan.109
However, the demonstrative pronoun in the Hebrew text showed that
a specific woman was in view. Like Owen, Mastricht noted that several
Medieval Roman Catholic commentators connected this verse to the
Virgin Mary for this reason.110 The Anabaptists connected this text to
the mystical woman in Rev. 12:1. Instead, Mastricht contended, the text
referred to Eve immediately, to other women who would come through
her, and most eminently to the Virgin Mary as the mother of Christ.111
The second major groups, the seed of the serpent and the seed of the
woman, were actually subsets of the first two groups.112 In its tropical
sense,113 “seed” can be either a metonym for a subject and its adjuncts,
or a synecdoche for a multitude of offspring. This appeal to the “tropi-
cal” sense of Scripture illustrates the oft-overlooked way that Reformed
authors transformed rather than jettisoned the medieval quadriga.114
Instead of saying that each text of Scripture had four senses, Reformed
authors enveloped what was previously a fourfold sense of Scripture
into a single sense of Scripture.115 The purpose of the other “senses” of
Scripture was to apply the text, especially in preaching.116 Within this

110 Citing Arius Montanus in particular, to whom Owen referred repeatedly in his exposi-
tions of Hebrews.
113 “in sensu tropico”.
114 For example, Jordan Ballor’s recent work treating the commentaries of Wolfgang
Musculus bypasses the Reformed interaction with the quadriga in spite of the strong simi-
larities between the fourfold division of Musculus’ Genesis commentary and the structure
of the quadriga. Ballor, Covenant, Causality, and Law, 81, 143.
115 The Savoy Declaration, of which Owen was one of the authors, states that “the true
and full sense of any Scripture…is not manifold but one.” Savoy Declaration 1.9. See the
treatment of this subject in Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Confession, 85–86.
116 Muller, PRRD, 2:469–470: “Whereas the Reformers rejected the quadriga and many
of the results of medieval exegesis, they did not reject hermeneutical devices like the move-
ment from promise to shadow in the Old Testament to fulfillment or reality in the New
Testament, nor did they set aside a typological understanding of the relation of the Old
to the New Covenant. It is important to recognize the continuity of this struggle with the
66 R.M. McGRAW
fourfold structure of interpretation, the “tropical” sense referred to the

ethical application of a text.117 This enabled Mastricht to argue that the
term “seed” could be used here for sons by consent rather than by gen-
eration. This is similar to White’s point that the serpent’s seed are his
children by bearing his character. Mastricht stated that this kind of son-
ship came through imitating another. This was why those who adhered
to the Messiah were called his sons.118 Scripture likewise called those
who followed Satan’s ways sons of the devil (Citing Jn. 8:41, etc.). The
counter-Reformation theologian Cardinal Cajetan made exactly the same
observation at this point, and he even quoted the same support text from
John 8.119 This “tropical” sense was the meaning of Satan’s “seed” in
this place.
Mastricht gave the seed of the woman a proper and “tropical” sig-
nification as well. Tropically, it referred to the sons of God, or to the
regenerate. But seed could refer also to the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23),
and to the posterity of Abraham, whether natural (Lk. 1:55; Jn. 8:33,
37) or spiritual (Rom. 2:8; Gal. 3:29).120 He added that some among
the Reformed and among the first Lutherans understood the seed of the
woman to refer to Christ alone. This corresponds to the observations
above concerning the context of Calvin’s minority view that the seed
referred to the church only.
Mastricht next appealed to Galatians 3:16 and the surrounding con-
text in order to show that the Seed referred to Christ together with his
elect ones. Somewhat surprisingly, he cited Calvin in support of this view,
with another appeal to Rivetus and Pareus, the latter of which he cited
as defending Calvin’s orthodoxy explicitly. It is important to remember

late medieval and Reformation development.” He later concluded, “Clearly, the elements
of the medieval quadriga had not utterly disappeared—instead, they were repositioned by
the Reformed orthodox exegetes within the literal sense” (475). For further examples of
Reformed adaptations of medieval exegesis, see Ryan M. McGraw, By Good and Necessary
Consequence (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).
117 Muller, PRRD, 2:35–37.
118 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 491. Citing Ps. 22.30–31. Mastricht’s text
mistakenly reads Ps. 32:31.

119 Cajetan, Commentarii, xxxiii.
in this light that some Lutherans accused Calvin on Judaizing by find-

ing Christ so seldom in his Old Testament exegesis.121 Mastricht argued
that in light of Paul’s teaching in Galatians, the seed referred primarily
to Christ, and secondarily (though simultaneously) to the elect. Christ
alone defeated the serpent, while the elect merely fight him.122 He then
adapted and modified the Medieval exegesis noted earlier by adding
that Christ was the seed of the woman in the sense that he was the only
human being who was born of a virgin (citing Gal. 4:4; Is. 7:14).123
Mastricht’s final exegetical observation treated the twofold conflict
between the twofold enemies.124 In relation to each side of the conflict,
he examined the aggressor, the aggressus, and the egressus. As the aggres-
sor Christ, the seed of the woman, would crush or pulverize the serpent’s
head.125 Satan as aggressor would, in turn, crush Christ’s heel. Thus, each
aggressor was an aggressus as well. The egressus, or outcome, of both cases
differed widely. The egressus for the serpent would be to take away his life
and all his power to harm (Heb. 2:14).126 The egressus for Christ signi-
fied that though he would die, it would be for a short time only. His res-
urrection, ascension, and session would follow his death.127 Consistently
throughout this exposition, Mastricht asserted explicitly that the conflict
related both to the serpent and to his offspring and to Christ and to his
offspring. The union within the first group was a moral union, while
the union within the second group was a mystical and saving union.128
Christ brought victory to himself and to his people following his death
and resurrection. The text promises victory to his people in every trial
and affliction as well on the basis of Christ’s victory over Satan. Mastricht
121 Pak, The Judaizing Calvin.

122 Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 491. expugnavit …oppugnant.
123 The original text mistakenly cited Jer. 7:14. He added to these arguments a fairly
complex linguistic connection between the Shiloh prophecy in Gen. 49:10 and Deut.
28:57 (491).
125 Conteret.
128 While not referring to union with Christ explicitly, Cajetan made the same point at
this juncture. Cajetan, Comentarii, xxxiii.

68 R.M. McGRAW
then applied this assertion to Christ’s elect with a concluding appeal to

Romans 8:28.129
Mastricht’s subsequent exposition of the Covenant of Grace, though
building on his outline of Genesis 3:15, is too expansive to treat in this
article. As should be expected from a dogmatic work, he made wider use
of the analogia fidei than both Owen and White did. However, this is
true of his exegetical segment of the chapter as well as of the dogmatic
portion. This is particularly evident in his assertion that the Trinity is
implied in the divine names used in Genesis 3:15. This fits Mastricht’s
ordinary pattern to begin a topic in relation to the work of the divine
persons.130 While other authors, such as Johannes Wollebius (1689–
1629), followed this general procedure, Mastricht spelled out the dis-
tinct work and relation of each divine person to his doctrine more fully
and more explicitly than many other authors did.131
Union with Christ was also prominent in Mastricht’s treatment of the
text. In the exposition, he did not spell out the implications of union with
Christ beyond the saints sharing in Christ’s victory over Satan in this life
and in the next. However, union with Christ introduced the covenant of
grace, which subsumed all of the benefits of the ordo salutis. Following
effectual calling, union with Christ undergirded justification, adoption,
sanctification, and glorification.132 While White placed most of his ser-
mon-like emphasis on sanctification, Owen and Mastricht stressed union
with Christ as the foundation of applying Christ and all the benefits of
redemption to the elect. Though Mastricht did not make explicit refer-
ence to Christ’s incarnation here, as Owen did, he did not need to. The
locus of the covenant of grace preceded Christology in his theological sys-
tem, enabling him to establish Christ’s person and work in relation to the
129 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them
who are the called according to his purpose” (Authorized Version). Mastricht, Theoretico-
Practica Theologia, 492.
130 For opera appropriata in Reformed trinitarian theology, see Muller, PRRD, 4:267–
274.
131 Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, Editio Ultima Prioribus
Multo Correctior, 9th ed. (Cantabrigiæ, 1654).

132 For the relationship between effectual calling and union with Christ, see Westminster
Larger Catechism 65–67. For the relationship between union with Christ and the ordo
salutis, see Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 245–258.
133 Owen, Works, 9:317.
application of redemption, both of which subjects grew out of the context

of the covenant of grace. Genesis 3:15 was the first place where this prom-
ise appeared in Scripture. It implied the doctrine of the gospel in toto,
which took the remainder of the theological system to explain and expand.
Conclusion
Owen regarded Genesis 3:15 as the foundation of the Old Testament.
However, he regarded Matthew 16:18 as “the foundation-promise” of
the New.133 In spite of the importance of the Genesis passage for under-
standing the Bible and its theology, he called it “obscure” by contrast
to its New Testament expansion. The organic relation between Old
and New Testaments and the gradual unfolding of the biblical message
enabled him to rely on the analogia scripturae and the analogia fidei
in order to draw out the full theological and exegetical significance of
the passage. While Owen believed that the Bible taught one theologi-
cal system and message, Scripture itself admitted a gradual development
in the expansion of this promise. More importantly, in Owen’s view, the
Bible was not a theological system, but it was the Word of God. The
form in which God gave his Word to his people was equally important
to the content of its teachings.134 This is a far cry from cramming scho-
lastic theology into the text of Scripture at the expense of the meaning
of the text. However, it is equally true that his exegesis was informed
by precise theological categories and conclusions that he brought with
him to the text in order to harmonize it with the broader message of
Scripture. Mastricht represents how Reformed orthodox exegesis could
be expanded to include an entire system of theology. White illustrates
how a minister could adapt theological implications drawn legitimately
from a passage to apply the text to the church at large. Together with
Owen, these examples show the interrelationship of Reformed orthodox
exegesis and theology, both in terms of using a reasoned predictable the-
ological procedure and allowing for the tastes and emphases of individual
theologians.
Following the rise of “higher criticism” and the decline of Reformed
orthodoxy, such intermingling of theology and exegesis was virtually
134 For example, Owen, Causes, Ways, and Means for Understanding the Mind of God,
Works, 4:220, where he cited Genesis 3:15 as a prime example of the gradually unfolding of
the message of Scripture on its own terms.
70 R.M. McGRAW
frowned out of existence. However, in his article on “The Superiority

of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” David Steinmetz suggests that the theological
reading of Scripture was the primary strength of pre-critical exegesis.135
Perhaps such aspects of the exegetical and theological methodology
of Reformed orthodox writers such as John Owen are overlooked fre-
quently because they are so foreign to our contemporary world. This
analysis of Owen’s exegesis of Genesis 3:15 helps fill in the gap in this
historical vacuum in some measure. This piece of the puzzle enables his-
torians better to understand the objects of their studies and theologians
to have an alternate methodological model to use as a theological sound-
ing board.136
135 David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Precritical Exegesis,” in A Guide to
Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Donald K.

McKim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 65–77.
136 For examples of how Reformed scholastic theology can benefit systematic theol-
ogy today, see van Asselt, “What is Reformed Scholasticism?” Introduction to Reformed
Scholasticism, 3. Also see the interesting essays in Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and
Willemien Otten, eds., Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt,
vol. 14, Studies in Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010).
CHAPTER 4
The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen

on What the Law/Gospel Distinction Is not
In the eighteenth century, former slave-trader turned pastor/evangelist

John Newton (1725–1807) wrote, “Ignorance of the nature and design
of law is at the bottom of most religious mistakes.”1 While Newton
wrote during the “twilight”2 of Reformed orthodoxy3 and the eight-
eenth century introduced unprecedented diversity and theological chal-
lenges,4 he reflected the importance of the question of the nature of the
law within historic Reformed theology. The crux of the matter lay in
how one defined, related, and distinguished the law and the gospel.5 The
law/gospel distinction developed in Lutheran theology, but was quickly
1 Cited in William S. Plumer, The Law of God (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications,
1996), 9. The author heartily thanks Gregory Moeck for his thorough feedback and criti-
cism of the draft of this essay.
2 James T. Dennison, Jr., “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and the
Dawn of the Enlightenment,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 252.
3 For the classification of Reformed orthodoxy into periods, see Richard A. Muller, Post-
Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003),
1:30–32.
4 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht is currently working to produce a volume on this topic,
edited by Michael Haykin and Mark Jones.

5 See J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a
Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 249–253.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_4
72 R.M. McGRAW
borrowed and modified by Reformed theology.6 It lay at the heart of

explaining the gospel from a Reformed perspective and both early and
later authors included chapters on it in their dogmatic works.7
While Lutherans tended to use the law/gospel distinction as a her-
meneutical category through which to read Scripture (primarily in terms
of commands/threats versus promises), Reformed authors increasingly
placed both law and gospel in their covenantal contexts, which included
both commands/threats and promises by definition.8 This historic
shift has resulted in confusion over how the law/gospel distinction in
Reformed orthodox and Lutheran theology relate to one another.9 This
has also resulted recently in debates within Reformed circles regarding
6 Timothy J. Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola
of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1997), especially
chapter  6.
7 For example, John Calvin (1509–1563), Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John
T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. XX–XXI, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.19; Johannes Wollebius (1589–1629),
Compendium Christianae Theologiae, 9th ed. (Amsterdam, 1655), lib. 1, cap. 15: “De
Euangelio eiusque cum Lege Convenientia et ab Illa Differentia.” pp. 76–78. It should be
noted that many Reformed authors did not include a chapter on this distinction as well.
8 Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids,
MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 322, 333. For a treatment of Luther’s develop-
ment of the law gospel distinction as a biblical hermeneutic, see Robert Kolb, “Luther’s
Hermeneutic of Distinctions: Law and Gospel, Two Kinds of Righteousness, Two Realms,
Freedom and Bondage,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014), 168–184. Kolb cautions appropriately, “Luther did not
know that he was devising hermeneutical principles for generations to come, so he was
not always careful or consistent in his use of terminology that became critical for his prac-
tice of theology” (169). See also, Willem van Vlastuin, Be Renewed: A Theology of Personal
Renewal, vol. 26, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2014), 23.
9 For a recent example, see Michael S. Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology
for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 137, who states that the
law/gospel distinction refers to, “everything in both Testaments that is in the form of
either an obligatory command or a saving promise in Christ.” He adds that the Lutheran
and Calvinistic conceptions of the law and the gospel were essentially the same. However,
this article shows that Reformed thinkers such as Owen believed that it was a mistake to
relegate threats to the law and promises to the gospel because all covenants, law or gospel,
included both elements.
4 THE THREATS OF THE GOSPEL: JOHN OWEN … 73
the meaning and use of these terms.10 A historical investigation into

aspects of the law/gospel distinction has potential to clarify a complex
issue, both for historical and for contemporary theology.
This essay treats how one significant Reformed orthodox theologian
incorporated threats into both the law and the gospel in light of his cov-
enant theology. Some have called John Owen (1616–1683) one of the
greatest English theologians of the Reformed orthodox period.11 Though
there is a growing body of secondary literature on his thought, including
his covenant theology, his treatment of the law/gospel distinction has not
received much scholarly attention.12 The primary contention of this essay
10 For a debate with references to recent literature on the subject, see Michael S. Horton
and Mark A. Garcia, “Law and Gospel,” The Confessional Presbyterian 8 (2012): 154–176.
In relation to the subject of this essay, Horton distinguishes covenants into law and promise
covenants (158). He states, “there is no law in the gospel and no gospel in the law” (159).
Garcia responds, “it is not conditionality but the question of meritorious grounds that dis-
tinguishes the covenants. Conditions are a defining feature of any covenant in the nature of
the case, and are not unique to or a distinguishing mark of the covenant of works” (174).
11 Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2007), 1; Kelly M. Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in
the Theology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 18.
12 A partial list of recent published monographs on Owen provides an at-a-glance cross-
section of the topics current in Owen research: Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones, eds.,
The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology (Farnham, Surrey, England;
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012); Edwin E.M. Tay, The Priesthood of Christ: Atonement in
the Theology of John Owen (1616–1683), Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton
Keynes: Paternoster, 2014); Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation
of Nonconformity (Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011); Ryan
M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment
of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2014); Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh;
Carlisle, PA: Banner of Thruth Trust, 1987); Brian Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen
and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion (Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK; Waynesboro,
GA: Paternoster, 2007); Christopher Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen (Farnham, Surrey,
England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013); Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration John
Owen and the Coherence of Christology (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007); Steve
Griffiths, Redeem the Time: The Problem of Sin in the Writings of John Owen (Fearn: Mentor,
2001); Richard W. Daniels, The Christology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2004); Sinclair B. Ferguson and Robert W. Oliver, “John Owen: The
Man and His Theology: Papers Read at the Conference of the John Owen Centre for
Theological Study, September 2000” (P & R Pub. ; Evangelical Press, 2002). The only
full-scale scholarly biography of Owen remains Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and
Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian. (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971). In the
Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, Crawford Gribben’s biographical
details note that he is currently writing an intellectual biography of Owen.
74 R.M. McGRAW
is that, in John Owen’s theology, threats were integral components of the

gospel and not of the law only. This was possible because he considered
law and gospel primarily to be covenantal categories. After establishing
briefly the different roles of threats in relation to the law and the gos-
pel in the Lutheran Book of Concord and the Congregationalist Savoy
Declaration of Faith, the second and third segments of this article follow
the two primary places in Owen’s Hebrews commentary where he refers
explicitly to “gospel threatenings.”13 Owen’s exegesis of the first passage
unfolds the necessity and use of threats under the gospel. This author
will allow Owen to raise questions that he will answer with his treatment
of the second text in order to lead readers through the less systematic
context of Owen’s exegetical method.14 The third and last section aims
more directly to define his use of “law” and “gospel” by answering the
questions raised in the preceding section in light of his covenant theology.
This writer hopes that this analysis will shed some light on the historical
components of the law/gospel distinction and, in doing so, add a meas-
ure of clarity both to historical and contemporary theology.
A Brief Background of the Law/Gospel Distinction

The development of the law/gospel distinction in Protestant theology is
complicated. This introductory section aims to summarize the primary
components of the law and the gospel in relation to threats and promises
in confessional Lutheran and Reformed theology.15 While these two the-
ological traditions had much in common with respect to the law/gospel
distinction, the primary question addressed here is how they differed
13 This essay cites the William Goold edition of Owen’s Works. The author has compared
the Goold edition with Owen’s original publications extensively in A Heavenly Directory
and concluded that Goold has retained Owen’s words precisely. Using this edition per-
mits greater ease of reference for readers, since the Hebrews commentary went through
several editions with varying numbers of volumes. For the significance of Owen’s work
on Hebrews as the exegetical and theological capstone of his life and labors, see John W.
Tweeddale, “John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context,” in The Ashgate Research
Companion to John Owen’s Theology, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones (Farnham, Surrey,
England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 50–51.
14 For a thorough treatment of the principles undergirding Owen’s exegesis, see Knapp,
“Understanding the Mind of God.”

15 For a concise summary of the development of this issue in its British context, see Beeke
and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 321–333.

over whether the category of gospel included threats.16 This treatment is

limited by examining two important confessional statements, including a
brief analysis of two representative theologians from each tradition, and
by providing a sketch of the law and the gospel in the Savoy Declaration
of Faith, of which Owen was one of the principal authors.17
The Law/Gospel Distinction in Lutheran and Reformed Theology

Both Lutheran and Reformed theologians assigned great importance
to the distinction between the law and the gospel. However, Reformed
theology developed this distinction within the context of its burgeon-
ing covenant theology.18 This allowed the Reformed to develop fur-
ther dimensions to their use of “law” and “gospel” than that available
to Lutheran authors. This was particularly true in relation to what com-
ponents helped one distinguish the law from the gospel. The Lutheran
Formula of Concord 5.11 explicitly denied that the gospel “is properly
a preaching of repentance or reproof, and not alone a preaching of
grace.”19 While not denying that “law” and “gospel” admitted of wider
uses, many Lutherans preferred to stress a simple and absolute antith-
esis between them, particularly in terms of relegating commands and
threats to the law.20 Robert Kolb notes that while scholars have debated
Luther’s use of “law,” most agree that “gospel” refers in his writings
to what people receive to the exclusion of what they must do. In the
16 Omitting the development of such distinctions is a weakness is Randall Pederson’s
therwise outstanding treatment of English Puritan theology. Pederson gives the impres-
o
sion that the primary and perhaps the only question involved in Reformed treatments of
the law and the gospel was the grounds on which one did good works. As demonstrated
below, this misses the vital ways that Reformed covenant theology created varied uses
of such terms in differing contexts. See Randall J. Pederson, Unity in Diversity: English
Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–1689, vol. 68, Brill Studies in Church History
(Leiden: Brill, 2014), 149, 206, 254–255, 281–282.
17 A.G. Matthews, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, 1658 (London:
Independent Press, 1959), 10–47.

18 Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 321.
19 Cited in Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 322.
20 The material below shows that in a Lutheran context, Luther and Melanchton regard-
ing placing imperatives such as repentance under “gospel” instead of “law” either confused
the categories of law and gospel, or transformed repentance into remorse for sin without
effecting ethical transformation.
76 R.M. McGRAW
Lutheran context, the law threatened, while the gospel promised.21

Excluding “reproof” from preaching the gospel and relegating it to the
law stands directly in contrast to Owen’s insistence below that threats
are proper to the gospel as well as to the law because the gospel is a
covenant. To highlight this point, the Reformed Canons of Dort 5.14
included “exhortations” and “threatenings” under the preaching of the
gospel.22 Lutherans would have treated this as a confusion of the catego-
ries of law and gospel.
However, rejecting “threatenings” as a component of the gospel
did not necessarily entail a simplistic view of the law in Lutheran the-
ology.23 In a small anti-Catholic tract on the legitimate interpretation
of Scripture, Johann Gerhard (1582–1637), who was one of the most
significant post-Reformation Lutheran theologians,24 listed the axioms
of understanding the law. He noted, first, that whatever accused and
condemned men for sin in the New Testament, much as in the Old,
was law.25 Gerhard shared the threefold division of the law with the
Reformed, asserting that the while civil and judicial laws were abrogated
under the New Testament, yet the moral law continued because God
wrote it on man’s heart at creation.26 While those born again are liber-
ated from the curse of the law, they are not liberated from obedience to
God.27 Moral law defines every kind and cause of sin and every oppos-
ing virtue. The promises that the law directed people to in relation to
21 Kolb, “Luther’s Hermeneutics of Distinctions,” 172.

22 Cited in Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 323.
23 See Kolb, “Luther’s Hermeneutic of Distinctions, 174–175 for twentieth-century
debates over how Luther himself used “law.”

24 David Scaer notes that Gerhard was “the ‘archtheologian’ of the seventeenth cen-
tury” and that his “Loci Communes was the standard dogmatics in post-Reformation
Lutheranism.” David P. Scaer, “Johann Gerhard’s Doctrine of the Sacraments,” Protestant
Scholasticism, 289. The recent English translation of Gerhard’s work is projected at a stag-
gering seventeen volumes, which is condensed from the original twenty Latin volumes.
25 Johann Gerhard, Tractatus De Legitima Scripturæ Sacræ Interpretatione (Ienæ: J.J.
Bauhofferi, 1663), 150. This work mirrors his treatment of the same subject in his Loci
Theologici with the same Roman Catholic opponents in view, only with greater brevity.
26 Gerhard, De Legitma, 150. See Savoy Declaration of Faith 19.3–4. We should remem-
ber the commonly known fact that the three uses of the law originated with Melanchthon
as was appropriated and modified by Calvin and others.
27 Gerhard, De Legitma, 150: “Renati sunt non sub malediction legis, interim non sunt
libera ab oboedientia.”
obedience respected perfect obedience. This fact should drive sinners

to the cross.28 In his Loci Theologici, Gerhard noted the potential for
confusion on this subject, since Scripture used law in several ways.29
However, he excluded absolutely threats from the substance of the gos-
pel, in order to retain a proper distinction of categories. Responding to
the Roman Catholic apologist Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), who
argued that the gospel included threats and terrors (comminationes ac
terrores),30 Gerhard wrote that threats pertained to the law only and
that threats were contrary to the promises of the gospel.31 The gos-
pel is a word of gladness and consolation only, whether it appears in
the Old or New Testament.32 Under this construction, the gospel can-
not include threats.33 Gerhard’s contentions in this area agree with the
Formula of Concord, but stand in marked contrast to the Canons of
Dort.34
While holding many points in common with the Lutheran con-
struction, the Reformed did not always use “law” and “gospel” in the
same sharp antithesis. For instance, John Calvin understood “law” as
referring not only to the Ten Commandments, but also to the form
28 Gerhard, De Legitma, 151.

29 Johann Gerhard, Loci Theologici Cum Pro Adstruenda Veritate Tum Pro Destruenda
Quorumvis Contradicentium Falsitate Per Theses Nervose Solide Et Copiose Explicati, ed.
Johann Friedrich Cotta, 20 vols. (Tubingae: Cotta, 1766), 5:217. Gerhard relied explic-
itly on Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) throughout his treatment of the law. Following the
volume and page number, citations from Gerhard represent locus, chapter, and paragraph.
30 The material below will show that Owen referred to gospel “comminations.”
31 Gehard, Loci Theologici, 15.2.20.
32 Gehard, Loci Theologici, 15.2.20.
33 For more detail on Gerhard’s treatment of these distinctions see Loci Theologici,
15.5.40, where he argues that the form of the gospel consists in a gracious promise only,
and 15.6.53–63 (“de discrimine legis et evangelii”).
34 Reflecting the historical context of such references to Bellarmine, van Vlastuin argues
that Calvin’s views of the relationship between justification and sanctification were halfway
between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism: “Over against Rome Calvin thus empha-
sized that justification is not absorbed into sanctification. … But over against the Lutherans
he emphasized that sinners are justified in order that they may live a holy life.” Vlastuin,
Be Renewed, 47. While this may appear overstated at first glance, van Vlastuin draws this
conclusion from Luther’s assertion that sanctification was enveloped into justification, thus
leaving doubt over how the imperatival force of sanctification and the believer’s coopera-
tion with God in it are preserved. See below for Calvin’s treatment of the law and the gos-
pel as well as for the implications of the Lutheran antinomian controversy over this issue.
78 R.M. McGRAW
of religion under Moses.35 Connecting law to Moses and the Mosaic

covenant resurfaces below. Basic to Calvin’s argument in book two
of the Institutes was that Christ and his gospel were central to both
Testaments, which included the Mosaic covenant primarily under the
gospel covenant.36 The “law” as the Mosaic covenant differed from
the “gospel” by representing spiritual blessings in temporal forms,37 by
proclaiming the gospel through figures in the ceremonial law,38 by con-
trasting letter with Spirit,39 by a spirit of bondage versus a spirit of free-
dom,40 and by shifting from one nation to all the nations.41 The “law,”
or Mosaic covenant, administered the gracious covenant that directed
people to Christ. The legal ceremonies were appendages to this essen-
tially gracious covenant. “Law” here was actually the “gospel” in Old
Testament form.42 While Calvin also appealed to the moral law to con-
vict people of sin and to direct them to Christ,43 he often used “law”
to refer to the entire Old Testament, in which the saints received the
gospel with less clarity than believers did under the New.44 Much of
this material overlaps with Gerhard’s description of the law.
35 Calvin, Institutes, 2.7.1.

36 Calvin, Institutes, 2.10.23. See the significant modification of WCF 7.5–6 in Savoy
7.5: “Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect
of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the
flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and
the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New
Testament.” Matthews, 85.
37 Calvin, Institutes, 2.11.1–3.
42 Calvin, Institutes, 2.11.5. See I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison
Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1992), 11–12, 88, 170–176. This is the first study
of Calvin’s teaching on the law that attempts to sketch his entire doctrine of the law in
its context. For an expansion of this research in connection to Calvin’s Christology and
the gospel, see Byung-Ho Moon, Christ the Mediator of the Law: Calvin’s Christological
Understanding of the Law as the Rule of Living and Life-Giving, Studies in Christian
History and Thought (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2006). Hesselink introduces the
topic of Christ in relation to the law on pp. 97–101, 278–281.
The primary difference between Lutheranism and Calvin’s position

was that, in Calvin’s view, the law/gospel contrast was not between com-
mand/threat and promise, but between promise and fulfillment.45 The
later Reformed tradition, of which Owen was a part, strengthened and
clarified such emphases under the rubric of covenant theology. As the
Mosaic covenant, “law” included threats and promise as an administra-
tion of the covenant of works. In the later development of distinguishing
between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, both included
threats and promises while offering differing grounds of eternal life: the
former by obedience and the latter by the grace of God in Christ.46
Law and Gospel in the Savoy Declaration (1658)

The Savoy Declaration of Faith has special importance in establish-
ing the context for Owen’s treatment of the law and the gospel. This
is true, first, because he was one of its primary authors. The Savoy con-
ference met in 1658 near the end of Cromwellian England in order to
draw up a confession of faith and church order for Congregationalists.47
The authors intentionally developed these based on the Westminster
Confession of Faith. A.G. Matthews has made the changes to the
Westminster text easily identifiable in his edition by highlighting the
additions in bold.48
The second reason why Savoy is important in this connection is that
it added to the Westminster Confession a chapter entitled, “Of the
Gospel, and the Extent of the Grace Thereof.”49 While the chapter on
“Repentance unto Life” was rearranged and the substance of a few other
45 “In contrast to the usual Lutheran understanding of law and gospel, for Calvin these
two terms do not first of all connote two kinds of righteousness or ways of salvation – that
of works and that of grace—but rather two modes of God’s redemptive activity. … Calvin
also recognizes the narrower meaning of these terms and gives due attention to the Pauline
antithesis of law and gospel, as we shall see later.” Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law,
11–12. See also Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2008), 137.
46 This is a foretaste of the conclusions that I will draw from the material examined below
and the reader must look there for the evidence of this assertion.
47 For a historical introduction to Savoy, see McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 23–24, and
the literature cited there.

48 Matthews, Savoy Declaration.
49 Matthews, Savoy Declaration, 101. Chapter 20 in Savoy.
80 R.M. McGRAW
chapters was altered, the chapter on “The Gospel” was the only full chap-
ter added to its predecessor. In the preface, Owen and Thomas Goodwin
(1600–1680) explained this addition: “After the 19th cap. of the Law,
we have added a cap. of the Gospel, it being a Title that may not well be
omitted in a Confession of Faith. In this chapter, what is dispersed, and
by intimation of the Assemblies Confession with some addition, is here
brought together, and more fully under one head.”50 This description is
accurate, since the chapter virtually repeats the content of other parts of
the Confession, collating them in one place.51 The prefatory statement
indicates that the primary purpose of the new chapter was to summarize
key components of the external and internal call of the gospel. It is not so
much the content of the gospel in contrast to the law that predominates
here as the necessity of the gospel in addition to the law. Matthews sug-
gests that this may be partly why the Savoy divines collapsed Westminster’s
two paragraphs on the administration of the covenant of grace under the
law and the gospel (WCF 7.5–6) into one (Savoy 7.5).52 According to
Savoy, the emphasis of the gospel falls clearly on its promises. This matches
Calvin’s contention noted above that the law and the gospel are related
in terms of promise and fulfillment. While the gospel did not necessar-
ily exclude threats, its primary aim was to bring to fruition God’s saving
promises in Christ and proclaim them to sinners. These emphases provide
the backdrop for the analysis of Owen’s statements below.
In contrast to Gerhard and the Formula of Concord, the Savoy
Declaration did not define gospel or law in terms of mutually exclu-
sive categories of commands/threats and promises. In light of strong
Lutheran assertions along these lines, this omission is conspicuous.
Instead, the chapter on the law was rooted in the distinction between
the law in itself as related to the character of God and the image of God
50 Matthews, Savoy Declaration, 67.

51 The four paragraphs of this chapter treat respectively: 1. God’s promise to the elect to
send Christ upon the breach of the Covenant of Works (compare to 7:3, on the covenant).
2. The necessity of divine revelation in order to know and believe the promise of the gospel
(compare to 1.1, on Scripture, and 10.4, on effectual calling). 3. The sovereign good pleas-
ure of God in deciding which nations hear the gospel and in what measure they receive it
(related to, but going beyond 3.6, on calling the elect through the use of means). 4. The
necessity of the Holy Spirit to make the gospel effectual for salvation (chapter 10, on effec-
tual calling).
52 Matthews, Savoy Declaration, 85, footnote.
in man, and the law considered as a covenant of works.53 Paragraph

one states that God wrote “a law of universal obedience” on Adam’s
heart. Together with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this
law became “a Covenant of Works” for Adam to keep for himself and
for his posterity.54 Paragraph two added that this law “so written in the
heart” continued after the fall and was delivered in written form on Sinai
in the Ten Commandments.55 While God made this law for Adam a cov-
enant of works, the law itself was distinct from the covenant of works.
This distinction served as the foundation of the various uses of the law
in the lives of the regenerate and the unregenerate treated in the remain-
ing paragraphs. If the covenant of works was inherent in the idea of the
law, then it could not be relevant for Christians. Paragraph three noted
that “this law” written on man’s heart was “commonly called Moral,”
as distinct from ceremonial and “typical ordinances.” Christ took away
the “ceremonial” laws through his death. Paragraph four mentioned the
addition of “judicial laws.” Excepting the “moral” principles standing
behind these laws, they “expired” under the New Testament.56
53 Savoy follows Westminster here almost exactly with the exception of: adding the asser-
tion that Adam not only had the moral law written on his heart, but “a particular precept”
not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good an evil” (19.1); explicitly stating that
this law continued on Adam’s heart after the fall (19.2); asserting that the Father invested
Christ with power to abrogate the ceremonial law (19.3); and by clarifying that the “gen-
eral equity” of the judicial law was still in force, not by virtue of Mosaic institution, but by
“moral use” only (19.4).
54 Relevant here is Hesselink’s treatment of Calvin’s concept of nuda lex, which pervades
his monograph. While this subject goes beyond the bounds of this essay, it is worth noting
that in involved the idea that one should distinguish the law in itself as a moral standard
rooted in the relationship between God and man as a moral creature, and its uses to Adam
in the Garden and the believer’s renewal in the image of God through Christ by the Spirit.
55 Moon’s work on Calvin asserts that Reformed covenant theologians “treat the peculiar
office and use of the law as merely an important element in explaining the mutuality and
conditionality of the covenant.” Moon, Christ the Mediator of the Law, 20. This statement
is puzzling in light of Reformed confessional documents, such as Savoy, which treat the law
primarily as an expression of God’s character and of man’s relationship to God. On this
ground, Savoy (and Owen) explicitly distinguished between law and covenant, though the
moral law served as the terms and conditions of the covenant of works.
56 For a clear treatment of the differing uses of “law” in Reformed thought, with special
reference to the relationship between natural and moral law, see James E. Bruce, Rights in
the Law: The Importance of God’s Free Choices in the Thought of Francis Turretin, vol. 24
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).
82 R.M. McGRAW
The remaining paragraphs expand the nature of the moral law, both
comparing and distinguishing it from its use in the covenant of works.
Paragraph five asserts that the moral law is binding on all people,
whether they are “justified persons” or not. This is because the moral law
is rooted in God’s authority over man as Creator. Paragraph six stresses
that while believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, yet
the moral law is for believers “a rule of life.” This paragraph introduces
the first and only reference to “threatenings” and “curse” in relation to
the law in this chapter. The moral law restrains believers’ corruptions by
showing them what their sins deserve, “and what afflictions they may
expect from them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in
the Law.”57 The promises of the law show believers God’s approval of
and blessing on obedience. Savoy and Westminster very explicitly exclude
the “Law as a Covenant of Works” from these promises, while simultane-
ously warning readers to avoid concluding that people are under the law
and not under grace when their obedience respects such promises and
threats. This implies an appropriation of the threats of the law by the
gospel in a manner that makes such threats useful to believers. This point
resurfaces below in Owen’s assertion that the gospel actually creates the
“first use” of the law. However, Savoy goes beyond this observation by
treating the use of threats in connection to the “third use” of the law
in the believer’s sanctification. The last paragraph makes clear what was
implied throughout paragraph six: using the law as a rule of life, includ-
ing its threats and promises, is not “contrary to the grace of the Gospel,
but do sweetly comply with it.”58 By the Spirit’s help, both the threats
and the promises of the law have gospel uses. While this stops short of
Dort’s declaration that threats are part of gospel preaching, it highlights
the close relationship between the law and the gospel in the context of
the covenant of grace.
The Savoy Declaration implies that the gospel adopts the threats and
promises of the moral law and uses them for salvific ends, under Christ’s
grace, and through the Spirit’s work. This gospel appropriation of the
law was possible by virtue of distinguishing between the moral law as
reflecting the character of God as Creator from its use as a covenant

of works.59 This distinction drew upon a covenantal structure that

Lutheranism did not have at its disposal. In Reformed theology, threats
under the covenant of works condemned sinners only, while threats
under the gospel promoted holiness and perseverance.60 By contrast, in
post-Reformation Lutheran theology, as Wengert notes, the positive role
of the law and of threats in relation to believers under the gospel was
always a tenuous and difficult connection to make.61
The Nature and Use of Gospel Threats

Owen did not write a distinct treatise on the law and the gospel.62
Instead, he integrated this distinction into his dogmatic and exegetical
labors.63 In volume three of his Hebrews commentary, he noted that it
was common in his time to relegate threats to the law and promises to
59 Without using the precise language of the covenant of works (which came later in
Reformed thought), Calvin made a similar distinction between the law in itself and the law
under covenant (in his case, the covenant of grace). See Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the
Law, 91.
60 Contra Partee, who argues that the Westminster Confession “distorted” Calvin’s
teaching on the law in relation to grace by placing the covenant of works first in the system
of theology. Partee, Theology of John Calvin, 137. The material above shows that the cov-
enant of works allowed Reformed authors to retain, restore, and further the gracious uses
of the law. For the development of Calvin’s covenant theology and his basic continuity with
other Reformed authors, see Ballor, Covenant, Casuality, and Law.
61 Wengert, Law and Gospel, 205. For the positive use of the Decalogue in a covenantal
context, see Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 87–138. Especially see his contrast
between Reformed and Lutheran views of threats in relation to the law and the gospel on
pg. 111.
62 Other British authors did. For example, Richard Sibbes (1577–1635), Glorious
Freedom, or, The Excellency of the Gospel Above the Law. Jeremiah Burroughs (1599–1646),
who was one of the five “dissenting brethren” at the Westminster Assembly, similarly
wrote a treatise addressing law and gospel in redemptive historical categories. Jeremiah
Burroughs, Gospel Conversation Wherein Is Shewed I. How the Conversation of Beleevers Must
Be Above What Could Be by the Light of Nature, Ii. Beyond Those That Lived Under the Law,
Iii. and Suitable to What Truths the Gospel Holds Forth (London: Printed by Peter Cole,
1653).
63 An example is chapter 5 of his posthumous Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace,
Works, 7:542–551. This chapter detailed signs by which to know whether one was under
law or under grace.
84 R.M. McGRAW
the gospel.64 He added that it was a mistake to regard conditions and

threats as a tool by which readers could distinguish law from the gos-
pel. He argued (echoing Dort as cited above) that preaching “evangeli-
cal threats” was necessary to preaching the gospel faithfully.65 What he
means is that the gospel as a covenant has threats of its own, which are
added to the threats of the law. These threats are directed against the
apostasy of believers as well as against people who hear and reject the
gospel. The result is that, in addition to the law, the gospel will condemn
those who perish under its preaching without experiencing its power.
The material in this section summarizes Owen’s teaching on gospel
threats as it flows naturally from his exegesis in his Hebrews commentary.
This analysis shows how and why “evangelical” threats were part of the
gospel. It raises questions about the definitions of “law” and “gospel,”
which the third section in this essay seeks to answer. This makes this sec-
tion a synthetic walkthrough of Owen’s exegesis with few systematized
conclusions, and the latter section an analytical treatment of the same
assertions that will enable us to understand better Owen’s use of terms.66
Preliminary Remarks
A few preliminary remarks will set parameters for understanding Owen’s
view of the law and the gospel. First, he affirmed generically that there
was an “antithesis” between the law and the gospel.67 He revealed later
that this antithesis related primarily to the means of obtaining eternal
life.68 This follows the material presented above on Savoy’s chapter on
“The Gospel.” He added that no one could attain salvation by the works
64 John Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:283. In the chapter cited, Beeke and Jones show that
the Antinomians were likely in view here. See below.

65 John Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:287.
66 This distinction is borrowed from Bernardinus de Moor’s description of two ways
of constructing dialectic (systematic) theology. Bernardinus de Moor, Continuous

Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology,
trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1, 7 vols. (Culpeper, VA: L & G Reformation Translation
Center, 2014), 206: “Synthetic method begins from a principium, and through its object
and subject tends toward its end; Analytic method begins with an end, and proceeds to
means.”
of the law69 and that the law threatened eternal punishment against sin-
ners without providing relief.70 The gospel alone promised eternal life
to sinners through Christ’s merit.71 Second, this was not an antithesis of
form or components, such as threats versus promises. He wrote, “Every
transaction between God and man is always confirmed and ratified by
promises and threatenings.”72 This was equally true of gospel and of
law. “Threatenings” were integral to the gospel, but not in the same way
as they were to the law. Though not stated explicitly here, the material
below will show that such assertions contrasted the law as a covenant of
works with the gospel as a covenant of grace. In his exposition of Heb.
3:7–11, Owen added that expressions of wrath by and under the gospel
showed God’s tenderness, love, and care by deterring his children from
sin.73 One could not identify law as opposed to gospel merely by point-
ing to threats and conditions.74 God intended gospel threats to benefit
believers and to convict unbelievers of their need for Christ.
Owen concluded that ministers must preach these threats to believ-
ers if they would preach the gospel faithfully.75 The law and the gospel
stand in antithesis in relation to justification before God, but they agree
in consisting of threats and promises that are proper to each. These pre-
liminary considerations place Owen squarely in line with the Reformed
confessional tradition that the gospel included threats and in contrast to
the Lutheran position that the gospel excluded threats. Threats were a
component of the gospel because both threats and promises were part of
“every transaction between God and man.”

71 See Herman Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor, 2
vols. (Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water, 1694),
1.9.16.
73 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:95; Savoy 19.6.
74 See Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 315–318. See also Ryan M. McGraw, A
Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a Reassessment of John Owen’s
Theology (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 150, fn 68.
75 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:287. This is clearly in line with Dort, as cited above.
86 R.M. McGRAW
The Function of Threats Within the Gospel

The function of threats within the gospel in Owen’s exegetical treat-
ment lays the groundwork for understanding the nature and components
of the law and the gospel as determined by covenantal characteristics.
Owen illustrated the function of threats within the gospel under his doc-
trinal observations on Hebrews 2:2–4.76 This is the first major place in
the Hebrews commentary where the term “evangelical threatenings”
appears. This passage warns believers that if those who rejected the Law
of Moses received a just recompense for their sins, then God’s punish-
ment would be much greater to those who neglect “so great salvation.”
In light of this text, Owen deduced that threats were not only inher-
ent in the gospel and the new covenant, but that they far transcended
the threats of the law and of the old covenant. Gospel threats provided
motives for valuing the gospel rightly and persevering in its profes-
sion.77 Greater gospel privileges brought greater gospel responsibilities.
His fellow Congregationalist Jeremiah Burroughs argued similarly that
Christians had greater obligations to walk in holiness under the gospel
than believers under the law did. He argued that this was true whether
we understand “law” as the covenant of works or as the Mosaic cov-
enant. He reasoned that the condition of and the promises given to
Christians were better than what Adam had under the covenant of
works. They also had better ordinances of worship with greater spiritual
efficacy than the Mosaic covenant.78
Owen argued that those supposing that threats belonged to the law
alone would find the contrary to be true, to their own detriment and
destruction.79 He likely had the Antinomians in view, who believed
that the covenant of grace was entirely unconditional and that threats
76 “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobe-
dience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great
salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us
by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and
with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” Authorized
Version.
78 Burroughs, Gospel Conversation, 41–54.
belongs to the law as opposed to the gospel.80 Owen’s contemporary,

John Flavel, wrote a small work against the Antinomians with the same
issues in view.81 Patrick Gillespie (1617–1675) noted explicitly that the
“Antinomians” denied that there were conditions in the covenant of
grace. He argued instead that this covenant included the conditions of
faith and repentance, but that God supplied these conditions in effectual
calling.82 In spite of his strong assertions noted above, Owen did not
believe that all who rejected conditions in the covenant of grace were
headed for destruction, since he endorsed Samuel Petto’s (1624–1711)
book on covenant theology, even though Petto taught this position.83
Instead, he emphasized, in line with his text, that those who did not lis-
ten to the threats of the gospel would fall under them.
At first glance, the Reformed concern over “Antinomians” deny-
ing that threats and conditions were integral to the gospel appears to
invert Philip Melanchthon’s (1497–1560) position against the Lutheran
“Antinomian” John Agricola (1494–1566). Melanchthon viewed
Agricola as an “Antinomian” precisely because he asserted that threats
of judgment against sin belonged to the gospel instead of to the law.
From a Reformed perspective, this can sound confusing. However, as
Wengert illustrates throughout his study, Lutherans divided law and
80 See the material cited above from Beeke and Jones. For the importance of faith as a
condition of the covenant of grace in Reformed theology, see MacLean, James Durham,
98, 112, 216.
81 John Flavel, A Blow at the Root of Antinomianism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Publication, 1840). He wrote, “The gospel makes sin more odious than ever the law did,
and discovers the punishment of it in a more severe and dreadful manner, than ever it was
discovered before” (13–14).
82 See Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament Opened, Or, the Secret of the Lords
Covenant Unsealed in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, Wherein an Essay Is Made for
the Promoving [sic] and Increase of Knowledge in the Mysterie of the Gospel-Covenant
Which Hath Been Hid from Ages and Generations but Now Is Made Manifest to the Saints
(London: Printed by R.C., 1983), 271–273. For a brief sketch of the Antinomian con-
troversy in England, see Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 323–329. See also,
Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion & Antinomian
Backlash in Puritanism to 1638 (Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of
Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the University of North
Carolina Press, 2004).
83 Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained
with an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal Concernments of It (London:

Printed for Eliz. Calvert, 1674), 110–111, 221–226.
88 R.M. McGRAW
gospel according to their components. Threats and commands belonged

to the law and not to the gospel. In a Lutheran context, by transferring
repentance from law to gospel, Agricola ran the risk of removing all ethi-
cal imperatives from repentance and devolving it into mere remorse over
sin. The resultant problem was that Agricola virtually removed the law
from his theological system, even as a means to convict sinners and drive
them to Christ.84 Reformed authors such as Owen, Gillespie, and Flavel
did not deny that threats and conviction of sin belonged to the law. The
primary difference lay in the idea that threats belonged to both the law
and to the gospel. While Lutherans regarded those who included threats
in the gospel as Antinomians, the Reformed treated those who excluded
threats from the gospel as Antinomians. They had different targets in
view and worked with different theological paradigms.85
The overarching concern of this analysis is to show that from a sev-
enteenth-century Reformed perspective, the presence of commands/
threats could not serve as reliable means to distinguish law from gos-
pel. Owen stressed the idea that gospel threats were evangelical
rather than legal. First, gospel threats were not legal motives because
they are recorded in the gospel and are integral to it. Ministers deny-
ing this would have a “weak and erroneous ministry here” and give a
bad account to God for it hereafter.86 Ministers must not profess to
be wiser than God in their preaching by relegating threats to the law.
Second, these threats were “becoming” to the gospel.87 Christ’s honor
necessitated them, since those who neglected or rejected him deserved
condemnation. Gospel threats were suitable both to believers and to
unconverted sinners as well. Believers profited from them by foster-
ing reverence for Christ’s majesty.88 Gospel threats should also con-
sole believers under affliction because God would avenge them upon
their enemies.89 The Westminster divine Henry Scudder (1585–1653)
encouraged believers to use the “imprecatory Psalms” in their prayers for
84 Wengert, Law and Gospel, 41, 126.

85 For a recent treatment of British antinomianism in a Reformed context, see Randall J.
Pederson, Unity in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–1689,
vol. 68, Brill Studies in Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 75–81, 210–237.
the same reason. God would not comfort those seeking personal venge-
ance, but he would help those who were grieved that God’s glory was
defamed and his kingdom assaulted.90 Owen added that “evangelical”
threats led believers to praise and thank God for their salvation. He con-
cluded, “every threatening of the gospel proclaims the grace of Christ
to their souls.”91 These “evangelical” threats also led believers to fear
God and to check their lusts.92 Threats pulled up the weeds from among
believers’ flowers. This explains and expands the point in Savoy 19.6
cited above concerning the uses of the law to believers, which included
the Father’s discipline against disobedience to the law. Owen added
that “threatenings of the gospel” helped prevent believers from denying
Christ under trials as well. They should conclude, “Man threatens me if
I forsake not the gospel; but God threatens me if I do.”93 Gospel threats
aimed to drive both the converted and the unconverted to seek God’s
glory in Christ. “Evangelical” threats were salvific in intent, but effective
in condemning the unbelieving and unrepentant.94
Gospel Threats and the Duties of Ministers

Owen’s third motive for applying gospel threats in preaching deserves
separate attention because it emphasizes their positive aim. He believed
that the office of minister was benedictory in nature. As such, the min-
istry was God’s primary earthly means of bringing people into com-
munion with God.95 In light of this, he argued that “evangelical”
threats highlighted the importance of hearing the Word preached.96 As
a Congregationalist, Owen believed that God committed the keys of the
90 Henry Scudder, A Key of Heaven: The Lord’s Prayer Opened and so Applied, that a
Christian May Learn How to Pray, and to Procure all Things which May Make for the Glory
of God, and the Good of Himself and of His Neighbor; Containing Likewise such Doctrines
of Faith and Godliness, as May be Very Useful to All that Desire to Live Godly in Christ Jesus
(London, 1633), 267–272.
92 This confirms van Vlasuin’s interpretation of Calvin’s teaching on the fear of God in
relation to sanctification. Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 33.

94 For an explicit treatment of this assertion, see Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:268–269.
95 McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 187.
90 R.M. McGRAW
kingdom to the entire church.97 However, God committed special duties

and special authority to pastors in their public teaching.98 He applied
here the unmistakable language of the keys to pastors in their duties.99
While the keys of the kingdom belonged to the entire church, church
officers exercised them in a special way. Officers opened and shut the
kingdom primarily through preaching.
Pastors shut the kingdom against those neglecting the gospel by
proclaiming “evangelical” threats against them. It is noteworthy that
John Cotton (1584–1652), the New England Congregationalist whose
work on the Keys of the Kingdom moved Owen from Presbyterianism
to Congregationalism,100 argued that ministers bound by preach-
ing the law and loosed by preaching the gospel.101 In almost Lutheran
fashion, Cotton relegated threats to the law rather than to the gospel.
This is significant in light of the suspicion of some that Cotton was an
Antinomian.102 Cotton’s antithesis was less common among Reformed
authors than it was among Lutheran authors, who (as noted above)
opposed a different kind of Antinomian theology on radically different
97 Owen, The Nature of a Gospel Church, Works, 16:64–66. For the thorny ques-
tion of the seat of church power and diverse theories among seventeenth-century
Congregationalists and Presbyterians, see Hunter Powell, “October 1643: The Dissenting
Brethren on the Proton Dektikon,” Michael A.G Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn
into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century
British Puritanism, vol. 17, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen; Oakville, CT:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 52–82. Powell’s more extensive treatment of this topic
is found in Hunter Powell, The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan
Revolution 1638–44, Politics, Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 2015).
98 Owen, The Nature of a Gospel Church, Works, 16:74–96. Most of this section high-
lights the duties of ministers to the congregation. The authority of their teaching is implied
by the weight of their responsibilities. The substance of this entire section is repeated in
“The Duty of a Pastor,” Works, 9:452–461, highlighting its importance in Owen’s thought.
99 “They are authorized to denounce the eternal wrath of God against disobedient sin-
ners; and whomsoever they bind under the sentence of it on earth, they are bound in
heaven unto the judgment of the great day.” Owen, Hebrews, Works, 20:286.
100 Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator,
Theologian. (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971), 18–19.

101 John Cotton, The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Power Thereof, According to the
Word of God (London: Printed by M. Simmons for Henry Overton, 1644), 10.
102 Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? (Phillipsburg,
NJ: P & R Publishing, 2013), 9–11.

grounds.103 Owen developed his theory of the keys of the kingdom from
Cotton, but he described their exercise differently. This was particularly
true in relation to threats as components of the gospel as well as of the
law.
Owen concluded that the gospel must have threats proper to it for
two reasons. First, the punishments threatened against disobedience
were clearer under the gospel than under the law.104 The Old Testament
included and proclaimed the gospel. Yet those sinning against the law
(using “law” as referring to the gospel in its OT form) had not sinned
against God’s full declaration of pardoning mercy.105 Only those reject-
ing the gospel were liable to gospel threats.106 They were cursed both
by the law (using “law” now as a covenant of works) and by the gospel.
Second, the degree of punishment for disobedience was much clearer
under the gospel than under the law.107
Owen’s concluding application to pastors represents the climax and
primary aim of this section and it encompasses almost all of the observa-
tions made in this essay thus far. He wrote:
And this ought they to be well acquainted withal who are called unto the
dispensation of the gospel. A fond conceit hath befallen some, that all
denunciations of future wrath, even unto believers, is legal, which there-
fore it doth not become the preachers of the gospel to insist upon: so
would men make themselves wiser than Jesus Christ and all his apostles,
yea, they would disarm the Lord Christ, and expose him to the contempt
of his vilest enemies. There is also, we see, a great use in these evangeli-
cal threatenings to believers themselves. And they have been observed to
have had an effectual ministry, both unto conversion and edification, who
have been made wise and dexterous in managing gospel comminations
toward the consciences of their hearers. And those that hear the word may
hence learn their duty, when such threatenings are handled and opened to
them.108
103 See Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 323–325. Also see Wengert, Law and
Gospel, Chap. 4.
107 See Burroughs, Gospel Conversation, 40–44; Flavel, Antinomianism, 13–14.
92 R.M. McGRAW
The Leiden Synopsis included language almost identical to Owen’s:

“The threats [comminationes] of the Gospel concern the condemnation
of unbelievers who do not obey Christ in the presence of God, and the
punishment of eternal death (John 3:18, 36; Hebrews 2:2,3).”109 Owen
exemplified this exhortation by his practice in his sermons during the
last decade of his life.110 Without gospel threats, he believed that gospel
preaching would be largely ineffective, both to the converted and to the
unconverted.
Obadiah Sedgwick (1600–1658), a member of the Westminster
Assembly, illustrated what such practices looked like by warning England
to turn from national sins to the Lord.111 His general point was that,
“The breaking up of sinful hearts, is a singular means to prevent the
breaking down of a sinful nation.”112 He preached this sermon dur-
ing the early years of the English Civil War, no doubt with a partial eye
towards seeing God’s blessings on the military.113 Sedgwick applied his
text both to individuals and to the nation.114 He named sins such as pro-
fessed idolatry, drunkenness, and Sabbath breaking.115 The “idolatry” in
view reflected his (and Owen’s) Puritan rejection of the practices of the
Church of England at the time, such as kneeling before the elements of
the Lord’s Supper.116 Sedgwick added that believers should not only use
the law, but also study the gospel, God’s mercies, and Christ in order
109 Velde, Synopsis Purioris, 1:573.

110 For example, Owen, Works, 9:490–517. For an analysis of Owen’s preaching,
though limited largely to the period of the English Civil War, see Martin C. Cowan, “The
Prophetic Preaching of John Owen from 1646–1659 in its Historical Context,” PhD
Dissertation, Cambridge University, 2012.
111 Obadiah Sedgwick, England’s Preservation; Or, a Sermon Discovering the Onely Way to
Prevent Destroying Judgments: Preached to the Honourable House of Commons at Their Last
Solemne Fast Being on May, 25, 1642. (London: Printed by R.B. for Samuel Gellibrand,
1642).
112 Sedgwick, England’s Preservation, 7.
113 For an interesting treatment of the English Civil War from the radically differing per-
spectives of Owen and Richard Baxter (1615–1691), see Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard
Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011). Like
Sedgwick, Owen viewed the war as an opportunity to see God bless England. Baxter, who
experienced the devastations of the front line, regarded the war as a disastrous judgment
from God.
116 See McGraw, ‘A Heavenly Directory’, 21, fn 48, 24, 104.
to produce conviction of sin.117 The application of such warnings fell

particularly on ministers and on Parliament.118 In a different context,
Melanchthon, who was not Antinomian but was a Lutheran, argued that
conviction came from the law and not from the gospel. Agricola, who
was Antinomian and a Lutheran, argued that conviction came from the
gospel and not from the law.119 Sedgwick, who was neither Antinomian
nor Lutheran, but Reformed, argued that conviction came both from
the law and the gospel, but especially through the gospel. Sedgwick used
gospel “comminations” to press England to cultivate repentance and to
experience gospel mercies.
A Preliminary Conclusion
The above observations show that Owen treated threats as a component
of the gospel as well as the law. God designed gospel threats to convert
sinners and, especially, to promote faith and holiness in the saints: “The
way and means whereby the gospel of itself worketh towards the mor-
tification of lusts of the heart is by the proposition of its promises and
threatenings unto the minds of men.”120 The purpose of these threats
was to save rather than to condemn. While this material shows that
threats belonged to the gospel as well as to the law in Owen’s theology,
the next section argues why this was the case in light of his covenant
theology.
Clarifying Owen’s Use of “Law” and “Gospel”

Owen’s integration of threats into the gospel raises the question of how
he defined and identified “law” and “gospel.” Depending on the read-
er’s prior understanding of “law” and “gospel,” the material above has
likely either added clarity or created a mass of theological difficulties. Did
“law” and “gospel” refer to the covenant of works as opposed to the
covenant of grace? Did the “law” refer to the Old Testament and the
“gospel” to the New Testament? Was “law” the Mosaic economy and

119 Wengert, Law and Gospel, 126, 129.
120 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:124, 269.
94 R.M. McGRAW
“gospel” the new covenant?121 Owen used “law” in all of these ways in
differing contexts.122 In his exposition of Hebrews 8, for example, he
treated the “law” as the Mosaic covenant in contrast to the new cov-
enant.123 In his Dominion of Sin and Grace, he reduced “law” either to
the Old Testament or to “the covenant rule of perfect obedience.”124 In
the first sense, in harmony with Calvin, “law” as a reference to the Old
Testament meant “gospel” in its Old Testament form.125 In the second
sense, “law” as a covenant referred to the covenant of works.126 Adding
a third sense in his exposition of Hebrews eight, “law” referred to the
Mosaic covenant in opposition to the new covenant.127
This section illustrates that when he wrote of “evangelical” threats, Owen

primarily contrasted the gospel as the covenant of grace to the law as a
121 For a similar set of questions, see Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 322.
122 Hesselink shows that Calvin used “law” primarily in two senses: law as Old Testament
and gospel as New Testament, and law in antithesis to gospel as a means of approaching
God. However, rather than connecting the latter use of law explicitly to a primitive con-
cept of a covenant of works, Calvin appears to have treated this use of the law with the
law abstracted as from the covenant of grace. Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law,
157–158, 188. However, Hesselink notes later that even here Calvin imported covenantal
overtones into the law by sometimes referring to is as “the original covenant” (197).
123 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:216; 23:77–78. For the complexities surrounding the
Mosaic covenant in British Reformed orthodoxy, see Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,”
Drawn into Controversie, 189–202. For a treatment of Owen’s position, see McGraw, A
Heavenly Directory, 166–174.
124 Owen, Dominion of Sin and Grace, Works, 7:542.
125 See above.
126 Owen, Dominion of Sin and Grace, Works, 7:542–543. The full citation reads: “The
law is taken two ways: 1. For the whole revelation of the mind and will of God in the Old
Testament. In this sense it had grace in it, and doth give both life, and light, and strength
against sin, as the Psalmist declares, Ps. xix. 7–9. In this sense it contained not only the
law of precepts, but the promise also and the covenant, which was the means of convey-
ing spiritual life and strength unto the church. In this sense it is not here spoken of, nor is
anywhere opposed unto grace. 2. For the covenant rule of perfect obedience: ‘Do this and
live.’ In this sense, men are said to be ‘under it,’ in opposition unto being ‘under grace.’
They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority as a covenant. And in this sense
all men are under it who are not instated in the new covenant through faith in Christ Jesus,
who sets up in them and over them the rule of grace; for all men must be one way or other
under the rule of God, and he rules only by the law or by grace, and none can be under
both at the same time.”
127 See Owen, Hebrews, Works, 23:48–100, for his fullest exposition of this contrast.
covenant of works. This treatment did not exclude a partial contrast

between the Old Testament and the New, since he elsewhere argued
that the gospel was more prominent in the New Testament than the Old
Testament.128 However, the gospel included threats proper to its nature
and these threats alone were suited to drive sinners to Christ. The analysis
below highlights this point by examining his treatment of the fear of God,
his assertion that gospel threats were “superadded to those of the law,”
and by showing how “the unpardonable sin” shed light on the function of
threats within the gospel.
“A Reverential Fear of God”

Owen’s second major treatment of “evangelical” threats appeared in
his exposition of Hebrews 4:1–2.129 He explicitly connected this sec-
tion with his comments on 2:2–3.130 Combining these two portions of
his commentary sheds light on how his covenant theology informed his
treatment of the law/gospel distinction. While reasserting the impor-
tance of “evangelical” threats, Owen expanded his discussion of the
nature of the gospel in contrast to the law. He began by reasserting
that, “The gospel, in the dispensation thereof, is not only attended with
promises and rewards, but also with threatenings and punishments.”131
This was the first step in a three-stage argument. Stage two added that
although the gospel addresses all professing believers indiscriminately,
some are hypocrites and false professors.132 This meant that “evangeli-
cal” threats had differing effects on different people. The third stage of
the argument was that “Fear is the proper object of gospel commina-
tions.”133 Thus, he reiterated that threats were as integral to the gospel
128 This is particularly evident in his contrast between the Old and New Testament in
relation to the sanctions of civil law in his A Day of Sacred Rest, Works, 19:263–460.
129 “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of
you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto
them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that
heard it.” Authorized Version.
132 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:205. For a treatment of hypocrisy and assurance, see Joel
R Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors (Edinburgh;
Carlisle, PA.: Banner of Truth, 1999).
96 R.M. McGRAW
as promises were, that some hearers needed gospel threats more than
others, and that gospel threats were designed to promote fear in all who
heard them.
One’s covenant relation to God in Christ determined what kind of
fear the gospel would produce. Owen taught that there were four kinds
of fear: natural, civil, sinful, and religious.134 John Flavel (1627–1691)
reduced these to three, by subsuming civil fear under natural fear.135
Natural fear was a non-sinful response to something inherently dread-
ful, such as a lion’s roar.136 Sinful fear resulted in doubt or hesitation
when God either commanded someone to do something or promised to
help him or her in any given situation. The Israelites were guilty of this
fear when God promised to save them from the king of Assyria and they
yet remained in doubt and in terror.137 Religious fear summarized and
encompassed all true religion.138 This “fear” expressed itself in worship
and obedience to God.139
According to Owen, religious fear was fourfold and it was not always
healthy. First, there is a fear of dread and terror of God as the dread-
ful and holy object of fear.140 Such fear could have two widely differ-
ing results. On the one hand, hypocritical professors regarded God as a
dreadful enemy. Such terror did not respect reconciliation in Christ and
resulted in “weakening, disheartening, and alienating the heart from
God.”141 While this was a religious fear, it destroyed rather than pro-
moted true religion. On the other hand, this fear could entail an awful

135 John Flavel, A Practical Treatise of Fear, in The Works of John Flavel (Baynes & Son,
1820), 3:239. Earlier, Calvin treated simply saving and non-saving fear. Hesselink, Calvin’s
Concept of the Law, 232. For the role of the fear of God in Calvin’s view of the Christian
life, see Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 33.
136 Flavel, A Practical Treatise of Fear, 245.
137 Flavel, A Practical Treatise of Fear, 248. Citing Is. 30:15.
138 Flavel, A Practical Treatise of Fear, 252: “This fear is a gracious habit or principle
planted by God in the soul, whereby the soul is kept under an holy awe of the eye of God,
and from thence is inclined to perform and do what pleaseth him, and to shun and avoid
whatsoever he forbids and hates.”
140 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:201. Cites 2 Cor. 5:11: “Knowing therefore the terror of
the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made
manifest in your consciences.”
fear of God’s holiness with respect to deserved and impending judg-

ments. This fear sometimes came upon believers as well as on unbeliev-
ers, though with widely differing results.142 Second, there is a fear of
distrust that God will accomplish his promises: “This is a defect in faith,
and opposite unto it.”143 This is a kind of sinful fear as well as a false
religious fear. Owen added, “The same faith that works by love, works
also by delight; and it casts out this fear of distrust and diffidence.”144
Third, there is “a reverential fear of God.”145 This is what both the Old
and the New Testaments commonly meant by the fear of God. This rev-
erential fear concerns all of our ways and actions. It could be subjective,
with reference to our internal frame, or objectively it could stand “for
the worship of God itself.”146 Fourth, there is a fear of “circumspection”
or using diligently the means for persevering in the faith.147 This was the
kind of fear that moved Noah to build the ark.148
The “evangelical” threats in Hebrews 2:2–3 and 4:1–2 related to the
first and the last categories of religious fear.149 This highlighted the posi-
tive character of gospel threats. These threats aimed to drive hypocrites
to despair in themselves and to direct believers to take divine judgments
seriously. This should remind readers of Savoy 19.6 (cited above) on the
use of the law in the lives of regenerate and unregenerate men. However,
gospel threats should lead all who hear them to the “reverential fear of
God,” which was salvific. This made gospel threats differ radically from
legal threats. We will see below that the reason why this was the case is
142 Citing Psalm 119:120: “My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy
judgments,” and, Josh. 24:19–20: “And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the
Lord: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor
your sins. If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt,
and consume you, after that he hath done you good.” Authorized Version.
148 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:204. Citing Hebrews 11:7: “By faith Noah, being warned
of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his
house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is
by faith.”
98 R.M. McGRAW
that the gospel adopted the threats of the law, amplified them, added to
them, and changed their aim in the context of the covenant of grace.
“Superadded to Those of the Law”

In John Bunyan’s (1628–1688) Pilgrim’s Progress, Faithful had a brutal
run-in with Moses. Moses, representing the law, beat the pilgrim mer-
cilessly. When Faithful asked Christian who this man was, he answered,
“The man that overtook you was Moses. He spareth none, neither
knoweth he how to shew mercy to those that transgress his law.”150 This
scenario contrasts implicitly the Mosaic covenant with the fruition of the
covenant of grace under the new covenant.151 Though this covenant
was not the covenant of works, it retained the threats of that covenant.
Though Owen argued that the gospel contained threats as well as the
law, he believed that gospel threats were “evangelical,” not only because
of their salvific purpose, but also because they showed God’s glory in the
plan of redemption.152 He elaborated that the gospel utilized the threats
of the law as a covenant of works and redirected them to a different end
under the Covenant of Grace.153
He contended that the glory of the gospel as a covenant required
and resulted in new and greater threats than those under the law,
whether considered as a covenant of works, as the gospel under the Old
Testament, or as the Mosaic Covenant. Three kinds of persons received
gospel threats: open unbelievers, professing believers who did not have
saving faith, and “true believers.”154 The threats respected both tempo-
rary and eternal judgments. Owen noted that “threatenings of this sort
are frequently scattered up and down the New Testament.”155 These
threats are “evangelical, inasmuch as they are proper to the gospel, and
150 John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress, From This World to That Which is to Come
(London, 1778), 80.
151 See above for the varied uses of “law” in these connections.
152 See Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:268.
153 “The end of both [threats and promises] is, to increase in us faith and obedience. …
The threatenings of God, then, are not assigned unto any other end but what the prom-
ises are assigned unto, only they work and operate another way.” Owen, Hebrews, Works,
21:269.
distinct from all “threatenings” of the law (as a covenant of works): “The
law knows no more of gospel threatenings than of gospel promises.”156
This statement significantly reinforces the fact that one could not identify
“law” by commands/threats and “gospel” by promises. It adds the idea
that gospel threats far outstripped legal threats in severity. The gospel is
greater than the law in every respect, including its threats as well as its
promises. There were distinctively gospel threats were “superadded unto
those of the law.”157 Those rejecting the gospel may expect worse pun-
ishment than those who simply died under the covenant of works, those
who enjoyed the Old Testament without the full light of the New, and
those who lived under the Mosaic system of worship that was fulfilled
and removed with the coming of the new covenant. These assertions
about threats flowing out of the gospel differ starkly from the Lutheran
assertions noted above to the effect that the law commands/threatens
and the gospel promises.158
Owen added that while God used gospel threats to save his people,
not all of the ends of gospel threats were salvific. Gospel threats mani-
fested Christ’s power and authority with reference to his holiness, maj-
esty, and glory.159 Gospel threats also stressed the necessity of believing
in Christ and the excellence of gospel promises in God’s esteem, and
they vindicated the gospel from contempt.160 Owen’s use of gospel
threats to offset the glory of gospel promises represented a self-conscious
attempt to follow the pattern of the book of Hebrews.161 His concerns
were exegetical as much as they were dogmatic.162 The gradually unfold-
ing picture reveals that gospel threats aimed “to ingenrate fear” in those
who were openly unbelievers or hypocritical and temporary believers163
Gospel threats ought to move all hearers to “the reverent fear of God.”

157 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:206. Citing 2 Cor. 2:16: “To the one we are the savour
of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for
these things?”
158 Contra Horton, The Christian Faith, 137.
162 For an outstanding analysis of John Owen’s exegesis in relation to his theology,
see Henry M. Knapp, “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-
Century Exegetical Methodology,” PhD dissertation, Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002.
100 R.M. McGRAW
This implicit exhortation honored Christ even when it did not save sin-
ners.
Owen shows, however, that the salvific aim of gospel threats takes
us closer to the true difference between the law and the gospel. While
threats of wrath and judgment cannot produce saving faith, God
designed them to make sinners take salvation seriously and to highlight
the glory of his plan of redemption so that they might learn to value
it. Though the “fear of terror” was not saving, it might be useful in
God’s hand in driving hypocrites to obtain true saving faith by divine
power through using the means of grace.164 The means of grace could
not save anyone, but without the diligent use of them damnation was
sure.165 Standing behind this teaching about gospel threats was the idea
that the law (as a covenant of works) left sinners without hope. By con-
trast, “evangelical” threats led believers to a proper childlike reverence
for God, even while they simultaneously pressed unbelievers to conver-
sion. God designed gospel threats to bring men to gospel promises.166
The law was never designed to do this.167 As in the above example from
Pilgrim’s Progress, the law knew neither how to show mercy nor how to
drive men towards mercy. It had nothing positive to say to sinners.168
This led Owen to the profound insight that the gospel demanded and
even created the so-called “first use” of the law, which was to convict
sinners and to drive them to Christ for salvation.169 The so-called Leiden

165 See Westminster Shorter Catechism 85: “To escape the wrath and curse of God due
to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the dili-
gent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of
redemption.”
168 Owen, Dominion of Sin and Grace, Works, 7:543: “It discovers sin and condemns it,
but it gives no strength to oppose it. It is not God’s ordinance for the dethroning of sin,
nor for the destruction of its dominion.”
169 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 24:317. He asserted here that it was not the proper office of
the law to convince men of sin and to drive them to Christ, since “this design, as unto the
law, is covered in blackness. … It is the gospel alone that reveals the design of God in his
law.” For the “first use” of the law, see Calvin, Institutes, 2.11.7; Partee, Theology of John
Calvin, 139; Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 219–221. To avoid confusion, this
was Melanchthon’s “second use” of the law.
Synopsis states this point explicitly.170 This was particularly true with
regard to the Mosaic covenant, which “renewed” and “renovated” the
law as a covenant of works with a new end.171 Unlike his broader use of
“law,” which referred to the gospel as revealed in the Old Testament,
this reinforcement of the covenant of works under Moses was not
designed “to give power or strength against sin.”172 This does not mean
that the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of works made with Adam,
but rather that the Mosaic covenant revived the promises, threats, and
conditions of the covenant of works for a different purpose.173 Strictly
speaking, it is improper to describe this as a republication of the cov-
enant of works, since that covenant was no longer offered to sinners as
a means of eternal life.174 The “principal” Mosaic addition, which the
original covenant of works lacked, was “to drive men to the promise,
and Christ therein.”175 This approximates the “first use” of the law,
which adopted the threats and promises of the covenant of works under
the covenant of grace to drive sinners to Christ.176 Owen taught that
the Mosaic covenant was neither the covenant of works nor the cov-
enant of grace, but a “covenant superadded unto the promises” of the
170 Velde, Synopsis Purioris, 371 (Polyander).

171 Owen, Dominion of Sin and Grace, Works, 7:543. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen
added that the Sinai covenant did not abrogate the covenant of works, but that, “in sundry
things it re-enforced, established, and confirmed that covenant.” Owen, Hebrews, Works,
23:77. Israel was under the covenant of works declaratively in the law, but not covenantally
like Adam.
173 Owen, Works, 23: 61–65, but especially 77–78. For a summary of the thorny ques-
tion of how Reformed authors regarded the Mosaic covenant, see Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’
Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within
Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin and Mark Jones, vol. 17,
Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 183–203.
174 Owen preferred to write about the “renovation of the law” at Sinai. Owen, Hebrews,
Works, 24:313. In the preceding volume he denied explicitly that “the covenant of works,
absolutely the old” was the “old covenant” intended in Hebrews eight. Owen, Hebrews,
Works, 23:61.
176 Hesselink notes that Calvin, “never quite says that we come to know ourselves as sin-
ners and come to realize the gravity of our plight not through the law alone, but through
the law as seen in Jesus Christ. This can be inferred from several passages cited earlier, but
Calvin himself does not make this clear.” Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law, 236.
102 R.M. McGRAW
covenant of grace.177 This was a minority position among the Reformed,

though notable authors such as John Cameron, Samuel Bolton, Samuel
Petto, Moises Amyraut, and a few others promoted it.178 In this view,
the Mosaic covenant presupposed and promoted the covenant of grace
without being synonymous with it.179 While this was a minority posi-
tion among the Reformed, the literature cited bears the idea that virtual
equation of the covenant of works under the Mosaic covenant with the
“first use” of the law was common in Reformed theology.
With some irony in light of this present essay, Owen implied else-
where that his view of the Mosaic covenant had some affinities with
Lutheran theology.180 The affinity lay, in his view, in the absolute con-
trast between the new covenant and the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews
8. Ironically, while he taught that threats were proper to the gos-
pel, mainstream Lutherans, such as Melanchthon, rejected this view
as Antinomian.181 Owen agreed with Lutheranism in denying that the
Mosaic covenant was, strictly speaking, the covenant of grace. He disa-
greed with Lutheranism by insisting that covenant of grace included
threats as essential components to a gospel covenant. While Lutheranism
largely built such conclusions on the law/gospel distinction, Owen fur-
ther nuanced this distinction by means of his covenant theology. In con-
trast to Lutheran Antinomians, such as Agricola, the Reformed placed
threats under the gospel without reducing repentance to sorrow over
177 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 23:113. The primary idea in this covenant scheme is that the
Mosaic covenant related primarily to Christ, as he would fulfill the legal condition of the
covenant of works in order to bring the covenant of grace to fruition. Thus the Mosaic
covenant was not a covenant of works to Israel, but to Christ. It promoted the covenant
of grace without being synonymous with the covenant of grace. This idea of a “superadded
covenant” is also present on pg. 70 of the volume cited, though the terminology of a
“superadded covenant” appears only in the reference cited here. In my Heavenly Directory,
166, I mistakenly cite pg. 70 instead of the exact citation, which is found on pg. 113.
178 Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” Drawn into Controversie, 199–202. See Richard A.
Muller, “Beyond Hypothetical Universalism: Moise Amyraut (1596–1644) on Faith,

Reason, and Ethics,” in Martin I. Klauber, ed., The Theology of the French Reformed
Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Reformed Historical-
Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 206–208.
179 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 23:77–78. See McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 166–174 for
an analysis of Owen’s views of the Mosaic Covenant.

180 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 23:73–74; McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 170–171.
181 See Wengert, Law and Gospel, chap. 6.
sin without confession and a changed life. Covenant theology took

Reformed theology in a different direction, with different conclusions,
and for widely differing reasons. Potential confusion arises because
Owen sometimes used “law” to refer to the Old Testament economy as
opposed to the New, at other times to the Mosaic covenant in opposition
to the new covenant, and still other times to contrast the covenants of
works and of grace. The thread that tied these uses together was that the
gospel referred to the fruition and fulfillment of God’s promises under
the new covenant.182 Kolb’s observation that Luther’s understanding of
the gospel is much clearer than his use of law can be said of Owen as
well.183 The difference is that while Luther argued that the gospel con-
sisted exclusively of promises received to the exclusion of commands/
threats, Owen believed that commands and threats were integral to the
gospel as a covenant, though Christ in the gospel supplied all of the
commands and conditions of that gracious covenant.184 If the gospel
had no threats, then there could be no “first use” of the law. Owen later
noted explicitly, “It is the gospel alone that reveals this design of God in
the law.”185 By contrast, the “law” as a covenant of works damns without
offering salvation.186
“The Guilt of the Unpardonable Sin”

Owen believed that the so-called “unpardonable sin” was the final proof
not only that threats were native to the gospel, but also that “evangeli-
cal” threats excelled “legal” threats. The threats urged in the context of
Hebrews, he argued, aimed primarily at declaring God’s purposes against
those who “have contracted the guilt of the unpardonable sin.”187
Owen’s view of the nature of this sin is beyond the scope of this essay.
In brief, he believed that it involved hardening the heart against inner
(but non-saving) convictions of the Holy Spirit, resulting in a final and

183 Kolb,“Luther’s Hermeneutics of Distinctions,” 172.
184 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 23: 68–69. While excluding threats from the gospel, Horton
makes a similar point about Christ supplying the conditions of the gospel. Horton and
Garcia, “Law and Gospel,” 162.
186 See Witsius, Oeconomia Foderum, 1.9.
104 R.M. McGRAW
irremediable revocation of the gospel.188 He taught that relatively few

people committed this sin and that it was hard to identify those who did
so. Henry Scudder went further, arguing that it was impossible for “ordi-
nary Christians” to identify this sin in others, since direct inspiration of
the Spirit has ceased.189 Regardless of whether one could identify this sin
in others, Owen noted that the author of Hebrews had a practical aim in
view by declaring its nature and effects. The “unpardonable sin” warned
all unrepentant people of their dreadful end.190 These dreadful warnings
were not intended to drive sinners to despair, but to lead them to Christ,
because they were threats of the gospel as a covenant of grace and not
threats of the law as a covenant of works.191
Declaring the nature of the “unpardonable sin” brought gospel ben-
efits to believers. It revealed God’s nature as condemning, hating, and
forbidding sin, and his willingness to punish it.192 Wherever a state of
unbelief was final, damnation would follow. This warning was “proper”
to believers. This was true, even though believers are not capable of
committing the “unpardonable sin.”193 Gospel threats were “annexed
to the dispensation of the covenant of grace.” They were a divinely
ordained means to accomplish the ends of that covenant.194 These
ends were opposed radically to the law in the “covenant of works.”195
The covenant of works said, “The day that thou eatest thereof, thou
shalt die.” By contrast, the covenant of grace came “principally … in a
word of promise, but in that promise a threatening is included, in the
sense and to the purposes before mentioned.”196 The covenant of grace
reflected a dramatic shift in emphasis in God’s dealings with sinners. In
188 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:208; See also the exegetical portion of Owen, Apostasy
from the Gospel, Works, 7:1–52.

189 Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 271. By contrast, WCF 21.4 and Savoy Declaration 22.4
imply that it is possible to identify and to avoid praying for some who “have sinned the sin
unto death.”
191 For the relation of such themes to gospel preaching in the seventeenth century, see
MacLean, James Durham and the Gospel Offer.

196 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:209. This mirrors Savoy Declaration 20 (“Of the Gospel”).
See above.
this vein, Wollebius argued that the law and the gospel agreed in urging
obedience, with the addition of promises and threats. They differed in
that the law primarily told us what do, and the gospel primarily taught
us what to believe.197 The law and the gospel differed in their empha-
ses and purposes, but not in their components. The covenant of works
threatened death upon disobedience and promised life upon “perfect and
personal obedience.”198 The covenant of grace promised life through
Christ’s mediation and threatened death upon rejecting God’s remedy
for sin. The components were identical, but the emphases and the means
of obtaining life differed radically.
Owen noted significantly in his treatment of Hebrews 4:3199 that
threats and promises were inherent in all covenants. He wrote, “Hence
every threatening includes a promise in it, and every promise hath also
the nature of a threatening in its proposal.” He gave the covenant of
works (“the first covenant”)200 as an example, arguing explicitly that
threats did not distinguish the covenant of works from the covenant of
grace, concluding: “So there is a threatening in every promise of the
gospel.”201 The primary threat embedded in the gospel was that those
who did not believe would not enter God’s rest. The primary promise
of the gospel was that those believing would enter that rest. Owen’s
conclusions again flowed from his exegesis of the text, since Hebrews
197 Wollebius, Compendium, 77: “Conveniunt materia communi, quod utrinque urgetur
oboedientia, additis promissionibus et comminationibus. Differunt autem materia propria:

Lex enim primario facidenda, Evangelium vero primario credenda, docet.”
198 See Westminster Shorter Catechism 12: “When God had created man, he entered into
a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.” See also, Savoy
Declaration 7.2: “The first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, wherein life
was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal
obedience.”
199 “For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my
wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the founda-
tion of the world.” Authorized version.
200 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 22:264. The “first covenant” does not always refer to the cov-
enant of works in Owen’s Hebrews commentary. See, for example Owen, Hebrews, Works,
23:173–177, where the “first covenant” refers to the Mosaic covenant. Owen’s choice of
terms in expounding Hebrews 8 may potentially confuse readers because he allowed the
language of the text rather than his theology to dictate his use of terms.
106 R.M. McGRAW
applied the threat taken from the citation of Psalm 95:11.202 This led
him to conclude: “There is a mutual inbeing of promises and threat-
enings of the covenant, so that in our faith and consideration of them
they ought not utterly to be separated.”203 His treatment of this sub-
ject parallels rule four in Westminster Larger Catechism 99: “That as,
where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where
a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a prom-
ise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threat-
ening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.” This introduction
to the Ten Commandments appeared in the context of the covenant of
grace (questions 30–90).204 The primary reason behind covenant threats
was that they expressed God’s holy nature, while promises expressed
God’s gracious nature. However, no divine covenant omitted either ele-
ment.205 For Owen, threats and promises were inherent in the covenant
idea, regardless of whether the covenant of works or the covenant of
grace was in view. Patrick Gillespie made the same point in his Ark of the
Testament.206
“Evangelical” threats were especially useful to believers “in afflic-
tions, chastisements, trials, and desertions.”207 Regarding their matter,
202 “Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.”
Authorized Version.
204 For more details on Reformed principles of interpreting the Decalogue, see McGraw,
A Heavenly Directory, 90–92.

205 “This is the foundation of that mutual inbeing of promises and threatenings whereof
we discourse.” Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:258–259.

206 Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament Opened, Or, the Secret of the Lords Covenant
Unsealed in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, Wherein an Essay Is Made for the Promoving
[sic] and Increase of Knowledge in the Mysterie of the Gospel-Covenant Which Hath Been Hid
from Ages and Generations but Now Is Made Manifest to the Saints (London, 1983), 271–
273.
207 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:209. For examples of Puritan treatments of “spiritual
desertion,” see William Bridge (1600–1670), A Lifting up for the Downcast (orig. pub.
1649, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995); Timothy Rogers (1658–
1728), Trouble of Mind and the Disease of Melancholy, (orig. pub. 1706, reprint, Morgan,
PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002); Richard Sibbes (1577–1635), The Bruised
Reed and Smoking Flax, in, The Works of Richard Sibbes (orig. pub. 1862–1864, reprint,
Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 33–101. Also see Gisbertus Voetius (1589–
1676) and Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666), Spiritual Desertion, trans. John Vriend,
ed. M. Eugene Osterhaven (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2003). These refer-
ences are borrowed from McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 65, fn 166.
“evangelical” threats were grievous to Christians, but as to their end,

they “belong unto love and grace.”208 In his love and grace, God used
“evangelical” threats to promote faith and obedience. Owen concluded,
“And whatever is sanctified of God for a means of delivery from sin and
punishment, belongs to the dispensation of the covenant of grace.”209
The gospel alone could threaten in this way.
Three Conclusions
This survey of Owen’s exposition of “evangelical” threats leads to several
conclusions about his conception of the law/gospel distinction. These
conclusions combine the analysis of the nature and function of gospel
threats in part one of this essay with the analysis of Owen’s use of terms
in relation to his covenant theology in the second part.
First, in Owen’s view, the “law” that drove sinners to Christ was not
the law considered in itself or even the law as a covenant of works. The
“first use” of the law referred to the law as subordinated to and adopted
by the gospel as the covenant of grace in order to lead sinners to sal-
vation in Christ. Sometimes “law” could refer to the gospel as revealed
in the Old Testament. At other times, “law” could refer to the Mosaic
covenant as opposed to the new covenant. In each case, the gospel alone
made threats against sinners to promoting salvation rather than being
merely an effective means of damnation. Through this complex picture,
Owen gives readers greater insight into the ways that Reformed theology
conceived of the relationship between the law and the gospel.
Second, there were threats that were “proper” to the covenant
of grace, which God added to the threats of the law. These threats
respected sins against the remedy provided by and promised in the
gospel. Gospel threats could not be possible without gospel promises.
Gospel threats aimed to save sinners and vindicated Christ’s honor in
those who rejected salvation. The “unpardonable sin” was the preemi-
nent threat of the gospel because it embodied the judgments that would
come on those rejecting divine mercy. This point is significant because it
demonstrates how covenant theology enabled a theologian like Owen to
208 Owen, Hebrews, Works, 21:209. Owen cited Christ’s letters and warnings to the seven
churches in Revelation 2–3 throughout this section as a prime example.

108 R.M. McGRAW
identify the components of the law and the gospel differently than rep-
resentatives of Lutheran theology. The gospel as a covenant contained
its own threats because of its character as a covenant and as a result of
neglecting or rejecting gospel privileges.
Third, “law” did not admit of simple categorization in Owen’s writ-
ings. He and other Reformed authors modified their use of the term
depending on the context in which it appeared. Authors, such as James
Durham (1622–1658), expounded the Ten Commandments at length
as the law of God for the sanctification of the saints.210 By the mid-
seventeenth century, most Reformed authors could refer to the law
as a covenant of works, which knew no mercy and had no saving pur-
poses.211 Yet this is a far cry from saying that the law only threatens
and condemns while the gospel only promises and saves. In this view,
the gospel brought greater judgment on unbelieving sinners who heard
it preached than if they had simply remained condemned under the
law as a covenant of works.212 As shown in part one of this essay, while
Lutheran theologians recognized the varied uses of “law” in Scripture,
including threats in the gospel represented a real difference between
Lutheran and Reformed confessional theology. The development of a
covenant of works in Reformed theology in distinction from the moral
law was a key factor in the development of this difference. Rejecting
threats in the gospel aroused Reformed suspicions of Antinomianism.
Lutherans, such as Melanchthon and Gerhard, reversed this order. The
primary reason for this was that such Lutherans understood the gospel
exclusively in terms of promise. This meant that placing conditions such
as repentance under gospel instead of law changed the nature of these
210 James Durham, The Law Unsealed, Or, a Practical Exposition of the Ten
Commandments with a Resolution of Several Momentous Questions and Cases of Conscience

(Edinburgh: Printed by the heir of Andrew Anderson, 1676).
211 Samuel Rutherford distinguished between “law threatenings” under the covenant
of works versus the covenant of grace, and described how God made such threats use-
ful for the salvation of the elect. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened; Or, a
Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh, 1655), 7–10. Andrew Woolsey argues that
while the covenant of works was accepted by virtually all seventeenth-century Reformed
theologians, the doctrine grew out of the teaching of the early Reformers. Andrew A.
Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition
to the Westminster Assembly, Reformed Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 543–547.
conditions into something passive, as in the case of Agricola, thus leading

to Antinomianism.213 Reformed theologians did not face the same set of
problems because the gospel as a covenant had demands and threats as
well as the law, yet in the context of Christ supplying the conditions of
the covenant to believers by his Spirit.
Owen is one example illustrating the nuanced way in which the
Reformed modified the law/gospel distinction in relation to covenant
terminology.214 His treatment of this distinction in the context of a
detailed exposition of Hebrews illustrates that a desire to follow the con-
tours of Scripture drove this nuanced use of “law” and “gospel.”215 This
treatment invites further research into this complex subject, which is one
of the most important facets of understanding Lutheran soteriology and
Reformed covenant theology. The assumptions that readers bring to this
discussion will largely determine whether the Reformed or Lutheran
paradigm makes sense to them. Promoting clarity regarding the historic
roots and development of the law/gospel distinction in Reformed theol-
ogy will help provide a starting point to move forward in both historical-
theological and contemporary debates over this question.
213 Wengert, Law and Gospel, 92.

214 For another example, see the explanation of covenant terminology by John Ball
(1585–1640), A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace Wherein the Graduall Breakings Out of
Gospel Grace from Adam to Christ Are Clearly Discovered, the Differences Betwixt the Old
and New Testament Are Laid Open, Divers Errours of Arminians and Others Are Confuted,
the Nature of Uprightnesse, and the Way of Christ in Bringing the Soul into Communion
with Himself … Are Solidly Handled (London: Printed by G. Miller for Edward Brewster,
1645), 1–2.
215 Brian Lee comes to similar conclusions with regard to Johannes Cocceius (1603–
1669), who chose to pursue his polemical work and covenant theology in the context of his
Hebrews commentary. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology.
PART II
Practical Issues and Systematic Reflection

CHAPTER 5
Faith Versus Sight: Owen on Images

of Christ, the Second Commandment,
and the Role of Faith in Reformed Theology
Bridget Heal observed recently, “Protestantism billed itself as a religion

of the Word not the image.”1 She contends, however, that despite
Luther’s protests to the contrary, Lutheranism developed a significant
emphasis on the role of images of Christ in its devotional life. In post-
Reformation Lutheran theology, the Word did not necessarily replace the
image.2 Reformed theology, by contrast, resisted the reintroduction of
images of Christ, partially on the grounds that they were contrary to the
nature of faith. According to Mastricht, for example, God is the general
1 Bridget Heal, “The Catholic Eye and the Protestant Ear: The Reformaton as a Non-
Visual Event?,” in The Myth of the Reformation, ed. Peter Opitz, vol. 9, Refo500 Academic
Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 321–355.
2 Martin Wansgaard Jurgensen, “The Arts and Lutheran Church Decoration: Some
Reflections on the Myth of Lutheran Images and Iconography,” in The Myth of the
Reformation, vol. 9, Refo500 Academic Studies (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2013), 356–380.
This chapter is adapted from several segments of my Heavenly Directory,

including the appendix. I have expanded the material and reoriented the thesis
and aim of the chapter.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_5
114 R.M. McGRAW
object of saving faith, Christ is the specific object of saving faith, and the
knowledge of both came only through receiving the Word of God.3
John Owen exemplified this principle well. His frequent rejection of
“any visible representation of all or any of the persons of the Godhead”4
illustrates his conception of spiritual-mindedness in public worship and
in the Christian life in general. Believers must walk by faith and not by
sight. Images represented an attempt to walk by sight instead of by faith.
For this reason, Owen treated one’s attitude toward images of any the
divine persons, including the incarnate Christ, as a litmus test for heav-
enly-mindedness in public worship. This chapter sketches the importance
of the question of images in Reformed orthodoxy and then examines
Owen’s views of images of Christ in relation to the nature of faith in
light of two chapters from his work, The Glory of Christ, and of a section
of his sermon, “The Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid
Open.” Owen sheds light on how the question of images of Christ ties
into the broader system of Reformed theology.
The Second Commandment and the Question

of Images in Reformed Theology
It is important to sketch the trajectory of Reformed theology on this

point. Carlos Eire demonstrates amply that rejecting images of the
Godhead stood at the heart of Reformed theology.5 Rejecting images
was not peripheral to the Reformed tradition.6 While Lutheranism
began to reintroduce images of Christ into its devotion, the Reformed
Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur
(Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715), 53, 61.
4 See Westminster Larger Catechism 109.
5 Eire, War Against the Idols.
6 The primary source literature on this point is too numerous to list. For a sampling of
English authors in addition to those cited below, see Vincent, Exposition of the Assembly’s
Catechism, 131; Watson, Body of Practical Divinity, 279–282; Ussher, A Body of Divinity,
or, The Sum and Substance of Christian Religion, 230–233; Charnock, Existence and
Attributes of God, 121–123; etc. Continental Reformed theologians held to this view as
well. See Turretin, Institutes, 11.9–10, 2:51–66; Bullinger, Decades, 1:222–230; Ursinus,
Explicarum Catechorum, 697–699; a Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3:105–118,
etc.
5 FAITH VERSUS SIGHT: OWEN ON IMAGES OF CHRIST … 115
rejection of them was embedded in its interpretation of the Second

Commandment as much as in its view of the nature of saving faith.
Interpreting the Law of God7

A prefatory word about the Reformed principles involved in inter-
preting the Ten Commandments in general is a necessary preface to
the Reformed approach to the Second Commandment in particular.
Reformed authors believed that the commandments encompassed by
implication every sin and duty recorded in Scripture. For this reason,
Westminster Larger Catechism Question 99 sets forth eight principles
for interpreting God’s law. Contemporary authors, such as Thomas
Watson, included detailed expositions of these rules of interpretation.8
James Durham followed the same procedure, with the addition of root-
ing his interpretation of the law in the Reformed view of Scripture at
large. He began his work on the Ten Commandments with the attributes
of Scripture. He noted that Scripture is excellent, useful, and necessary
for sinners. Like Owen, he believed that the Reformed understanding of
the law, including the second commandment, should harmonize with the
exclusive rights of Scripture over Christian faith and practice.9 Durham
then shifted from these observations to apply them to the proper rules
for interpreting the law.10 Owen wrote a preface to Durham’s work as
well as to his exposition of the Song of Solomon, showing his general
approval of this author. The same principles are found in Episcopal writ-
ers, such as Ezekiel Hopkins (1643–1690), who shared the broader
Reformed consensus on this point.11 These interpretive principles
allowed for an extensive application of every commandment, including
the second. They reflected the Reformed emphasis on the inseparable
7 This section is adapted from my Heavenly Directory, 80–83.

8 Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, 270–271.
9 James Durham, The Law Unsealed, or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments,
With a Resolution of Several Momentous Questions and Cases of Conscience (Edinburgh,

1676), 1–3.
10 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 8–23.
11 Ezekiel Hopkins, An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, with Other Sermons
(London, 1691), 3: “The words are but few, called therefore the Words of the Covenant,
the Ten Words; but the sense and the matter contained in them is vast and infinite. The rest
of Scripture is but a commentary upon them.”
116 R.M. McGRAW
connection between saving faith and the Word of God and applied them
to the Ten Commandments more narrowly.12
The Reformed orthodox treated the Ten Commandments as subject
headings encompassing all sins and duties of the same kind.13 In addi-
tion to Owen’s contemporaries, this issue stands in continuity with
earlier Reformed authors, such as Calvin, who noted, “in each com-
mandment we must investigate what it is concerned with; then we must
seek out its purpose.”14 While Reformed orthodox writers expanded the
rules for interpreting the Decalogue, they built on Reformed precedent.
Zecharius Ursinus (1534–1583) included eight rules for interpreting the
Ten Commandments, which are similar to those codified confession-
ally in the Westminster Larger Catechism.15 Under this view, the express
words of each commandment set forth the most flagrant violation of that
commandment.16 Jesus’ interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the
Mount, particularly of the sixth commandment, provided a model for
interpreting the other nine.17 Following this example through, murder
was treated as the greatest outward manifestation of all sins of like kind.
For this reason, Christ included hatred in the heart, harsh words, and
reconciliation with a brother under this commandment.18
This meant that the Reformed interpretation of the law encompassed
the whole person as well. Every commandment related to heart, speech,
and behavior.19 In addition, each commandment included, negatively, a
prohibition and, positively, a corresponding duty. This meant that peo-
ple could violate divine commandments either by omission or by com-
mission. Not adding to God’s requirements and not subtracting from
them was included in these principles. Since the first four command-
ments dealt directly with man’s relationship to God, Owen affirmed the
12 See Westminster Confession of Faith 14.2.

13 Watson, Body of Practical Divinity, 270–271; Durham, The Law Unsealed, 8.
14 Calvin, Institutes, 375. 2.8.8.
15 Ursinus, See Explicarum Catechorum, 690–692.
16 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 12.
17 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 11. See the proof texts in Larger Catechism 99.
18 Thomas Vincent (1643–1678), An Explicatory Catechism, or, An Explanation of the
Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Glasgow, 1692), 190–197; John Flavel, An Exposition of the
Assembly’s Catechism, with Practical Inferences from Each Question (London, 1692), 138–
140. Such expansions of the sixth commandment often included lengthy discussions of sui-
cide, or self-murder, as well.
19 Westminster Shorter Catechism 72.
common Reformed assertion that the primary emphasis of the Second

Commandment was the proper worship of the true God.20 Nature
taught that man should worship God in some outward form and that
he must worship in society rather than in private exclusively.21 When the
Second Commandment forbade worshiping God by images, it implied
that Scripture alone was the rule for practices in public worship. The
entire word of God taught people how to worship and obey God, but
the Second Commandment brought his will regarding worship into
particular focus.22 If saving faith rested on God generally and Christ
particularly through the Word of God alone, then the Reformed treat-
ment of the Second Commandment simply applied this teaching to a
specific issue.
Interpreting the Second Commandment

Owen’s exposition of the Second Commandment is relatively brief.
However, since his interpretation of the commandment was common,
the writings of other Reformed authors can illumine the reasons behind
his exposition. In light of the principles treated above, making and wor-
shiping images was the highest expression of the violation of God’s
instituted worship.23 To support the assertion that this commandment
respects making and worshiping images of the true God, Owen cited
its expansion in Deuteronomy 4:15–18.24 He argued from this passage
that the commandment concerned worshiping the true God by means
20 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 5; Works, 15:448; Durham, The Law
Unsealed, 7; Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 697–698.

21 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 6; Works, 15:448–449.
22 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 9–11; Works, 15:449–450.
23 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 62–63; Works, 15:470. “The main
design of the second precept is all making unto ourselves any such things in the worship of
God, to add unto what he hath appointed; whereof an instance is given in that of making
and worshiping images, the most common way that the sons of men were then prone to
transgress against the institutions of God.” Emphasis original.
24 “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on
the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt
yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male
or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl
that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of
any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth.” KJV.
118 R.M. McGRAW
of images. Such images demeaned his glory and disregarded his revealed
will.25 In his view, while distinct commandments (the first and the sec-
ond) addressed worshiping false gods and worshiping the true God by
extrabiblical means, they were closely related.26 William Perkins referred
to those who disregarded God’s prescriptions regarding the manner
in which he should be worshiped as committing “double” idolatry by
violating the First and the Second Commandments simultaneously.27
Ursinus and Polanus similarly linked worshiping the true God properly
(Second Commandment) to honoring God in every aspect of life (First
Commandment).28 In Theologoumena Pantodapa, after noting that
one of the Old Testament words describing idols means “desolation,”
“void,” “waste,” or “solitary,” Owen added that in making the golden
calf, God’s people departed from the foundation of theology in two
ways: first with regard to the object of worship, and then with regard to
the means of worship.29 Breaking the First and Second Commandments
went hand in hand. He linked this to the foundation of theology, since
faith, which made true theology possible, received God in Christ as the
object of worship through the Word alone.
This highlights the vital role that the Reformed principle of worship
played in Reformed theology. Owen observed, “All worship is either
human and natural, or else divine and instituted by God himself at his
own good pleasure. When apostasy occurs, this latter is usurped by an
25 Thomas Vincent, Exposition of the Assembly’s Catechism, 131: “Why may we not make
use of images for our help in our worshiping of God? Because God hath absolutely forbid-
den it. Because images are not a real help, but a hindrance of devotion, they tend to lessen
God in our esteem, who being the living God, and superlatively excellent, and infinitely
removed above all his creatures, cannot without great reflexion of dishonor upon him, be
represented by a dead image.” So Perkins, The Idolatry of the Last Times, 18: “So soon as
God is represented in an image, he is deprived of his glory, and changed into a bodily, vis-
ible, circumscribed, and finite majesty.”
26 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 1, 352–353; Biblical Theology, 441.
28 Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 686; Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), Analysis
Libelli Prophetae Malachiae, Aliquot Praelectionibus (Basliae, 1597), 94–94, 99.

29 Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 1, 352–353; Biblical Theology, 441: “Bisariam
autem a pincipio isto Theologico defecerunt Apostata, primo scilicet respect oiejcti cultus,
deinde mediorum.” Such references to Hebrew terms point to the fact that Owen did not
merely make dogmatic assertions supported by proof texts. Demonstrating this is the bur-
den of Knapp’s “Understanding the Mind of God.”
arbitrary worship system.30” In the context, he had Baal worship among

other examples. He classed corrupt worship of the true God and wor-
shiping false gods together. Commenting on Exodus 32:1–5,31 he noted
that even though Aaron did not offer the people another god to wor-
ship, he led them into great sin (“crimine manifesta”) by introducing
arbitrary worship by means of a visible sign (“cultus arbitrarii in signo
visbili”) that was contrary to the commandment of God.32 Connecting
the First and Second Commandments in this way tied his exposition of
them to the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture author-
itatively revealed the true God as the object of worship, and Scripture
sufficiently taught believers how to worship him. Owen’s exposition of
the Second Commandment simply applied the Reformed doctrine of
Scripture to public worship. This meant that the Reformed principle of
worship was rooted in the principia of the theological system. The cen-
tral place of the Reformed opposition to images is the primary burden
of Eire’s War Against the Idols and it features prominently in Benedict’s
Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed.33 Making or worshiping images of
30 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 6, p. 356; Biblical Theology, 461. The
original is “Cultus omnis Divnis vel moralis est aut naturalis, vel ad Dei beneplacitum ab
ispo institutus; huius inter Apostatas locum occupat arbitrarius.” The same language
appears in Communion with God, 170; Works, 2:150. See also chapter 11 of The Nature
and Causes of Apostasy from the Gospel, where Owen connected the corruption of corpo-
rate worship to apostasy from the gospel. Works, 7:217–222, and A Brief Instruction in the
Worship of God, 2; Works, 15:448.
31 “And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the
people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods,
which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land
of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the
golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters,
and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in
their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fash-
ioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy
gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it,
he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast to
the Lord.” KJV.
32 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. V, cap. 9, p. 376; Biblical Theology, 482. Perkins
used the same example along with Jeroboam’s calves and Micaiah’s idolatry in Judges 17.
Perkins, The Idolatry of the Last Times, 2.
33 For an older, but still helpful, work on Reformed worship in the context of English
Puritanism, see Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Orig. pub., Dacre
Press, 1948, reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997).
120 R.M. McGRAW
any or all three persons of the Godhead contradicted the objects and acts
of saving faith.
Reformed Exposition of the Second

Commandment and Images of Christ
Reformed orthodox authors gave two general reasons for rejecting
images of the Godhead, which included images of Christ. The first was
that the Second Commandment expressly forbade making or worship-
ing images of the true God.34 Not making images and not worshiping
God by means of them were two distinct parts of the Commandment.35
The basic argument was that the First Commandment forbade idolatry
of all kinds, while the second commandment related to the worship of
the true God. Those who combined these requirements into one com-
mandment, as Roman Catholics and Lutherans did, ended up with nine
Commandments rather than ten, because they ended up with two com-
mandments against coveting.36 Such people argued that the Second
Commandment did not forbid making and worshiping images of false
gods, but rather making and worshiping images of the true God.37
Reformed orthodox commentaries, such as the so-called Westminster
Annotations, treated Deuteronomy 4 as a divinely inspired exposition
of the Second Commandment.38 This passage clearly forbade making
34 Westminster Larger Catechism 109.

35 Wolfgang Musculus, In Decalogum Praeceptorum Dei Explanatio (Basil, 1653).
36 Musculus, Decalogum , 18.
37 Owen, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, 5; Works, 15:448; Durham, The Law
Unsealed, 7; Ursinus, Explicarum Catechorum, 697–698.

38 Downame, Annotations, on Deut. 4:15 (no page numbers) Musculus, Decalogum,
47. Interestingly, Henry Ainsworth (1571–1622) skipped verses 15–18 in his exposition.
Henry Ainsworth, Annotations upon the Five Books of Moses, The Book of Psalms, and Song
of Songs, or Canticles (London, 1627), 2:17. Thomas Case (1598–1682), who was a mem-
ber of the Westminster Assembly, wrote that he and the other men who preached these
sermons, “Have not without some regret observed that the larger English Annotations, in
which some few only of the late Assembly, together with some others, had an hand, are
generally ascribed to the whole Assembly, and usually carry the name of the Assemblies
Annotations, as if done by the joint advice of that grave and learned convention” (emphasis
original). Thomas Case, The Morning Exercise Methodized (London, 1659), unpaginated
preface. We do not know exactly what differences Case had in mind, but this statement at
least indicates that the Westminster Annotations do not necessarily represent an exegetical
consensus among the Westminster divines.
images of the true God. The most basic reason behind the Reformed
rejection of images was a simple divine prohibition: God forbade his peo-
ple from making images of himself. The second general reason for reject-
ing images of any or all three persons of the Godhead was that the Word
of God did not require them.39 This was consistent with the Reformed
principle of worship in general and the Reformed emphasis on the inter-
action between faith and Scripture.
Theological Implications Against Images of Christ

Even though the core of the Reformed polemic against images of the
Godhead generally and of Christ particularly was simple, this position
involved more than a bare divine prohibition.40 The Reformed view
encompassed several arguments that involved many areas of their theo-
logical system. In order to understand why this issue was so important
in Reformed orthodoxy, it is helpful to provide a brief sketch of these
arguments. James Durham represented the breadth of Reformed argu-
ments on this issue in his work on the Ten Commandments. For this
reason, his material serves as a useful summary of such arguments and as
an introduction to Owen’s development of the question of images in his
theology of public worship.
According to Durham, first, images demeaned God’s character by
begetting carnal rather than spiritual thoughts of him.41 Second, God
chose to reveal himself by his word and not by images.42 This point lay
at the heart of the Reformed emphasis on faith in relation to the word.
Based on Habakkuk 2:18,43 George Hutcheson (d. 1678) wrote about
images of God that, “they cause the mind to wander from the true and
saving knowledge of God, as he is revealed in his Word, and do imprint
39 Ussher, A Body of Divinity, 231.

40 I take it for granted at this point that Reformed theology did not forbid all images in
every setting, but that images of God or images used as aids in divine worship only were in
view. This is the first point that Durham made in the section cited below.
42 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 51. Citing Deuteronomy 4:14–15.
43 “What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten
image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb
idols?”
122 R.M. McGRAW
false and carnal conceptions of a Deity.”44 This stresses the Reformed

principle that God always took the initiative in revealing himself to man.
Images could not reveal God to men if God had not chosen to use them
for this purpose. Third, it was impossible to make images of a spiritual
God without demeaning him and robbing him of his divine glory.45 On
this point, Durham borrowed a rhetorical question from Isaiah 40:18:
“To whom will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto
him?” The prohibition of images of God included images of the entire
Trinity as well as any of the distinct persons, including the incarnate
Christ.46
The Reformed rejection of images of Christ was the most con-
troverted point among Protestants in relation to the Second
Commandment. As noted by Durham and others, Roman Catholics,
Lutherans, and some ministers in the Church of England rejected this
view. In light of such disagreement, Durham provided further arguments
to bolster his case against images of Christ. In his view, the fundamen-
tal issue related to images of Christ hinged on an orthodox understand-
ing of Christology.47 Those advocating images of Christ often argued
that even if Scripture forbade images of the Father and the Holy Spirit,
yet images of the Son would be lawful in light of the genuineness of
his humanity.48 Durham, however, turned this argument back upon
those using it. He reminded his readers that while Christ was fully God
and fully man, in orthodox Christology the personhood of the God-
man resided in the divine nature of the Son of God rather than in his
assumed humanity. This meant that Christ’s humanity is the humanity
of God the Son.49 Those who desired to depict his humanity alone were,
44 George Hutcheson, A Brief Exposition of the Prophecies of Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,
Nahum, Habbakuk, and Zephaniah (London, 1654), 262. For similar arguments with a
polemic emphasis against Roman Catholic worship, see Edward Marbury (1581–1665), A
Commentarie or Exposition upon the Prophecy of Habakkuk: Together with Many Useful and
Very Seasonable Observations (London, 1650), 328–332.
45 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 51. Citing Romans 1:22–23 he added, “Every such image
must be derogatory to God.” See Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God, 1:121–123.
47 For the implications of the Reformed orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ, see
Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth, chapter 7.

49 Ussher, A Body of Divinity, 231: “An image can only represent the manhood of Christ,
and not his Godhead, which is the chiefest part in him.”

consequently, guilty of heresy, both because they tried to divide the two
natures of Christ and because they disregarded the fact that the person
whom they tried to depict was the second person in the Trinity.50 The
Westminster divine, Henry Scudder, added the interesting argument
that those who depicted the Son divided the Trinity, since they could
not make a picture of the Son in his eternal relation to the Father and to
the Spirit.51 Because Christ is the Son of God, Durham noted that those
who made images of him would be left with two equally bad options:
“we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture repre-
senteth not Christ.”52 The basic Reformed case against images of the
Christ amounted to the following syllogism: God forbade making images
of himself; Jesus Christ is God; therefore, God forbade making images of
Jesus Christ. However, the question of images related more broadly to
Reformed views of Scripture, the being of God, and Christology.
In his commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Thomas
Vincent summarized the heart of the question regarding images of
Christ in particular, when he wrote:
It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine
nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his Body as it is now glori-
fied, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion,
it is in vain, if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshiping by an image or
Picture, and so a palpable breach of the second Commandment.53
In this light, Perkins adopted a rare position among Puritan authors.
He argued that while believers should not make images of Christ for
religious purposes, they were allowed to make them so long as they
depicted his humanity alone.54 Vincent and Durham illustrate two rea-
sons why Perkins’s assertion was atypical for Reformed theologians. In
light of Vincent’s comments, making images of Christ with no religious
intent was vain and useless. In light of Durham’s observations, depicting

51 Henry Scudder, A Key of Heaven, 129. The argument was that if we cannot depict the
Triunity of God within the undivided essence, then we cannot depict any of the individual
divine persons. The essence of the entire Godhead is spiritual and invisible and cannot be
depicted by images.
52 Durham, The Law Unsealed, 52. This section presents the core of Durham’s arguments
against images. He continued the question on pages 52–66.

53 Vincent, An Explicatory Catechism, 132.
124 R.M. McGRAW
Christ’s humanity in abstraction from his divine person bordered

Christological heresy. Moreover, Perkins’s reasoning at this juncture was
consistent neither with other arguments against Roman Catholic wor-
ship elsewhere in his book nor with the general trajectory of Reformed
Christology, view of Scripture in relation to the knowledge of God,
or with their general principles of worship. The Reformed rejection of
images reflected the basic priority that Reformed theologians placed
on the ministry of the word.55 The Triune God designed his word to
strengthen faith and spiritual communion with himself, while images
aimed at producing devotion through sight.56
Owen on Faith Vs. Sight

In addition to Reformed expositions of the Second Commandment and
drawing implications from Christology, Owen placed the nature of sav-
ing faith at the heart of his opposition to images of Christ. He believed
that images of any or all three persons of the Godhead weakened and
even threatened to destroy faith in Christ. He used the standard
Reformed approach to images of the persons of the Godhead in order
to stress the nature of spiritual communion with God as triune in public
worship. This point is illustrated most clearly through his treatment of
images in his Meditations on the Glory of Christ and in his sermon “The
Chamber of Imagery of the Church of Rome Laid Open.”
55 This was one of the points that Durham made above. On the centrality of preach-
ing in Reformed orthodoxy, see chap. 6 of this thesis. For an analysis with special refer-
ence to preaching Christ, see Chad Van Dixhoorn, “Preaching Christ in Post-Reformation
Britain,” in Robert L. Penny, ed., The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer
Robertson (Philipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2008), 361–389.
56 Westminster Larger Catechism 155: The Spirit of God makes the reading, but espe-
cially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and
humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of
conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them
against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing
their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.” See Ussher, A Body of
Divinity, 331: “Since by preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments Christ is as
lively painted out, as if he were crucified again amongst us (Gal. 3.1) it were to no purpose
to paint him to that end.”
The Glory of Christ

Meditations on the Glory of Christ was the last book Owen sent to the
publishers before he died.57 Toward the end of the book, he included
several chapters contrasting what it meant to walk by faith instead
of sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Significantly, these chapters on faith versus sight
follow his treatment of the glory of Christ in the “recapitulation of all
things.”58 According to Owen, Christ receives glory by renovating his
elect both body and soul and in transforming the physical world.59 If the
hope of believers lies in the new heavens and the new earth, then the
means that they should use to enjoy communion with Christ in this life
must be conducive to heavenly-mindedness. Owen noted that both faith
and sight in religion “have the same immediate object.”60 Both faith
and sight aim to embrace Christ and to glorify him. However, faith is
the means of embracing Christ in this world, while sight is the means
of embracing him in the world to come. This meant that images of any
person of the Godhead by definition militated against the eschatological
goal of redemption and reversed the divinely appointed order of faith on
earth giving birth to sight in glory.61
Owen noted first that the knowledge of Christ that the saints had
through faith was dark and obscure in some respects.62 In support,
he cited 1 Corinthians 13:12,63 which depicted the present state of
believers in terms of seeing in a glass darkly versus seeing face to face
in glory. The view that the saints have of Christ through faith is imper-
fect compared to the sight of his “substantial glory,” which they hope
57 Toon, God’s Statesman, 171. Paul Lim calls this “his last known work.” Lim, Mystery
Unveiled, 200. If this refers to the last work that Owen knew came to publication then this
is correct. However, large portions of his work on Hebrews came to the press after he died.
Owen completed these volumes before he died and had planned for their publication.
58 Owen, Works, 1:367–374.
59 See also Turretin, Institutes, topic 20, question V. For Owen’s views on glorification,
see Suzanne McDonald, “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: John
Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision,” Ashgate Research Companion, 141–159.
61 This was why Maccovius, for example, argued that justifying faith would cease in the
future life. Joannes Maccovius, Loci Communes Theologici (Amstelodami, 1658), 780.
62 Owen, Works, 1:375. “The view which we have of the glory of Christ by faith in this
world is obscure, dark, inevident, reflexive.”

63 “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but
then shall I know even as also I am known.”KJV.

126 R.M. McGRAW
to enjoy in heaven only. This imperfect view of Christ by faith in this

life was part of God’s design and plan in the salvation of believers. It
was his method of making his people long more fully for his unveiled
presence in heaven. Owen added that failing to understand this point
led some people to make images of Christ under the pretense of express-
ing their devotion to him. However, man-made images of Christ actu-
ally destroyed this aim entirely.64 When Christ’s people worshiped him
on earth, they could not attempt to foster and cultivate their faith and
affections toward him through any means other than those appointed in
his word. Doing so would weaken rather than strengthen their faith in
Christ, regardless of their personal intentions. This line of argumenta-
tion clarified and furthered the Reformed arguments against images as
represented by Durham and others and as noted above. Owen’s point
was that God revealed himself through his word and limited his worship
to divine revelation in Scripture. Such arguments rooted the Reformed
rejection of images of Christ more deeply in the Reformed system of the-
ology by connecting these ideas to the nature of faith and to the beatific
vision.
Owen next addressed an important pastoral issue. He noted that the
limited knowledge of God that believers enjoyed in this world was what
made making images a temptation for them. While believers desired
to know God more fully and more clearly than they did presently, the
irony was that even in regard to what God had revealed in his word con-
cerning himself, “we cannot abide in the steady contemplation of.”65
Borrowing language from Song of Solomon 2:9,66 Owen wrote: “There
is a wall between him and us, which yet he standeth behind. Our pre-
sent mortal state is this wall, which must be demolished before we can
see him as he is. In the meantime he looketh through the windows of
the ordinances of the Gospel.”67 In this present sinful and mortal state,
64 Owen, Works, 1:376. “That woeful, cursed invention of faming images of him out of
stocks and stones, however adorned, or representations of him by the art of painting, are so
far from presenting unto the minds of men anything of his real glory, that nothing can be
more effectual to divert their thoughts and apprehensions from it.”
66 “My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he
looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.”

67 Owen, Works, 1:377. For Owen’s exposition of the Song of Solomon in his work on
Communion with God, see the analysis in Paul Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 193–200.
the saints could not see Christ in his full glory.68 This limitation could
be removed fully for believers at death alone. They should desire to see
Christ in glory, but it would neither be possible nor profitable to see him
in their present state, in which they must walk by faith and not by sight.
Seeing him as he is in their present condition would destroy them.69
Owen’s reference to knowing Christ through “the ordinances of the
Gospel” represents his pastoral sensitivity to those facing the temptation
to make images of Christ. Though believers walk by faith rather than by
sight, they nevertheless “see” Christ truly and sufficiently by exercising
faith in Christ through the ordinances of public worship. The nature of
saving faith in relation to Scripture thus served for Owen not only as a
primary ground against making images of Christ, but also as a remedy to
the temptation to do so.
Owen next and briefly reinforced his argument as to why images of
Christ hindered rather than helped faith by appealing (as Durham and
others did) to Christ’s person.70 Christ is a divine person in hypostatic
union with a true human nature, and people cannot picture a divine per-
son. His human nature was anhypostatic in that the divine nature alone
constituted Christ’s personhood and it was enhypostatic in that his human
nature had no personal subsistence apart from the divine nature. In other
words, since Christ has a human nature without being a human per-
son, then those attempting to make images of him violated the Second
Commandment by depicting a divine person.71 As noted above, this mir-
rored the emphases of other Reformed authors. The only difference, if
there is any, is that Owen subordinated such arguments to the nature of
saving faith, resting on Christ as its primary object.
Owen next argued against making images of Christ by appealing to
Christ’s present glorified state:
68 It is unclear whether Owen believed that this limitation was due to sin or to creaturely
limitation. Eire observed that Calvin and early Reformed authors rooted the inability to
behold God in creaturely limitation. Sin exacerbated this limitation.
69 Owen, Works, 1:380. “Should the Lord Jesus appear now to any of us in his majesty
and glory, it would not be unto our edification nor consolation. For we are not meet nor
able, by the power of any light or grace that we have received, or can receive, to bear the
immediate appearance and representation of them.”
70 Owen, Works, 1:379. “It is not, therefore, the mere human nature of Christ that is the
object of [faith], but his divine person, as that nature subsisteth therein.”
71 Owen, Works, 1:379–380.
128 R.M. McGRAW
How much more abominable is the folly of men, who would repre-
sent the Lord Jesus Christ in his present glory by pictures and images of
him! When they have done their utmost with their burnished glass and
gildings, any eye of flesh can not only behold it, but, if it be guided by
reason, see it as contemptible and foolish. But the true glory of Christ,
neither inward nor outward sight can bear the rays of it in this life.72
In this light, he viewed images of Christ as destroying the heavenly
character of public worship and as the death of true devotion, whether
in public or in private. In spite of such seemingly absolute contrasts
between the knowledge of God in this life and in the next, he added that
there was strong continuity between how believers knew Christ in this
life and in the life to come.73 They would know and see the same objects
in glory that they did in this life. The difference lay in the degree to
which they saw them and the means by which they apprehended them.74
In other words, those who made images of Christ tried to jump ahead in
the story of their salvation. In the present act of the story, believers must
walk by faith. In the final act, faith would give way to sight and sight
would be transformative. When believers see Christ as he is, they will be
like him (1 John 3:1–2).75

73 Westminster Larger Catechism Question 83 highlights this continuity in the following
way: “Q. What is the communion in glory with Christ which the members of the invisible
church enjoy in this life? A. The members of the invisible church have communicated to
them in this life the firstfruits of glory with Christ, as they are members of him their head,
and so in him are interested in that glory which he is fully possessed of, and, as an earnest
thereof, enjoy the sense of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and
hope of glory; as, on the contrary, sense of God’s revenging wrath, horror of conscience,
and a fearful expectation of judgment, are to the wicked the beginning of their torments
which they shall endure after death.”
74 Owen, Works, 1:383. “Being renewed by grace, what it receives here of spiritual life
and light shall never be destroyed, but perfected in glory. Grace renews nature; glory per-
fects grace; and so the whole soul is brought unto its rest in God. We have an image of it in
the blind man whom our Savior cured, Mark viii. 22–24. He was absolutely blind, —born
so, no doubt. Upon the first touch, his eyes were opened, and he saw, but very obscurely;
—he saw men walking like trees. But on the second, he saw all things clearly. Our minds
in themselves are absolutely blind. The first visitation by grace gives them a sight of things
spiritual, heavenly, and eternal; but it is obscure and unsteady. The sight of glory makes all
things clear and evident.”
75 Most of the remaining material in The Glory of Christ develops this theme of seeing
Christ in glory.
In order to begin putting the pieces together of the relationship

between images of Christ and the Reformed view of the nature of faith,
it may be helpful to summarize Owen’s case against images briefly before
moving to his next treatment of the subject. Images of Christ distorted
rather than promoted faith because they could not fulfill believers’ desire
to see the glorified Christ. The union of Christ’s divine and human
natures in one divine person meant that though Christ’s deity and
humanity are inseparable, his divine personhood, rather than his human-
ity, made him the proper object of worship.76 Believers must set their
minds on things above where Christ is seated in heaven. Images of Christ
are meant to promote devotion to him, yet they cannot produce com-
munion with the Triune God. Owen’s rejection of images of Christ and
his corresponding emphasis on faith demonstrate the heart of heavenly-
mindedness in public worship. He drew these conclusions from standard
principles of Reformed theology.
The Chamber of Imagery

Owen’s sermon “The Chamber of Imagery in the Church of Rome Laid
Open” applies more fully the principle of faith versus sight in relation to
public worship and to images of Christ. The purpose of the sermon was
to answer the question, “How is the practical love of the truth the best
preservative against popery?”77 His primary contention in this context
was that while all professed Christians recognized that they needed have
Christ set before them as the object of their affection, Roman Catholic
and Reformed theology promoted different means of doing so. Owen
noted that only two means proffered to achieve this end were faith and
sight. In his view, Roman Catholicism represented a religion that tried,
in large measure, to replace faith with sight. By contrast, Protestant prin-
ciples directed Christians to faith instead of sight.
76 Though both authors agreed that Christ should not receive worship on account
of his human nature, William Ames and Johannes Maccovius debated whether believ-
ers worshiped the whole Christ in both natures or in his divine nature to the exclusion
of his human nature. Ames took the former position while Maccovius adopted the latter.
Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological
and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek,
2009).
130 R.M. McGRAW
The text for Owen’s sermon was 1 Peter 2:3, “If so be ye have tasted
that the Lord is gracious.” However, he based the title and plan of the
sermon on Ezekiel 8. In that chapter, the Lord showed the prophet a
“chamber of imagery” in the temple of the Lord (Ezek. 8:11–12), in
which he exposed the fact that Israel had transformed the temple into a
house of idolatry.78 In the text, the Lord progressively led the prophet
deeper into the temple. At each stage, as the Lord uncovered the idolatry
of his people, he repeated the refrain, “Come, I will show you greater
abominations than these.” Borrowing this metaphor, Owen led his read-
ers step by step through the “abominations” of the Church of Rome and
how she had perverted the gospel at every level.
Owen inferred five areas from 1 Peter 2:3 that required evaluation in
order to answer the question regarding how to hold Christ in our affec-
tions. First, all benefits derived from the gospel depend on their effectual
communication to the souls of believers in grace and in power. Second,
this power and efficacy came through the preaching of the word of God
alone. Third, the power and efficacy of the word is “confined” to com-
municating the grace of God to the souls of men. Fourth, people expe-
rience the power of the word through God imparting light to them in
order to understand it in a spiritual manner. This included a spiritual
taste or relish for the truth as well as conformity to the standard of holi-
ness revealed in the word.79 Fifth, when people lose the experience of the
power of religion, true religion itself will either be lost entirely or men
will erect “a shadow or image in the room of it.”80 Owen alleged that
78 “And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and
in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his
hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up. Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou
seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of
his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.”
KJV.
79 Compare to Jonathan Edwards, “True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of
Devils,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997),
2:48–49: “He that hath his eyes opened to behold the divine superlative beauty and loveli-
ness of Jesus Christ, is convinced of his sufficiency to stand as Mediator between him, a
guilty hell-deserving wretch, and an infinitely holy God, in an exceedingly different manner
than ever he can be convinced by the arguments of authors or preachers, however excel-
lent.”
80 All citations in this paragraph come from Works, 8:548–550. For the importance of
experimental piety in contemporary authors, see Edward Reynolds, Mediations on the Fall
and Rising of St. Peter (London, 1677), 58: “Christ is not truly apprehended either by the
by losing the experience of the power of the gospel, the Roman Catholic
Church “at this day, is nothing but a dead image of the gospel, erected
in the loss of an experience of its spiritual power, overthrowing its use,
with all its ends, being suited to the taste of men, carnal, ignorant, and
superstitious.”81 Losing the power of true religion entailed substituting
something else for saving faith in Christ.
Owen’s primary contention in this sermon was that when professing
Christians no longer experienced the power of the gospel in their hearts,
then the church always altered its conception of her relation to the per-
son and offices of Christ, “the state, order, and worship of the church,”
and the obedience required by the gospel. The first of these headings
bears directly on the question of images of Christ in relation to saving
faith. Owen observed that the principle on which both Protestants and
Roman Catholics agreed was, “that the Lord Jesus Christ, in his person
and grace, is to be proposed and represented unto men as the princi-
pal object of their faith and love.”82 In this sense, everyone required an
“image” of Christ in order to know him, though sight was not neces-
sarily the appropriate organ of obtaining and receiving such an image of
him.83 Owen added that faith “beholds” Christ through the word just
as clearly as a man sees his own face in a mirror. This “sight” of Christ
is both salvific and transformative.84 The “sight” that believers had
of Christ through the gospel was of the same nature as the sight they
fancy or the understanding. He is at once known and possessed. It is an experimental, and
not a speculative knowledge that conceives him; he understands him that feels him. We see
him in his grace and truth, not in any carnal or gross pretense.” See also Rowe, Heavenly-
Mindedness, 103. Cited in this chapter above.
81 Owen, Works, 8:551. Owen’s associate minister, David Clarkson, made similar obser-
vations in his book, The Practical Divinity of the Papists Discovered to be Destructive of
Christianity and Men’s Souls in Works, 3:9–47. The title of this section was “Real worship
of God not necessary in the Church of Rome.”
83 Owen, Works, 8:552: “There must, therefore, an image or representation of him be
made unto our minds, or he cannot be the proper object of our faith, trust, love, and
delight. This is done in the gospel, and the preaching of it; for therein is he ‘evidently set
forth’ before our eyes, as ‘crucified amongst us,’ Gal.iii.1.”
84 Owen, Works, 8:552: “Having a spiritual light to discern and behold the glory
of Christ, as represented in the glass of the gospel, they have experienced its transform-
ing power and efficacy, changing them into the likeness of the image represented unto
them, —that is, of Christ himself; which is the saving effect of gospel power.”
132 R.M. McGRAW
would have of him in glory, though not in the same degree. This argu-
ment matches the above observations from The Glory of Christ, and both
places connect seeing Christ through faith to the Reformed conviction
that images of Christ were prohibited by Scripture.
Owen sought to strengthen his claims by appealing to church history.
He observed that when the church no longer made an “affecting dis-
covery” of Christ from Scripture, then those in charge of public worship
began to dissuade people from reading the Bible, which they perceived
to be dangerous. However, the need to represent Christ to the minds
of men remained, since no one could reject this need without rejecting
Christianity. Owen wrote, “Wherefore they will find out another way
for it,—another means unto the same end,—and this, by making images
of him of wood and stone, or gold and silver, or painting on them.”85
In his view, this principle was not only the cause of introducing images
in the Church of Rome, but it was the basis “of all image worship in
the world.” This mirrors the Reformed connection between the First
and Second Commandments as outlined above. Owen added that mak-
ing images of Christ inherently denied the sufficiency of the word to
produce and cultivate communion with Christ through faith.86 For
this reason, Owen treated introducing images of Christ as symptom of
impending apostasy from the gospel. People began introducing images
when the church began losing the experience of saving communion with
Christ.87
Owen’s overarching concern was to prove that images of Christ inher-
ently weakened faith. By their nature, images could not strengthen faith,
since the Bible opposed faith and sight. Owen was stating in essence that
a person is what he sees. On the one hand, if he sees physical images of
Christ in order to foster his devotion to Christ, then he becomes like
that image instead of like Christ. On the other hand, if he sees a spiritual

86 See Chap. 4 for the sufficiency of Scripture in Owen’s thought.
87 Owen, Works, 8:554. “This, therefore, is evident, that the introduction of this abomi-
nation, in principle and practice destructive unto the souls of men, took its rise from a
loss of the experience of the representation of Christ in the gospel, and the transforming
power in the minds of men which it is accompanied with in them that believe.” See Of the
Dominion of Sin and Grace in Works, 7:529. For a similar historical argument on the grad-
ual process of introducing images into the church, see Marbury, Habakkuk, 332.
image of the glorified Christ through faith in light of Scripture, then he

becomes like that image instead.88 As shown above, Reformed authors
would not allow people to avert this accusation by arguing that while
they made images of Christ, they did not worship them. Believers must
invariably regard Christ as the object of their devotion. If an image of
him stirs up devotion to him, then it is idolatrous, and if the image does
not produce such devotion, then it is vain. In The Glory of Christ, Owen
showed why images of Christ were contrary to walking by faith instead
of sight. In “The Chamber of Imagery,” he argued that images militated
against the experimental knowledge of Christ, which was the heart and
soul of biblical Christianity. In both cases, images struck against com-
munion with the Triune God, which came through faith and not by
sight.
Conclusion
Carlos Eire observed that while Roman Catholic missionaries traveled
to the new world to convert the heathen from idolatry, the Protestant
Reformation waged war on the “idols” of the Catholic Church in
Europe by opposing statues and stained glass depicting God and the
saints.89 In contrast to post-Reformation Lutheranism, the question
of images of the Godhead and especially of the propriety of images of
Christ was integral to Reformed orthodox theology. It did not strike at
a peripheral matter but at the heart of the believer’s relation to Christ. It
was intertwined with Christology, the doctrine of Scripture, the principle
governing public worship, the relationship between this world and the
next, and the nature of faith. Owen’s teaching against images of Christ in
his works The Glory of Christ and “The Chamber of Imagery” developed
the last two of these areas. The aim of faith in Puritan and Reformed
88 After arguing that it is impossible to make images of any person of the Godhead and
claim that men do not worship them, Hutcheson concluded, “Such as worship graven
images, do proclaim their own brutishness, and that they are as great blocks as these which
they adore, when they exalt that which is below themselves, to be above themselves and in
God’s room; for what a brutishness is it in a man endued with sense and reason, to make
himself dumb idols, which have no sense at all?” Hutcheson, A Brief Exposition, 263. He
had Roman Catholic rather than pagan worship in view.
89 Eire, War Against the Idols, chap. 1.
134 R.M. McGRAW
theology was to produce spiritual communion with God. In this con-

nection, Richard Sibbes observed that Christ is beloved both as God the
Son and “as the engraven image of his Father.”90 The only means of see-
ing this image of God in this life was by faith and not by sight.
90 Sibbes, Works, 1:11.

CHAPTER 6
John Owen on the Holy Spirit:

In Relation to the Trinity,
Christ’s Humanity, and Believers
The doctrine of the Trinity is increasingly misunderstood by Church

members, and it is often abstracted entirely from personal holiness. The
doctrines of Scripture are practical.1 They promote communion with
God and personal holiness. When doctrine no longer promotes godli-
ness (Tit. 1:1) then that doctrine itself often disappears. In this respect,
John Owen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit potentially meets a great need
in the church today. The doctrine of the Trinity was essential to him
because it stood at the heart of the gospel and of Christian experience.
The Savoy Declaration of Faith, which he helped produce, states that
the “doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with
God, and comfortable dependence upon him.”2 Owen’s theology of the
1 Amandus Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf:
Juxta Leges Ordinis Methodici Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem Digestum Jamque
Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 90–92.
2 Savoy Confession, 2.3. Cited from A.G. Matthews, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and
Order, 1658 (London: Independent Press, Ltd., 1959), 79. The present author has since
written a book using this title. Ryan M. McGraw, The Foundation of Communion with God:
This chapter is updated and modified from Ryan M. McGraw, “John Owen
on the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Trinity, the Humanity of Christ, and the
Believer,” in The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit, ed. Joel R. Beeke and
Joseph A. Pipa (Grand Rapids, 2012), 267–84.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_6
136 R.M. McGRAW
Holy Spirit illustrates some of the ways that he made the doctrine of the
Trinity the foundation of personal piety.
The main emphases of Owen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit are that
the relation of the Spirit to the Godhead coupled with the work of the
Spirit in Christ is the foundation for his work in believers. From a his-
torical viewpoint, while some authors have recognized the significance
of Owen’s teaching on the Spirit, they have somewhat exaggerated his
uniqueness.3 From a theological and practical standpoint, these themes
provide us with the foundation for a rich Christ-centered Trinitarian
piety. We will consider: first, the relation of the Spirit to the Trinity; sec-
ond, the relation of the Spirit to the incarnate Christ; and third, the rela-
tion of the Spirit to believers resulting from their union with Christ. The
third of these sections seeks to expand Owen research by tying his teach-
ing on the Spirit in relation to Christ and believers to Reformed views of
the knowledge of God in general. After establishing Owen’s teaching in
its context, this article attempts to draw some practical conclusions that
modern readers can benefit from by analogy with our present time.4
The Trinitarian Piety of John Owen, Profiles in Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2014).
3 I have in mind particularly the absence of comparisons to medieval and contemporary
precedents in Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of
Christology (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007); and, Kelly M. Kapic, “The Spirit as
Gift: Explorations in John Owen’s Pneumatology,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to
John Owen’s Theology, ed. Mark Jones and Kelly M. Kapic (Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT
Ashgate, 2012), 113–140.
4 This article combines elements of historical, systematic, and practical theology. Most
scholarly analysis is placed in the footnotes in order to allow different levels of reading. The
procedure is similar to the model of Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen
and the Coherence of Christology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2007). For works that establish
Owen’s historical and theological context, see Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and
Times of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973); Carl R. Trueman, John Owen:
Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007); Richard A. Muller,
Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 2001); Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism:
Essays in Reassessment (UK: Paternoster, 2005); Willem J. Van Asselt, Introduction to
Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2011); John Coffey and Paul C.H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to
Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); and Philip Benedict, Christ’s
Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2002).
6 JOHN OWEN ON THE HOLY SPIRIT: IN RELATION … 137
The Relation of Holy Spirit to the Trinity

The Trinity is the thread that runs through Owen’s entire theology.5 He
wrote his work on the Holy Spirit to counter the false teachings of the
Socinians, Quakers, and anti-supernaturalists,6 and to treat comprehen-
sively the person and work of the Holy Spirit in a way that, in his view,
no one else had done. His unique contribution lies more in the scope of
the work as a whole than in the content of its individual parts.7 He pub-
lished this project gradually in several parts. Volume three of the Goold
edition of Owen’s Works marks the first installment of this endeavor. This
volume treats primarily the person of the Holy Spirit in relation to the
Trinity generally, in relation to Christ particularly, and in his work in
producing holiness in believers.8 Volume four examines the work of the
5 For Owen’s Trinitarianism, see Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth (Carlisle,
Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998); Kelly Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the
Human in the Theology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008); Brian
K. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007), Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of
the Trinity and its Significance for Today,” in, Where Reason Fails: Papers Read at the 2006
Westminster Conference (Stoke on Trent, UK: Tentmaker Publications, 2006).
6 John Owen, Pneumatologia, Works, 3:7–8; 36–39. For a brief survey of this contro-
versy, see Joel M. Heflin, “Omnipotent Sweetness? Puritanism Versus Socinianism,” in

Puritan Reformed Journal, 2009: vol. 1, number 2, 64–95. For the Socinian controversy as
it related to Thomas Goodwin and Owen in particular, see Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 69–71. See also Philip Dixon, Nice and Hot
Disputes: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
2007).
7 Owen, Pneumatologia, Works, 3:7, 22. Geoffrey Nuttall observed, “When John Owen,
in the preface to his pnematalogia, declares, ‘I know not any who ever went before me in
this design of representing the whole economy of the Holy Spirit,’ he is neither ignorant
of, nor antagonistic to, the work of the early Fathers. Indeed, he explicitly combines the
‘the suffrage of the ancient church’ with the ‘plain testimonies of the Scripture’ and ‘the
experience of them who do sincerely believe’ as the foundation on which ‘the substance of
what is delivered’ securely rests…. What is new, and what justifies Owen in his claim to be
among the pioneers, is the place given in Puritan exposition to experience, and its accept-
ance as a primary authority, in the way indicated in the passage just quoted. The interest
is primarily not dogmatic, at least not in any theoretic sense, it is experimental. There is
theology, but, in a way which has hardly been known since St. Augustine, it is theologia
pectoris.” Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience, with a new
introduction by Peter Lake (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 7.
8 It is noteworthy that while Baxter accused Owen of antinomianism for a variety of theo-
logical reasons, roughly half of Owen’s first volume on the Spirit is devoted to pressing
personal obedience to God in contrast to the moral virtue taught by the Socinians. For
138 R.M. McGRAW
Spirit in relation to the authority of Scripture, illumination, prayer, spir-

itual comfort, and spiritual gifts. In Owen’s view, the Triune God meets
the redeemed sinner in the person and work of the Holy Spirit, and the
sinner approaches the Triune God through him, making his treatment
eminently practical.9 His practical emphasis resulted from the unity of
the works of the Godhead in time and the fact that the Spirit proceeds
from the Father “and the Son.”
The External Works of the Trinity Are Undivided

(Opera Trinitatis Ad Extra Indivisa Sunt)
Owen began with the unity of God and of his works.10 Because God is
one, the external works of the Trinity are undivided. This means that the
works of God in time are always works of the entire Trinity. No divine
person is excluded from any work of God. In its Latin expression, this
largely Augustinian principle is a vital component of the Western under-
standing of the Trinity.11 This means that whether we consider creation,
providence, the incarnation of Christ, or anything that God has done, we
must consider all three persons of the Trinity as the object of faith and
worship. This is why it is wrong to isolate the work of the Holy Spirit
the mutal accusations bewteen Owen and Baxter over these issues, see chapter 2 of Tim
Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity (Farnham,
Surrey, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011).
9 See the section on “true theology” in the chapter below treating Owen’s prolegomena
for the parallels between the Spirit’s work in this regard and the knowledge of God.
10 See the first chapter in this collection of essays to see how beginning with divine one-
ness relates to contemporary questions over eastern or western trinitarian theology. This
concept partly mirrors van den Brink’s concern over beginning with the divine attributes
prior to the divine persons in western treatments of the Trinity. Gijsbert van den Brink,
“Reformed Scholasticism and the Trinitarian Renaissance,” in Scholasticism Reformed:
Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, ed. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien
Otten, vol. 14, Studies in Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 339. Owen at least
illustrates that doing so does not necessary relegate the Trinity to an appendix in the system
of theology (see 333).
11 Owen, Works, 3:93, citing Athanisius and Basil; see also 66–68. For Owen’s depend-
ence upon both eastern and western Trinitarianism, Letham wrote elsewhere, “Owen is not
so much an innovator as a brilliant synthesizer.” Where Reason Fails, 11. For the manner in
which western Trinitarianism pervaded Owen’s thought, even in his views of communion
with the three persons, see Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth.
from the work of the Father and of the Son. However, this principle
recognizes that while all three divine persons act simultaneously—
expressing the fact that each is fully divine—each divine person acts
distinctly in every work of God.12 The Father always represents the
authority of the Godhead, the Son is the instrument by which the Father
accomplishes his purposes, and the Holy Spirit finishes or perfects every
work of God.13 This was why Thomas Manton noted similarly, “There is
a chain of salvation; the beginning is from the Father, the dispensation
through the Son, the application by the Spirit; all cometh from God, and
is conveyed to us through Christ by the Spirit.”14 According to Owen,
we can never understand the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit unless we
first have an adequate notion of the unity of all three persons in every act
of God in time.
“ …and the Son …” (Filioque)

Western Christians who use the Nicene Creed confess regularly that they
believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.15
While this phrase has marked a dividing line between western and east-
ern Christianity for centuries, it is important to note that the procession
of the Spirit to the Son as well as to the Father was integral to Owen’s
trinitarian piety.16 Subsequent to tracing the unity of the Trinity in every
divine action, he treated the distinction and the relation between the
persons, both in eternity and in time. His primary target was Socinian

13 Owen, Works, 3:94–95. See examples on pp. 95–99.
14 Thomas Manton, Sermons on John XVII, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton,
(Brimingham: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2008), 10:205.

15 For a survey of the complex issues surrounding the fiilioque see, A. Edward Siecienski,
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
16 See Robert Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective
(Geanies House, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2007), 221–242. It is beyond the
scope of this essay to treat Owen’s defense of the filioque clause. I simply state that authors
such as Letham who are critical of the phrase have largely bypassed seventeenth-century
Reformed orthodoxy and the fruitful way in which they connected the filoque clause to fons
deitatis principle mentioned below.
140 R.M. McGRAW
anti-Trinitarianism.17 Socianism was not so much simply an anti-trinitarian

movement as it was a different approach to reading the Bible and devel-
oping theology.18 In his massive Vindiciae Evangelicae, Owen observed
that the Socinian tendency to deny that any Scripture truths could be
above reason led them to deny the transcendence of God, the Trinity,
Christ’s two natures, and, particularly, Christ’s substitutionary death.19
This was why, in their system of theology, good works were relegated to
moral virtue rather than resulting from the Spirit’s powerful operation in
the lives of believers.
In his work on the Spirit, Owen insisted upon the necessity of the fil-
ioque clause against the Socinians rather than against eastern churches
specifically.20 He reasoned that the Spirit’s work was tied inseparably
to the Son and flowed from the Son’s work on accomplishing redemp-
tion.21 This clause has come under attack recently in the West for at least
two reasons. First, some have argued that the eternal generation of the
Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit are speculative doctrines that
go beyond Scripture, having no practical bearing on our understand-
ing of the Gospel.22 Second, others have asserted that as long as we
understand the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in terms of
the teaching of Athanasius, then we may discard the filioque clause with
little consequence.23 The idea here is that instead of teaching that the
17 Owen’s Dutch contemporary, Herman Witsius (1636–1708), referred to the Socinians
as, “the very worst perverters of Scripture.” Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants
Between God and Man, trans. (Orig. pub., London: 1822, reprint, Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), I, 166.
18 Sarah Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of
Socinianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

19 Owen, Vinvidiciae Evangelicae, Works, 12.
20 Owen, Works 3:92, 116–118, 162, 190–191, 195–196, etc.
21 For the connection bewteen these ideas, see Gert van den Brink, “Impetration and
Application in John Owen’s Theology,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s
Theology, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 85–96.
22 For instance, Robert L. Reymond has pressed this assertion in virtually every book
that he has written. In Robert L. Reymond, “The Trinitarianism of the Westminster

Confession of Faith: Nicene or Reformed? in Contending for the Faith: Lines in the Sand
that Strengthen the Church (Geanies House, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2005),
117–124, he asserts that contrary to the opinion of some, he has not changed his position.
23 See Douglas Kelly, Systematic Theology Volume One Grounded in Holy Scripture and
Understood in light of the Church: The God Who Is: The Holy Trinity (Geanies House:
Christian Focus Publications, 2008), 577.
Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we should say simply that it
proceeds from the Father through the Son.24
According to Owen, our understanding of the work of the Trinity in
redemption hinges on the filioque clause.25 He taught in common with
both the East and the West that the Father is the fons et origio deitatis
(“the fountain and origin of the deity).26 This does not mean that the
deity of the Son and of the Spirit is inferior to the deity of the Father,
but that both deity and personal subsistence are communicated eternally
24 For similar arguments, see Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical
Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (Edinburgh; New York: T & T Clark, 1993).
26 Owen, Works, 3:19, 43, 60, 92, 94, etc. These citations include language such as,
“the fountain and original of the Deity” (43), “fons et origio Trinitatis” (60), and “fons
et origio Deitatis” (94). On page 197, he explained this idea in terms of Christ receiv-
ing His personal subsistence by means of the Father communicating to Him “the whole
entire divine nature.” In other words, the thought of receiving personal subsistence from
the Father and an eternal communication of the deity of the Father are inseparable. The
Son and the Spirit are both God in and of themselves, and the Father eternally communi-
cates both essence and personal subsistence to them. The divine order of subsistence actu-
ally pervades the whole of Owen’s work on the Holy Spirit, but it is most concentrated in
the first two hundred pages or so. In volume four, he gave the following summary: “The
person of the Father is the eternal fountain of infinitely divine glorious perfections; and
they all are communicated unto the Son by eternal generation. In his person absolutely, as
the Son of God, they are all of them essentially; in his person as God-man, as vested with
his offices, they are substantially, in opposition unto all types and shadows; and in the glass
of the gospel they are accidentally, by revelation, —really, but not substantially, for Christ
himself is the body, the substance of all.” Works, 4:169. The Father is the origin of an eter-
nal communication of what are, in the case of creatures, the incommunicable attributes of
deity to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. With respect to the Son in himself, this means that
he is God equal with the Father. With respect to his office as Mediator between God and
man as well as his work as the revealer of the Father, he sets the deity on display accord-
ing to his offices. See also Thomas Goodwin, Sermons on Ephesians 1–2, Works, 1:15, 26.
Owen’s contemporary Edward Leigh wrote, “The personal property of the Father is to
beget, that is, not to multiply his substance by production, but to communicate his sub-
stance to the Sonne. The Sonne is said to be begotten, that is, to have his whole substance
from the Father by communication.” In like manner, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds
from the substance of the Father, through the Son. Body of Divinity, 206. While Calvin
believed that the Father was the fountain of the personality of the Son, but that the Son
was of himself (autotheos) with reference to his deity, Mark Jones wrote recently that most
of the Reformed Orthodox did not follow him on this point. Jones concludes, “That most
of the Reformed Orthodox were both “Nicenists” and “Autotheanites” seems to be a fairly
accurate description in light of the evidence above.” Why Heaven Kissed Earth, 116.
142 R.M. McGRAW
from the Father to them.27 There are no degrees of deity and there is
no subordination of the persons to one another. Nevertheless, the Son
is related to the Father in terms of “eternal generation” and the Spirit
is related to both the Father and to the Son by “eternal procession.”
In the latter case, the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through
the Son. These eternal relations within the Godhead are deduced
largely from the manner in which the persons work in the world. In
other words, it is not arbitrary that the Son was incarnated rather than
the Father or the Holy Spirit.28 The Father would not be the eternal
Father without an eternal Son, and the Son would not be God equal
with the Father unless He was “eternally begotten.”29 It is not fitting
for the Father to be begotten; this work is proper to the Son alone.
Similarly, the fact that the Father sent the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost
through Jesus reflects the eternal order within the Godhead.30 Yet Jesus
also claimed to send the Spirit Himself, though from the Father (Jn.
15:26). The significance of these things will be clarified below. The pri-
mary point is that the order of the persons in the Godhead is both eter-
nal and irreversible. While the soteriological value of the filioque clause
in Reformed theology deserves further research, it is important to note
here that Owen believed that the filioque went further than simply assert-
ing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Confessing
that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father secured the
27 For a clear presentation of Reformed uses of such terminology, both in continuity and
in contrast with Calvin, see Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity
of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
28 Owen, Works, 3:116–118.
29 Owen asserted that anti-Trinitarians do not even hold the deity of the Father in com-
mon with the orthodox, since we cannot understand an eternal Father without reference to
an eternal Son, and that this Son cannot be eternal unless He participates in the full divinity
of the Father. See A Brief Explanation and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Works,
2:382: “Whoever denies Christ the Son, as the Son, that is, the eternal Son of God, he
loses the Father also, and the true God; he hath not God. For that God which is not the
Father, and which ever was, and was not the Father, is not the true God.” Similarly, the
Westminster divine, Francis Cheynell wrote, “Moreover, if the Father have not a divine and
eternal Son how is he a divine and eternal Father?” The Divine Triunity of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost (London, 1650), 54. Emphasis original.
30 Owen, Works, 3:114, 118.
fact that the Spirit’s work in regeneration and sanctification was rooted
inseparably in the Son’s work in purchasing redemption.31
The Peculiar Work of the Holy Spirit

According to Owen, the order of subsistence in the Godhead deter-
mines how we understand the work of the Holy Spirit. In creating the
world, for instance, the Father acted by means of the Son, who is His
Word. The Spirit perfected the work of God by bringing order to crea-
tion when he hovered over the face of the deep.32 Owen believed that
one unique aspect of his work was his treatment of the work of the Holy
Spirit in the “old creation.”33 The reason was that he treated extensively
Adam’s dependence on the Holy Spirit in his obedience prior to falling
into sin. The “old creation” refers to the created order prior to Adam’s
Fall. By contrast, the “new creation” refers to the covenant of grace,
whether under its Old Testament or its New Testament dispensations.34
In this connection, Christopher Cleveland slightly misses Owen’s point
in referring to the “old creation,” indicating the Spirit’s work in the
“inanimate” creation.35 Owen’s treatment of the work of the Spirit in
the “old creation” illustrates how he used the opera trinitatis principle.
31 As Thomas Goodwin wrote, “It was and is the Holy Ghost that proclaims him Christ
in all men’s hearts. He sets the crown upon him there also, as well as in heaven, in so much
that no man could ever come to acknowledge him the Christ but from the Spirit.” Thomas
Goodwin, On the Work of the Holy Ghost in our Salvation, The Works of Thomas Goodwin.
(Edinburgh: J. Nichol, 1861), 6:13.
32 For common examples of Reformed appeals to the Trinity in Genesis 1, see Jerome
Zanchius, De Tribus Elohim, Aeterno Patre, Filio, Et Spiritu Sancto, Uno Eodemque
Iehova, Libri Xiii. in Duas Distincti Partes. Pars Prior: Ad Edmundum Grindallum,
Archiepiscopum Eboracensem, Angliaeque Primatem Amplissimum. in Qua, Tota Orthodoxa
De Hoc Magno Mysterio Doctrina, Ex Sacrarum Literarum Fontibus, Explicatur, &
Confirmatur. Cum Indice Triplici (Neostadii Palatinorum: Typis Matthaei Harnisii, 1589),
21; Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 1279–1280; Goodwin, The Knowledge
of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 4:352–359.
Without specifying who he had in mind, Goodwin added that some Reformed divines
were reticent to make this kind of appeal to Genesis 1 to argue for the Trinity in creation.
Goodwin, however, adopted the common exegesis becasue of how other parts of Scripture,
particularly the New Testament, imported the Trinity into the creation account (352).
33 Owen, Works, 3:7, 93, 125.
34 Owen, Works, 3:125. Manton includes a similar idea in Works, 10:133.
35 Cleveland, Thomism in Owen, 79–80.
144 R.M. McGRAW
All three persons of the Trinity worked simultaneously when they said,
“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).
Since the Spirit perfects the works of God, the Spirit in particular made
Adam in the image of God.36 This is inferred partly through hindsight
from the New Testament, which assigns the task of renewing believers
in the image of God to the Holy Spirit. He concluded that the Spirit is
the direct author of every good thing that people enjoy in this world,
including what is called “common grace.”37 Wisee and Meijer agree
with Owen’s statement that his expansion of the work of the Spirit in
the “old creation” marks a substantial contribution to Reformed thought
and they suggest that he did so against Socinian and Arminian claims of
man’s independence from the Spirit.38 The work of the Spirit in creation
represents the pattern according to which he works every divine action.
In practical terms, this means that we must understand all of the works
of God, including the gospel, in trinitarian terms. We must regard all
three persons of the Godhead together, as well as each person distinctly.
Ephesians 2:18 was one of Owen’s favorite passages: “For through him
we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”39 This verse encap-
sulates the heart of his Trinitarian piety. He added that the Holy Spirit is
the only person of the Godhead that we deal with “immediately” in this
life.40 Similar to Owen’s emphases, Goodwin added that just as the Spirit
perfected man in God’s image at creation, so he redraws the divine image
in man in recreation through his immediate action in redeemed man.41
The Spirit is the point at which the Father comes to us through the
Son, and he is the means by which we come to the Father through the

37 Owen, Works, 3:103–104. For the concept of a general grace or love that is common
to mankind in several Reformed authors, see MacLean, James Durham and the Gospel
Offer, 152–154, 192–193, 211–212, 226, and 250–251.
38 Maarten Wisse and Hugo Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” in A
Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition
(Leiden: Brill, 2013), 494.
39 “Both” refers to Jews and Gentiles. This passage appears often in Owen’s works. The
idea presented in this passage is the foundation of his work on Communion with God, and it
is the primary text for his two sermons on “The Nature and Beauty of Gospel Worship,” in
Works, 9:53–83, among other places.
41 Goodwin, The Work of the Holy Ghost in our Salvation, The Works of Thomas Goodwin,
6:17.
Son. If we connect the work of the Spirit to the Father, but not through
Christ, then we will be tempted to come to the Father apart from the
Son. This would alter our relationship to all three divine persons, which
would distort the gospel itself. In this light, it is not accidental that the
Scriptures refer to the Spirit as both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit
of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 11). If Owen is correct here, then much of the con-
fusion connected to the person and work of the Holy Spirit at present
illustrates how we have lost the practical significance of historic trinitar-
ian theology. Various forms of Christianized mysticism seek to experience
the Holy Spirit in detachment from Christ. Liberal theology desires to
call God Father apart from the person and Work of the Son and with-
out the regenerating power of the Spirit.42 Only a robust trinitarian gos-
pel brings sinners to a loving Father, through faith in the Son’s work as
Mediator, by the powerful operation of the Spirit in our hearts. Reversing
or amending this order means the death of biblical Christianity.
The Relation of the Holy Spirit

to the Incarnate Christ
If the Spirit is linked intimately to the Son in the eternal Godhead,

then his work should naturally be connected closely with the incarnate
Christ.43 According to Owen, the relationship between the Spirit and
the humanity of Jesus is both the foundation of and the prototype for
His work in the believer.44 Few authors have developed this theme ade-
quately.45 By looking at the ways in which the Holy Spirit operated on
the human nature of Jesus Christ, we understand how the Holy Spirit
works in redeemed humanity in union with Christ. Owen addressed
ten ways in which the Spirit operated upon Christ’s humanity.46 I have
42 For the relevance of Owen’s teaching on the Spirit upon the incarnate Christ to con-
temporary Christology, see Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration, 149–154.

43 Goodwin, The Work of the Holy Ghost in our Salvation, The Works of Thomas Goodwin,
6:10–13.
45 See Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1996), 37,
endnote 2. Alan Spence argues that Owen’s connection between the work of the Spirit
and the humanity of Christ is vital for contemporary Christology in Incarnation and
Inspiration.
46 The ten facets of the work of the Spirit upon the humanity of Christ that Owen
expounded are: 1. The work of the Spirit in the miraculous conception of Jesus (Works,
146 R.M. McGRAW
reduced them to the work of the Spirit in Christ’s incarnation, his life
and ministry, and his death. In each case, it is vital to remember Owen’s
assertion that the Spirit perfects or completes every divine work.
The Work of the Spirit in Christ’s Incarnation

The gospel of Luke states that the Holy Spirit would overshadow the
womb of the Virgin Mary and that the “holy thing” in her would be
born of God (Lk. 1:35). The Father prepared Jesus’ body in His eter-
nal counsel (Heb. 10:5), the Son assumed it, and the Spirit effected the
union of His deity and humanity in one person (Matt. 1:18, 20; Lk.
1:35).47 This parallels almost exactly Owen’s treatment of the work of
the Godhead in the creation of the world. In both cases, the Spirit per-
fects or completes the work.
Closely tied to the work of the Spirit in the incarnation of Christ is the
Spirit’s work in Christ’s “sanctification.” Sanctification means here “set
apart” as holy. This meant far more, in Owen’s view, than declaring that
the Son of God incarnate was holy. Christ’s sanctification is parallel to the
work of the Holy Spirit in Adam under the “old creation.” No creature can
render obedience to God in a manner that is worthy to merit everlasting
life.48 Under the covenant of works, Adam could only acquire the prom-
ise of eternal life by virtue of his covenant relationship to God.49 Adam’s
true failure in the Garden was that he stopped depending upon the Holy
3:162–168). 2. His work in sanctifying the human nature of Christ (168–169). 3. His
ongoing work in Christ’s actual obedience (169–171). 4. The manner in which He
endowed Jesus with the supernatural gifts that were necessary to fulfill His office (171–
173). 5. His operation in Christ’s miracles (174). 6. Serving as the conduit of communion
between the divine and human natures of Christ for His support and comfort in His work
(174–175). 7. Effecting the atonement upon the cross (176–179). 8. Preventing the natu-
ral corruption of Jesus’ body while He was in the tomb (179–180). 9. Though the resur-
rection of Christ is assigned to all three persons in Scripture, it is peculiarly the work of the
Spirit (181–183). 10. The same Spirit who in the incarnation made the human nature holy
made it glorious following His resurrection (184).
47 Owen, Works, 3:163. Scripture references are Owen’s.
48 For similar observations about the Reformed denial of merit in the covenant of works,
see MacLean, James Durham and the Gospel Offer, 216.

49 Similarly, WCF 7. 1 states that mankind could not enjoy God as his blessedness or
reward without a “voluntary condescension” on God’s part by way of covenant. We must

not confuse Owen’s position with that of Roman Catholicism, which asserted that there
Spirit in order to obey God. Even a perfect creature is a creature still and
must depend absolutely upon the Creator. The humanity of Christ was no
exception. Christ’s sanctification by the Holy Spirit furnished his human
nature with a “habit” of holiness, by which he was equipped to perform
every “actual” act of obedience.50 Thus, the Spirit both unites the divine
and human natures of Christ, and He prepares Christ’s human nature to
fulfill all righteousness as a dependent creature.
The Work of the Spirit in Christ’s Life and Ministry

The Spirit was Christ’s constant companion in His life and work.
According to Owen, this meant that by the Spirit, Christ grew in obedi-
ence at every stage of human development. Christ was never ignorant
or negligent of what he should have known or done,51 yet he learned
new duties and exercised new obedience appropriate to every stage of
life. His theoretical and experimental knowledge grew simultaneously.52
His obedience as a twelve-year-old differed from his obedience as a
was something inherently defective in Adam’s flesh that required supernatural grace in
order to acquire righteousness. Instead, Adam’s righteousness was natural even though
needed to depend upon the Holy Spirit in his obedience. Compare to Francis Turretin,
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr.
(Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), I, 470–473. Topic 5, Question 11.
50 In Owen’s view, with reference to Jesus “sanctification” is “an original infusion of all
grace into the human nature of Christ” (168). This reinforces the point that even Adam
in innocence would have needed the Holy Spirit to fulfill the terms of the covenant of
works. Even sinless human beings, need “supernatural endowments of grace…. This was
the image of God in Adam, and was wrought in Christ by the Holy Spirit” (168). Isaiah
11:1–3 is a prediction that Christ would obey God by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this
view, the Fall involved losing “the original grace of God” (244). Owen argued that there
were at least three ways in which the sanctification of believers by the Spirit is connected to
Jesus Christ: “We are crucified with him meritoriously, in that he procured the Spirit for us
to mortify sin; efficiently, in that from his death virtue comes forth for our crucifying; in the
way of a representation and exemplar we shall assuredly be crucified unto sin, as he was for
our sin.” Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers; The Necessity Nature and Means of it: With
a Resolution of Sundry Cases of Conscience Thereunto Belonging, Works, 6:85. Christ mer-
its sanctification for believers by His death in order to create within them a disposition to
mortify sin. For more references to this two-fold sanctification, see Works, 3:370, 432, 497,
517, 540, 545, 551–556. See also Manton, Works, 10:203.
148 R.M. McGRAW
twenty-year-old; both differed in expression from his obedience dur-

ing his public ministry. In Owen’s view, the statement in Luke 2:40 that
Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men ful-
filled Isaiah 11:1–3.53 This prophecy states, “And there shall come forth
a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom
and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowl-
edge and of the fear of the LORD; And shall make him of quick under-
standing in the fear of the LORD.” The Spirit filled the human nature
of Christ with every grace necessary to live a perfect human life. Jesus’
personal righteousness is not simply identical to his divine nature.54 He
not only possessed perfect divine righteousness, but perfect human right-
eousness. His human righteousness was rooted in his relationship to the
Holy Spirit.
In addition to the graces of the Spirit, Christ received the gifts of the
Holy Spirit to enable him to fulfill his mediatorial office. The gifts and
graces of the Holy Spirit are not always united. Judas Iscariot and King
Saul possessed gifts from the Spirit without the grace of the Spirit.55 Yet
Christ had all of the gifts and the graces of the Holy Spirit. In particu-
lar, he received the gifts of the Spirit at his baptism.56 This included his
ability to do miracles and to finish his Father’s work.57
The Work of the Spirit in Christ’s Death

Relying primarily upon Hebrews 9:14, Owen argued that Christ’s atone-
ment was a work of the undivided Trinity.58 The Son offered himself
to the Father by means of the Holy Spirit. He stressed that at least two
things were necessary to make the cross an acceptable atonement. First,

54 See Westminster Larger Catechism, question 38.
55 See also Thomas Goodwin, Exposition of Ephesians 1 and 2, Part 1, The Works of
Thomas Goodwin, 1:49–50.

56 Owen, Works, I3:172. Herman Witsius (citing Owen, among others) added that
Christ’s Baptism was a sacramental seal of the terms of the eternal covenant between the
Father and the Son. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 1:172, 176–177. The Spirit did not
simply come upon Christ as a righteous man, but as a covenantal Head and representative
of his people.
58 “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the
the sacrifice must be voluntary on the part of the Son and not imposed
by law. Second, the offering must be rendered by the Holy Spirit. The
Holy Spirit was the “altar” on which Christ offered his sacrifice to the
Father.59
In conclusion, Owen taught that the ministry of the Holy Spirit was
essential to every stage of Jesus’ incarnate life and work. As a result, Jesus
is the prototype of the work of the Holy Spirit in every believer.60 The
Spirit sanctified Christ from his mother’s womb, he descended upon
Christ at his baptism, he drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted
by the devil, he was with Jesus in his teaching and preaching, his power
was active in every miracle, he led Christ to the cross, and he was
involved in Christ’s resurrection. As a result of all of these things, the
Spirit descended upon believers from the ascended Christ on the Day of
Pentecost.61 The Spirit is justly called the “Spirit of Christ.”62
The Relation of Spirit to Believers

The Spirit’s work in believers, according to Owen, mirrors his prior work
in relation to the person of Christ. Summarizing some of the ways that
this is the case below illustrates the significance of this point to Reformed
soteriology. This is followed by a brief analysis of the significance of
Owen’s teaching on this point.
living God?” For Owen on the atonement, see Edwin Tay, The Priesthood of Christ is
the Atonement Theology of John Owen (1616–1683) (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Edinburgh, 2009).
59 Owen, Works, 3:176. This does not mean that the Son was not obligated as Mediator
both to obey the Law of God and to bear the curse of the Law on behalf of his people.
Witsius noted that the root of every aspect of Christ’s work was a “voluntary covenant
engagement” with the Father. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 1:181.
60 This was why Thomas Goodwin treated, in turn, the Spirit’s work on Christ, the
Spirit’s work on the church collectively, and finally the Spirit’s work in the individual
Christian. Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 6:10–46.
61 Goodwin, The Work of the Holy Ghost in Our Salvation, The Works of Thomas Goodwin,
6:9.
62 For Owen’s expansion of this conclusion, see Works, 3:184–188.
150 R.M. McGRAW
A Summary of Owen’s Teaching

Owen’s primary aim in his work on the Holy Spirit was the personal
holiness of believers.63 The latter half of volume three treats this subject
extensively. Holiness is the Spirit’s work, but it is rooted in the believer’s
union with Jesus Christ. Union with Christ is the means by which believ-
ers partake of the graces of the Holy Spirit.64 This union makes sanctifi-
cation possible.65 Below are a few seed thoughts from Owen on the work
of the Spirit in the lives of believers.
First, the Spirit unites believers to Christ. Owen noted that the Holy
Spirit is Christ’s “great legacy to his disciples.”66 Uniting believers to
Christ is the first parallel to the Spirit’s work in Christ’s humanity. As
the Spirit united the human and divine natures of Christ in one per-
son, so he unites believers to the person of Christ.67 This does not
mean that believers are deified. It means that all that Christ did by
and through the Spirit belongs to them. Believers not only partake of
the benefits of Christ’s life and death; they partake of the Holy Spirit
through union with Christ. This means that every work of the Spirit in
the life of a believer is connected inextricably to Christ. If the Spirit’s
work in Christ is the foundation of the Spirit’s work in believers, then
the Spirit never works in believers apart from Christ. The “Spirit of
Christ” is a Christ-centered Spirit.
Second, the Spirit regenerates and gifts believers. As the Spirit
sanctified Christ at his birth and then subsequently enabled him to
obey the law throughout his life, so the Spirit sanctifies believers in their
63 He wrote later, “Our principal duty in this world is, to know aright what it is to be
holy, and to be so indeed.” Works, 3:370.

64 Walter Marshall, The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification Opened in Sundry Practical
Directions Suited Especially to the Case of Those Who Labour Under the Guilt and Power
of Indwelling Sin: To Which Is Added a Sermon of Justification (London: Printed for
T. Parkhurst, 1692), chapter 3.
65 Owen added that union with Christ consists of sharing with him the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit. Works, 3:478.

67 According to Owen, the Spirit is the substance of the promise that the Father gave to
Christ in the covenant of redemption. This promise was fulfilled first in Christ’s person and
then in sending the Holy Spirit to His people. This is connected to Owen’s view of the fil-
ioque clause. Works, 3:191. See also p. 478.
regeneration and then enables them to progress in holiness.68 With

respect to the Spirit’s gifts—though some possess his gifts without his
graces—Christ procured them for the Church by means of his death, res-
urrection, and ascension.69 While no single believer possesses all of the
gifts of the Spirit, the Church as the body of Christ possesses them as a
whole. He received the Spirit without measure (Jn. 3:34) so that his peo-
ple could receive the Spirit and his gifts by measure.
Third, the intimate link between the Spirit and Christ has ramifica-
tions for reading the Bible. Owen wrote, “Take away the Spirit from the
gospel and you render it a dead letter, and leave the New Testament of
no more use unto Christians than the Old Testament is of use unto the
Jews.”70 In striking fashion, he added, “He that would utterly separate
the Spirit from the word had as good burn his Bible.”71 The Spirit makes
the truths of Scripture live in Christians’ hearts.72
68 He defined sanctification as a progressive work as follows: “It is the universal renova-
tion of our natures by the Holy Spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ.” Works,
3:386. A little later, he highlighted the Trinitarian nature of sanctification by noting that
the Father takes care for this work, Christ is the fountain from which it proceeds, and the
Holy Spirit is the “efficient cause” of it. Works, 3:393.
69 In this connection, Owen made extended reference to Ephesians 4:17–18. Works,
3:249–253. For an extended treatment of his views on spiritual gifts, see Works, 4:420–520.
72 For his treatment of the work of the Holy Spirit in providing both the objective
grounds for belief in the Scriptures as well as the subjecting and saving understanding of the
Scriptures, see The Reason of Faith; or An Answer unto that Inquiry, ‘Wherefore We Believe
the Scripture to be the Word of God;’ With the Causes and Nature of that Faith Wherewith We
do so: Wherein the Grounds Whereupon the Holy Scripture is Believed to be the Word of God
with Faith Divine and Supernatural are Declared and Vindicated, Works, 4:4–115. For the
manner in which the work of the Spirit is embedded into his definition of true theology,
see John Owen, Theogoumena Pantodapa, Sive de Natura, Ortu, Pregressu, et Studio Verae
Theologiae, Libri Sex; Quibus etiam Origines et Processus Veri et Falsi Cultus Religiosi, Causus
et Instaurationes Ecclesiae Illustriores ab Ipsis Rerus Primordiis Ennarantur; Accedunt
Digressiones de Gratia Universali, Scientiarum Ortu, Ecclesiae Notis, Literarum Origine,
Antiquis Litteris Hebraicis, Punctatione Hebraica, Versionibus S.S., Ritibus Judiaicis,
Aliisque (Oxford: Printed for Thomas Robinson, 1661), lib. I, cap. II, 7. He described true
theology subjectively as the rebirth of man’s mind by the Holy Spirit. Theologoumena, 487.
152 R.M. McGRAW
Analysis: Overestimation, Underestimation,

and the Theologia Unionis
The question remains regarding how Owen’s theology of the Spirit mir-
rored Reformed orthodoxy generally as well as how his teaching related
to other parts of the Reformed theological system. The true answer to the
first question appears to lie between the opposite extremes of novelty and
blending into the tradition. The answer to the second question potentially
lies in partial relation to the Reformed doctrine of the knowledge of God.
This analysis provides seed thoughts for further research only
It is possible at this juncture to exaggerate and to undermine the
significance of Owen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit in relation to the incar-
nate Christ. On the one side some authors, such as Spence and Kapic,
treat Owen on the Spirit with almost no reference to medieval or con-
temporary authors.73 This gives the impression that Owen had something
unique to offer the church or that he somehow dropped out of the sky
theologically. Wisse and Meijer mitigate this problem to some extent by
showing that the seed thoughts of the Spirit’s relation to Christ and its
parallels in believers were present in Augustine and Lombard.74 They
show also the presence of trinitarian and pneumatological overtones in
the Westminster Confession of Faith.75 This highlights the importance of
studying a figure like Owen in context in order better to appreciate the
scope and origins of Reformed teaching on the Spirit. It may be not only
that Owen had something substantial to contribute that should grip our
attention today, but that Reformed theology generally made a similar con-
tribution.
On the other hand, it is possible to make too little of Owen’s con-
tribution to Reformed thought on the Spirit’s relation to Christ’s
humanity. Just as it is with authors today, not everyone in the same theo-
logical tradition possessed equal skill, consistency, or profundity in their
teaching. As Thomas Manton noted that not all preaching was equally
effective due to the skill (or lack thereof) of the preacher,76 so every the-
ologian did not expound the Reformed theological tradition with equal
73 Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of Christology;
Kapic, “The Spirit as Gift: Explorations in John Owen’s Pneumatology.”
74 Wisse and Meijer, “Pneumatology,” 475.
75 Wisse and Meijer, “Pneumatology,” 485–487.
76 Thomas Manton, The Complete Works (London: Nisbet, 1870), 11:221.
profundity. Wisse and Meijer, at least, argue that Owen and Goodwin
stand out among Reformed authors on this point, though Goodwin
less so than Owen.77 The extent to which their contemporaries used or
ignored similar themes in their theology is worthy of further research.
Owen deserves special attention as one of the best proponents of seven-
teenth-century Reformed thought.
Another potentially fruitful question is how the Reformed view of the
theologia unionis, or the incarnate Christ’s knowledge of God, relates
to the parallel work of the Spirit in Christ and in believers. Following
Junius, Reformed theologians divided the knowledge of God into arche-
typal and ectypal theology.78 Wollebius represents early orthodoxy by
treating archetypal theology as God’s self-knowledge, which is equiva-
lent to divine omniscience.79 Acknowledging a slight departure from the
standard explanation, Johannes Cloppenburg defined archetypal theol-
ogy as, “that doctrine to be learned by us, determined in God’s mind
from eternity, and determined by the will of God by his free choice.”80
Later still, Bernardinus de Moor mirrored Cloppenburg’s definition
instead of the earlier equation of archetypal theology with divine wisdom
found in Junius, Polanus, Wollebius, and others, indicating surprisingly
that there was no real controversy over this matter.81 While the nature
and causes of this imperceptible shift in archetypal theology require fur-
ther investigation, Wollebius represents the Reformed tradition generally
by stating that ectypal theology explains how God’s rational creatures
reflect the divine archetype.82 He concluded that ectypal theology began
77 Wisse and Meijer, “Pneumatology,” 498.

78 For standard examples, see Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the
Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2014), 107–120; Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae; Johannes Wollebius,
Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, Editio Ultima Prioribus Multo Correctior, 9th ed.
(Cantabrigiæ, 1655), 1.
80 Johannes Cloppenburg, Exercitationes Super Locos Communes Theologicos (Franekerae,
1653), 10: Doctrina nobis discenda, in menta divino ab aeterno praefinita, voluntatius Dei
decernentis liber arbitrio.
81 Bernardinus de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-
Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology, trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1, 7 vols. (Culpeper,
VA: L & G Reformation Translation Center, 2014), 1:93.
154 R.M. McGRAW
with Christ as the God-man, who became the pattern of the knowledge
of God to his people.83
According to Polanus, the theologia unionis referred to the knowl-
edge of God possessed by Christ’s human nature by virtue of hypostatic
union with his divine nature.84 What is intriguing is that Polanus (and
de Moor) add that the theologia unionis involves the fullest communica-
tion of divine wisdom that the creature is capable of, by the Spirit, whom
the Father gave to Christ without measure. Such knowledge of God
resulted in Christ’s eternal blessedness as head of his church, to whom
he then communicates the knowledge of God by measure.85 This mir-
rors Goodwin’s order, noted above, of moving from the Spirit’s work
on Christ’s human nature, to the church as a whole, to the individual
believer. The role of the theologia unionis appears also to match Owen’s
appeal to the Spirit’s work on the person of Christ as the foundation
and pattern of his work in believers. Such theological connections cre-
ated a Christological doctrine of the knowledge of God with a resultant
Christological pneumatology. This was also why authors such as Owen
filtered the beatific vision through Christology. The heavenly vision of
God invariably followed the theology of union in Reformed prolegom-
ena, since Reformed authors treated the beatific vision as representing
the most perfect form of ectypal theology next to the theologia unionis.86
This means that Suzanne McDonald overstates her case by implying that
Owen “reformed” the beatific vision in light of Christology.87 In light of
seventeenth-century prolegomena and pneumatology, the question is not
83 See Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 121–127; de Moor, Continuous Commentary
on Marckius, 1:96–101.
84 Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 63; John Owen, Theologoumena
Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu Progressu, Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex Quibus
Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ
Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur (Oxoniæ, 1661), 13–14; de Moor,
Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:96.
85 Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 63; de Moor, Continuous Commentary on
Marckius, 1:96.
86 Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 63–67; Junius, A Treatise on True
Theology, 129–134; de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:102–105; Owen,

Theologoumena Pantodapa, 14.
87 Suzanne McDonald, “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: John
Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to
John Owen’s Theology (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 141–158.
why Owen’s treatment of the beatific vision was Christological, but why
any Reformed authors neglected such emphases.88
Kelly Kapic notes that as of yet, no one has written a full-scale
treatment of Owen’s work on the Spirit.89 If such a work should be
produced, then it would potentially provide valuable insights into conti-
nuities and discontinuities between Owen and medieval thought, on the
one hand, and Owen in relation to the development of Reformed ortho-
doxy, on the other. This would open new avenues both for historical and
contemporary theology to consider.
Conclusions
Keeping in mind that Owen’s historical context differs from our own, we
may draw a vital lesson from his teaching on the Holy Spirit. His primary
contribution to the church today might lie in the trinitarian model his
work on the Spirit provides for ministers and theologians.
The church desperately needs Trinity-saturated theology and preach-
ing. Robert Letham asserted that, “A Trinitarian mind-set must become
as integral to the preacher as the air we breathe.”90 The greatest prayer
of every minister with respect to his preaching, and the highest longing
of the church for her ministers, should be for the presence and power
of the Holy Spirit. Yet how should the church pursue his presence and
blessing? If Owen is correct, then the order of operation of the divine
persons should help answer this question. The great end of preaching is
to proclaim the Father’s love (Jn. 3:16). The Father’s love is revealed
in Christ only (1 Jn. 4:7–10). The Spirit came on the day of Pentecost
to enable people to experience the love of the Father, through faith in
and union with Jesus Christ, by means of preaching. Christ summarized
the Spirit’s work by stating that he would convict the world of sin for
not believing in Christ, of Jesus’ righteousness because he was vindicated
when he returned to His Father, and of judgment because Christ has
judged the ruler of this world on the cross (Jn. 16:8–11). Christ sum-
marized His mission: “He shall glorify Me, for He shall take what is mine
88 This point is relevant to the chapter above in this collection of essays treating Owen’s
views of the nature of faith in relation to images of Christ.

89 Kapic, “The Spirit as Gift: Explorations in John Owen’s Pneumatology,” 114.
90 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004), 443.

156 R.M. McGRAW
and reveal it to you.” (Jn. 16:14).91 If the Spirit came to glorify Christ
and if the Spirit’s work in the incarnate Christ is the foundation of his
work in believers, then Christ should stand at the heart of Reformed
preaching and theology.
This theological model implies that a Christless sermon is a Spiritless
sermon. The true knowledge of God comes through Christ and
the knowledge of Christ comes through the Spirit. For this reason,
Reformed homiletics manuals often stressed why and how to preach
Christ crucified from the pulpit continually.92 Owen’s trinitarian the-
ology show us a way to integrate the Trinity seamlessly into Reformed
theology and piety by respecting the order of operations of the divine
persons, by understanding the Spirit’s work in the incarnate Christ, and
by linking his work in Christ to his work in believers in producing the
knowledge of God in them. This is exactly the kind of model the church
needs in order to recover the neglected heritage of Reformed trinitarian
theology.
91 Owen argued that the order of subsistence of the ontological Trinity (including the
filoque doctrine) as well as the resultant order of operation in the economic Trinity should
shape the labors of Church officers. Works, 3:195–196.
92 Owen, Works, 3:150–151, 200. Thomas Foxcroft (1697–1769) wrote, “Christ is the
center of revelation and the adequate subject of preaching; and he must be the substance
and bottom of every sermon.” The Gospel Ministry (orig. pub: Boston, 1717, reprint,
Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2008), 5. The great William Perkins
(1558–1602) summarized: “The heart of the matter is this: Preach one Christ, by Christ,
to the praise of Christ.” The Art of Prophesying (orig. pub, 1606, reprint, Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1996), 79.
CHAPTER 7
Quid Est?: Theologoumena Pantodapa

and John Owen’s Trinitarian Prolegomena
This chapter is based loosely on Ryan M. McGraw, “John Owen on the Study
of Theology,” The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 180–195. I have heavily
rewritten the original essay with fresh research and redirected its thesis.
The nature of theological education has long been a vital concern of

the church. The first principles, or prolegomena, of theology govern
the goals and character of theological education.1 Reformed prolegom-
ena developed in order to support the Reformed system of theology.2
Questions regarding the definition of theology and the method of theo-
logical study were at the heart of such developments.3 In line with their
soteriological concerns, Reformed orthodox university professors treated
the character of theological students as the indispensable complement
to proper definitions of theology. Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), who
trained a generation of notable Reformed pastors in the Netherlands,
1 Richard Muller defined prolegomena as, “The introductory section of a treatise or sys-
tem of thought in which basic principles and premises are enunciated.… The prolegomena
are also the place where the discipline of theology itself is defined.” Richard A. Muller,
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant
Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 248.
2 This is the burden of the first volume of Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed
Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725, 2nd
ed., 4 vols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).
3 An early example is, Andreas Hyperius (1511–1564), Methodus Theologiae Adj. Eft. De
Ejusdem Vita Et Obita Oratis Wigandi Arthii (Basileae, 1562).

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_7
158 R.M. McGRAW
dedicated substantial time and energy to teaching students how to study

well, both intellectually and spiritually.4 In the same vein, Campegius
Vitringa (1659–1722) later wrote a treatise aimed solely at cultivating
the internal piety of theological students.5 Though the nature of the-
ology and the character of the theologian were not the only themes
included in prolegomena, Reformed theologians developed these con-
cepts to ensure that the Reformed theological system served the same
purposes as the gospel of Jesus Christ. Just as the gospel is doctrinal and
personal, so must theology be.
Reformed theological education was both conservative and progres-
sive with respect to its definitions of true theology and of the character
of the true theologian, and Reformed adaptations of Medieval peda-
gogy shaped theological education.6 John Owen (1616–1683) repre-
sents this process of picking and choosing well in light of his work at
Oxford University in the mid-seventeenth century.7 In 1561, Owen pub-
lished Theologoumena Pantodapa as the fruit of his labors as Dean and
Vice-Chancellor. While he protested in the introduction that he did not
desire “to force a new method of study on you,8” he added the concern
regarding the current method of education that, “through the darkness
4 Gisbertus Voetius, Exercitia Et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiæ (Rheno-Trajecti: Apud
Wilhelmum Strick, 1644).

5 Campegius Vitringa, Typus Theologiae Practicae, Sive De Vita Spirituali, Eiusque
Affectionibus, 1717.
6 See Willem J. van Asselt’s introduction to Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True
Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). The recent feschrift for Richard Muller traces such
developments in Reformed theological education in Lutheran and Reformed ortho-
doxy. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds., Church and School in
Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of
a Theological Tradition, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden:
Brill, 2013).
7 For Owen’s Oxford career, see Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work
of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian. (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971). ADD
REHNMAN’S ARTICLE.
8 John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ, trans.
Stephen P. Westcott (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994), xlviii; Theologoumena
Pantodapa, [22, preface not paginated]: “…non novam studiorum methodum pro-
trudo.…” See below for the defects of this translated version as well as the corrections
to the translation present throughout my Heavenly Directory. This present essay cites the
English translation and the Latin text, providing corrections where needed.
7 QUID EST?: THEOLOGOUMENA PANTODAPA AND JOHN … 159
of these [philosophical and methodological] errors, there has arisen an

elaborate, ingenious, and artificial science, not far removed from that
taught by secular philosophy in the place of gospel theology.”9 His
answer to this perceived problem lay in refining his definitions of true
theology and how to approach the task of theological studies in light of
the effects of sin and grace on the knowledge of God.
In spite of this international and British educational context, scholars
have differed widely over the nature of this work since at least the nine-
teenth century, treating it either as a prolegomena, a covenant theology,
or as a theological system of sorts.10 This stems partly from its histori-
cal structure, tracing select themes from Genesis to the New Testament.
This essay seeks to answer what Theologoumena Pantodapa is and what
it contributes to Reformed prolegomena. After examining the nature of
Theologoumena Pantodapa, the material below assesses Owen’s trinitar-
ian definitions of true theology and the true theologian, and sketches
his teaching regarding the personal qualifications of theological stu-
dents. While the extent to which Owen’s concerns harmonized with his
Reformed contemporaries remains to be evaluated, the most striking fea-
ture of his teaching lies in his trinitarian conception of “true theology,”
which involved the rebirth of the human mind. As such, this work set
a trinitarian and practical groundwork for theological studies. This is
important because it clarifies the continuing development of Reformed
prolegomena and provides a glimpse into why the Trinity was integral to
the Reformed system of theology.11
9 John Owen, Biblical Theology, Or, the Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of
Theological Truth, in Six Books: In Which Are Examined the Origins and Progress of Both
True and False Religious Worship, and the Most Notable Declensions and Revivals of the
Church, from the Very Beginning of the World, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (Pittsburgh, PA:
Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), xlv; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [18–19].
10 See below.
11 This material provides a partial reply to the otherwise outstanding article by Gijsbert
van den Brink, who states that Reformed authors often treated the Trinity as “a relatively
unimportant appendix” to their theology. Gijsbert van den Brink, “Reformed Scholasticism
and the Trinitarian Renaissance,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem
J. van Asselt, ed. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, vol. 14, Studies in
Theology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 333.
160 R.M. McGRAW
What Is the Purpose of Theologoumena Pantodapa?:

Context and Analysis
Owen’s place in the historic development of Reformed theology is a
vital factor in determining the nature of Theologoumena Pantodapa.
Theologically, he lived in a twofold context. On the one hand, he
was an English “Puritan.”12 On the other hand, he was a “Protestant
Scholastic,” in the sense that he was part of a broader international
movement of Reformed theology, especially in connection to the
“schools” and to the training of ministers.13 It is the latter context that
is particularly relevant as the background for Theologoumena Pantodapa.
Context: Protestant Scholasticism

One writer argues that classing Owen as a “Protestant scholastic” attrib-
utes to him a position “that he himself firmly repudiates.”14 A verbal
repudiation of “scholasticism” was common in Luther as well as among
most early Reformed theologians.15 However, taking this fact at face
12 For a survey of Puritanism from various perspectives, see John Coffey and Paul
C.H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, UK New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2008). For a defense of treating Owen as a Puritan, see
Chapter 1 of McGraw, A Heavenly Directory.
13 Willem J. van Asselt, “Scholasticism Revisited: Methodological Reflections on the
Study of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” in Seeing Things Their Way, ed. Alister
Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press, 2009), 154–174.
14 Stephen P. Westcott, By the Bible Alone!: John Owen’s Puritan Theology for Today’s
Church (Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media and Press, 2010), 593. This work is designed
to be a popular work on Owen’s theology and it usefully illustrates the popular misconcep-
tion of “Protestant scholasticism.” The author confuses scholastic method with scholastic
content. Westcott contends that scholasticism inherently involves the elevation of reason
above faith via the Medieval synthesis between nature and grace (602). Popular histori-
cal theology often suffers from a lack of accurate historical research coupled with schol-
arly rigor. Ironically, it was these very features that characterized Owen’s own theological
method.
15 For examples of the selective use of Scholasticism in Protestant authors see, Gerhard
Muller, “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Discontinuity and Continuity,” in

The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014),
105–114; Volker Leppin, “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Continuity
and Discontinuity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014), 115–124; D.V.N. Bagchi, “Sic et Non: Luther an Scholasticism,”
in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman
value fails to recognize that scholasticism often had a twofold significance

for theologians. On the one hand, scholasticism referred to theological
content, which in many cases the Reformed rejected or modified. On the
other hand, scholasticism referred to a theological method and system
of organization.16 In this sense, the scholastic method referred to the
manner in which theological inquiry was conducted in the context of the
schools, as well as the manner in which theology began to be organized
in conjunction with a codified confessional form of Reformed theology.17
While Owen did not write a systematic treatment of theology, his meth-
odology bears the characteristics of contemporary Reformed theology,
both in England and throughout Europe. In this sense, he may be called
a “Protestant scholastic.” Even with his modifications and criticisms of
the method of his contemporaries at points, he lies within the realm of
“Protestant scholasticism,” which though sharing common features, was
not a monolithic movement.18
However, method and content cannot be separated sharply.19
Bernardinus de Moor (1709–1780), a late proponent of Reformed
orthodoxy in the Netherlands, argued that scholasticism included both
method and content in a Reformed context.20 He began by distinguish-
ing various periods of scholastic theology.21 Early scholasticism flour-
ished in the twelfth and thirteen centuries, marking the two first stages
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 3–15; D.C. Steinmetz, “The Scholastic Calvin,”
Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, n.d., 16–30.
16 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One: Prolegomena to
Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 34–37. Also see David C. Steinmetz,
“The Scholastic Calvin,” in, Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Bletchney, UK: Paternoster, 2005), 19–21.
17 Byung Soo Han, “The Academization of Reformation Teaching in Johann Heinrich
Alsted (1588–1638),” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in

Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, vol. 170, Studies
in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 284.
19 This is a partial corrective to my assertions in A Heavenly Directory, where I largely fol-
low Muller’s analysis.

20 Bernardinus de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-
Elenctic Comendium of Christian Theology, trans. Stephen Dilday, vol. 1, 7 vols (Culpeper,
VA: L & G Reformation Translation Center, 2014), 1:190, 201–202.
21 de Moor, Continuous Commentary, 1:197–200.
162 R.M. McGRAW
of the movement. Its greatest proponents were Peter Lombard (1100–

1160) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274).22 According to de Moor, this
period of scholasticism was marked by precise theological distinctions
and careful attention to the text of Scripture. The perversion of scho-
lastic theology began primarily in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
as exemplified by the absurd speculative questions posed by Durandus
(1270–1334) concerning the Virgin Mary and other issues.23 He argued
that the Reformed should adapt the best of the scholastic method in
order to provide theology with proper terminology and precise catego-
ries, while shying away from obtuse questions.24 Already, such appropria-
tions and cautions mirror Owen’s concern introduced briefly above to
use and amend commonly accepted theological terminology. This sup-
ports generally Muller’s assertions that the Reformed orthodox adopted
the scholastic method. However, in treating the use and meaning of the-
ological terminology, de Moor illustrates that Reformed authors could
ignore neither the content nor the methodology of the Medieval period
if they were to engage properly with the entire catholic tradition of the
church. Like Owen, Reformed theologians adopted and modified both
the content and the methods of Medieval theology.
Scholasticism provided Reformed theologians and pastors with a clear
system of theological organization as well as with tools to establish truth
and to dismantle error.25 One clear instance of this was the disputatio
method, which was common to the Middle Ages and to the Reformation
and Post-Reformation periods alike.26 This process involved proposing
a common theological topic and then defending one’s position against
opponents. On the surface, Owen’s works abound with this method,

25 Willem J. van Asselt, “Reformed Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research,” in A
Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H.J. Selderhuis, vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11. Van Asselt here notes that orthodoxy refers
to theological content while scholasticism refers to method. Such categories are helpful so
long as the distinction between them is not absolute.
26 Theodore G. van Raalte, “Francois Lambert D’Avignon (ca. 1487–1530): Early
Ecclesial Reform and Training for the Ministry at Marburg,” in Church and School in
Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of
a Theological Tradition, vol. 170, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden:
Brill, 2013), 87–92.
both in his more “academic” as well as his “popular” works.27 Along

with other “Protestant scholastics,” he made heavy use of Aristotelian
categories. This does not mean that he and others accepted the content
of Aristotle’s metaphysics or ethics, but Aristotelian distinctions became
vehicles to carry Reformed content.28 Luther, whose writing contained
vitriolic attacks against both Medieval Scholasticism and Aristotle, did
not hesitate to make use of Aristotle’s fourfold causation.29 This illus-
trates the point that attributing scholastic method to men such as Owen
or identifying a heavily modified use of Aristotle does not imply that they
adopted such methods entirely or uncritically.30
A similar distinction existed regarding uses of philosophy among
Reformation and post-Reformation theologians.31 On the one hand, phi-
losophy could simply refer to the humanities, such as logic and rhetoric.
On the other hand, philosophy often referred to metaphysics and ethics
as derived from human reason apart from Scripture. In the latter sense,
Owen treated philosophy as the origin of idolatry.32 Medieval theology
sought to harmonize truth as derived from nature and truth as derived
from grace via God’s revelation in Scripture. While not disjoining truth
27 For instance, see Owen’s partial use of Aristotelian fourfold causation in his popular
work, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers; The Necessity, Nature, and Means of it: With a
Resolution of Sundry Cases of Conscience Thereunto Belonging, Works, 6:85. See, A Heavenly
Directory, 37.
28 See especially Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology
(Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998), esp. 29–44, who addresses Owen’s use of
Aristotle at length. In a later article, Trueman accuses those who import Aristotelian con-
tent into Protestant appropriations of him of being guilty of the “root fallacy.” Trueman,
“A Small Step Toward Rationalism: The Impact of the Metaphysics of Thommaso
Campanella on the Theology of Richard Baxter,” in, Protestant Scholasticism, 188, 193. See
also R. Scott Clark, “The Authority of Reason in the Latter Reformation: Scholasticism in
Caspar Olevian and Antoine de le Faye,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 126. Muller consist-
ently refers to this as a “Christian Aristotelianism.”.
29 Lowell C. Green, “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism,” in Protestant
Scholasticism, 279.
30 Christopher Cleveland’s Thomism in John Owen illustrates Owen’s extensive appropria-
tion of Aquinas’ content in relation to his doctrine of God and Christology.

Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 4–5.
32 Owen, Biblical Theology, 271–279; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. iii, cap. 6,
pp. 201–209; de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:154–174.

164 R.M. McGRAW
as God has revealed it, either in nature or in grace, Reformed theologi-

ans did not treat philosophy as a proper source for theological knowl-
edge due to the depravity of the mind of man as fallen. For this reason,
Owen’s younger Dutch contemporary, Herman Witsius (1636–1708),
wrote, “Lampidia Theolgiae fluenta, ex sola Sacrarum Literarum fonte
derivanda, nullis, vel antiquioris, vel novitiae, Philisophiae impuris latici-
bus sordidentur.”33 Thus, the doctrine of sin became an important
aspect of Protestant prolegomena.34 This meant that in Protestant scho-
lasticism, philosophy was spoken of positively when it referred to devel-
oping proficiency in the humanities, but it was at times spoken of very
negatively in relation to truth, metaphysics, and ethics. This reinforces
the assertion that Protestant scholasticism entailed adapting earlier meth-
odology and contents very selectively.35
In the above respects, Owen’s theological reflections and method
fit well the international context of Protestant scholasticism. As shown
below, he argued that many perversions in theology resulted from over-
using extrabiblical terminology and depending too much on Aristotle.
These concerns were essential to Theologoumena Pantodapa, which is a
vital consideration in determining its character and aim. The proper use
of theological terms and methods were some of the primary concerns of
Reformed prolegomena. Muller notes that Owen desired a more thor-
ough revision of the use of terms than many of his contemporaries.36
While he desired to limit these terms to a minimum, this did not deny
33 Herman Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor, 2 vols
(Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de Water, 1694), [9].
Pages in the “Dedication” are unnumbered in the original text. This citation is borrowed
from A Heavenly Directory, 38.
35 James Dennison overstates the case that Francis Turretin’s attempted synthesis of rea-
son and revelation was “classical” due to its resemblance to Aquinas’ synthesis of nature
and grace. James T. Dennison, Jr., “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and the
Dawn of the Enlightenment,” in Protestant Scholasticism, 252. Martin I. Klauber observes
more correctly the radical shift in the Reformed attitude towards reason and natural the-
ology with the rise of the Enlightenment. This implicitly shifted how Protestants sought
to establish the truth claims of Christianity apologetically. Martin I. Klauber, “Theological
Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to Jacob Vernet,” in Protestant
Scholasticism, 266. See also Muller, PRRD, 1:122, 141, 146, and 160ff.
that he saw their necessity in many cases.37 For example, Tim Cooper
notes Owen’s opposition to Baxter over this point when they worked
together on a committee to draft a confession of faith for the average
church member. Baxter’s insistence on limiting this confession to bibli-
cal expressions put him in the embarrassing position of being unable to
include the deity of the Holy Spirit.38 Owen’s critical approach to aspects
of the method that he had been trained in at Oxford does not entail his
rejection of the theology of the schools. He sought to modify scholastic
theology by closing the gap between academic and practical theology.39
This mirrored the concerns of the broader Reformed orthodox tradition,
as exemplified by the resistance of seventeenth-century Dutch universi-
ties to establish a chair of practical theology on the grounds that practical
theology should be embedded in the theological system.40
It is important to note that Oxford was marked during this period by
controversies over the role and methods of education. Owen simulta-
neously opposed groups who rejected the formal theological education
of ministers and the remnants of Laudian methods.41 He implied that
the most effective way to reform (and to justify) theological education
was to displace philosophy as a foundation for truth, in order to reshape
theological education in a way that made communion with Christ indis-
pensable.42 The only explicit comments that he made about the curric-
ulum in a roughly 700-page book on the study of theology were that
the primary emphases in theological education should be studying the
Bible in the original languages, the proper use of logic as an interpretive
37 For example, throughout, John Owen, A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the
Doctrine of the Trinity as Also of the Person and Satisfaction of Christ (London, 1669).
38 Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity
(Farnham, Surrey, England Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 150.

39 For a treatment of the distinction and relationship between scholastic and popular
theology see Donald Sinnema, “The Distinction Between Scholastic and Popular: Andreas
Hyperius and Reformed Scholasticism,” Protestant Scholasticism, 127–144.
40 Donald Sinnema, “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden
University (1618–1626),” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. H.J. Selderhuis,

vol. 40, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 415–42.
41 See Toon, 50–79 for a brief history of these debates over the role of the universities in
England. For Laud’s influence at Oxford, see Charles Carlton, Archbishop William Laud
(London; New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).
42 Owen, Biblical Theology, xxxiiiy; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa [10–11].
166 R.M. McGRAW
tool, and giving attention to the rhetorical form of the Bible.43 Owen’s
point, however, was that such things by themselves could only produce
Christian philosophers rather than evangelical theologians.44
Owen’s labors and emphases at Oxford appear to have borne some
fruit. Matthew Henry (1662–1714) testified concerning his father’s
studies at Oxford under Owen’s tenure,
[He] would often mention with thankfulness to God, what great helps
and advantages he had then in the University, not only for learning, but
for religion and piety. Serious godliness was in reputation, and besides the
public opportunities they had, there were many of the scholars that used to
meet together for prayer, and Christian conference to the great confirma-
tion of one another’s hearts in the fear and love of God and the preparing
them for the service of the Church in their generation.45
Theologoumena Pantodapa represents the blending of scholasticism and

piety that such students received from Owen at the University.
Analysis of Theologoumena Pantodapa

From 1651 to 1660, by the appointment of Oliver Cromwell, John
Owen served as Dean of Christ Church, and later as Vice-Chancellor
(1652–1657) of Oxford University. He filled the position that was
vacated by the removal of Presbyterian conformist and member of
the Westminster Assembly, Edward Reynolds (1599–1676). He also
labored alongside renowned fellow Congregationalist Thomas Goodwin
(1600–1680), who had also served at Westminster and whom Cromwell
appointed Dean of Magdalen College.46 While Owen wrote many works
during this time both as a theologian and as a pastor, Theologoumena
43 Owen, Biblical Theology, 607–608; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. vi, cap. 3,
pp. 466–467.
44 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 467: “…Philosophicos Christianos censemus non
Theologicos Evangelicos.” For similar assertions, see de Moor, Continuous Commentary,

1:175.
45 Cited in Toon, God’s Statesman, 79.
46 For Goodwin, see Mark Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the
Puritan Reformed Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680), vol. 13, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010).
Pantodapa best represents his thought as a professor.47 It was based on

his class lectures. Crawford Gribben notes that this work was “the final
output of Owen’s academic career.”48 His title, stated purpose, and theo-
logical content demonstrate its design as a treatise on Prolegomena.
Owen’s Title Reconsidered

Though it may sound strange to question what a book is about, the
problems surrounding how readers understand this work begin with
its title. The only available English translation of the work is entitled,
Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. The trans-
lator refers to his work as an “English interpretation” and, among other
things, often misses Owen’s trinitarian emphases. Sebastian Rehnman
describes this translation as being “of such inferior quality that it cannot
be used for serious study.”49 In spite of these facts, Gribben curiously
treats Westcott’s English rendition as “indispensable.”50 However, even
the translated title creates confusion.
J.I. Packer translates the title alternatively as, “Theological affir-
mations of all sorts, or, of the nature, rise, progress, and study, of true
theology…with digressions on universal grace, the rise of the sciences,
marks of the Roman Church, the origin of writing, ancient Hebrew
script, Hebrew punctuation, Jewish versions and forms of worship, and
other things.”51 This results in an immediate conflict. The title, Biblical
Theology, is not grounded in the Latin text. This title runs the risk of
importing connotations from the modern discipline of Biblical Theology
into a seventeenth-century work. Doubtless the historically progressive
content of Theologoumena accounts for this mistake, but this can give
47 For a summary of Owen’s labors at Oxford, see Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The
Life and Work of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971),
chapter 3. It is surprising that Toon only made passing reference to Theologoumena

Pantodapa on p. 56, though he provides a useful discussion of the raging debates over the-
ological education in the 1650s. This volume marks Owen’s contribution to these debates.
48 Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat, Oxford
Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Ohio University Press, 2016), 213.

49 Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House, 2002), 17, fn 3. This author cites Biblical
Theology with corrections from Theologoumena Pantodapa where necessary in order to
make this material more accessible to English-speaking readers.
50 Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism, xii.
51 Owen, Biblical Theology, xii.
168 R.M. McGRAW
modern readers an anachronistic false start. A History of Theology from

Adam to Christ, which is not in the original either, only solidifies this
misconception.
The true title mirrors the concerns of seventeenth-century prolegom-
ena. “The nature, rise, progress, and study of true theology”52 encap-
sulates the substance and intent of the volume. This core phrase of
the title is remarkably similar to the work of Franciscus Junius (1545–
1602), who wrote the first Reformed prolegomena under the title,
“Concerning True Theology, its rise, nature, form, and manner.”53 Like
later Reformed prolegomena, Junius book treated definitions of theol-
ogy, the nature of theology among other disciplines, archetypal and
ectypal theology, Christ’s knowledge of God as the pattern for the saints
on earth, the disciplines required to study theology, and the ends and
goals of true theology. The triune God served as the principium essendi
(principle of being) of theology while principium cognoscendi (principle
of knowledge) was, externally, Holy Scripture and, internally, the work
of the Holy Spirit in the theologian.54 Corresponding to Junius struc-
ture, Theologoumena Pantodapa begins by defining true theology in
relation to other disciplines and ends with the nature of theological stud-
ies and the character of the true theologian. The examination below of
Owen’s definitions of true theology below strengthens these parallels,
with the addition that while Junius’ treatment of theology is thoroughly
Christological, Owen is more explicitly and consistently trinitarian
as well.
The remainder of the title, including the “digressions” listed by
Packer above, reinforce the prolegomenous character of this book.
Packer curiously omits a section of the title (in an ellipsis) that men-
tions the origins and process of true and false religious worship and the
origins of the church. Prolegomena was concerned primarily with the
true knowledge of God. Sin hindered such knowledge and resulted in
apostasy and false religion. Yet the Lord revealed himself to his people
and sustained true religion in the context of the church. This contrast
between true and false religion became a standard feature of Reformed
52 “De natura, ortu, progressu, et studio verae theologiae”.

53 Franciscus Junius, De theologia vera; ortu, natura, formis, partibus, et modo. (Lugduni
Batavorum, 1594).
54 See McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, 38–40 for further relevant primary and secondary
source material on this point.

prolegomena, and it stretches back at least to Ulrich Zwingli’s (1484–

1531) commentary on true and false religion.55 Owen’s digressions
address primarily the natural and revealed knowledge of God, the neces-
sity and integrity of Scripture, and the effects of sin and grace on the-
ology in light of divine covenants.56 His concern over the Hebrew
language and vowel points in particular reflect his concern over the
integrity over the text of Scripture, which was one of the two great
principia of prolegomena.57 Though the English title assigned to
Theologoumena Pantodapa threatens to mislead readers today, its long
and descriptive title would have led contemporary readers to expect that
they were holding a large-scale prolegomena. De Moor bore witness to
this fact by relying partly on Theologoumena Pantodapa in the context of
prolegomena.58
Owen’s Stated Purpose

Owen’s stated purpose in writing Theologoumena Pantodapa reinforces
the conclusions drawn from its title. It is striking that while Owen wrote
that his aim in writing this volume consisted in expounding the nature of
evangelical theology, the section treating this topic directly occupies less
than 100 out of more than 500 pages. He stated explicitly that the bulk
of the work was a preface to this end:
When I first set myself to writing this work, I had no other plan than to
expound, for your Christian consideration, some themes concerning the
nature of gospel theology. What I had prepared for that purpose you will
find consigned to that last part of this volume. But what I found necessary
to preface to their exposition, which in the beginning I had expected to be
done with briefly, has grown into the size you see. In fact, this is not at all
out of keeping with our great subject, although it was never planned for.59
55 Ulrich Zwingli, De Vera Et Falsa Religione, Commentarius (Zurich: Christoph
Froschauer, 1545). See Junius, Treatise on True Theology, 95–96.

56 Junius includes such topics throughout his Treatise on True Theology, though the cov-
enant theme is less explicit than with Owen.

57 For an analysis of Owen’s concern over the vowel points, see Andrew M. Leslie,
The Light of Grace: John Owen on the Authority of Scripture and Christian Faith, vol. 34,
Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 213–217.
58 de Moor, Continuous Commentary, 1:52.
59 Owen, Biblical Theology, xlix; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [22].
170 R.M. McGRAW
When Owen finally addressed what he called “evangelical theology,” he

reiterated, “It has been my professed intent and stated purpose—almost
my one and only purpose in this work—to set forward the theology of
Christ.”60 Theologiam Christianam, as the Latin citation in the footnote
shows, included a proper habit of the mind in the student of theology as
a remedy to the effects of sin on true theology61 In light of the title of
the English “interpretation,” readers might be surprised to realize that
the section on “evangelical theology” does not expound what is now
known as New Testament Biblical Theology. Instead, it treats the defi-
nition, nature, and methodology of theological studies.62 In traditional
Reformed prolegomena, this was called theologia nostra, theologia viato-
rum, or in the case of de Moor, theologia stadii.63 In Owen’s view, the
text in between this section and the introduction established the pre-
suppositions needed to understanding the nature and method of “evan-
gelical,” or “true theology.” The primary reason for this fact is that the
doctrines of original sin, the effects of depravity on the mind of man, and
the Trinitarian and covenantal work of redemption provided the foun-
dation for understanding the nature and method of theological studies.
“Evangelical theology,” “true theology,” and “gospel theology” as they
are used in this work are not synonyms for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
They describe instead the nature and task of theological studies. This was
the stated purpose of prolegomena.
The Content of the Work

The content of Theologoumena Pantodapa creates perhaps the greatest
obstacle to concluding that it was a prolegomena to theology. Owen’s
60 Owen, Biblical Theology, 591; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. vi., cap.1,
pp. 455. The full passage reads: “Ad finem operis properamus, nondum tamen propositum
affectui. Theologiam Christianam ex professo et data opera primo et paene unice ennarran-
duam sucsepimus. Nec Doctrina Evangelica, sid is mentis nostrae habitus quo eam amplec-
timur intra ratione operis, maxime nobis observabatur ane oculos. In hunc ideo locum
rejecimus quae Theologiae subjectum proprium respiciunt, ad omnem quamvis peccatorum
Theologiam aequae pertinentia.”
61 The remainder of the translated text of the above cited paragraph differs so widely
from the original that the Latin reader would be tempted to think that he is working from
a different text if the introductory material and headings did not agree with the original.
62 Compare to the material cited above from Junius and the introductory examples of
Voetius and Vitringa..

63 de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:96, 106.
assessment that the bulk of his text was a parenthesis to his primary sub-
ject, coupled with its progressive historical character, represent the main
reasons why scholars have misunderstood its nature. Owen’s purpose
was not to set forth “the history of theology from Adam to Christ,” but
to set the stage for his explanation of what true theology is, the princi-
ples upon which it is built, who is able to study it, and what is required
of theological students. Even William Goold, who republished Owen’s
works in the nineteenth century, missed the point of Theologoumena
Pantodapa slightly. In his preface to volume seventeen of Owen’s Works,
he wrote, “The treatise is simply a historical dissertation on the origin
and progress of theology, in a spirit thoroughly evangelical, and in a style
somewhat remarkable for the power and compass of its Latinity.”64 Carl
Trueman refers similarly to this volume as “a major Latin work of cov-
enant theology.”65 Gribben treats the work as “an almost encyclopedic
historical account of the history of ideas associated with Owen’s doctrine
of revelation.”66 By contrast, Richard Muller classifies the work as a pro-
legomena to theology, in line with the evidence provided above from
the book’s title and stated purpose.67 This is the only position that takes
Owen’s self-assessment seriously.
How can such outstanding scholars as Muller and Trueman differ so
widely regarding the nature of the Theologoumena Pantodapa? As noted
above, its historically progressive character creates the problem, leading
some scholars not to take Owen’s stated intent as seriously as they might
otherwise. Moreover, regarding Theologoumena as a covenant theology
is plausible, since the covenant is vital to Owen’s doctrine of the knowl-
edge of God and covenant theology generally required a historical struc-
ture.68 Nevertheless, readers should remember that systematic theology
64 John Owen, The Works of John Owen D.D., ed., by William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1862), 17:2. Goold wrote a chapter-by-chapter synopsis of the Latin text of what
was then volume seventeen, but as Westcott has noted, his synopsis is an elaborate sum-
mary of the work with little analysis. See Biblical Theology, 721. There are several versions
of Owen’s Works. Volume seventeen of the Goold edition that contains that Latin text of
Theologoumena Pantodapa.
65 Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Burlington,
VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007), 5.

66 Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism, 213.
68 Gribben, without warrant, assumes that the structure of Theologoumena Pantodapa
demonstrates decisively that Owen had begun studying Cocceius. Gribben, John Owen
and English Puritanism, 214. However, readers should remember that covenant theologies
172 R.M. McGRAW
generally followed a historical structure as well. This began with the

prolegomena, the doctrine of Scripture, and the doctrine of God. After
laying such foundational issues, the system of theology moved through
creation, the fall, the promises of Christ’s coming, his person and work,
the doctrine of the church, and eschatology.69 For the most part, this
follows a historical order that moves readers from Genesis through
Revelation. It should not be too surprising that Owen followed this
order in seeking to establish theological points that would bolster his
views of the nature and study of true theology.
Another key factor in solving the problem of the nature of
Theologoumena Pantodapa is to remember the nature of Owen’s style.
He was a master of lengthy digressions. For example, Communion with
God includes massive digressions relating Christ to the Song of Solomon
and treating Christ as the personal and essential wisdom of God.70
These amount to 68 pages of out of 320, which is about 21 percent of
the book. Similarly, his seven-volume work on Hebrews includes large
excerpts and rewritten sections of most of his major theological works
where the subject matter related to the text at hand.71 Two entire vol-
umes of this commentary consist of theological material related to the
teaching of the epistle that were designed to prepare the reader for the
exposition. This was a common feature of Puritan literature in general,
making large scale works such as Anthony Burgess’ (d. 1664) 145 ser-
mons on John 17 and Joseph Caryl’s (1602–1673) twelve volumes on
Job read more like large-scale systems of theology following a textual
always followed a historical structure prior to Cocceius and that Cocceius wrote a Loci
Communes.
69 This was true of major theological systems, such as Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae
Christianae. This order also characterized high orthodox confessional statements, such as
Westminster and Savoy.
70 John Owen, Of Communion with God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Each Person
Distinctly in Love, Grace, and Consolation, Or, the Saints Fellowship with the Father, Sonne,
and Holy Ghost, Unfolded (Oxford: Printed by A. Lichfield, for Tho. Robinson, 1657),
64–86, 87–132.
71 For an analysis of Owen’s Hebrews commentary in relation to his theology, see John
W. Tweeddale, “John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context,” in The Ashgate

Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, ed. Kelly M Kapic and Mark Jones (Farnham,
Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 49–64.
rather than a systematic order.72 This partly followed the pattern of earlier
authors, such as Martin Bucer (1491–1551), who incorporated theologi-
cal topics into his commentary on Romans.73 James Durham’s (1622–
1658) commentary on Revelation likewise began with digressions on the
Trinity and other theological issues.74 While Theologoumena Pantodapa is
not a commentary or book of sermons, neither does it provide a historical
survey of the teaching of the entire Bible. Owen chose topics calculated
to serve as a theological “preface” to his primary ends in writing.75 This
was both in character for him and fit his historical context.
A closer look at Owen’s content clarifies the nature of the book. In
book one, Chaps. 1 through 3 follow the standard topics of prolegom-
ena. Owen treated in order the definition of the term theology, the dis-
tinction between pagan and Christian theology, the use of the term in
the church, how theology relates to other sciences, scholastic abuses
of theology, and the theology of union in Christ in relation to theolo-
gia viatorum. The standard topics of prolegomena resume with book
six in treating the character of the theological student, proper meth-
ods of theological study, and the proper ends of theology. The theo-
logical topics treated in between the first three chapters of book one of
Theologoumena Pantodapa and the entirety of book six are limited to
subjects that undergird prolegomena. So Chaps. 4 through 9 of book
one trace the knowledge of God in paradise and the effects of man’s fall
on the knowledge of God. Chapter 5 on the insufficiency of natural the-
ology for salvation was a standard topic in prolegomena, with the sur-
rounding material bolstering Owen’s case in light of the effects of sin
72 Anthony Burgess, Cxlv Expository Sermons Upon the Whole 17th Chapter of the Gospel
According to St. John, Or, Christs Prayer Before His Passion Explicated, and Both Practically
and Polemically Improved (London, 1656); Joseph Caryl, An Exposition with Practical
Observations Upon the Book of Job, 12 vols. (London, 1980).
73 Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis Et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos,
in Quibus Singulatim Apostoli Omnia, Cum Argumenta, Tum Sententiae & Verba,
Ad Autoritatem Divinae Scripturae, Fidemque Ecclesiae Catholicae Tam Priscae Qum̉
Praesentis, Religios ̈ac Paul ̣fusius Excutiuntur (Basileae, 1562).
74 James Durham, A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation Wherein the Text Is
Explained, the Series of the Several Prophecies Contained in That Book, Deduced, the Periods
and Succession of Times At, or About Which, These Prophecies Began to Be and Those That
Are yet to Be Fulfilled: Together with Some Practical Observations, and Several Digressions:
Delivered in Several Lectures (London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, 1658).
75 Owen, Biblical Theology, xlix; Theologoumena Pantodapa, [22].
174 R.M. McGRAW
on mankind. Book two illustrates how God began to restore the true
knowledge of himself through the covenant of grace. This initial sec-
tion follows this subject from Adam to Noah. The fourteen chapters of
book three are concerned predominantly to show how sin ran rampant
and destroyed the knowledge of God apart from the covenant of grace.
This entire book parallels The Court of the Gentiles by Theophilus Gale
(1628–1679), who was one of Owen’s students at Oxford.76 The pur-
pose, both of book three and of Gale’s work, was to argue that extra-
biblical religion and philosophy marked a gradual apostasy from the true
religion and that the presence of elements resembling truth were actually
distortions of what the nations once did and should have known.77
Books four and five apply the true and false knowledge of God to the
covenant community of God’s people by addressing progress and then
apostasy under Mosaic religion. Book four demonstrates how Abrahamic
and Mosaic theology furthered the knowledge of God under the cov-
enant of grace. In contrast to his treatment of the Mosaic covenant in his
Hebrews commentary, in which the Mosaic covenant served as a super-
added covenant rather than an advancement of the covenant of grace,
here the Mosaic covenant is evaluated positively only as promoting the
covenant of grace and the true knowledge of God. This does not so
much contradict his treatment of the subject in relation to Hebrews as it
does ignore some aspects of the Mosaic covenant in order to emphasize
others.78 The sixteen chapters of book five survey the remainder of the
Old Testament, illustrating the effects of sin on the knowledge of God,
or true theology, within Israel when they forsook the terms of the cov-
enant. As noted above, the eight chapters of book six then resume the
76 Theophilus Gale, The Court of the Gentiles, Or, a Discourse Touching the Original of
Human Literature, Both Philologie and Philosophie, from the Scriptures & Jewish Church.
in Order to a Demonstration Of, I. the Perfection of Gods Word, and Church-Light, Ii. the
Imperfection of Natures Light, and Mischief of Vain Philosophie, Iii. the Right Use of Human
Learning, and Specially, Sound Philosophie Part I. Part I. (Oxon: Printed by H. Hall, for
Tho. Gilbert, 1672).
77 See Chapter 3 of Dewey D. Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety,
Persistence, and Transformation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), which places
Gale's work in its historical context. For a similar point, see Francis Turretin, Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Philipsburg: P &
R Publishing, 1997), 1:6.
78 For an explanation of the Mosaic covenant in Owen’s thought, see McGraw, A
Heavenly Directory, 156–167.

standard topics remaining in Reformed prolegomena. Owen’s historical

and theological order reflects Muller’s reminder that though prolegom-
ena appears first in a theological system, it is developed last in light of
the conclusions of the system that it supports.79 Owen believed that the
doctrines of sin and of the covenant of grace were vital components to
understand in order to build a true theology. This makes the bulk of his
material not so much parenthetical as prerequisite to his primary aim.
As noted above in relation to his title, even Owen’s “digres-
sions” aimed at the principia of theology. Owen’s final digression on,
“Philosophic Corruptions of Theology,” illustrates this principle well.80
Even though Westcott’s title is misleading, he noted correctly: “The
English language reader will be unlikely to have reached this point
in the book without realizing that in this ‘Digression’ he has, in many
ways, reached the real ‘core’ of the work, and is face to face with the
real points which Owen wishes to make, and is anxious that his read-
ers understand and ‘take on board.’”81 This “core” consisted in the true
and false knowledge of God, which was the foundation of the Reformed
system of doctrine. Owen argued that man’s ability to know the truth by
means of unassisted reason was abolished as a result of man’s Fall into
sin. Most Reformed authors would have agreed thus far.82 He added
that attempts to establish truth based on philosophers such as Plato, and
especially Aristotle, resulted in the corruption of true theology and of
the Bible itself.83 He adopted a hard stance against mingling philosophy

80 Owen, Biblical Theology, 668–684; Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 509–521.
81 Owen, Biblical Theology, 721, “general note.”.
82 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, topic 1, question 8, pp. 1:23–27.
83 Rehnman contends that Owen spoke disparagingly of Aristotle only in the context of
general references to him, but that all specific citations of Aristotle in his writings have a
positive connotation. Rehnman expresses surprise at Owen’s negative view of philosophy
and reason in this volume in light of his later extensive use of both. His proposed solu-
tion is that Owen was simply bitter that the Puritans ultimately lost the English Civil War.
This ignores the force of his extensive argumentation for his position in Theologoumena
Pantodapa. It is one thing to use reason as a tool; it is another matter to use reason as
a source of theology. Owen himself advocated the study of logic. Biblical Theology, 608;
Theologoumena Pantodapa, 467. A better possible explanation of his position on philos-
ophy is that his duties as Dean and Vice-Chancellor provided the occasion to reevaluate
theological education. He wrote, “Adopting and relying on [Aristotelian philosophy], the
scholastics, in effect, replaced the norm and faith of evangelical theology with a barbarous
176 R.M. McGRAW
and theology by asserting that the apostasy of the Middle Ages was
rooted in the early church apologists.84 By framing apologetic arguments
for the Christian through “attempting to match philosophy with philoso-
phy,” good men such as Origen, Clement (of Alexandria), and Tertullian
unintentionally set the stage for wholesale apostasy.85 Owen even blamed
the division of theology into loci communes on philosophical corruptions,
asserting that they were detrimental to evangelical theology.86 This is a
bit shocking, considering his context and his reliance on and continu-
ity with the Reformed tradition in general. It is unclear in the context
whether he intended to reject the loci method entirely, or simply correct
its abuses. What is clear, is how the digression on Philosophy related to
prolegomena. His criticism of the loci method may also account partly
for the historical order of his prolegomena.
Conclusion
Owen’s purpose in writing Theologoumena Pantodapa was to examine
the definitions and methods of theological studies and the implications
and pseudo-scientific ‘learning’.… Whenever they hold up their perverse and improper
speculations, it is always the name of Aristotle that they shelter behind.” Biblical Theology,
676; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 516. Green’s comments about the twofold use of the term
“philosophy” mentioned above are relevant here. Green, 277. Trueman adds the useful
observation: “[Owen’s] use of the language of Aristotelian commentary tradition is simply
indicative of the fact that he was raised and educated in a system of education with roots in
the Middle Ages and the pedagogical literature of the Renaissance—indeed, given the uni-
versal acceptance of this language in the realm of intellectual life at the time, and the fact
that it was used by Protestants, Catholics, Remonstrants etc., one wonders what alternative
vocabulary he might reasonably be expected to have used.” Trueman, John Owen, 8.
84 Owen, Biblical Theology, 675; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 515.
85 Owen, Biblical Theology, 673–674; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 513. Muller notes
that apologetic tactics and the use of philosophy shifted radically as Protestants engaged
Enlightenment thought. Prior to this time, “The Protestant Orthodox disavowed eviden-
tialism.” PRRD, 1:141. This does not mean that they were “fideists,” but that they relied
upon the “inner logic” of their system as its own apologetic (164).
86 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 511: “Consortio inquam Philosophiae vulgatae
cum Theologiae inauspicato into, ortum suum debent systemata poene omnia Theologica,
loci communes, atque id genus propositionum credibilium farragines aliae…” The trans-
lated text misses this point entirely by leaving loci communes out of the translation. Owen,
Biblical Theology, 671.
of both on theological students.87 Before the advent of modern Biblical

Theology, theologians often naturally followed the historical contours
of Scripture in their theological systems. Some, such as Johann Heinrich
Heidegger (1633–1698), alternated between systematic reflection and
historical-theological reflection.88 Both methods could read as an unfold-
ing story.89 Owen believed in grounding true theology in the biblical teach-
ing on the effects of sin and the covenant of grace on the knowledge of
God. Theologoumena Pantodapa is a complete work on Prolegomena with
all of its theological underpinnings expounded at length. He believed that
his title was sufficient to establish this fact.90 Understanding Theologoumena
Pantodapa as a theological prolegomena enables readers better to grasp his
primary contribution to that subject. This consisted in the explicitly trinitar-
ian character of his treatments of true theology and of the true theologian.
“True Theology” and the “True Theologian”

Scholasticism was a theology of the schools. The primary question for
seventeenth-century educators, such as John Owen, was what quality of
education the schools would supply. Theologoumena Pantodapa repre-
sents his contribution to this question through the way that he defined
theology and the manner of theological studies. This point leads from
the general character to the specific contents of the book. To summa-
rize Owen, “true theology” is a communication from the Father, to the
Son, to the soul of the believer by the Holy Spirit, who uses this knowl-
edge for the rebirth of the human mind.91 The doctrines of original sin,
87 The seventeenth-century German Reformed theologian, Johan Heinrich Alsted
(1588–1633), included the method of theological studies and the proper posture of stu-
dents of theology in his Prolegomena as well. Muller, PRRD, I, 116.
88 Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianae (Tiguri, 1700).
89 See J.V. Fesko, “The Antiquity of Biblical Theology,” in Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey
Waddingtom, eds., Resurrection and Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church: Essays in
Honor of Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2008), 470–471.
90 “The very title page of this book will demonstrate, without further explanation from
me, the intention of the work I have undertaken. Clearly it attempts to map out the nature
of true Theology, and maps out the course and method by which others may follow in a
God-honoring method.” Owen, Biblical Theology, xiii–xiv.
91 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487: “Subjectum theologiae Evangeliae mentis
hominis per Spiritum Sanctum renati esse definimums.” Westcott’s translation of mentis
renati as “human personality” here is unfortunate, since the phrase refers to the rebirth of
178 R.M. McGRAW
regeneration, and communion with God were essential prerequisites to

this definition. The trinitarian character of Owen’s definitions of theol-
ogy and the trinitarian quality of communion with God represent his
primary contributions to prolegomena. This is made clear through his
definitions of theology by his description of the true theologian, and
by connecting these matters to his overarching concerns for theologi-
cal education. This is important because his definitions strengthened the
experiential character of Reformed theology.
True Theology
Owen defined true theology both negatively and positively. Negatively,
“true theology” is not a science.92 In this content, “science” was
regarded as knowledge based on deductions derived from natural prin-
ciples through the use of reason. Theology, by contrast, depended on
divine revelation and included truths that were above reason, though not
contrary to reason.93 Owen had accused Socinianism precisely of limiting
theological conclusions from Scripture by denying this principle.94 Since
theology was concerned with the knowledge of God, it could not be a
science like other human sciences.95 This followed partly in the vein of
the mind. Thus book six Chapter 5 is dedicated exclusively to explaining who are and who
are not renati.
92 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. 1, cap. 2, pp. 5–10. Compare and contrast to
Leonard Rijsennius: “As a disposition (habitualiter), theology is a science (scientia). As a

system (systematice), it is the doctrine of divine truth that leads to godliness and salvation
of men (Tit. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:13).” Leonard Rijssen, A Summary of Elenctic Theology, trans.
and introduction by J. Wesley White (unpublished ThM thesis, Greenville Presbyterian
Theological Seminary), 1. Emphasis original.
93 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 6: "Doctrinae autem, quae semper ntititur fun-
damentis quibusdam et theorematis quae rationi humanae non tantum sunt consona, sed
et congnata, qualis est scientia omnis, cum mysterio omnem pure psuchon seu naturalem
superante, nulla communitas esse potest. Deum enim rite cognosca non posse, nisi per
Deum, omina est prolepsis.“.
94 John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, or the Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and
Socinianisme Examined, in the Confutation of a Catechisme Written by J. Biddle, and the

Catechisme of Valetinus Smalcius, Commonly Called the Racovian Catechism, with the
Scripture from the Perverse Expositions (Oxford, 1655), 62–63.
95 For a similar point in regard to the relationship between theology and reason with
specific application to Socinianism, see de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius,

1:230–231.
Aquinas, who desired to distinguish theology clearly from other sciences

while retaining the term in a modified sense.96 From a Reformed per-
spective, Polanus argued similarly that if we refer to theology as a sci-
ence, then we must treat it as the most noble of the sciences.97 However,
he added later that scientia was too narrow to define theology.98
The general denial that theology was a science was common to almost
all Reformed pre-Enlightenment prolegomena.99 Polyander, in the
Synopsis Purioris, wrote that theology was a practical science that did
not consist of bare or empty knowledge.100 Owen argued generally that
scholastic debates as to whether or not theology is a science or an art,
theoretical or practical, were virtually useless.101 Almost all Reformed
theological systems addressed this question.102 Junius subsumed all
of these Aristotelian habits under wisdom103 and de Moor argued that
theology was all of them combined.104 Expanding on Junius, Polanus
argued that sapientia included all of the other habits.105 However, Owen
suggested that it might be better largely to ignore such questions, or
at least to mitigate their importance.106 De Moor virtually came to the
same conclusion in giving his reasons why he preferred to treat theol-
ogy as combining all such habits.107 Yet Owen ended with the same basic
conclusions of his Reformed contemporaries regarding the character of
96 “Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit scientia. Omnis enim scientia procedit ex princip-
iis per se notis. Sed sacra doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei, qui non sunt per se noti, cum
non ab omnibus concedantur, non enim omnium est fides, ut dicitur II Thessalon. III. Non
igitur sacra doctrina est scientia.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (n.p.: 1274), Q. 1,
Article 2, cited from corpusthomisticum.org. Aquinas added immediately that theology
may be considered to be a superior science that is based on revelation from God Himself.
“Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris
scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum.”
97 Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 9.
99 See van Asselt’s introduction to Junius, A Treatise on True Theology.
100 Velde, Synopsis Purioris, 43.
101 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa 9–10.
102 For example, Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae, 75.
103 Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 99–102.
104 de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:187.
106 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 5–6.
107 de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:187.
180 R.M. McGRAW
theology. Byung Soo Han notes rightly that following Junius, defining
theology primarily as wisdom became the standard pattern in Reformed
theology.108 Though it is difficult to recognize the fact using Westcott’s
translation, Owen preferred describing theology as wisdom because it
agreed best with how the Holy Spirit revealed the knowledge of God in
Scripture.109
The necessity of the Spirit’s work in relation to theology strengthened
the distinction between theology and science. This entailed the idea that
theology was impossible for the unregenerate.110 The knowledge of God
that Owen had in view involved the revelation of the Spirit in Scriptures
and the illumination of the Spirit in the believer. Polanus earlier and De
Moor later categorized such distinctions under the external and internal
aspects of the principium cognoscendi of theology111 While unbelievers
could understand the content of theology as revealed by the Spirit they
could not move beyond such knowledge to true theology. For Owen,
this line of argumentation was rooted in his exegesis of 1 Corinthians
2.112 In his exegetical expansion of Marckius’ theology, de Moor likewise
108 Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary
Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), vol. 30, Reformed
Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 75. Polanus
wrote, “Theologia vera, est sapientia rarum divinarum.“ Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae
Christianae, 7. On the next page, he argued that, in spite of their differences, both Aquinas
and Scots essentially adopted this definition as well.
109 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 10. Westcott’s English version differs so widely
from the original text throughout this treatment that this author has abandoned making
reference to it. Owen appealed to this place later, reiterating the nature of theology as spir-
itual wisdom. Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492.
110 “Now I ask you, how is a man who simply cannot understand scriptural matters, who
considers them foolishness, who cannot at all be capable of such things, be accounted as
a gospel theologian? Anyone who considers otherwise is either mistaken in their think-
ing or they do not believe the gospel!;” “Eum autem qui res spirituales neque intellegit,
neque intelligere potest, cui stultitia sunt, quarumque non est capax, non esse Theologiam
Evangelicum mihi quidem videtur; Si qui sunt, qui aliter sentire se putant, non erit conten-
tiosa nostra pagina; nam revera aliter sentiunt quam se sentire putant, aut Evangelio non
credant.“ Owen, Biblical Theology, 614; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 471.
111 Han, Symphonia Catholica, 92; de Moor, Continuous Commentary on Marckius, 1:
96.
112 Owen, Biblical Theology, 8–9; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 6–7: “See, then, that just
as mathematicians and logicians have their own demonstrations and proofs, so also our
teaching is based upon demonstrations and proofs, but demonstrations and proofs of the
Spirit and of power—things as far above the range of human wisdom as heaven is above
the earth. Paul then goes on to add the reason and purpose of this distinction, ‘that your
relied heavily on this chapter of Scripture in order to substantiate his def-

initions of theology. Owen made parallel assertions in Communion with
God, which he wrote while teaching at Oxford:
And all this is spoken in opposition to unbelievers, with whom he hath no

communion. These know nothing of the mind of Christ as they ought:
“The natural man receiveth not the things that are of God,” 1 Cor. ii.14.
There is a wide difference between understanding the doctrine of Scripture
as in the letter, and a true knowing of the mind of Christ. This we have by
especial unction from Christ, 1 John ii.27, “We have an unction from the
Holy One, and we know all things,” 1 John ii.20.113
Ultimately, theology could not be ranked among human sciences

because of its supernatural origin and its connection to the Spirit’s work.
Further comparisons with this treatise below show the intimate connec-
tion Owen drew between theology, communion with the triune God,
union with Christ, and covenant theology, and the connecting factor
between these themes.

faith might not stand in the power of men’ (verse 5), which, naturally, it would, if theology
were based upon the same criteria as the arts and sciences of human philosophers, or had
similar principles, nature or purpose, ‘but in the power of God’ (God's power making his
wisdom effective in Paul's preaching), ‘Howbeit we speak wisdom… yet not the wisdom
of this world, nor of the princes of the world, that come to naught (which proves that
Paul's wisdom comes not by human erudition), but we speak the wisdom of God in a mys-
tery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world to our glory’ (verses
6–7).” He returned to a significant treatment of this and similar passages in Theologoumena
Pantodapa, 471–472. His assertions are intimately tied to and rooted in his exegesis of
Scripture. Rehnman consistently quotes from Turretin and many others as though Owen’s
ideas were identical with their own. For the most part this is an accurate assumption, but
it is also the likely cause for Rehnman’s confusion over Owen’s decidedly negative views
of philosophy. It is enlightening to read Theologoumena Pantodapa and the prolegomena
of Turretin’s Institutes simultaneously. Both addressed the same terminology and the same
relevant passages of Scripture, but at times Owen came to radically different conclusions.
Both began their works with the definition of theology, but Owen taught that if the term
“theology” were retained, Scripture and not philosophy must define it, while Turretin
defined theology by citing Aristotle.
113 John Owen, Communion with God, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold
(Orig. pub., NY: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851, reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1994), 2:120.
182 R.M. McGRAW
As a corollary to Owen’s denials that theology was a science, he

defined theology positively and firstly in terms of divine self-revelation.
He wrote,
With these perceptions, we can come to a definition of theology as: “The

doctrine of God with regard to himself, his works, his will, his worship, as
well as our required obedience, our future rewards and punishments, all
as revealed by God himself to the glory of his name.” This is the Word of
God—this is theology!114
His return to the theme of theology in relation to revelation in book six

highlights its explicitly trinitarian character:
This revelation of God’s will, gifted to Christ by the Father, communicated

by Christ through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and others for the ben-
efit of the entire Church, taken at its greatest extent, is the divine teaching
or theology of the gospel, which I shall try to expound.115
This reflected the idea that God was both the originator and the end of
true theology. The scope and purpose of theology contained in Owen’s
definition harmonize with the common Protestant emphasis that theol-
ogy is both theoretical and practical.116
The latter citation highlights Owen’s distinctly Trinitarian view of the-
ology as involving communion with all three divine persons.117 He wrote
his work on Communion with God a few years prior to Theologoumena
Pantodapa. This work mirrors his later treatment of theology in
114 Owen, Biblical Theology, 16–17; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 12: “Hoc ideo sensu,
Theologia est Doctrina Dei se ipso, operibus suis, deque voluntate suae atque cultu, nos-
traque in omni statu oboedientia, et praemio, atque inobedientiam poena, ad nominis sui
gloriam revelata et expressa; hoc est ipsissimum verba Dei.“ This is an example of Westcott
adding phrases freely to Owen’s original text.
115 Owen, Biblical Theology, 602; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 462–463: “Revelatio autem
haec voluntatis divinae, a Patre Christo data, atque ab illo per Spiritum Sanctum cum
Apostolis suis aliisque, in usum totius Ecclesiae communcata, Theologia est ista Evangelica,
prout in abstracto sumpta doctrinam divinam denotat, quam sumus enarraturi.“.
116 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, lib. 1, cap. 2. See Muller, PRRD, 1:95ff for the
Medieval and Reformed backgrounds of this question.

117 For an exposition of this doctrine, see Chapter 1 in this collection of essays.
Theologoumena, which includes an explicit reference to it.118 Comparing

his definitions of “true theology” with his definition of communion with
God immediately illustrates the connection between these concepts by
grounding theology in the covenant and in union with Christ.
Now, communion is the mutual communication of such good things as

wherein the persons holding communion are delighted, bottomed in some
union between them…. Our communion, then, with God consisteth in his
communication of himself unto us, with our returnal unto him of that which
he requireth and accepteth, flowing from that union which in Jesus Christ
we have with him.119
Union with Christ was the grounds for the covenant relationship
between God and man, and this relationship alone made the knowledge
of God possible for sinners. The covenant was the context in which sin-
ners came to the true knowledge of God through union with Christ.
Echoing the analysis above related to impossibility of theology for the
unregenerate and the necessity of the Spirit’s work in the theologian,
Owen appealed in this place in Theologoumena to the Spirit as the one
uniting believers to Christ and making the true knowledge of God pos-
sible.120 In treating the ends or goals of theology, which were God’s
glory and man’s salvation, he again connected the ideas of communion
with God and the work of each divine person to his theme.121 The Spirit
brings sinners into union with Christ, in the covenant of grace, so that
they might know the Father. Divine revelation to the saints from God in
Scripture must become divine revelation in the saints by the Spirit. While
stressing the Spirit’s work in this way was common in Reformed theol-
ogy, Owen appealed more explicitly to the work of each divine person in
the knowledge of God.
118 Owen, Biblical Theology, 643; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492. Also consider Owen’s
treatment of communion with God in terms of receiving the personal revelation of each
Person in the Godhead. Communion with God, Chap. 3.
119 Owen, Communion with God, Works, 2:8–9, emphasis original.
120 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492: “Ea per gratiam Dei adjunctam sibi habet
pleirophodzeian haeque parit epignosin sue vertittis agnitionem practicam; Quae Patrem
in Filio revelantis; Huc enim perducimur per Christi cognitionem, in quo omnes Thesauri
sapentiae et scientiae sunt absconditi.” The last part of this statement is an allusion to Col.
2:3, further highlighting Owen’s appeal to biblical language in defining theology.
121 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 475.
184 R.M. McGRAW
Owen’s trinitarian definitions of theology tied together a number of

theological ideas. The above material shows that theology included both
its object and its subject. Objectively, true theology is a revelation from
the Triune God.122 Subjectively, theology is a personal communication
from God to the human soul, by the regenerating and sanctifying work
of the Holy Spirit, through union with Christ.123 This happened in the
context of the covenant of grace. For this reason, he treated evangelical
theology as a spiritual gift or charisma.124 This is why theology is fun-
damentally spiritual wisdom communicated from the Father through
the Son by the Spirit.125 Owen concluded, “In this manner the reborn
are wise, prudent, and understanding, through the communication of
the Spirit of Wisdom and of Revelation, whom the world is not able to
receive.”126 Theology was a spiritual gift that was granted to man only
through Christ as the Mediator between God and man.
The True Theologian

Owen’s description of the true theologian is correlative to his defini-
tion of true theology. Together, they inseparably wed the theoretical and
practical aspects of Reformed theology, noted above. In a broad sense,
the term “theologian” referred to every true believer, and studying the-
ology was virtually synonymous with studying the Scriptures.127 This
emphasis expanded the subjective side of true theology in light of the
saving work of the triune God.
Owen attempted to integrate the theoretical and practical components
of theology in a way that one could not take precedence over the other.
Comparing him to his contemporary, Herman Witsius (1636–1708),
122 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 462–463.

124 Owen, Biblical Theology, 636; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 487. Theology as a spir-
itual gift is the subject of book 6 Chap. 6. For a similar point, see de Moor, Continuous
Commentary on Marckius, 1:185.
126 Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, 492: “In hoc modum Sapientes, Prudentes, intelli-
gentes sunt Renati, per communicationem Spiritus Sapientiae et Revelationis quem mundus
recipere non potest.” My translation.
127 Owen, Biblical Theology, 685–703; Theologoumena Pantodapa, 521–534. Westcott’s
translation of the title for this chapter is misleading, since he omits, “Theologiae, seu
Scripturarum.”.
highlights the profundity of Owen’s definition of the “true theologian.”

Witsius wrote, “By a theologian, I mean one who, imbued with a sub-
stantial knowledge of divine things derived from the teaching of God
himself, declares and extols, not in words only, but by the whole course
of his life, the wonderful excellencies of God and thus lives entirely for
his glory.”128 Witsius’ primary assertion was, “He alone is a true theo-
logian who adds the practical to the theoretical part of religion.” Owen
would possibly have taken issue with the word, “adds.” In his view, the-
ology involved communion with God and all that this entails. The theo-
logian enjoyed communion with God through Jesus Christ by the Spirit.
The task of theological study was not to add practical to theoretical reli-
gion, but to engage in theoretical-practical communion with God. This
aimed to prevent a lopsided emphasis either in favor or the theoretical or
the practical side of true theology. Owen’s definitions removed the possi-
bility of understanding Christianity in terms of believing a body of truth
and adding a godly life to it. The practical import of this refinement is
that it was impossible for the theologian to study, teach, preach, or write
about true theology without a doxological purpose that is readily appar-
ent from beginning to end.129
The significance of Owen’s trinitarian definitions of theology are fur-
ther illustrated by comparing him with his earlier contemporary, William
Ames (1576–1633). The first line of Ames’ Marrow of Theology begins
with the words, “Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to
God.”130 Ames developed this definition from the earlier work of Peter
128 Herman Witsius, On the Character of a True Theologian, trans. John Donaldson,
ed. J. Ligon Duncan, III (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 27. The man-
ner in which we are exhorted to study the Scriptures in Westminster Larger Catechism
question 157 approaches Owen’s description of the “true theologian” as well: “The Holy
Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion
that they are the very word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with
desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and atten-
tion to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer”.
129 Peter Van Mastricht would later emphasize the same point in nearly the same way in
his Theoretico-Practica Theologia. For an analysis of Mastricht’s work, see Adriaan C. Neele,
Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706: Reformed Orthodoxy: Method and Piety (Leiden: Brill,
2009).
130 William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1997), 77. For the profound influence of Ames’ definition on sub-
sequent theologians see Muller, PRRD, 1:155. This definition was largely borrowed from
Ramus and Perkins. Ibid., 113.
186 R.M. McGRAW
Ramus (1515–1572).131 Owen’s definition of communion with God,

however, indicates that there are certain aspects of theology that remain
“practical” while not directly involving “living,” at least in the sense of
personal conduct. In terms of communion with the Triune God, what
is typically referred to as “theoretical” knowledge is intensely practical
because it involved worshiping and delighting in the triune God.132 As a
contrast, knowledge or belief could be “practical,” in the sense of leading
to practice, without involving communion with God at all. What Owen
held in common with his contemporaries was the concern for regen-
eration and personal holiness through the study of theology. What set
Owen apart from some of his contemporaries was his trinitarian refine-
ment of the definition of “true theology” in his own peculiar way. The
contrast between Owen and some of his contemporaries was slight, but
significant in subtle ways. In his view, the principium congnoscendi of
theology should not only include Scripture and the doctrine of God, but
also the doctrine of God as distinctively Triune and as revealed in the
plan of redemption.133
Owen’s definitions of theology were trinitarian in nature and objec-
tive and subjective in scope. Understood properly, this enabled him
strengthen the Reformed connection between doctrine and piety. In line
with Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), he aimed at theoretical-prac-
tical theology. He agreed with the emphasis of “living to God” in the
theological definitions of Ramus, Ames, and Perkins, which he explained
in terms of the regeneration of the Spirit and communion with God
through personal union with Christ. Mastricht built on such themes
by teaching that theology was the doctrine of living to God through
Christ.134 Owen rounded out this emphasis by treating theology as the
doctrine of living to God, through Christ, by the Spirit. The result was
131 Sinnema, “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden
University (1618–1626),” 416–417.

133 Though his formal definition of theology lacks explicit reference to the Holy Spirit,
Mastricht approaches similar trinitarian emphases in his exposition of them. Mastricht,

Thoretico-Practica Theologia,.
134 Peter van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita
Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione

Conjugantur (Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1715),
2: “Doctrinam vivendi Dei, per Christum.”
that it was impossible to separate true theology from the character of the
true theologian. Just as the primary end of theology was not the glory of
God generically considered but God as triune, so the subordinate end of
theology involved the salvation of the theologian who enjoyed commun-
ion with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.
Conclusions
Theological prolegomena shapes the system of theology and, in turn, the
manner of theological education. John Owen’s so-called Biblical Theology
was not intended to serve as a Biblical Theology, but as a manual for the
nature and methods of theological studies. Theologoumena Pantodapa
treats a scholastic subject in a less-scholastic form than other contempo-
rary models. While its historical sequence makes it tempting to think that
it is a quasi-covenant theology, its subject matter mirrors closely the top-
ics treated in prolegomena in Owen’s time. If the purpose of this book
were understood more widely, it might attract a different audience, both
in terms of scholarship and church use.
In light of Owen’s definitions of theology, it is not surprising that he
concluded that a “true theologian” should be defined as much in terms
of who he is as of what he does. The personal qualifications necessary to
study theology profitably represent the capstone of Owen’s prolegomena
and they bring his trinitarian and covenantal definitions of true theology
to full fruition. His teaching on this point illustrates the intimate con-
nection between his trinitarian definitions of theology and his views of
communion with God. Unless theology was defined properly, it could
not be studied or taught properly. He reflected the standard Reformed
concern to wed piety with theological studies. His primary contribution
to the subject lies in recasting true theology in a more thorough trinitar-
ian form. This strengthened the relationship between theology and piety
and helped integrate these emphases into a thoroughly God-centered
theology. He furthered the goals of Reformed prolegomena even while
revising them at points. Owen provides a model for making theological
education and the study of theology an act of worshiping the triune God
rather than a mere academic exercise. Though he lived in a different time
and context from our own, this is a healthy model for both church and
school today.
CHAPTER 8
The Rising Prominence of John Owen:

An Analysis of the Ashgate Research
Companion to John Owen’s Theology as a
Window into the State of Owen Studies
Scholars are only recently beginning to note the importance of John

Owen as a seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox theologian. The
Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology is the first book of
its kind. This fact should flag this work as an important benchmark in
Owen studies. Kelly Kapic and Mark Jones have assembled a wide array
of scholars to treat aspects of Owen’s theology from the standpoint of
his relevance both to historical theology and to contemporary reflec-
tion. While all of the essays in this volume will attract those interested
in Owen and in the theological topics treated, they are not all of equal
quality. This work is not only important for historical theology. It has the
potential to bring Owen’s theology to bear on many areas of contem-
porary theology. Because of the importance of this book, each chapter
merits careful analysis.
General Overview and Bibliography

Following a preface by Carl Trueman, the book is divided into three
sections: method (Chaps. 1–6), theology (Chaps. 7–12), and prac-
tice (Chaps. 13–17). Trueman’s preface provides a helpful overview of
Owen’s life, context, and theological contributions. The book concludes
This article appeared in Mid-America Journal of Theology, Vol. 24, December

2014.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5_8
190 R.M. McGRAW
with a nearly exhaustive bibliography of material related to Owen by John

Tweeddale. This highly valuable resource includes all of Owen’s printed
works in their first editions with full titles. One useful feature is that
Tweeddale devotes an entire section to recording the numerous prefaces
that Owen wrote to other works (309–312). This provides a window into
books that interested him and authors whom he was willing to endorse.
The list of seventeenth-century sources that responded to or explicitly
interacted with his theology in some manner is interesting as well (312–
316). The rest of the bibliography divides secondary literature between
pre- and post-1900 publications, followed by doctoral dissertations. This
bibliography will prove invaluable to serious students for years to come.
Analysis of Chapters
“Reformed or Reforming? John Owen and the Complexity of Theological

Codification for Mid-Seventeenth-Century England”
The book gets off to a strong start with Ryan Kelly’s article on John
Owen’s role in the complexity of theological codification in the seven-
teenth century. This is one of the most fascinating chapters in this vol-
ume. It addresses Owen’s role in creed-making during Cromwellian
England, which culminated in his central role in the Savoy declaration
of faith and order. This new confession was a culmination of the creed-
making efforts of seventeenth-century England, even though it did not
gain as much prominence as the Westminster Standards due to its late
introduction. Savoy fulfilled the purpose of Cromwell’s Instrument of
Government in desiring to make a new confession and it sought to vindi-
cate Congregationalism as a branch of Reformed theology. The last Section
(27–29) adds that Owen and several of his contemporaries—Baxter being
the notable exception—believed that new creeds and confessions with
increasing precision in addressing the relevant issues of the time were a sign
of the health of the church. This research breaks new ground and provides
a needed window into the Reformed orthodox use of confessions.
“John Owen on Faith and Reason”

Sebastian Rehnman accurately portrays Owen’s view of the relationship
between faith and reason. This is a difficult task for those living after the
Enlightenment, since post-Enlightenment views of reason have shifted
8 THE RISING PROMINENCE OF JOHN OWEN … 191
radically. One way in which this is the case lies in detaching metaphys-
ics from epistemology. By contrast, Reformed epistemology was based
on Reformed metaphysics and ontology. This chapter shows that Owen
believed that the will or heart determined the intellect in matters of faith
(47). This distinguished faith from other areas of scientific knowledge,
since faith rests on divine testimony rather than on historical proofs or
evidences. He argues skillfully that Owen was neither a “fideist,” or one
who embraced the Christian faith without reason, nor a “rationalist” who
rooted faith in evidence or reason. However, Rehnman overstates his case
when he argues that Owen believed that rational arguments disposed one
to faith without producing faith (37) or that such arguments “count in
favor of faith” (40). It is more accurate to say that he believed that faith
rested on divine testimony alone and that rational arguments disposed
one to faith only after the regenerating work of the Spirit. In light of his
earlier work on Owen,1 it is surprising that Rehnman cites so little pri-
mary source literature from Owen’s contemporaries. Nevertheless, this is
a reliable guide to Owen’s use of reason in relation to faith.
“John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context”

John Tweeddale (Chap. 4) recognizes that Owen regarded his mas-
sive work on Hebrews as his magnum opus and the culmination of his
life’s work. He notes the distinctively Christological focus of these vol-
umes and how they tie together the entire corpus of his works. However,
when the author cites Owen’s three stated themes that organized this
work, he neglects to point out Owen’s explicit stress on public worship
under the old and new covenants (58–59). This reviewer argues else-
where that the central place of public worship in Owen’s theology has
largely gone unnoticed.2 This is true even in this case, where the author
provides a block citation in which public worship is flagged as a central
concern of the work on Hebrews. In addition, Tweeddale accounts for
Owen’s interest in Hebraic studies by appealing exclusively to the fact
that the Jews had been recently readmitted to England (62). While this
1 Rehnman, Divine Discourse.

2 Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and a
Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcom-
ing). Daniel Hyde makes the same point in this present volume, but he does not connect
Owen’s views of public worship to his practical trinitarianism.
192 R.M. McGRAW
is observation is vital, it is important to remember that a seventeenth-

century Bible commentator shared common concerns with modern com-
mentators. The original context of Hebrews involved problems related to
Jewish converts to Christianity. It is important to remember that while
historical context is vital for understanding how and why Reformed
authors thought, it is not the only contributing factor to their exegeti-
cal labors. However, these criticisms are minor. Tweeddale distills the
essence of this great work and urges readers rightly to recognize its
importance.
“Covenant Theology as Relational Theology: The Contributions

of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and John Owen (1616–1683) to a
Living Reformed Theology”
Willem van Asselt examines the similarities and differences between
Owen and Johannes Cocceius on the relationship between the covenants
of grace and redemption. He argues that this theological construction
was the foundation for relational theology and that it held great potential
for promoting “a living Reformed theology” (65). Van Asselt is a leading
figure in studies of Reformed orthodoxy, and his contributions are always
exceptional and profound. He shows that while there is no evidence for
Cocceius depending on Owen, there is some evidence for Owen depend-
ing on Cocceius (67). Van Asselt illustrates why many seventeenth-cen-
tury authors regarded distinguishing an eternal covenant between the
Father and the Son from the covenant of grace as integral to sound trini-
tarian theology and to the knowledge of God. He writes, “Underlying
this argument is the fundamental assumption in Reformed theology that
there must be a divine ad intra foundation for all divine works ad extra.
It is a fundamental architectonic device in the doctrine of God indicated
by the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology” (77).
This outstanding essay warrants one minor correction. Van Asselt
asserts that Thomas Boston (1676–1732) and John Gill (1697–1771)
developed the idea of collapsing the pactum salutis and the covenant
of grace into eternal and temporal aspects of a single covenant (81).
However, the idea goes back at least to Samuel Petto (1624–1711), who
treated the concept without giving the impression that he originated it.3
3 Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained
with an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal Concernments of It (London:
Printed for Eliz. Calvert, 1674), 5–7, 13, 16, 19.
Though this question requires further research, it is possible that col-

lapsing the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace into one
covenant was more in vogue in antinomian circles than among others.
The reason is that while most Reformed authors regarded the covenant
of redemption as providing the unconditional and gracious ground for
the conditional covenant of grace, the antinomians regarded both cov-
enants as unconditional and had less difficulty collapsing the two.4 This
does not imply that Boston and Gill were antinomians. Boston used the
idea of an unconditional covenant of grace to combat the legalism in the
Church of Scotland at the time. A single unconditional covenant also fit
well with Gill’s hyper-Calvinistic tendencies, which denigrated human
responsibility to some extent. Van Asselt’s chapter should lead modern
readers to reassess the reasons behind older constructions of covenant
theology and the practical results of Reformed covenant theology.
“Impetration and Application in John Owen’s Theology”

Gert van den Brink illustrates how Owen steered a course between
Arminianism and Antinomianism in his views of impetration (redemp-
tion accomplished) and application (redemption applied). Arminians
connected the impetration and application of redemption to differ-
ent people. Antinomians subsumed the application of redemption into
Christ’s work on the cross. This made the covenant of grace entirely
unconditional and meant that people were justified prior to coming to
faith in Christ. Owen argued that the death of Christ was the moral
cause of justification, but not the physical cause of justification. Moral
causes do not produce effects until a subject exists. Van den Brink argues
that Owen used this distinction to steer clear of both Arminianism
and Antinomianism. Failing to make distinctions in causation was why
Richard Baxter mistakenly accused Owen of Antinomianism. The author
concludes that this issue is important for three reasons (95). First, it clar-
ifies the nature of the controversy between Owen and Baxter. Second,
it helps us understand the debate over universal redemption in relation
to harmonizing the impetration and application of redemption. Third,
4 Mark Jones’s forthcoming book on antinomianism expounds this trend clearly. See
also, Robert McKelvey, “‘That Error and Pillar of Antinomianism:’ Eternal Justification,”
Michael A.G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological
Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 223–262.
194 R.M. McGRAW
distinguishing physical and moral causes avoids neglecting contingency

in favor of determinism. The reason is that moral causes assume that
secondary and intermediate causes (such as faith and repentance) come
between impetration and application in salvation. This chapter usefully
establishes the lay of the land at the core of seventeenth-century debates
over soteriology.
“John Owen, Renaissance Man? the Evidence of Edward Millington’s

Bibliotheca Oweniana (1648)”
Crawford Gribben brilliantly reevaluates the usefulness of Edward
Millington’s library catalog of Owen’s books as a source for under-
standing his interests and influences. He sets an important precedent
for historical investigation regarding the use and misuse of similar book
catalogs. He argues provocatively that Owen scholars such as Trueman,
Kapic, and Rehnman have rested too heavily on this catalog as an indi-
cator of his theological influences. He argues that “it is impossible” to
demonstrate that the Biblotheca Oweniana bore “a direct and uncompli-
cated relationship to the books in Owen’s possession at the moment of
his death” (100). For instance, the catalog does not always reflect the
importance that he explicitly assigned to certain authors. Gribben argues
that Rehnman is mistaken in concluding that the number of references
to a theologian and statements of appreciation are an accurate means
of calculating theological influence (101). This reviewer has found this
to be true in relation to Johannes Hoornbeeck. Even though Owen
made few references to Hoornbeeck and he did not list him among
“the principal authors,” his prolegomena bears remarkable similarities
to Hoornbeeck’s.5 Gribben adds that the credibility of this catalog is
questionable in light of its omissions. For example, it contains almost no
Bibles or Bible commentaries, yet Owen certainly owned such works and
used them continually in his preaching ministry (107). The most inter-
esting aspect of Gribben’s research is that he has discovered a dispro-
portionate number of books in the catalog that appeared within the last
three years of Owen’s life. This includes books such as, The Young Man’s
Guide to Preferment. Gribben adds, “It is seems uncertain why Owen
was obtaining self-help career guides one year before his death at the
5 See McGraw, A Heavenly Directory, Chap. 3.

tender age of 67” (107). The evidence possibly suggests that Millington
“decided to pack the catalog with recently published material he hoped
to sell on the back of Owen’s reputation” (108). He concludes that the
Bibliotheca Oweniana may be a less reliable source regarding Owen’s
reading and influences than scholars should expect (108). This chapter
sets a model for research and scholarship that transcends Owen studies.
This reviewer eagerly awaits Gribben’s projected intellectual biography of
John Owen.
“The Spirit as Gift: Explorations in John Owen’s Pneumatology”

Kelly Kapic treats Owen’s teaching on what it means for the Holy Spirit
to be the gift of God.6 He seeks to advance both historical and contem-
porary theology (114). He shows how Owen rejected Socinian claim
that if the Spirit is the gift of God then he is not God. He answered this
conundrum by pointing to the voluntary condescension of the Spirit as
the gift of the Father through the Son to believers. Kapic argues that the
primary value of Owen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit as God’s gift is that
the personal presence and operation of the Spirit is the source of true
spirituality. This provides an avenue through which to enjoy commun-
ion with God in three persons. This chapter accurately describes Owen’s
position and sets the context in terms of Socinianism and Quakerism.
However, the author does not engage much with other Reformed
authors. Readers can better understand the significance of Owen’s
contributions when they know whether or not he is typical or atypical
among his contemporaries.
“Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ:

John Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision”
Suzanne McDonald takes up the “theological direction” of Owen’s
treatment of the beatific vision (142). This is one of the most fruit-
ful contributions to this book. It provides an outstanding model for
a Christ-centered view of the vision of God in heaven and lays the
6 This stands in contrast to Willem van Vlastuin, who pits Owen against Jonathan
Edwards, asserting that Edwards treated the Spirit as the great gift of God while Owen did
not. Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 235–239. This is an addition to my original review article.
196 R.M. McGRAW
groundwork for the ethical implications of this doctrine for this life
(147). She contends that this subject is important because it received so
little attention by most Reformed orthodox authors. She argues that in
contrast to earlier authors such as Aquinas and contemporary authors
such as Turretin, Owen did not merely regard Christ as a means of
obtaining the beatific vision, but as a central component of seeing God
in heaven (146, 150, 154).
While her argument is profound and valuable both from a histori-
cal and a dogmatic standpoint, it suffers from the same limited use of
contemporary sources as several other contributions to this volume. The
only primary sources McDonald cites beyond Owen are Aquinas, Calvin,
and Turretin. This raises several questions: Did other Reformed authors
adapt Aquinas on the beatific vision in a similar way? Did Turretin repre-
sent one option among others? Did the beatific vision factor differently
into practical works than dogmatic works? McDonald’s analysis of Owen
and Aquinas is outstanding. This reviewer hopes that her work will spur
others on to fill in the historical gaps surrounding this issue. In the
meantime, it is difficult to substantiate her claim that “Owen initiated”
this Christocentric trajectory on the beatific vision that involved the res-
urrected bodies of the saints (158). The massive Snatagma of Amandus
Polanus, at least, appears to militate against her conclusion, since he
addressed the beatific vision under the topic of true theology and the
knowledge of God. In this section, he treated Christ’s knowledge of the-
ology as both communicable and incommunicable. As communicable,
Christ’s knowledge of the Father served as the pattern towards which
believers moved, culminating in a Christocentric beatific vision.7
Discovering the precise origins of a viewpoint is a very difficult his-
torical question. Thomas Manton referred to the beatific vision as
“ocular” and made Jesus Christ the object of physical sight in heaven.8
This single example shows that it may be claiming too much to say
that Owen reformed the beatific vision. It is possible that Owen influ-
enced Manton, but it is also possible that both drew from a common
unknown source. Both Owen and Manton treat the beatific vision
Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum (Hanoviae, 1610), 55,
73–74. I added this observation to my original review article.
8 Thomas Manton, The Complete Works (London: Nisbet, 1870), 20: 460.
in works directed towards a popular rather than an academic audi-

ence. By restricting our search for material on this subject to scholas-
tic theological works we may unintentionally neglect primary source
material that might make Owen appear less innovative than McDonald
claims. Ironically, she includes Jonathan Edwards as building on the
groundwork laid by Owen, but in a meditation on “The Pure in Heart
Blessed,” Edwards argued that the beatific vision would not (and could
not) be with bodily eyes.9 Edwards reflects a Christ-centered view of
heaven while rejecting Owen and Manton’s teaching on the place of
Christ’s physical body and ours.
She concludes that Owen’s Christological reorientation of the bea-
tific vision “is correct, and that the earlier tradition is deficient” (157).
However, she criticizes him for his lack of material on the Holy Spirit
in the beatific vision, thus mitigating a fully trinitarian position (158).
This criticism is fair on some level, but in Communion with God, Owen
treats communion with the Holy Spirit on earth as already enjoying
heaven in measure.10 This parallels his assertion that communion with
Christ by faith now and by sight in heaven share are of the same essence
but differ in degree. It is legitimate to say that Owen should have been
more explicit regarding the Spirit’s role in the beatific vision in his
Christological works, yet this criticism diminishes when we look at his
theology as a whole. He taught explicitly that the communion believers
enjoy with the Father, through the Son in heaven, is still by the Spirit.
However, the beatific vision involves sight. The Son is the only object
of bodily sight in glory since he is the only person in the Godhead who
assumed (and retains) human flesh. While his trinitarianism demands
that the beatific vision involves communion with all three persons, his
Christology explains the emphasis that he placed on seeing Christ. Vision
and communion are closely related concepts, but they are not synony-
mous. This chapter opens useful avenues of research. McDonald raises
questions that strike at the heart of the Christian life in Reformed ortho-
dox and Puritan theology.
9 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Sereno E Dwight and Edward
Hickman, eds. (Edinburgh: Banner of Thrust, 1997), 2: 905–912.
10 John Owen and William H Goold, The Works of John Owen, D.D. (London and
Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850), 2: 246. So Polnaus, Syntagma, 55.

198 R.M. McGRAW
“Christ’s Priestly Oblation and Intercession: Their Development

and Significance in John Owen”
Chapter 9 treats the oblation and intercession of Christ in his humilia-
tion and exaltation (159). Edwin Tay illustrates the intimate connection
between Owen’s teaching on the priesthood of Christ and his work of
atonement. He unfolds his teaching on Christ’s oblation and his sub-
sequent intercession and then treats the significance of Owen’s debate
with Baxter over the nature and extent of the atonement. Christ’s obla-
tion is equivalent to his entire state of humiliation and his intercession
to his entire state of exaltation. Tay argues that the reason why Owen
could distinguish between the elect possessing the right to justification
and yet not hold it in possession until exercising faith was that the right
corresponded to Christ’s oblation and the application or possession cor-
responded to his intercession. In so doing, he shows the consistency of
Owen’s atonement theory with his Christology. The theme of this chap-
ter overlaps significantly with Chap. 6, since Tay notes that oblation and
intercession are “synonymous” with impetration and application (167, fn
48). The primary difference lies in Tay’s more explicit attention to the
priesthood of Christ. This treatment usefully illustrates the close connec-
tion between Owen’s orthodox Christology and Soteriology.
“The Significance of John Owen for Modern Christology”

Chapter 10 is a condensed version of Alan Spence’s previous book
on John Owen’s Christology.11 The essence of his argument is that
Owen’s view of Christ’s human dependence on the Spirit provides
a vital alternative to modern Christological models that mitigate
claims to Christ’s deity in search of the true Jesus of history. While
the author’s conclusions are sound, he draws from a limited range of
Owen’s works and does not adequately set his teaching on the Spirit in
historical context. For instance, this reviewer has found similar empha-
ses on the relation of the Spirit to Christ’s humanity in contemporary
authors such as Thomas Goodwin12 and later authors such as Thomas
11 Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of Christology
(London and New York: T & T Clark, 2007).

12 Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D. … the First Volume.
Containing, an Exposition on the First, and Part of the Second Chapter, of the Epistle to the
Ephesians. and Sermons Preached on Several Occasions (London: Printed by J.D. and S. R.
for T. G., 1681).
Boston.13 Spence gives the impression that this is a distinctively, if

not exclusively, Owenian contribution to theology. On page 178, he
slightly misses the origin of Socinian influences in England by con-
necting it to John Biddle. However, Sarah Mortimer has recently dem-
onstrated that Socinian influences came into England much earlier,
but that Socinian influences in the English context were indirect and
complex.14
“John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context”

Robert Letham’s chapter is thought-provoking, but has some historical
limitations. He asks whether Owen’s Trinitarian emphases have eastern
or western tendencies. He argues that Owen’s views on matters such
as the filioque clause were western, but his stress on distinct commun-
ion with the divine persons was eastern in tone (186, 191). When we
read Letham’s many helpful and profound works on the Trinity,15 we
always walk away with the impression that western Trinitarians are the
“bad guys.” This essay is no exception (188, for example). Citing ver-
batim from an earlier publication, Letham notes, “Owen is not so much
an innovator as a brilliant synthesizer” (190).16 The synthesis that he has
in mind is between western emphasis on the unity of God and eastern
emphasis on the divine persons. He adds, “[Owen’s] focus on the three
persons was and is missing from the West in general” (196).
Letham does not give enough evidence either by comparing or con-
trasting Owen to his contemporaries to show that this was the case in
seventeenth-century theology. Showing similarities between Owen and
eastern authors on divine three persons means less if we find that other
western authors held to similar emphases for different reasons. Owen
is largely unique among English writers in terms of Trinitarian piety.
However, he shows affinity with Dutch authors such as Voetius and
13 Thomas Boston, The Complete Works of Thomas Boston (orig. pub., William Tegg &
Co., 1852; reprint, Stoke on Trent, UK: Tentmaker Publications, 2002), 2: 5–14.
14 Mortimer, Reason and Religion in the English Revolution.
15 Such as, Letham, The Holy Trinity.
16 Robert Letham, “‘Where Reason Fails—’: Papers Read at the 2006 Westminster
Conference.” (Westminster Conference, 2006), 11.

200 R.M. McGRAW
Hoornbeeck, both of whom he cited periodically.17 These and other

Dutch authors developed a devotional emphasis on the divine persons in
response to Arminianism. Arminians denied that the Trinity was a fun-
damental article of the faith because it had no practical value.18 Owen
was less directly concerned with Arminian views of the Trinity than
these men, but it is more likely that his emphasis on the persons of the
Godhead stems from a continental influence than from eastern theology.
One historian has warned recently about relying too much on English
books in studying English Reformed theology following the advent of
Early English Books Online.19 In this case, continental authors produced
trinitarian emphases that were less common in an English context due
to differing theological concerns. Moreover, Letham bypasses Richard
Muller’s defense of the Reformed orthodox against the charge that they
tended to abstract the divine essence and attributes from the Trinity.20
Letham’s preoccupation with the question of East versus West spills
over into his examination of Owen on the covenant of redemption.
He criticizes Owen for his “binitarian construction” of the covenant of
redemption (196). He regards this as reflecting the western tendency
to subordinate and depersonalize the Holy Spirit. However, Jonathan
17 For example, John Owen, Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu Progressu,
Et Studio Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi Cultus
Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum Primordiis, Enarrantur
… (Oxoniæ: Excudebat Hen. Hall … impensis Tho. Robinson …, 1661), 522 (Voetius)
and 519 (Hoornbeeck).
18 See Gisperti Voetii, Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum, Pars Prima (Utrecht,
1648), 1: 472, who called the Trinity the fundamentum fundamenti. He added that the
doctrine of the Trinity was fundamental because it was the foundation of so many prac-
tical uses, personal holiness, and divine worship (473). For Hoornbeeck, see Johannes
Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae (Utrecht, 1663), 1: 136.
19 Polly Ha, Patrick Collinson, eds., The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain
(Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2010), 235–236.

20 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of
Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academics, 2003),
4: 144–149. Muller makes the important observation that the table of contents of dog-
matic works are not a reliable guide regarding how Reformed authors related the divine
attributes to the persons of the Godhead in terms of their relative importance. Letham
makes this mistake on p. 189 and in other books where he treats Reformed orthodox views
of the Trinity.
Edwards later clarified the role of the Spirit in the covenant of redemp-
tion. He argued that the Spirit is active in the covenant of redemption,
but is not a party in that covenant because he is not humiliated. The
Son’s humiliation is vital to his being a party in the covenant of redemp-
tion. On the other hand, the Spirit is actively involved in the covenant
because he cannot be inactive without dividing the Godhead.21 Edwards
did not invent this explanation, but he explained it more clearly than
most Reformed authors.22 Letham argues that Owen was allegedly aware
of the danger that the covenant of redemption posed to the Trinity and
that it implied that the persons of the Godhead needed a covenant to
unite them in their purpose (196). He concluded that Owen’s difficulty
with the persons betrays his western roots (197). He adds that the East
stresses that we know the persons by our relation to them in redemp-
tion rather than by definition. However, this was precisely Horrnbeeck’s
conclusion to his treatment of the Trinity,23 and it pervades Peter van
Mastricht’s chapters on the three persons.24 Earlier in this volume,
Willem van Asselt argued that the trinitarian structure of the covenant of
redemption enabled Owen and Cocceius to emphasize communion with
all three divine persons.
A broader context of seventeenth-century western trinitarianism
might reveal that the question of eastern versus western trinitarianism
was not on the Reformed horizon. Letham gives the impression that he
is asking the wrong questions of the wrong century. His knowledge of
eastern and western trinitarianism is impressive, but the context that he
sets for Owen is too narrow in terms of primary sources and too broad in
terms of historical setting.
21 Jonathan Edwards, “Economy of the Trinity in the Covenant of Redemption,” The
Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 20: 441–442.

22 Van Asselt makes a similar observations about Cocceius’s position. W.J. van Asselt, The
Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001), 235.
23 Hoornbeeck, Theologiae Practicae, 1: 139–141.
Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur.

(Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1724), 235–270.
202 R.M. McGRAW
“Justification and Mystical Union with Christ:

Where Does Owen Stand?”
George Hunsinger’s chapter on Owen’s position regarding the relation-
ship between justification and mystical union with Christ (Chap. 12)
stands out to this reviewer as particularly valuable. This is true both
for historical and contemporary theology. He notes that shortly after
Luther’s death, a distinction arose between Lutheran and Reformed
theologians over this question. Post-Reformation Lutherans regarded
justification as the cause of union with Christ while the Reformed
treated union with Christ as the grounds of justification (199–200).
Both sides agreed that justification was a forensic or judicial pronounce-
ment that a sinner is righteous in God’s sight. The difference was that
the Reformed distinguished between being constituted righteous and
being counted righteous, while Lutherans treated these as synonymous
terms. Hunsinger notes a similar distinction between Melanchthon’s
teaching that justification is because of Christ (propter Christum)
and the Reformed view (shared with Luther) that justification is in
Christ (204).25
The question regards the nature of imputed righteousness. Does God
constitute sinners to be righteousness by imputation and then count
them righteous on the grounds of union with Christ? Or does God jus-
tify sinners by declaration and count them as righteous because of this
declaration? The author argues that the Reformed position was that
God unites people to Christ and constitutes them righteous in Christ
before he counts or declares them righteous. Thus union with Christ
and imputed righteousness logically precede justification. Comparing
justification to God speaking and bringing the world into being,
Lutherans often treated imputation and the declaration of justification as
synonymous.
Basing his material largely on Owen’s treatise on justification by faith,
he argues that Owen drew several consequences from the Reformed
position. First, imputation as opposed to infusion is the formal cause
25 John Fesko acknowledges this charge against Melanchthon and rejects it. J.V. Fesko,
Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology
(1517–1700) (Göttingen and Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 140–143. He
treats propter Christum and in Christ as synonyms.
of justification (209). Second, imputed righteousness involved “a real

change in the believer’s condition, not just a new relationship with God”
(210). Third, mystical union with Christ is more than a mere union of
wills, yet without erasing the distinction between Christ and believers
(210). The questions that Hunsinger addresses continue to be relevant
in Reformed churches today. Though this is a historical treatment, the
author approaches the topic with remarkable clarity that will serve both
historians and theologians well.
“Owen’s Personality: The Man Behind the Theology”

Tim Cooper’s chapter bears strong similarities to his outstanding work,
John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Non-Conformity.26
This longer work asks why Owen and Baxter disliked each other and what
effects this had on the formation of nonconformity after the Restoration
of the monarchy. Owen wrote very little about himself, he did not allow
personal records to survive, and he is hard to find as a historical sub-
ject. The value of this work and the chapter in this volume lies in piecing
together Owen’s actions at Oxford, attacks against his character, and his
sharp disagreements with men such as Baxter to give a unique window
into what he was possibly like. This is a difficult but brilliant approach to
getting to know Owen. The liability is that this presents a slightly vilified
Owen that may be more or less true to life. If we follow Cooper’s advice
to use this evidence cautiously, then we can safely assume that he helps
readers gain at least a glimpse of an otherwise elusive figure.
“John Owen and the Puritan Toleration Controversy, 1646–59”

John Coffey has written extensively and authoritatively on tolera-
tion in Reformation and post-Reformation England. The applica-
tion of his expertise to Owen is gripping and informative. He argues
that Owen’s attitude towards tolerating those from other trinitarian
Christian communions was more generous than most in his time period,
but that he vacillated in his views when faced with the question of
Congregationalism potentially becoming the established religion in the
interregnum.
26 Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity.

204 R.M. McGRAW
“‘The Fire that Kindleth All Our Sacrifices to God:’

Owen and the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer”
Daniel Hyde usefully summarizes Owen’s view of the work of the Spirit
in public worship through the media of prayer. In addition to showing
that Owen both rejected mandating forms of prayer and permitted their
use in a limited manner, Hyde shows how Owen developed his theol-
ogy of worship from his exposition of Scripture. In particular, he shows
the importance of Eph. 4:7–13 (254–255), Zech. 12:10 (259–261), Gal.
4:6 (261–262), Rom. 8:26 (262–267), and Eph. 6:18 for the exegeti-
cal foundation for Owen’s “liturgical theology.” The result is that this
chapter not only redresses the absence of material on Owen’s theology
of worship, but it fills some of the lacunae in the exegetical foundation of
Reformed orthodox theology.
“From Life’s First Cry: John Owen on Infant Baptism

and Infant Salvation”
Lee Gatiss briefly outlines Owen’s arguments in favor of infant baptism
and infant salvation. He draws from a wide range of seventeenth-century
authors and establishes the context for his material more appropriately
than several of the authors in this volume. He rightly recognizes the
oft-neglected fact that the Anabaptist rejection of paedobaptism “was a
major catalyst” in developing covenant theology in Reformed orthodoxy
(272). His chapter shows how closely intertwined the ideas of covenant
and baptism were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This chap-
ter is interesting and well-written, and helps clarify the matters pertinent
to this much-debated question.
“John Owen’s Gospel Offer: Well-Meant or not?”

The final chapter, by Martin Foord, examines the question regarding the
will of God towards all people in relation to the free offer of the gospel
(283). He locates Owen in the broader Reformed tradition and draws
from a wealth of primary sources. The question regards God’s will or
desire towards the salvation of the unregenerate in relation to Ezekiel
18:23, 32, 33:11 (284). Foord traces the theology and exegesis sur-
rounding this question through Calvin, Vermigli, Musculus, Zanchius,
Perkins, Piscator, Twisse, Manton, Bates, and Turretin in order to situate
Owen’s view within Reformed options. In addition, he delves deeply into

the Medieval background of different senses of speaking of the will of
God. This broad context makes his conclusions concrete and his obser-
vations helpful for contemporary questions. Some authors distinguished
simply between God’s will of good pleasure (voluntas beneplaciti) and his
significant will (volutas signi). The former refers to the divine decree and
the latter corresponds to his precepts (285–286). Turretin later repre-
sented clearly what became the classic distinction between God decretive
and his perceptive will (291). Others (Piscator and Twisse) argued that
God wills the destruction of the wicked, but he does not take pleasure
in it because they are his creatures (287–288). Manton argued that God
delighted in the redemption of all people in some sense, but that he did
not will it in another sense (290). Owen believed that the text referred
to God’s commands and said nothing about divine affections (292). He
ultimately limited the love of God to the elect (294). His doctrine of
God did not allow him to say that God delights in or wills the salva-
tion of all in some sense. Foord concludes that Owen’s views lean toward
later eighteenth-century hyper-Calvinism and that his resolution of the
Ezekiel text was only one among several Reformed explanations (295).
This treatment gives a broad historical perspective on what continues to
be a difficult question in Reformed theology.
Conclusion
The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology is an impor-
tant benchmark in the study of Reformed orthodoxy. It is a monumen-
tal achievement that introduces readers to the general scope of Owen’s
thought in his historical context. Some of the research in this volume
is groundbreaking. All of it provides a foundation on which to move
forward in both in historical and contemporary theology. Historical
theology is one of the most useful means of enabling contemporary the-
ologians to engage in self-critical evaluation through the eyes of differ-
ent people with different problems. However, this book is not perfect.
Some of the authors do not rely on primary source evidence and con-
text as much as others. There are many gaps in subject matter as well.
In addition to the themes treated here, it would be helpful to have an
introductory volume to John Owen that investigates topics such as his
trinitarian piety, his Thomistic and Medieval influences, the influence
that he had on later Reformed theologians, a detailed introduction to
206 R.M. McGRAW
his life and career in relation to his theology, the influence of his tenure
at Oxford on the university and its students, his covenant theology, his
ecclesiology, and others. This author hopes that this book will be the first
among other volumes to help revive interest in Owen’s importance and
relevance, both to the church and to the university.
Works Cited
Primary Sources
A’Brakel, Wilhemus. The Christian’s Reasonable Service. Edited by Joel R.
Beeke. Translated by Bartel Elshout. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2012.
Ainsworth, Henry. Annotations Upon the Five Bookes of Moses, the Booke of the
Psalmes, and the Song of Songs, Or, Canticles Vvherein the Hebrevv Vvords
and Sentences, Are Compared With, and Explained by the Ancient Greeke and
Chaldee Versions, and Other Records and Monuments of the Hebrewes: But
Chiefly by Conference with the Holy Scriptures, Moses His Words, Lawes and
Ordinances, the Sacrifices, and Other Legall Ceremonies Heretofore Commanded
by God to the Church of Israel, Are Explained. with an Advertisement Touching
Some Objections Made Against the Sinceritie of the Hebrew Text, and Allegation
of the Rabbines in These Annotations. as Also Tables Directing Unto Such
Principall Things as Are Observed in the Annotations Upon Each Severall
Booke. London, 1627.
Ames, William. A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship or a
Triplication Unto D. Burgesse His Rejoinder for D. Morton. London, 1633.
———. Medulla S.S. Theologiæ, in Fine Adjuncta Est Disputatio De Fidei Divinæ
Veritate. Editio Tertia Priori Longe Correctior. Apud Robertum Allottum:
Londini, 1629.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 5 vols. Westminster, MD: Christian
Classics, 1981.
———. Summa Theologica. www.corpusthomisticum.org.
Augustine. Expositions on the Book of Psalms. Edited by Philip Schaff. Translated
by A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 8. 14 vols. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First
Series. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
———. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Translated by John Hammond Taylor. 2
vols. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. New
York: Newman Press, 1982.
Ball, John. A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace Wherein the Graduall Breakings
Out of Gospel Grace from Adam to Christ Are Clearly Discovered, the
Differences Betwixt the Old and New Testament Are Laid Open, Divers Errours
of Arminians and Others Are Confuted, the Nature of Uprightnesse, and the
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 207

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5
208 Works Cited
Way of Christ in Bringing the Soul into Communion with Himself, Are Solidly
Handled. London, 1645.
Barlow, Thomas. The Genuine Remains of That Learned Prelate Dr. Thomas
Barlow, Late Lord Bishop of Lincoln Containing Divers Discourses Theological,
Philosophical, Historical, &c., in Letters to Several Persons of Honour and
Quality: To Which Is Added the Resolution of Many Abstruse Points: As Also
Directions to a Young Divine for His Study of Divinity, and Choice of Books,
&c., with Great Variety of Other Subjects. London: Printed for John Dunton
…, 1693.
Bowles, Oliver. “De Pastore Evangelico Tractatus: In Quo Universum Munus
Pastorale; Tam Quoad Pastoris Vocationem, & Præparationem; Quàm Ipsius
Muneris Exercitium: Accuratè Proponitur. Operâ Et Studio Oliveri Bowles
Angli, Ecclesiæ Quæ Suttoniæ Est, in Agro Bedfordiensi, Nuper Pastoris
Eximii: Et in Synodo Westmonasterii Nuper Convocatâ Egregii Theologi.,”
1649. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_
id=xri:eebo&rft_val_fmt=&rft_id=xri:eebo:image:118454.
Bridge, William. I. Scripture-Light, the Most Sure Light: In Compare with 1.
Revelations and Visions. 2. Natural, and Supernatural Dreams. 3. Impressions
With, and Without the Word. 4. Light and Law Within. 5. Divine Providence.
6. Christian Experience. 7. Humane Reason. 8. Judicial Astrologie. Delivered
in Three Sermons, on 2 Pet. I.19. Ii. Christ in Travel, in Three Sermons, on Isai.
53.11. Iii. A Lifting up for the down-Cast, Delivered in Thirteen Sermons, on
Psal. 42.11. Four Several Sermons. London, 1656.
Bucer, Martin. Metaphrasis Et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos,
in Quibus Singulatim Apostoli Omnia, Cum Argumenta, Tum Sententiae &
Verba, Ad Autoritatem Divinae Scripturae, Fidemque Ecclesiae Catholicae Tam
Priscae Qum̉ Praesentis, Religios ̈ac Paul ̣fusius Excutiuntur. Basileae, 1562.
Bullinger, Heinrich. The Decades of Henry Bullinger. 2 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1849.
Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim’s Progress, From This World to That Which Is to Come.
London: 1778.
Burgess, Anthony. Cxlv Expository Sermons Upon the Whole 17th Chapter of the
Gospel According to St. John, Or, Christs Prayer Before His Passion Explicated,
and Both Practically and Polemically Improved. London, 1656.
Burroughs, Jeremiah. Gospel Conversation Wherein Is Shewed I. How the
Conversation of Beleevers Must Be Above What Could Be by the Light of Nature,
Ii. Beyond Those That Lived Under the Law, Iii. and Suitable to What Truths
the Gospel Holds Forth. London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1653.
———. Gospel-Worship, Or, the Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God in
General and Particularly in These Three Great Ordinances, Viz. 1. Hearing of
the Word, 2. Receiving the Lords Supper, 3. Prayer. London, 1658.
Buxtorf, Johannes. Dissertatio De Nominibus Dei Hebraicis. Basel: König, 1645.
Works Cited 209
Byfield, Richard. The Gospels Glory, Without Prejudice to the Law Shining Forth in
the Glory of God [Brace] the Father, the Sonne, the Holy Ghost, for the Salvation
of Sinners, Who Through Grace Do Believe According to the Draught of the
Apostle Paul in Rom. 8.ver. 3.4. Held Out to Publick View. London: Printed
by E. M. for Adoniram Byfield at the three Bibles in Corn-hil, next door to
Popes-head Alley, 1659.
Cajetan, Thomas. Epistolae Pauli Et Aliorum Apostolorum: Juxta Sens. Literal.
Enarratae. Acc: Actus Apostol. Comm. Ejusd. Illustr. Paris, 1540.
Cajetan, Tommaso. Commentarii Illustres Planeq́; Insignes in Quinque
Mosaicos Libros, Thomae De Vio, Caietani, Adiectis Insuper Ad Margine[m]
Annotationibus a F. Antonio Fo[n]seca Lusitano, Quibus Temporum &
Locoru[m] Ratio, Tropi, Phrases, Lociq́; Intellectu Difficiles Explicantur:
Accessit Rerum Maxime Insignium Index Copiosissimus. Paris: Apud Ioannem
Paruum, 1539.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill.
Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. XX–XXI. 2 vols. Library of Christian
Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
———. Sermons on Genesis, Chapters 1:1–11:4: Forty-Nine Sermons Delivered in
Geneva Between 4 September 1559 and 23 January 1560. Translated by Rob
Roy McGregor. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2009.
Caryl, Joseph. An Exposition with Practical Observations Upon the Book of Job. 12
vols. London, 1980.
Case, Thomas. The Morning Exercise Methodized: Or Certain Chief Heads and
Points of the Christian Religion Opened and Improved in Divers Sermons by
Several Ministers of the City of London, in the Monthly Course of the Morning
Exercise at Giles in the Fields, Etc. London, 1659.
Charnock, Stephen. Several Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God
by That Late Eminent Minister of Christ, Mr. Stephen Charnocke, B.D. and
Sometimes Fellow of New-Colledge in Oxon. London, 1682.
Cheynell, Francis. The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Or,
the Blessed Doctrine of the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall Godhead
Without Any Confusion or Division of the Distinct Subsistences or Multiplication
of the Most Single and Entire Godhead Acknowledged, Beleeved, Adored by
Christians, in Opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, Blasphemous and
Antichristian Hereticks, Who Say They Are Christians, but Are Not. London:
Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Samuel Gellibrand …, 1650.
Clarkson, David. The Works of David Clarkson. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1988.
Cloppenburg, Johannes. Exercitationes Super Locos Communes Theologicos.
Franekerae, 1653.
Cotton, John. The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Power Thereof, According to
the Vvord of God. London: Printed by M. Simmons for Henry Overton …, 1644.
210 Works Cited
Dickson, David. A Brief Explication of the First Fifty Psalms. London: Printed by
T. M. for Thomas Johnson, 1655.
Dickson, David, and James Durham. The Summe of Saving Knowledge with the
Practical Use Thereof. Edinburgh: Printed by George Swintoun and Thomas
Brown and are to be sould by James Glen and Da[vid] Trench, 1671.
Downame, John. Annotations Upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament
This Second Edition so Enlarged, as They Make an Entire Commentary on the
Sacred Scripture: The Like Never Before Published in English: Wherein the Text
Is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Parallelled, and Various Readings
Observed. London, 1651.
Durham, James. A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation Wherein
the Text Is Explained, the Series of the Several Prophecies Contained in That
Book, Deduced the Periods and Succession of Times At, or About Which, These
Prophecies Began to Be and Those That Are yet to Be Fulfilled: Together with
Some Practical Observations, and Several Digressions: Delivered in Several
Lectures. London, 1658.
———. Clavis Cantici, Or, an Exposition of the Song of Solomon. Edinburgh:
Printed by George Swintoun and James Glen, and are to be sold at their
shops …, 1668.
———. The Law Unsealed, Or, a Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments
with a Resolution of Several Momentous Questions and Cases of Conscience.
Edinburgh: Printed by the heir of Andrew Anderson, 1676.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Sereno E. Dwight
and Edward Hickman. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997.
———. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Perry Miller, John E. Smith,
and Harry S. Stout. New Haven, CT, [etc.]; London: Yale University Press;
Oxford University Press, 2008.
Flavel, John. A Blow at the Root of Antinomianism. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1840.
———. The Whole Works of John Flavel, Late Minister of the Gospel at Dartmouth,
Devon. London: W. Baynes and Son, 1820.
———. Vindiciæ Legis & Foederis: Or, a Reply to Mr. Philip Cary’s Solemn Call
Wherein He Pretends to Answer All the Arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter,
Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the Right of
Believers Infants to Baptism, by Proving the Law at Sinai, and the Covenant
of Circumcision with Abraham, Were the Very Same with Adam’s Covenant
of Works, and That Because the Gospel-Covenant Is Absolute. by John Flavel
Minister of the Gospel in Dartmouth. London, 1690.
Flavel, John, Increase Mather, Thomas Young, and Westminster Assembly. An
Exposition of the Assemblies Catechism, with Practical Inferences from Each
Question: As It Was Carried on in the Lords Days Exercises in Dartmouth, in
Works Cited 211
the First Year of Liberty, 1688. Edinburgh: Reprinted by the heirs and succes-
sors of Andrew Anderson, printer to his most excellent Majesty, 1699.
Gale, Theophilus. The Court of the Gentiles, Or, a Discourse Touching the Original
of Human Literature, Both Philologie and Philosophie, from the Scriptures
& Jewish Church. in Order to a Demonstration Of, I. the Perfection of Gods
Word, and Church-Light, Ii. the Imperfection of Natures Light, and Mischief of
Vain Philosophie, Iii. the Right Use of Human Learning, and Specially, Sound
Philosophie Part I. Part I. Oxon: Printed by H. Hall, for Tho. Gilbert, 1672.
Gerhard, Johann. Loci Theologici Cum Pro Adstruenda Veritate Tum Pro
Destruenda Quorumvis Contradicentium Falsitate Per Theses Nervose Solide Et
Copiose Explicati. 5. 5. Edited by Johann Friedrich Cotta. 20 vols. Tubingae:
Cotta, 1766.
———. Tractatus De Legitima Scripturæ Sacræ Interpretatione. Ienæ:
J.J. Bauhofferi, 1663.
Gillespie, George. A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on
the Church of Scotland: Wherein Not Only Our Own Arguments Against the
Same Are Strongly Confirmed, but Likewise the Answers and Defences of Our
Opposites, Such as Hooker, Morton, Burges, Sprint, Paybody, Andrews, Saravia,
Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey, Forbes, Etc., Particularly Confuted. Edited by
Christopher Coldwell. Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1993.
Gillespie, Patrick. The Ark of the Covenant Opened, Or, a Treatise of the
Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ, as the Foundation of
the Covenant of Grace the Second Part, Wherein Is Proved, That There Is Such
a Covenant, the Necessity of It, the Nature, Properties, Parties Thereof, the
Tenor, Articles, Subject-Matter of Redemption, the Commands, Conditions, and
Promises Annexed, the Harmony of the Covenant of Reconciliation Made with
Sinners, Wherein They Agree, Wherein They Differ, Grounds of Comfort from
the Covenant of Suretiship. London: Printed for Thomas Pankhurst, 1677.
———. The Ark of the Testament Opened, Or, the Secret of the Lords Covenant
Unsealed in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, Wherein an Essay Is Made for
the Promoving [Sic] and Increase of Knowledge in the Mysterie of the Gospel-
Covenant Which Hath Been Hid from Ages and Generations but Now Is Made
Manifest to the Saints … London: Printed by R. C., 1661.
Goodwin, Thomas. Of the Constitution, Right, Order, and Government of the
Churches of Christ. London: Printed by Tho. Snowden for T. G., 1696.
———. The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Edinburgh: J. Nichol, 1861.
———. The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D. … the First Volume. Containing,
an Exposition on the First, and Part of the Second Chapter, of the Epistle to the
Ephesians. and Sermons Preached on Several Occasions. London: Printed by
J. D. and S. R. for T. G., 1681.
Heidegger, Johann Heinrich. Corpus Theologiae Christianae. Tiguri, 1700.
212 Works Cited
Hoornbeeck, Johannes. Theologia Practica Pars 1. 2 vols. Francofurti & Lipsiae:

Bailliar, 1698.
Hopkins, Ezekiel. An Exposition on the Ten Commandments. London, 1692.
Hutcheson, George. A Brief Exposition of the Prophecies of Obadiah, Jonah,
Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. London, 1654.
Hyperius, Andreas. Methodus Theologiae Adj. Eft. De Ejusdem Vita Et Obita
Oratis Wigandi Arthii. Basileae, 1562.
———. The Practice of Preaching, Otherwise Called the Pathway to the Pulpet.
London, 1577.
John Martin, Samuel Petto, Fredrick Woodall, and John Collinges. The Preacher
Sent: Or, a Vindication of the Liberty of Publick Preaching, by Some Men Not
Ordained; in Answer to Two Books: 1. Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici: By the
Provincial Assembly of London. 2. Vindiciæ Ministerii Evangelici. by Mr. John
Collings. Published by J. Martin, S. Petto, F. Woodal. London, 1658.
Junius, Franciscus. A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius.
Translated by David C. Noe. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2014.
———. De theologia vera; ortu, natura, formis, partibus, et modo. Lugduni
Batavorum, 1594.
Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the
Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened. London, 1654.
Louth, Andrew, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Genesis 1–11.
Vol. 1. Ancient Christian Commentary. Chicago, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.
Luther, Martin. In Genesin, Mosi Librum Sanctissimum, D. Martini Lutheri
Declamationes Praeterea Index, Paucis Opusculi Totius Summam Continens.
Hagenau, 1527.
Maccovius, Joannes. Loci Communes Theologici. Amstelodami, 1658.
Marbury, Edward. A Commentarie or Exposition Upon the Prophecie of Habakkuk
Together with Many Usefull and Very Seasonable Observations. London, 1650.
Marshall, Walter. The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification Opened in Sundry Practical
Directions Suited Especially to the Case of Those Who Labour Under the Guilt
and Power of Indwelling Sin: To Which Is Added a Sermon of Justification.
London: Printed for T. Parkhurst, 1692.
Mastricht, Peter van. Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita
Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua
Successione Conjugantur. Trajecti ad Rhenum, & Amstelodami: Sumptibus
Societatis, 1715.
Moor, Bernardinus de. Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’
Didactico-Elenctic Compendium of Christian Theology. Translated by Stephen
Dilday. Vol. 1. 7 vols. Culpeper, VA: L & G Reformation Translation Center,
2014.
Musculus, Wolfgang. In Decalogum Praeceptorum Dei Explanatio. Basileae, 1553.
Works Cited 213
Owen, John. A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and Discipline of the
Churches of the New Testament. London, 1667.
———. Biblical Theology, Or, the Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of
Theological Truth, in Six Books: In Which Are Examined the Origins and
Progress of Both True and False Religious Worship, and the Most Notable
Declensions and Revivals of the Church, from the Very Beginning of the
World. Translated by Stephen P. Westcott. Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria
Publications, 1994.
———. 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. London, 1684.
———. Of Communion with God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Each Person
Distinctly in Love, Grace, and Consolation, Or, the Saints Fellowship with the
Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, Unfolded. Oxford: Printed by A. Lichfield, for
Tho. Robinson, 1657.
———. The Works of John Owen, D.D. Edited by William H. Goold. 24 vols.
Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850.
———. Theologoumena Pantodapa, Sive, De Natura, Ortu, Progressu, Et Studio
Veræ Theologiæ, Libri Sex Quibus Etiam Origines & Processus Veri & Falsi
Cultus Religiosi, Casus & Instaurationes Ecclesiæ Illustiores Ab Ipsis Rerum
Primordiis, Enarrantur. Oxoniæ, 1661.
———. Vindiciae Evangelicae, or the Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and
Socinianisme Examined, in the Confutation of a Catechisme Written by J.
Biddle, and the Catechisme of Valetinus Smalcius, Commonly Called the
Racovian Catechism, with the Scripture from the Perverse Expositions. Oxford,
1655.
Owen, John, and Peter Toon. The Correspondence of John Owen (1616-–1683):
With an Account of His Life and Work; Cambridge: James Clarke, 1970.
Perkins, William. A Warning Against the Idolatrie of the Last Times and an
Instruction Touching Religious, or Diuine Worship. Cambridge, 1601.
———. The Arte of Prophecying, Or, a Treatise Concerning the Sacred and Onely
True Manner and Methode of Preaching. London, 1607.
Petto, Samuel. The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and
Explained with an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal
Concernments of It. London: Printed for Eliz. Calvert …, 1674.
Polanus, Amandus. Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae: Aliquot Praelectionibus
Genevae Proposita a Amando Polando a Polansdorf; Praemissi Sunt Duo
Indices, Adiunctae Sunt Orationes Quatuor: I. De Incarnatione Immanuelis
Nostri Iesv Christi, Ii. De Crucis Christi Scientia & Communione, Iii. De Vita
& Obitu Oecolampadii, Cui Disputatio De Primatu Papae Inserta, Iv. De
Prophetia Danielis. Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597.
214 Works Cited
Poole, Matthew. Quo Warranto; or a Moderate Enquiry into the Warrantablenesse

of the Preaching of Gifted and Unordained Persons … Being a Vindication of
the Late Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici … from the Exceptions of Mr. John
Martin, Mr. Sam. Petto, Mr. Frederick Woodal, Ministers of Suffolk, in Their
Late Book Intituled: The Preacher Sent. London, 1658.
Reynolds, Edward. Meditations on the Fall and Rising of St. Peter. London, 1677.
———. The Works of Edward Reynolds Containing Three Treatises of the Vanity of
the Creature, the Sinfulness of Sin, the Life of Christ, with a Collection of Thirty
Sermons Preached on Several Solemn Occasions. London, 1679.
Rijssen, Leonard. “A Summary of Elenctic Theology.” ThM, Greenville
Presbyterian Theological Seminary, 2009.
Rogers, Timothy. A Discourse Concerning Trouble of Mind and the Disease of
Melancholy. in Three Parts. The Second Edition. Corrected by Timothy Rogers, to
Which Are Annexed, Letters from Several Divines, Relating to the Same Subject.
London, 1706.
Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened; Or, a Treatise of the Covenant
of Grace. Edinburgh, 1655.
Scudder, Henry. A Key of Heaven: The Lord’s Prayer Opened and so Applied,
That a Christian May Learn How to Pray, and to Procure All Things Which
May Make for the Glory of God, and the Good of Himself and of His Neighbor;
Containing Likewise Such Doctrines of Faith and Godliness, as May Be Very
Useful to All That Desire to Live Godly in Christ Jesus. London, 1633.
Scudder, Henry, and John Davenport. The Christians Daily Walk in Holy Security
and Peace Comprising the Whole Duty of Man: Being an Answer to These
Questions, 1. How a Man May Do Each Present Days Work, with Christian
Chearfulness. 2. How to Bear Each Present Days Cross with Christian Patience.
Containing Familiar Directions; Shewing, 1. How to Walk with God in the
Whole Course of a Mans Life. 2. How to Be Upright in the Said Walking. 3.
How to Live Without Taking Care or Thought in Any Thing. 4. How to Get
and Keep True Peace with God; Wherein Are Manifold Helps to Prevent and
Remove Damnable Presumption: Also to Quiet and Ease Distressed Consciences.
by Henry Scudder, Late Preacher of the Word. London: printed by T. Hewer for
Lodowick Lloyd, at the Castle in Cornhill, 1664.
Sedgwick, Obadiah. England’s Preservation; Or, a Sermon Discovering the Onely
Way to Prevent Destroying Judgments: Preached to the Honourable House of
Commons at Their Last Solemne Fast Being on May, 25, 1642. London: Printed
by R. B. for Samuel Gellibrand, 1642.
Sibbes, Richard. Antidotum Contra Naufragium Fidei & Bonæ Conscientiæ:
Concio [on 2 Tim. I. 14] … Habita Ad Academicos Cantabrig. … 9 Die
Octobris 1627. Londini, 1657.
———. The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes. 7 vols. Edinburgh: James Nichols,
1862.
Works Cited 215
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison.

Translated by George Musgrave Giger. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R
Publishing, 1992.
Ursinus, Zacharias, and David Pareus. Corpus Doctrinae Orthodoxae: Sive,
Catecharum Explicationum D. Zachariae Ursini Opus Absolutum D. Davidis
Parei Opera Extrema Recognitum … Adiuncta Sunt Miscellanea Catechetica …
[Genevae]: sumptibus Samuelis Crispini, 1616.
Ussher, James. A Body of Divinitie, Or, the Summe and Substance of Christian
Religion Catechistically Propounded, and Explained, by Way of Question and
Answer: Methodically and Familiarly Handled. Edited by John Downame.
London: Printed by M.F. for Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger …, 1647.
Vermigli, Pietro Martire. In Primum Librum Mosis, Qui Vulgo Genesis Dicitur,
Commentarii Doctissimi. Tiguri: Excudebat C. Froschouerus, 1569.
Vincent, Thomas. An Explicatory Catechism: Or, an Explanation of the Assemblies
Shorter Catechism. Glasgow: Sanders, 1692.
Vitringa, Campegius. Typus Theologiae Practicae, Sive De Vita Spirituali, Eiusque
Affectionibus, 1717.
Voet, Gijsbert, and Johannes Hoornbeeck. Spiritual Desertion. Translated by M.
Eugene Osterhaven. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003.
Voetius, Gijsbert. Selectarum Disputationum Theologicarum Pars Prima (Quinta.
Accedunt Dissertatio Epistolica De Termino Vitæ. Exercitatio De Prognosticis
Cometarum. Antehac Seorsim Editæ). 5 vols. Ultrajecti, 1648.
Voetius, Gisbertus. Exercitia Et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiæ. Rheno-Trajecti:
Apud Wilhelmum Strick, 1644.
Walaeus, Thysius, Polyander, and Rivetus. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae = Synopsis
of a Purer Theology. Edited by Henk van den Belt. Translated by Riemer A.
Faber. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Watson, Thomas. A Body of Practical Divinity, Consisting of Above One Hundred
Seventy Six Sermons on the Lesser Catechism Composed by the Reverend Assembly
of Divines at Westminster: With a Supplement of Some Sermons on Several Texts
of Scripture. by Thomas Watson, Formerly Minister at St. Stephen’s Walbrook,
London. Printed from His Own Hand-Writing. Recommended by Several
Ministers to Masters of Families and Others. London: Printed for Thomas
Parkurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel,
1692.
———. Heaven Taken by Storm, Or, the Holy Violence a Christian Is to Put Forth
in the Pursuit After Glory. London: Printed by R. W. for Tho. Parkhurst …,
1669.
Westminster Assembly. A Directory for the Publique Worship of God Throughout
the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland Together with an
Ordinance of Parliament for the Taking Away of the Book of Common-Prayer:
And for Establishing and Observing of This Present Directory Throughout the
216 Works Cited
Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales…. London: Printed by M. B.

and A. M. for the Company of Stationers, 1646.
———. The Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechism. London,
1655.
White, John. A Commentary Upon the Three First Chapters of the First Book of
Moses Called Genesis. London: Printed by John Streater, 1656.
Witsius, Herman. De Oeconomia Foederum Dei Cum Hominibus Libri Quatuor.
2 vols. Trajecti ad Rhenum: apud Franciscum Halmam, Gulielmum van de
Water, 1694.
———. On the Character of a True Theologian. Greenville, SC: Reformed
Academic Press, 1994.
Wollebius, Johannes. Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, Editio Ultima Prioribus
Multo Correctior. 9th ed. Cantabrigiæ, 1655.
Zanchius, Jerome. De Tribus Elohim, Aeterno Patre, Filio, Et Spiritu Sancto,
Uno Eodemque Iehova, Libri Xiii. in Duas Distincti Partes. Pars Prior: Ad
Edmundum Grindallum, Archiepiscopum Eboracensem, Angliaeque Primatem
Amplissimum. in Qua, Tota Orthodoxa De Hoc Magno Mysterio Doctrina,
Ex Sacrarum Literarum Fontibus, Explicatur, & Confirmatur. Cum Indice
Triplici. Neostadii Palatinorum, 1589.
Zwingli, Ulrich. De Vera Et Falsa Religione, Commentarius. Zurich: Christoph
Froschauer, 1545.
Secondary Sources
Allen, Michael, and Scott R. Swain. Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of
Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2015.
Asselt, W. J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2001.
Asselt, W. J. van, and E. Dekker. Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical
Enterprise. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Asselt, W. J. van, T. Theo J. Pleizier, P. L. Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse.
Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.
Asselt, Willem J. van. “Covenant Theology as Relational Theology: The
Contributions of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1699) and John Owen (1616–
1683) to a Living Reformed Theology.” In The Ashgate Research Companion
to John Owen’s Theology, 65–84. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
———. “Reformed Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research.” In A Companion
to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:11–26. Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Works Cited 217
———. “Scholasticism Revisited: Methodological Reflections on the Study

of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought.” In Seeing Things Their Way,
edited by Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, 154–74. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009.
Bagchi, D. V. N. “Sic et Non: Luther an Scholasticism.” In Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, edited by R. Scott Clark and Carl R.
Trueman, 3–15. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Ballor, Jordan J. Covenant, Casuality, and Law: A Study in the Theology
of Wolfgang Musculus. Vol. 3. Refo500 Academic Studies. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
Ballor, Jordan J., David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, eds. Church and School
in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the
Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Vol. 170. Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Barrett, Matthew, and Michael A. G. Haykin. Owen on the Christian Life: Living
for the Glory of God in Christ. Theologians on the Christian Life. Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2015.
Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a
Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His
Successors. Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1999.
Beeke, Joel R., and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life. Grand
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.
Benedict, Philip. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of
Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion &
Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638. Omohundro Institute of Early
American History & Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 2004.
Brink, Gert van den. “Impetration and Application in John Owen’s Theology.”
In The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, edited by Kelly
M. Kapic and Mark Jones, 85–96. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
Brink, Gijsbert van den. “Reformed Scholasticism and the Trinitarian
Renaissance.” In Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van
Asselt, edited by Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, 14:322–
340. Studies in Theology and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Brown, Michael. Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto
(1624–1711). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.
Bruce, James E. Rights in the Law: The Importance of God’s Free Choices in the
Thought of Francis Turretin. Vol. 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2013.
218 Works Cited
Burnett, Stephen G. From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf

(1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century. Studies in the
History of Christian Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Campi, Emidio. Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition. Vol. 27. Reformed
Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
Carlton, Charles. Archbishop William Laud. London; New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1987.
Clark, R. Scott. “The Authority of Reason in the Latter Reformation:
Scholasticism in Caspar Olevian and Antoine de Le Faye.” In Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Cleveland, Christopher. Thomism in John Owen. Farnham, Surrey, England;
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013.
Coffey, John, and Paul C. H. Lim, eds. The Cambridge Companion to
Puritanism. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Cooper, Tim. John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity.
Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.
Cowan, Martin C. The Prophetic Preaching of John Owen from 1646 to 1659 in Its
Historical Context. PhD Dissertation: University of Cambridge, n.d.
Daniels, Richard W. The Christology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2004.
Davies, Horton. The Worship of the English Puritans. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo
Gloria Publications, 1997.
Dennison, James T. “The Twilight of Scholasticism: Francis Turretin and
the Dawn of the Enlightenment.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Dixon, Philip. Nice and Hot Disputes : The Doctrine of the Trinity in the
Seventeenth Century. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2003.
Eire, Carlos M. N. War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from
Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Ellis, Brannon. Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Emery, Gilles, and Matthew Levering, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.
———. The Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1996.
Ferguson, Sinclair B., and Robert W. Oliver, eds. John Owen: The Man and His
Theology: Papers Read at the Conference of the John Owen Centre for Theological
Study, September 2000. P & R Pub.: Evangelical Press, 2002.
Fesko, J. V. Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern
Reformed Theology (1517–1700). Vol. 20. Reformed Historical Theology.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
Works Cited 219
———. “The Antiquity of Biblical Theology.” In Resurrection and Eschatology:

Theology in Service of the Church: Essays in Honor of Richard B. Gaffin Jr.,
edited by Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey C. Waddington. Phillipsburg, NJ: P &
R Publishing, 2008.
———. The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and
Theological Insights. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014.
Garcia, Mark A. “Law and Gospel.” The Confessional Presbyterian Journal 8
(2012): 154–76.
Green, Lowell C. “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism.” In Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Gribben, Crawford. John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat.
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. Oxford: Ohio University Press, 2016.
Griffiths, Steve. Redeem the Time: The Problem of Sin in the Writings of John
Owen. Fearn: Mentor, 2001.
Ha, Polly, and Patrick Collinson, eds. The Reception of Continental Reformation
in Britain. Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2010.
Han, Byung Soo. “The Academization of Reformation Teaching in Johann
Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638).” In Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation
of a Theological Tradition, 170:283–94. Studies in the History of Christian
Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Haykin, Michael A. G., and Mark Jones, eds. Drawn into Controversie: Reformed
Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British
Puritanism. Vol. 17. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2011.
Heal, Bridget. “The Catholic Eye and the Protestant Ear: The Reformation as a
Non-Visual Event?” In The Myth of the Reformation, edited by Peter Opitz,
9:321–55. Refo500 Academic Studies. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2013.
Heflin, Joel M. “Omnipotent Sweetness?: Puritanism Versus Socinianism.”
Puritan Reformed Journal 1, no. 2 (2009): 64–95.
Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s Concept of the Law. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick
Publications, 1992.
Horton, Michael Scott. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on
the Way. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
John V. Fesko. “The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy.” In A
Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40: 429–64.
Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
John W. Tweeddale. “John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context.” In
The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, edited by Kelly M
Kapic and Mark Jones, 49–64. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2012.
220 Works Cited
Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest?, 2013.

———. “The ‘Old’ Covenant.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed
Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British
Puritanism, edited by Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, 17:183–203.
Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
———. Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Puritan Reformed
Orthodox Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680). Vol. 13. Reformed
Historical Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Jurgensen, Martin Wansgaard. “The Arts and Lutheran Church Decoration:
Some Reflections on the Myth of Lutheran Images and Iconography.” In The
Myth of the Reformation, 9:356–80. Refo500 Academic Studies. Göttingen:
Kapic, Kelly M. “The Spirit as Gift: Explorations in John Owen’s
Pneumatology.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology,
edited by Mark Jones and Kelly M. Kapic, 113–40. Aldershot, England;
———. “Typology, the Messiah, and John Owen’s Theological Reading of
Hebrews.” In Christology, Hermeneutics and Hebrew: Profiles from the History
of Interpretation, edited by Jon Laansma and Daniel J. Treier, 135–54.
London: T & T Clark, 2012.
Kapic, Kelly M., and Mark Jones, eds. The Ashgate Research Companion to John
Owen’s Theology. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
Kay, Brian. Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God
in Western Devotion. Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK; Waynesboro, GA:
Paternoster, 2007.
Kelly, Douglas F. Systematic Theology Volume One: Grounded in Holy Scripture
and Understood in the Light of the Church. Vol. 1. Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor,
2008.
Klauber, Martin I., ed. The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri
IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Reformed Historical-Theological
Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014.
———. “Theological Transition in Geneva from Jean-Alphonse Turretin to
Jacob Vernet.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
———. “Whose Side Are They On? John Daile (1594–1670) on the Church
Fathers.” In The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to
the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, edited by Martin I. Klauber, 237–50.
Reformed Historical-Theological Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
Knapp, Henry M. “Revealing the Mind of God: Exegetical Method in the
Seventeenth Century.” In Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism:
Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological
Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema,
Works Cited 221
170:533–50. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill,

2013.
Knapp, Henry M. “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and
Seventeenth-Century Exegetical Methodology,” 2002.
Kolb, Robert. “Luther’s Hermeneutic of Distinctions: Law and Gospel, Two
Kinds of Righteousness, Two Realms, Freedom and Bondage.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 168–84. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2014.
Kolb, Robert, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka, eds. The Oxford Handbook of
Martin Luther’s Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Lee, Brian J. Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology.
Lehner, Ulrich L., Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, eds. The Oxford
Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2016.
Leppin, Volker. “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Continuity and
Discontinuity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, 115–24.
Leslie, Andrew M. The Light of Grace: John Owen on the Authority of Scripture
and Christian Faith. Vol. 34. Reformed Historical Theology. Göttingen:
Letham, Robert. “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context.”
In The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 185–98.
Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
———. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2004.
———. Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective. Fearn,
Ross-shire: Mentor, 2007.
———. “‘Where Reason Fails:’ Papers Read at the 2006 Westminster
Conference.” Westminster Conference, 2006.
Lim, Paul Chang-Ha. Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern
England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. “A Protestant Evangelical College.” In Knowing the
Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions 1942–1977. Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, 1989.
MacLean, Donald John. James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer in Its
Seventeenth-Century Context. Vol. 31. Reformed Historical Theology, 2015.
McDonald, Suzanne. “Beholding the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ:
John Owen and the ‘Reforming’ of the Beatific Vision.” In The Ashgate
Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, 141–58. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2012.
222 Works Cited
McGraw, Ryan M. “A Heavenly Directory:” Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship,

and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology. Reformed Historical Theology.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.
———. By Good and Necessary Consequence. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
———. “John Owen on the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Trinity, the Humanity
of Christ, and the Believer.” In The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit, edited
by Joel R. Beeke and Joseph A. Pipa, 267–84. Grand Rapids, 2012.
———. “John Owen on the Study of Theology.” The Confessional Presbyterian 6
(2010): 180–95.
———. The Foundation of Communion with God: The Trinitarian Piety of John
Owen. Profiles in Reformed Spirituality. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation
———. “The Foundation of the Old Testament: John Owen on Genesis 3:15
as a Window into Reformed Orthodox Old Testament Exegesis.” Journal of
Reformed Theology 10 (March 2016): 3–28.
———. “The Rising Prominence of John Owen: A Review Article of The
Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology.” Mid-America
Journal of Theology 24 (2013): 105–120.
———. “The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen on What the Law/Gospel
Distinction Is Not.” Calvin Theological Journal 51 (2016): 79–111.
———. “Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution to
Reformed Orthodox Trinitarian Theology.” Westminster Theological Journal
77, no. 2 (Fall 2015): 293–316.
———. “Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John Owen’s Contribution to
Reformed Orthodox Trinitarian Theology.” Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 41,
no. 2 (2015): 38–68.
Moon, Byung-Ho. Christ the Mediator of the Law: Calvin’s Christological
Understanding of the Law as the Rule of Living and Life-Giving. Studies in
Christian History and Thought. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2006.
Mortimer, Sarah. Reason and Religion in the English Revolution: The Challenge of
Socinianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Muller, Gerhard. “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Discontinuity
and Continuity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology,
105–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination
in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2008.
Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn
Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1985.
Works Cited 223
———. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of

Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Murphy, Francesca Aran, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Christology. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Neele, Adriaan C. Petrus Van Mastricht (1630–1706) Reformed Orthodoxy:
Method and Piety. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009.
Nuttall, Geoffrey F. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Oliphint, K. Scott, ed. Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification.
Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2007.
Opitz, Peter, ed. The Myth of the Reformation. Vol. 9. Refo500 Academic
Studies. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Pak, G. Sujin. The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates Over the
Messianic Psalms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Partee, Charles. The Theology of John Calvin. Louisville, K.Y: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2008.
Pederson, Randall J. Unity in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan
Reformation, 1603–1689. Vol. 68. Brill Studies in Church History. Leiden:
Brill, 2014.
Phan, Peter C. The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity. Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Plumer, William S. The Law of God. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1996.
Powell, Hunter. “October 1643: The Dissenting Brethren on the Proton
Dektikon.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and
Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, edited by Mark
Jones and Michael A. G. Haykin, 17:52–82. Reformed Historical Theology.
———. The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan
Revolution 1638–44. Politics, Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015.
Quantin, Jean-Louis. The Church of England and Christian Antiquity the
Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford; New
York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Raalte, Theodore G. van. “Francois Lambert D’Avignon (ca. 1487–1530): Early
Ecclesial Reform and Training for the Ministry at Marburg.” In Church and
School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller
on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, 170:81–93. Studies in the
History of Christian Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Rehnman, Sebastian. Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
224 Works Cited
Reuver, A. de. Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages
Through the Further Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Reuver, A. de. Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle
Ages Through the Further Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2007.
Richard, Guy M. The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.
Scaer, David P. “Johann Gerhard’s Doctrine of the Sacraments.” In Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, edited by R. Scott Clark and Carl R.
Trueman. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Selderhuis, H. J., ed. A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford
Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Sinnema, Donald. “The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at
Leiden University (1618–1626).” In A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy,
edited by H. J. Selderhuis, 40:415–42. Brill’s Companions to the Christian
Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Steinmetz, D. C. “The Scholastic Calvin.” Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment, n.d., 16–30.
Steinmetz, David C. “The Superiority of Precritical Exegesis.” In A Guide to
Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, edited
by Donald K. McKim, 65–77. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Strange, Alan D. “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the
Westminster Assembly.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological
Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, edited
by Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, 17:31–50. Reformed Historical
Theology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Tay, Edwin E.M. The Priesthood of Christ: Atonement in the Theology of John Owen
(1616–1683). Studies in Christian History and Thought. Milton Keynes:
Paternoster, 2014.
Toon, Peter. God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator,
Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the
Ancient Catholic Church. Edinburgh; New York: T & T Clark, 1993.
Trueman, Carl R. “A Small Step Toward Rationalism: The Impact of the
Metaphysics of Thomaso Campanella on the Theology of Richard Baxter.”
In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, edited by Carl R. Trueman
and R. Scott Clark. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Trueman, Carl R. John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Aldershot,
England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.
———. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle,
Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998.
Works Cited 225
Trueman, Carl R., and R. Scott Clark, eds. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999.
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B. “Preaching Christ in Post-Reformation Britain.” In The
Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson, edited by Robert L.
Penny, 361–89. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008.
———. The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652. 5 vols.
Visser, A. S. Q. Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The Flexibility of
Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620. Oxford Studies in Historical
Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Vlastuin, Willem van. Be Renewed: A Theology of Personal Renewal. Vol. 26.
Wallace, Dewey D. Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence,
and Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Wengert, Timothy J. Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John
Agricola of Eisleben Over Poenitentia. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; Grand Rapids,
MI: Paternoster ; Baker Books, 1997.
Westcott, Stephen P. By the Bible Alone!: John Owen’s Puritan Theology for Today’s
Church. Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media & Press, 2010.
Wisse, Maarten, and Hugo Meijer. “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal.” In
A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 40:465–518. Brill’s Companions to the
Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Wisse, Maarten, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten, eds. Scholasticism Reformed:
Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt. Vol. 14. Studies in Theology and
Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in
the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Reformed Historical-
Theological Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.
Index
A Beeke, Joel, 25, 32, 72, 74–76, 84,

Ainsworth, Henry, 120 85, 87, 91, 94, 95
Ambrose, 45 Bellarmine, Robert, 77
Ames, William, 21, 27, 28, 129, 185, Benedict, Philip, 43, 47, 119, 136
186 Biddle, John, 61
Amyraut, Moises, 102 Bolton, Samuel, 102
Anabaptists, 65 Boston, Thomas, 21, 33, 62, 156
Analogia fidei, 56, 68, 69 Bowles, Oliver, 38
Analogia scripturae, 56, 69 Brakel, Wilhelmus a, 32, 114
Antinomianism, 17, 18, 61, 87, 90, Bridge, William, 106
91, 93, 102, 108 Bucer, Martin, 173
Aquinas, Thomas, 47, 162–164, 179 Bullinger, Heinrich, 114
Aristotle, 163, 164, 175, 181 Bunyan, John, 98
Aristotelian, 163 Burgess, Anthony, 172, 173
Arminianism, 14, 16 Burroughs, Jeremiah, 22, 28, 83, 86,
Asselt, Willem van, 33, 34, 43, 70, 91
136, 158 Buxtorf, Johannes, 53, 63, 64
Augustine, 24, 45–47, 137, 152 Byfield, Richard, 25
B C
Ball, John, 35, 36, 109 Cajetan, Thomaso, 63, 66, 67
Barth, Karl, 10 Calvin, John, 9, 10, 16, 17, 52, 57,
Baxter, Richard, 17, 44, 55, 73, 92, 66, 67, 72, 76–81, 83, 89, 94–96,
137, 138, 163, 165 99–101, 116, 127, 141, 161
Beach, Mark, 35, 71 Cameron, John, 102
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 227

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60807-5
228 Index
Campi, Emidio, 52 F
Caryl, Joseph, 172, 173 Fesko, J.V., 19, 57, 59, 61, 65, 68,
Case, Thomas, 120 177
Charnock, Stephen, 22, 28, 114, Filoque, 139–141, 156
122 Flavel, John, 55, 87, 88, 91, 96, 116
Cheynell, Francis, 12, 15, 17, 18, 22, Formula of Concord, 75, 77, 80
28, 142 Fountiain of the deity, 23
Clarkson, David, 26, 48, 131 Foxcroft, Thomas, 156
Cleveland, Christopher, 46, 60, 73,
143, 163
Cloppenburg, Johannes, 153 G
Cocceius, Johannes, 33–35, 109 Gale, Theophilus, 174
Collinson, Patrick, 14 Gerhard, Johann, 76–78, 80, 108, 160
Cooper, Tim, 17, 44, 73, 92, 138, Gill, John, 192
165 Gillespie, 27, 28, 32, 51, 87, 88, 106
Cotton, John, 90, 91 Gisperti Voetii, 9, 13
Covenant of redemption, 31–35, Goodwin, Thomas, 4, 36, 47, 80,
150 137, 141, 143–145, 148, 149,
Cowan, Martin, 48, 92 153, 154, 166
Cromwell, Oliver, 48, 166 Gribben, Crawford, 167, 171
D H
De Moor, Bernardinus, 84, 153, Ha, Polly, 14, 15
154, 161–163, 166, 169, 170, Hebrews, 38
178–180, 184 Heidegger, Johann Heinrich, 177
Dickson, David, 32 Henry, Matthew, 24, 44, 45, 88–90,
Disputatio, 162 99, 104, 120, 123, 166
Dixon, Philip, 137 Henry, Scudder, 120, 123
Downame, John, 120 Hooker, Richard, 18, 27
Durandus, 162 Hoornbeeck, Johannes, 13, 20, 21,
Durham, James, 10, 87, 104, 108, 33, 41, 62, 106
115–117, 120–124, 126, 127, Hopkins, Ezekiel, 115
144, 146 Horrnbeeck, Johannes, 33
Horton, Michael S., 72, 73, 99, 103, 119
Hutcheson, George, 121, 122, 133
E Hyperius, Andreas, 38, 157, 165
Edwards, Jonathan, 29, 30, 33, 130
Eire, Carlos, 114, 119, 127, 133
Ellis, Brannon, 10, 17, 142 I
Evangelical theology, 19, 170, 175, Images, 117, 118
182 Irenaeus, 45, 47
Index 229
J Manton, Thomas, 139, 143, 147, 152

John White, 57, 58 Marbury, Edward, 122, 132
Jonathan Edwards, 30, 33, 130 Marshall, Walter, 59, 60
Jones, Mark, 9, 18, 35, 36, 47, 49, 53, Mastricht, Peter van, 14, 17, 21, 25,
58, 71–76, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 33, 41, 55, 61–69, 113, 114,
94, 101, 102, 122, 137, 141 185, 186
Junius, Franciscus, 52, 153, 154, 158, McCormack, Bruce, 17
168–170, 179, 180 McDonald, Suzanne, 125, 154
Justification, 16, 17, 25, 60, 68, 77, Meijer, Hugo, 20, 21, 25, 40
85 Melanchthon, Philip, 72, 76, 87, 93,
100, 102, 108, 163
Mortimer, Sarah, 61
K Mosaic covenant, 35, 36, 77, 79, 86,
Kapic, Kelly M., 22, 44, 49, 50, 53, 94, 98, 101, 102, 105, 107
73, 74, 136, 137, 140, 152, 155 Muller, Richard A., 9, 10, 13, 14, 17,
Kay, Brian, 22, 40, 73, 137 20, 23, 24, 27, 32, 44, 47, 56,
Klauber, Martin I., 164 65, 66, 68, 71, 102, 136, 157,
Knapp, Henry, 24, 44, 56, 74, 99, 118 158, 161–164, 171, 176, 177,
Kolb, Robert, 72, 75, 76, 103 182, 185
Musculus, Wolfgang, 52, 65, 120
L
Lee, Brian J., 23, 35, 39, 109 N
Lee, Gatiss, 39, 204 Neele, A.C., 14, 21, 62
Legal condition, 36, 102 Newton, John, 71
Leiden Synopis, 100 Nuttall, Geoffrey, 137
Leigh, Edward, 23, 38, 39, 141
Leslie, Andrew M., 50, 60, 169
Letham, Robert, 10, 12–14, 17, 32, O
33, 40, 137–139, 155 Old covenant, 35–37, 86, 101
Lim, Paul C.H., 12, 15–18, 22, 61, Oliphint, Scott, 25
125, 126, 136 Opera appropriata, 23, 68
Lombard, Peter, 152, 162 Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt,
Lossky, Vladimir, 16 23
Luther, Martin, 48, 60, 72, 75–77, Origen, 176
103, 160, 163 Oxford University, 158, 160, 166, 174
M P
Maccovius, Johannes, 125, 129 Packer, J.I., 167, 168
MacLean, Donald John, 10, 87, 104, Pak, G. Sujin, 52, 67
144, 146 Pareus, David, 65, 66
230 Index
Partee, Charles, 79, 83, 100 Savoy Declaration of Faith, 27, 34, 56,
Pederson, Randall, 44, 47, 75, 88 65, 74–76, 78–82, 84, 85, 89,
Perichoresis, 21, 23 97, 104, 105, 135
Perkins, William, 9, 15, 22, 28, 118, Scudder, Henry, 88, 89, 104, 123
119, 123, 124, 156, 185 Sedgwick, Obadiah, 55, 92, 93
Petto, Samuel, 35, 36, 39, 40, 87, 102 Sibbes, Richard, 39, 83, 106, 134
Piety, 130 Sinnema, Donald, 62
Pilgrim’s Progress, 98, 100 Socinianism, 15, 61, 137, 139
Pipa, Joseph, 25 Song of Solomon, 16, 115, 126, 172
Polanus, Amandus, 118, 135, 143, Spence, Alan, 136, 145, 152
153, 154, 163, 172, 179, 180, Steinmetz, David, 70, 161
186 Strange, Alan D., 25
Powell, Hunter, 90 Swain, Scott R., 10
Puritanism, 119 Synopsis Purioris, 19, 62, 92, 101, 179
Puritans, 119
T
Q Tay, Edwin E.M., 53, 73, 149
Quadriga, 65 Theologia unionis, 4, 153, 154
Theologia viatorum, 170, 173
Theosis, 16
R Thomas Manton, 139, 152
Reformed orthodox, 117 Toon, Peter, 48, 73, 90, 125, 136,
Reformed orthodoxy, 116 165–167
Rehnman, Sebastian, 14, 20, 49, 167, Trueman, Carl R., 25, 160, 161, 163,
175, 181 171, 176
Reymond, Robert L., 140 Turretin, Francis, 35, 62, 71, 81, 114,
Reynolds, Edward, 29, 130, 166 125, 147, 164, 174, 181
Richard Byfield, 25 Tweeddale, John, 49, 74
Richard, Guy M., 25
Rijssen, Leonard, 178
Rivetus, Andreas, 65, 66 U
Robert Letham, 13 Union with Christ, 18, 25, 52, 53,
Rowe, 131 56–60, 67, 68, 136, 145, 150,
Rutherford, Samuel, 108 181, 183, 184
Ursinus, Zecharias, 114, 116–118, 120
Ussher, James, 114, 121, 122, 124
S
Sacraments, 37, 38, 124
Sanctification, 17, 58–61, 68, 77, 82, V
89, 108, 146, 147, 150, 151 van den Brink, Gert, 53, 138, 159,
Savoy, 25 193
Index 231
Van Dixhoorn, Chad, 43, 124 Westminster Assembly, 25, 27, 43, 55,
Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 52 57, 58, 83, 92, 108, 120, 166
Vincent, Thomas, 114, 116, 118, 123 Westminster Larger Catechism, 27,
Vitringa, Campegius, 158, 170 106, 114−116, 120, 124, 128
Vlastuin, Willem van, 72, 77, 89, 96 White, John, 55, 57–61, 64–66, 68,
Voetius, Gisbertus, 9, 10, 13, 21, 41, 69, 178
62, 106, 157, 158, 170 Wise, Maarten, 20, 25
Witsius, Herman, 21, 34, 85, 103,
140, 148, 149, 164, 184, 185
W Wollebius, Johannes, 21, 38, 39, 68,
Wallace, Dewey, 174 72, 105, 108, 153
Watson, Thomas, 61, 114–116
Wengert, Timothy, 72, 83, 87, 88, 91,
93, 102, 109 Z
Westcott, Stephen P., 158–160, 167, Zanchius, Jerome, 64, 143
171, 175, 177, 180, 182, 184 Zwingli, Ulrich, 169
Westminster Annotations, 120

McGraw, Ryan M. - Owen, John - John Owen - Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology-Palgrave Macmillan (2017) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

McGraw, Ryan M. - Owen, John - John Owen - Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology-Palgrave Macmillan (2017) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGraw, Ryan M. - Owen, John - John Owen - Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology-Palgrave Macmillan (2017) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

; @ 9 ? @ H 6 ?

Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

ISBN 978-3-319-60806-8 ISBN 978-3-319-60807-5 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944579

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover illustration: 19th era/Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Part I Trinity, Exegesis, and Law and Gospel

2 Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John

3 “The Foundation of the Old Testament”: John Owen

4 The Threats of the Gospel: John Owen on What the

Part II Practical Issues and Systematic Reflection

5 Faith Versus Sight: Owen on Images of Christ,

6 John Owen on the Holy Spirit: In Relation to the

7 Quid Est?: Theologoumena Pantodapa and

8 The Rising Prominence of John Owen: An Analysis

Works Cited 207

John Owen is quickly gaining attention in recent historical and

1 Ryan M. McGraw, A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship, and

a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen:

© The Author(s) 2017 1

2 This is true preeminently of Chaps. 4 and 7.

theology. In the revisions, I have made substantial additions from Latin

evaluate Owen’s place in this context and to understand the Reformed

Trinity, Exegesis, and Law and Gospel

Trinitarian Doxology: Reassessing John

Reformed orthodox theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) referred

1 “Fundamentum fundamenti.” Gisperti Voetii, Selectarum Disputationum

© The Author(s) 2017 9

comes close to achieving such status, it is the doctrine of the Trinity.3 In

3 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development

Aseity of the Son. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

the Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, despite largely bypassing Reformed

Identifying the Problem: Two Recent Treatments

The significance of Owen’s contribution to Reformed orthodox trinitar-

Asking the Wrong Question of the Wrong Century13

Ashgate Companion to Owen’s Theology, 185–198.

Trinitarians are the “bad guys.”16 This essay is no exception.17 Citing

(Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 2010), 235–236.

Sebastian Rehnman strengthens Muller’s case in his contribution to A Companion to

Diminishing Owen’s Distinctiveness

England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

33 Lim,Mystery Unveiled, 187.

qualifications” with which Christ is endued “in his human nature.”40

40 Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 215.

(Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 78–83.

Foundations of Owen’s Trinitarian Theology

48 Lim, Mystery Unveiled, 207.

The Trinity and True Theology

52 This terminology comes from Book 6 of Owen’s Theologoumena Pantodapa.

J. Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, Brill’s Companions to the

Christum. Datur autem Spiritus Sapientiae et Revelationis.”

This resulted in Owen giving great attention to the character of

59 Stephen Westcott’s English “interpretation” of this work gives this impression.

Sebastian Rehnman refers to this translation as being of “inferior quality.” Sebastian

tion of the nature of this work.

Asking the Wrong Question of the Wrong Century13

Foundations of Owen’s Trinitarian Theology

The Trinity and True Theology

Communion with the Divine Persons

Conclusion: Public Worship as the

Trinity and Spiritual Affections

“The Foundation of the Old Testament”:

Owen’s Exegesis of Genesis 3:15

Glimpses from the Early Church on Genesis 3:15

The Controlling Importance of Genesis 3:15 in Owen’s Thought

Owen’s Textual Analysis of Genesis 3:15