Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2012.1

Puritan Reformed Journal
January 2012
q
Volume 4 • Number 1
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

2965 Leonard St. N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525
Puritan Reformed Journal
Edited for Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
Joel R. Beeke, Editor

Jerry Bilkes, Associate Editor of New Testament
David Murray, Associate Editor of Old Testament, Pastoral Theology,
and Contemporary and Cultural Issues
William VanDoodewaard, Associate Editor of Historical Theology
Michael Haykin, Associate Editor
Jonathon Beeke, Book Review Editor
Ryan McGraw, Assistant Book Review Editor
Kate DeVries, Copy Editor
Gary and Linda den Hollander, Typesetter/Proofreader
Puritan Reformed Journal is published semi-annually. The subscription price per
year for individuals and institutions is $20.00 in the United States, $30.00 in
Canada (payable in U.S. funds), $35.00 foreign countries (surface mail). Back
issues may be purchased at $10.00 per copy.
Please address all PRJ communication as follows:

Business, subscriptions: Mrs. Ann Dykema, PRJ Administrative Assistant,
2965 Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525; telephone 616-
977-0599, x135; e-mail: ann.dykema@puritanseminary.org
Editorial, manuscripts (preferred length: 3,000–6,000 words): Dr. Joel R. Beeke,
2965 Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525; telephone 616-977-
0599, x123; e-mail: jrbeeke@aol.com
Book reviews: Jonathon Beeke, 1438 Edith Ave. N.E., Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49525; telephone 215-316-6766; e-mail: jonathon.beeke@puri-
tanseminary.org
© Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. For a free seminary catalog and DVD,
write: Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Attn.: Mrs. Ann Dykema, 2965
Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525; ann.dykema@puritansemi-
nary.org; web: www.puritanseminary.org
ISSN #: 1946-8652
Cover artwork by Caffy Whitney and design by Amy Zevenbergen: John Calvin (1509–
1564)—the premier exegete and theologian of the Reformation, top right;
William Perkins (1558 –1602), “the father of English Puritanism,” bottom left.
POSTMASTER: SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: Puritan Reformed Journal,

Attn.: Mrs. Ann Dykema, 2965 Leonard St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525
Table of Contents
q
From the Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Biblical Studies
The Necessity, Nature, and Benefits of Old Testament History
David P. Murray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
“Translation...Openeth the Window”: Lessons from the Preface
to the Authorized Version — Gerald M. Bilkes . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Gethsemane’s King-Lamb: A Sermon on John 18:7–8, 12–13a
Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
SYSTEMATIC AND Historical Theology

Toward a Theological System of Michael Sattler
David Saxton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Pierre du Moulin on the Knowledge of God
M ark J. Larson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
The Holy Spirit’s Role in John Owen’s “Covenant of the
Mediator” Formulation: A Case Study in Reformed
Orthodox Formulations of the Pactum Salutis
Laurence R. O’Donnell III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Remonstrants, Contra-Remonstrants, and the Synod of Dordt
(1618–1619): The Religious History of the Early
Dutch Republic — William VanDoodewaard. . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Regulae de Observatione Sabbathi: The Synod of Dort’s (1618–19)
Deliverance on the Sabbath — Daniel R. Hyde. . . . . . . . . . . 161
Presbyterians in Space: The Problem of Disconnected
Presbyterians on the American Frontier (c. 1782–c. 1800)
A ndrew M. McGinnis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
EXPERIENTIAL THEOLOGY
The Piety of Joseph Hart as Reflected in His Life, Ministry,
and Hymns — Brian Golez Najapfour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
iv Puritan Reformed Theological Journal
Pastoral theology and missions

Preachers: Who Are They? — Nam Joon K im. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Practical Application in Preaching
Joel R. Beeke and David P. Murray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Authentic Ministry: Servanthood, Tears, and Temptations
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Twenty-Five Unbelievable Years: The Foreign Missions Policy
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North
America, 1945–1970 — Gordon J. K eddie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Continuing Education for Ministers: A Guide for Ministers
and Congregations — Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Book Reviews
Joel R. Beeke and Anthony T. Selvaggio, eds., Sing a New Song:
Recovering Psalm Singing for the Twenty-First Century
Jeffrey T. Riddle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Paul Brewster, Andrew Fuller: Model Pastor-Theologian
Jeffrey T. Riddle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
John Coffey, John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution
Jay T. Collier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
John Flavel, Triumphing Over Sinful Fear — Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . 333
John D. Harvey, Anointed with the Spirit and Power: The Holy Spirit’s
Empowering Presence. Explorations in Biblical Theology
Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Albert N. Martin, Preaching in the Holy Spirit
Jeffrey T. Riddle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Andrew D. Naselli, Let Go and Let God? A Survey & Analysis of
Keswick Theology — Brian G. Najapfour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Jon D. Payne, In the Splendor of Holiness: Rediscovering the Beauty
of Reformed Worship for the 21st Century.
Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles — Pieter de Vries. . . . . . . . 341
Willem J. van Asselt with T. Theo J. Pleizier, Pieter L. Rouwendal,
and Maarten Wisse, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism
Laurence R. O’Donnell III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
From the Editors
q
The recurrent cycle of the seasons forces human beings to think about
the nature of time and its passage: its meaning and goal, its origins and
the forces shaping it. Christians are especially people of a Book, a rev-
elation, the Scriptures, which informs them of God’s understanding
of our history. In the first essay in this issue David Murray very ably
outlines this divine understanding as seen from the vantage-point of
the Old Testament. It is a timely piece, as recent events in world his-
tory and recent scientific reflections are forcing people to think again
about the meaning of history. Now, one of the major strategies by
which we deal with the passage of time is to remember: remember
specific events that we celebrate year by year, or some that we celebrate
more infrequently. Among the latter is one that many thought about
this past year, namely, the four-hundredth anniversary of the publica-
tion of the King James Bible in 1611. Gerald Bilkes helpfully guides us
through the preface to that remarkable translation, showing us what
it can teach us about Bible translation and our own interaction with
the Scriptures. Then Joel Beeke gives us a rich tour through what
he rightly calls “the greatest day in the history of the world: the final
twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life prior to His crucifixion and death”
and helps us appreciate afresh the historicity—and theological signifi-
cance—of a number of the details in John 18.
It is not often that this journal contains papers on the Anabap-
tist tradition, which, especially in its origins, has some things to teach
those who delight in the Reformed faith. David Saxton’s essay on Mi-
chael Sattler is welcome both for the light it throws on this particular
Anabaptist’s witness and also because it forces us to recognize God’s
work among those who do not identify themselves as specifically Re-
formed, but who nonetheless love the Lord Jesus. Yet another area
in which contemporary Reformed believers are not as informed as
they should be is the tremendous stream of French Reformed the-
ology and history. Here, Mark Larson helps us appreciate the great
French theologian Pierre du Moulin, who, in some ways, is the most
important Francophone theologian in the first half of the seventeenth
2 Puritan Reformed Theological Journal
century. Larson discusses du Moulin’s thought on knowing God, a

central topic in Christian thought. Two essays then look at two of
du Moulin’s younger contemporaries on the other side of the English
Channel: a very needful treatment of John Owen’s thought about the
role of the Holy Spirit in the pactum salutis by Laurence O’Donnell and
Brian Cosby’s discussion of the Christology of John Flavel. It is good
to see Flavel getting increased academic attention in recent days. We
then have two excellent studies concerning the Synod of Dordt, which
also merits greater attention by English-speaking scholarship: a more
general examination of the historical context of the Synod by William
VanDoodewaard and Daniel Hyde’s illuminating study of the teach-
ing on the Sabbath by the pronouncements of the Synod. Rounding
out this group of papers dealing with historical subjects is Andrew
McGinnis’s ground-breaking study of the way American Presbyte-
rians dealt with the expanding frontier of settlement during the late
eighteenth century. The way in which Methodism with its circuit rid-
ers dealt with the frontier in this era is well known, and it is fascinating
to see the way that Presbyterians dealt with the same phenomenon of
wide-open space. This paper is a good reminder that Christian wit-
ness is not only shaped by time and historical events but also by space
and geographical context.
This year will see a number of anniversaries, among them the
tercentennial of the birth of the much-overlooked but remarkable Cal-
vinistic hymnwriter Joseph Hart (1712–1768). Brian Najapfour helps
us remember the man and his hymns. Then, in the section of this
journal devoted to pastoral theology, we have a number of rich essays
on the calling of the preacher and their preaching (Nam Joon Kim,
and Joel Beeke and David Murray), on what is genuine ministry (Joel
Beeke)—the discussion of weeping here sounds a rarely-heard note in
contemporary pastoral reflection; on the missionary experience of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America during the tumul-
tuous years of the mid-twentieth century (Gordon Keddie); and on the
vital necessity of continuing education for ministers (Ryan McGraw).
The regular sheaf of book reviews helps round out this issue.
Of course, we are biased when it comes to this journal, but increas-
ingly we see it as a resource of experimental Calvinism that has few
parallels on the North American scene. As such we wholeheartedly
recommend it to not only your prayerful and mindful perusal, but also
something you would recommend to others to pick up, read, and study.
Biblical Studies
q
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 5–16
The Necessity, Nature, and Benefits

of Old Testament History
DAVID P. MURRAY
q
Shakespeare said that history is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound

and fury, signifying nothing.” In stark contrast stands the Christian
view of history: we believe God ordained it, organizes it, and moves
it towards a meaningful, definite, and certain purpose. However,
many Christians entertain a negative view of Old Testament his-
tory, of its usefulness, and even of its accuracy. It is often regarded
as “far away” and “distant” chronologically, geographically, socially,
and theologically.
In this article, we will study the necessity and nature of biblical
history with a special focus on Old Testament history, and we will
conclude with a summary of the practical benefits of studying and
teaching Old Testament history.
The Necessity of Old Testament History

The majority of biblical literature, especially Old Testament litera-
ture, is historical narrative. Unless that history is reliable, taught,
and known, we lose most of our Bible. As Sidney Greidanus writes:
“The faith of Israel and the faith of historical Christianity is founded
not in lofty ideas or ideals but in God’s acts in human history.”1 Yet
Greidanus goes on to note how the historicity of scriptural events
is under a cloud of suspicion today, resulting in a lack of confidence
among preachers to preach these texts with the same confidence as
past preachers did. He concluded: “Before all else, therefore, it is nec-
essary for preachers to be clear on the historical foundations of their
1. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 24.
6 Puritan Reformed Journal
message. The issue is, Is the Bible historically reliable or is it not? Do we

approach the Bible with skepticism or with confidence?”2
The foundational nature and practical importance of biblical his-
tory is further underlined by Douglas Stuart in his book Old Testament
Exegesis, in which he follows two sections on “Text” and “Translation”
with a third section entitled “Historical Context.” He argues that the
Old Testament expositor must research the historical background:
Try to answer the following questions in your research: What
is the setting of the passage? Exactly what events led up to this
point? Did major trends or developments in Israel or the rest of
the ancient world have any bearing on the passage or any part of
its content? Are there any parallel or similar passages in the Bible
that seem to be related to the same historical conditions? If so,
do they provide any insight into your passage? Under what his-
torical conditions does the passage seem to have been written?
Might the passage have been written also under very different
historical conditions? If not, why not?3
It is often said that “the Bible is a timeless book.” That is true if what
we mean is that it has relevance for and influence on every generation.
However, it is not true if what we mean is that we should have no
regard for the times the Bible was written in. Each book of the Bible
was written for a specific people, in a specific culture, at a specific
time. To understand the written material we have to look at the words
on the page, but we also have to consider the time when the words
were written. Stuart writes, “Knowing the background, social set-
ting, foreground, geographical setting, and date are normally essential
to appreciating the significance of a passage. Most OT passages con-
tain material that relates strongly to such considerations. The Bible is
such a historically oriented revelation that ignoring historical context
tends to assure misinterpretation.”4 The preacher must understand
the passage in the context of the author’s place in redemptive history.
Greidanus argues that the message must be related to the whole of
2. Greidanus, Modern Preacher, 24.

3. Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2001), 9.
4. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis, 44.
Nature, Necessity, and Benefits of OT History 7
kingdom history: “A key hermeneutical principle holds that a part can

be fully understood only in the light of the whole.”5
The practical benefits of knowing the historical context are also
highlighted by Stuart:
In general, you want to avoid talking to your congregation about
the passage in isolation, as if there were no Scripture or history
surrounding it. To do so is to be unfair to the sweep of the his-
torical revelation; it suggests to your congregation that the Bible
is a collection of atomistic fragments not well connected one to
another and without much relationship to the passage of time.
That is surely not your conception of the Bible, and it should
likewise not be the impression that you leave with your parish-
ioners. Try to pay attention to those things (even in summary)
that will help them realize that God has provided us with a Bible
which can be appreciated for the whole as well as the parts, and
that God controls history now, thus controlling our history with
the same loyalty that he showed to his people in OT times.6
M. C. Tenney wrote a historical survey of the New Testament.
However, the practical usefulness of knowing the historical back-
ground to New Testament passages, which he refers to below, also
applies to the Old.
The message of the New Testament can be apprehended best
when one has some comprehension of the world into which it
first came. The literary, political, social, economic, and religious
backgrounds of the first century are the context for the revelation
of God in Christ. The terms which the apostles and their associ-
ates used for teaching were taken from the common life of their
day and were familiar to the average man in the streets of Alex-
andria, of Antioch, or of Rome. As these terms become plain to
the modern reader, their message will become increasingly clear.7
A focus on biblical history will consider areas like chronology,
archaeology, geography, genealogy, and cultural practices. It also
has an apologetic element as it focuses on defending the text from
critical attacks by seeking to reconcile seeming inconsistencies
5. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 100.

6. Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis, 76.
7. M. C. Tenney, The New Testament: A Historical and Analytic Survey (London:
Intervarsity Fellowship, 1954), 7.
within Scripture, and also between Scripture and extra-biblical sources

and evidence.
The Nature of Biblical History

In what way does biblical history differ from secular history? And in
what ways is it similar? These are the questions we will consider in
this section.
Biblical History Is True History

Israel’s Near-Eastern neighbors expressed their beliefs through fan-
tastic and elaborate myths. These myths narrated events that took
place outside of space and time as we know it. This cultural back-
ground underscores the uniqueness of Israel’s historical narratives,
which involves real events in real time involving real people and a
real God. G. L. Archer puts it like this: “The Bible’s message is given,
to a large extent, through historical writings, and not, say, abstract
philosophical treatises. It is through historical writings about his-
torical events that we learn much about God and His purposes for
humans. As noted, the intent of these historical writings is to provide
an accurate account of the history of God’s people, and their message
is undermined if their historical accuracy is compromised.”8
Archaeology and chronological studies may help to confirm the
historicity of biblical events. For example, with respect to the Old
Testament, R. K. Harrison asserts that “comparative historiographic
studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews
were the most accurate, objective, and responsible recorders of Near
Eastern history.... As a result, it is possible to view with a new degree
of confidence and respect those early traditions of the Hebrews that
purport to be historiographic in nature.... The current flow of arche-
ological discoveries tends to confirm, rather than repudiate, the claim
of the Old Testament to historicity.” 9
However, for all the helpful confirmations of archaeology, it is
noteworthy that the Bible simply states its history and does not set
out to prove it. The concern of the biblical text is not to prove the his-
tory, but rather to impress the reader with the theological significance
8. G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press,

1998), Electronic Edition.
9. R. K. Harrison, Biblical Criticism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 5.
of the events and acts. This is one reason why biblical history, in the
same manner as secular history, may not always be presented in a
chronological manner.
In his book, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel,
Eugene Merrill explains one of the presuppositions of the evangelical
biblical historian:
This history of Israel approaches the task with the frank confes-
sion that the Old Testament is the revelation of God in written
form. This confession, of course, presupposes its inspiration as
the Word of God and asserts its inerrancy in every area, includ-
ing history. This does not mean that one can write a history
of Israel without facing difficulties—sometimes insurmount-
able—but one can do so with full recognition that the problems
vis-à-vis the sources are not inherent in them, but are due to the
historian’s human inability to integrate and interpret them. The
record may be incomplete; accordingly, it can often be profitably
supplemented by extra biblical data. It is never wrong, however,
when it is fully understood.10
This mindset is essential when dealing with extra-biblical sources like
archaeology. The texts of the Bible and the material remains uncov-
ered by archaeology make claims about what happened in the past.
Does one have primacy over the other? Is one more scientific than the
other? What is their relationship?
The nature of the relationship is the subject of an ongoing debate.
However, what is often forgotten in this debate is that just as the facts
of the Bible need to be interpreted, so do archaeological remains. Mer-
rill highlighted this oft-forgotten fact: “This [archaeology] involves
the presuppositions of the interpreter just as the interpreter of texts
begins with certain presuppositions. Indeed, the case can be made
that archaeology is a more subjective discipline precisely because the
objects are mute (with the exception of extra-biblical textual material,
which is subject to the same issues as the interpretation of the biblical
text) as opposed to the biblical text, which provides us with inter-
pretation of events. In the final analysis, it is much too simplistic to
10. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker Books House,
1992), 18.
expect from archaeology either an independent verification of biblical

claims or a certain scientific refutation of them.”11
While the preacher may attempt to defend biblical history from
critical attacks, there should be a constant underlying assumption that
biblical history is true and factual. The preacher must believe this
and convey this in all his study and teaching. This approach differs
fundamentally from the modern secular historian, whose approach
holds the assumption of “methodological doubt.” Radical doubt cer-
tainly seems to motivate some biblical critics who assume that there
is little or no real, hard history in the Bible. The result of this is that
biblical reports are now required to prove their historicity. Greidanus
explains the irrelevance of this critical approach to biblical history:
But what evidence will satisfy biblical critics that a narrative is
historically reliable? Some have stated that one should accept
nothing in the Old Testament as historical fact “until it can be
demonstrated as such by extrabiblical evidence.” But this cri-
terion is obviously unreasonable, for many of the scriptural
records have to do with people and situations that were of no
interest whatever to non-Hebrews who might otherwise have
provided confirmatory source material. Moreover, many other
reasons could be given for the silence of extrabiblical sources on
biblical history: it might, indeed, be “no interest,” or “no occa-
sion,” or “no knowledge,” or “no time or writing materials,” or
“the evidence perished or is still to be found.” In any case, by
itself an argument from silence can neither prove nor disprove
biblical historicity.12
So, while the approach of methodological and radical doubt may
be appropriate in approaching ordinary historical documents, it is
entirely inappropriate for the Christian approaching the Scriptures.
This is summarized by Merrill: “Regarding the Old Testament as the
Word of God radically alters the task of writing the history of Israel
by raising it to the level of a theological activity. If we grant that the
writing of Israel’s history and the writing of the history of any other
people are on entirely different planes precisely because, in the former
case, history and theology cannot be separated, we must be willing
11. Ray Dillard & Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 25–26.
to admit that the kind of skepticism that is a necessary part of con-

ventional historiography has no place in our work. By virtue of our
confession that we are under the authority of the very sources we are
investigating we have already surrendered our right to reject what we
cannot understand and what we find difficult to believe.”13
The Christian faith stands on historical events. In contrast with
other religions, Christianity proclaims that our salvation depends on
what God did in history. Without a historical foundation there is no
gospel. Merrill ties together the history and the theological message
in an unbreakable bond. He wrote, “If the message that God made
covenant with his people Israel has no historical foundation, then that
message loses its point and evaporates. The Old Testament messages
that God acted in Israel’s history—redeeming, judging, restoring,
guiding—lose their very essence unless they are as historical as they
claim they are.”14 And Edmund Clowney astutely points out the utter
necessity of historicity when it comes to the writing of covenant his-
tory: “The brief historical prologue of the covenant at Sinai is the
key to understanding the whole preceding history of Exodus and the
books of generations in Genesis as well. The history of the Penta-
teuch is not political or cultural in aim, nor is it a chronicle of stirring
events. It is covenantal history: the record of God’s dealings with the
fathers, his covenant with Abraham and its renewal at Sinai. The force
of covenant history lies in its actuality, its ‘historicity.’”15
Biblical History Is Selective History

The secular historian does not just give a straightforward narrative of
events. He selects, arranges, and interprets events for his contempo-
rary audience. The biblical writers do the same in a divinely inspired
manner. To rightly interpret the historical books of the Bible, we must
endeavor to ascertain the writers’ intentions and try to understand how
that affects the material they selected for inclusion. Merrill explains:
It is inevitably necessary in history writing to include certain
events and exclude others, usually on the bases of the availability
of data and the special interests and concerns of the historian.
13. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 16.

15. Edmund Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1961), 41.
This selectivity is eminently discernible in the Old Testament

account of Israel’s history because the Author (and authors) had
particular objectives in mind. The real thrust of the Old Testa-
ment is theological. Those facts relevant to the grand themes of
the divine purpose, for example, redemption, are retained while
others are excluded.16
And, while highlighting the selective nature of biblical history,
it should be remembered that this in no way diminishes its truthful-
ness. Greidanus writes:
In writing history, therefore, historians cannot help but be
selective—selective not only in choosing which events they
will write about but also which side of the events they will write
about. For example, a historian may choose to write a political
history, or a social history, or a history of art. This choice will
not only influence the limits of his study; it will necessarily
bring certain facts into prominence or allow others to recede
into the background. Different aspects of the same fact will
acquire a special significance according to the context in which
it is placed. This multidimensional character of historical events
must be kept in mind when interpreting Scripture; one can-
not legitimately expect a complete history writing in any sense
of the term.... A complete history writing is an impossibility.
Consequently, a crucial question for biblical interpretation is,
Which events did the author select and which side of these
events did he wish to highlight?17
Biblical History Is Purposeful History

The secular historian’s selection is purposeful and deliberate. Biblical
history is also written with a deliberate purpose in view—an inspired
and divine purpose. Thus, biblical history is not an objective report-
ing of purely human events; it is a passionate account of God’s saving
acts in history. Accordingly, it has been described as “theological”
history, “prophetic” history, and “covenantal” history. Dillard and
Longman envision the historians of Israel as preachers: “Their texts
are the events and they apply them with zeal to the congregation of

Israel. These texts are a wonderful integration of history, literature,

morality, and theology.”18
Once the historical facts are established, the literary presentation
of these facts and the theological significance of them are then stud-
ied. We first ask, “What are the facts?” (Historical Analysis) but also
“How are they presented?” (Literary Analysis), and “What do they
mean?” (Thematic Analysis). To this is added the question, “Where
is this history leading?” (New Testament Analysis). This shows the
special nature of biblical history, as Merrill noted:
It [the Old Testament] is a book of history, indeed, but it is far
more—it is a progressive revelation of the mind and purposes
of the Lord, and so it must be read and interpreted theologically.
Though the totality of the facts makes up a corpus of historical
information, each fact, each event, each person of the Old Tes-
tament has special meaning when seen against the backdrop of
the whole. The exodus, for instance, is far more than an exciting
episode laying the groundwork for the nationhood of Israel. It
is a paradigmatic event that typifies the Lord’s salvific actions
for his people Israel and indeed for the whole world. To see it
as such does not vitiate its literal historicity. To fail to see it as
such, on the other hand, is to fail to see that the Old Testament
is a work of history that infinitely transcends the bounds of ordi-
nary historiography.19
Biblical history views events not from a purely human standpoint but
from that of God Himself.
This special character of biblical history writing should guide
interpreters in putting their questions to the biblical texts. The focus
of the writers is not on the economic side of the events, nor on the
social or political sides; their interest is concentrated on a deeper level
of meaning: God’s covenant, God’s coming kingdom, the religious-
theocentric dimension.20 In the end, God is the subject and the hero
of the Bible. Even in works that emphasize human individuals, such
as 1 & 2 Samuel, which highlight David, these individuals are impor-
tant only as they are instruments in God’s plan. In the end, God’s
18. Dillard & Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 25.
dealings with humans in the historical narratives reveal to us much

about Himself. We are more than entertained; we are taught.21
Biblical History Is Relevant History

Old Testament preaching often faces the charge of seeming irrel-
evance. There are vast differences between the world of the Old
Testament and the modern world; however, this “relevance gap” can-
not be bridged by forgetting Old Testament history. Attempting this
may make the sermon relevant, but it makes the Scriptures irrelevant.
Rather, a right understanding of Old Testament history enables us to
understand the original message to the original audience at the origi-
nal time and place—and, having done this, the bridge to the present
message is far easier to construct safely.
Historical study, then, provides the vital first step towards rele-
vance by ascertaining the cultural, religious, and political situation the
original words addressed. Historical analysis reminds the preacher of
the importance of having an objective point of control to confirm the
meaning of the passage. It helps to keep the preacher on the track of
the original intended meaning.
Israel’s history is important for us to grasp because of its moving
stories, its ethical power, and its valuable spiritual lessons (Rom. 15:4;
1 Cor. 10:11). This history also gives us the framework in which we
can understand the prophets’ messages. Perhaps, above all, the fact
that these books were part of the Bible of our Lord Jesus should moti-
vate us to study them. Frank Sanders writes:
The study of history ought to inspire students with generous
ideals of active and responsible citizenship, with sincere ambitions
for sane and strong leadership, with convictions regarding national
policies and the power to distinguish between what is clever and
what is fine and noble. No history surpasses that of the Hebrew
people in its power to transmit and impress such results as these.22
Biblical History Is Redemptive History

The Old Testament is redemptive history. God actively directs
human history for the purpose of redeeming sinners. The Holy Spirit
21. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Electronic Edition.

22. Frank Knight Sanders, The History of the Hebrews (New York: Scribners,
1914), 6–7.
inspired the writers of the Old Testament to record what would ade-
quately reveal that redemptive purpose. The biblical history, then, is
not just facts to teach us theology; these historical facts will serve to
bring in God’s elect.
Merrill commented on the importance of accurately establish-
ing the historical facts if the biblical history is to have this powerful
saving effect. “Any success in this endeavor will be of importance to
the search for a true understanding of Israel’s Old Testament past—a
worthy objective in itself—and to the establishment of the historical
factualness of the Old Testament record, the truthfulness of which is
absolutely critical if the religious and theological message is to have
any effect.” 23
Summary of the Benefits of Old Testament History

• Confidence in the accuracy of Old Testament history will
increase confidence in Old Testament preaching.
• Accurate historical knowledge will help the preacher set each
portion of Old Testament Scripture in its historical context
and avoid misinterpretation.
• A broad historical knowledge will help the preacher to under-
stand each historical event in the light of the whole of biblical
history and communicate to his hearers that the Bible should
not be read in an “atomistic” manner.
• Seeing the significance of God’s ordering of history in the
Old Testament will increase confidence in His sovereignty,
then and now.
• Historical studies will equip the preacher with arguments to
defend the Scriptures from critical attacks.
• Knowledge of the original time and place will help the
preacher ascertain the original message of Scripture.
• Understanding the biblical historian’s practice of selectiv-
ity will help the preacher ascertain the message the biblical
authors intended to convey.

• The unique nature of biblical history requires a unique

approach, that of radical faith not radical doubt, because the
truth and power of the preacher’s message rests entirely on
the history of events as recorded in the Bible.
• Historical analysis will help the preacher maintain an objec-
tive point of control in the quest for relevance, and will also
help to engender his hearer’s respect for the diversity of the
Scriptures.
• A good grasp of biblical history will help the preacher to
declare biblical history in a manner which God has promised
to bless powerfully to the saving of His elect.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 17–24
“Translation...Openeth the Window”:

Lessons from the Preface to the Authorized Version
Gerald M. Bilkes
q
The original 1611 edition of the King James or Authorized Version

included a “Preface to the Reader,” which for a variety of reasons is not
usually included in contemporary reprints.1 This eleven-page preface
was composed by Dr. Miles Smith (1554–1624), a noted linguist and
theologian, who wrote it on behalf of the translators. He had worked
at all levels of production of the King James Version translation. First,
he was a member of one of the six companies doing initial work;
his company worked specifically on the books of Isaiah to Malachi.
He was then one of the twelve people selected to revise the work.
Finally, he and Bishop Bilson took the work through its final stage
of examination, including adding the summaries at the beginning of
each chapter and running heads at the top of each page.2 One scholar
suggests that “his contribution to the King James Version is perhaps
greater than any other from among the translation teams.”3
1. This is different from “The Epistle Dedicatory,” which is more regularly

included in modern reprints. This Epistle was probably written by Thomas Bilson,
and focuses on giving tribute to King James I as the patron, sponsor, and commis-
sioner of the Authorized Version. For a text of the Preface, see Alfred W. Pollard, ed.,
Records of the English Bible: The Documents Relating to the Translation and Publication of
the Bible in English, 1525–1611 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1911), 340–77;
compare also John Read Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Version of the English
Bible (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1888); A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of
Printed Editions of the English Bible, 1525–1961 (London: British and Foreign Bible
Society, 1968), 132.
2. Adam Nicolson: God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New
York: Perennial, 2003), 216. Nicolson comments: “Its atmosphere is generous and
majestic and never more sweepingly vigorous—the influence of the pulpit is every-
where here—when describing the part that scripture might play in a man’s life.”
3. Donald L. Brake and Shelley Beach, A Visual History of the King James Bible: The
Dramatic Story of the World’s Best-Known Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 101.
After his work on the King James Version, Smith would be

appointed by the king as Bishop of Gloucester.4 It is interesting that
Smith is noted for (and sometimes faulted for) being a “strict Calvinist.”
Some have believed that the Scripture quotations he chose to use in the
preface “reflect his Puritan tendencies.” David Allen writes: “Smith’s
heart was ever with the Puritan party, even though he wrote in his
Preface, ‘We have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puri-
tans, as on the other we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists.’”5
The Preface provides us with valuable information about the
beliefs and goals of the translators. Clearly, Smith was concerned to
defend the work against the considerable opposition to a new transla-
tion. But besides a defense of the work, Smith also gives a brief history
of previous translations of the Word of God, including theological
material that helps us understand how those translators regarded
Scripture and the work of translating it. No reader of the Preface can
miss both its modesty and its magnificence: its modesty regarding
man’s abilities, and its magnificence regarding the glory of the Word
of God. According to one author, this “noble preface...stands as a
comely gate to a glorious city.”6 Given the 400th anniversary of the
Authorized Version this past year, it is worth considering what this
Preface can teach us about the challenging work of translation.7
4. Alexander M’Clure and R. E. Rhoades, The Translators Revived: A Biographical

Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible (1858; repr., Mobile, Ala.:
R E Publications, 1984), 142–43.
5. David Allen, The Jewel in the King’s Crown: The Story of the King James Bible
(Stoke-on-Trent, U.K.: Tentmaker, 2010), 226.
6. McClure, Translators Revived, 143.
7. The last two years have seen the publication of many commemorative vol-
umes, including the following: C. P. Hallihan, The Authorized Version: A Wonderful
and Unfinished History (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 2010); Leland Ryken, The
Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Trans-
lation (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011); Jon M. Sweeney, Verily, Verily, the KJV: 400
Years of Influence and Beauty (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011); Jack Countryman, The
Treasure of God’s Word: Celebrating 400 Years of the King James Bible (Nashville, Tenn.:
Thomas Nelson, 2010); Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones, eds., The King
James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2010); David Norton, The King James Bible: A
Short History from Tyndale to Today (New York: Cambridge University, 2011); Gordon
Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version: 1611–2011 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010); David Crystal, Begat: The King James Bible and the English
Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Brake and Beach, A Visual
“Translation ...Openeth the Window” 19
The Challenge of Translation

The Preface opens up with a view into the difficulty of translation,
including the opposition, suspicion, and detractions translators will
face and should prepare for. The opening lines address this challenge
directly. Smith writes:
Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising
any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured
by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteeme, but
yet findeth but cold intertainment in the world. It is welcom-
med with suspicion in stead of love, and with emulation in stead
of thankes: and if there be any hole left for cavill to enter, (and
cavill, if it doe not finde a hole, will make one) it is sure to bee
misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.
Answering opposition already being aimed at this translation of the
Word of God, Smith writes, “It is welcommed with suspicion.” Smith
has in mind not only those who are content to live purely for this
world in sensuality and stupidity, but also those in the Roman Catholic
church who persecuted and even killed people devoted to translat-
ing the Scriptures and making scriptural doctrine accessible. In fact,
Smith notes, “Ciuilitie, holesome Lawes, learning and eloquence,
Synods, and Church-maintenance” will always face opposition. Smith
adduces biblical instances such as when David tried to bring the ark
to Jerusalem and faced the disdain of his own wife, Michal; or when
the people complained to Rehoboam about the heavy taxation burden
Solomon had placed on them in his effort to build the Lord’s temple.
Against this backdrop Smith urges courage and resoluteness,
and quotes 1 Samuel 2:30: “Them that honor me, I will honor.”
History of the King James Bible; Derek Wilson, The People’s Bible: The Remarkable His-
tory of the King James Version (Oxford: Lion, 2010); David Teems, Majestie: The King
Behind the King James Bible (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2010); Larry Stone,
The Story of the Bible: The Fascinating History of Its Writing, Translation and Effect on Civi-
lization (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2010); Robert Alter, Pen of Iron: American
Prose and the King James Bible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); Helen
Moore, Manifold Greatness: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: University
of Oxford, 2011); David Teems, Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible (Nash-
ville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2010); Harold Bloom, The Shadow of a Great Rock: A
Literary Appreciation of the King James Bible (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
2011); Melvyn Bragg, The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible,
1611–2011 (Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint, 2011).
The translators of the AV showed such courage against many odds,

through grace; the God they sought to honor has honored them
through the longevity of this version and its profound usefulness the
world over throughout the ages. Let this be a monument for us. David
found this to be true in Psalm 120: “My soul hath long dwelt with
him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for
war.” Why are we surprised that things worth doing are difficult to
do, and are often opposed? It should be no surprise that worthy works
will constantly have charges cast in their teeth. May God give each of
us grace to live to His honor.
Humility Required of Translators

One of the most striking aspects of the Preface is the modesty and
humility of the translators. We are used to speaking of their labors in
glowing terms, and this is certainly appropriate, especially in light of
the longevity and legacy of the AV translation. We would certainly not
have appreciated their work had the translators pompously imagined
that their work would endure as it has.
A spirit of modesty is fitting when you think of what a good trans-
lation aims to be. Smith gives insight into what translation, rightly
done, should accomplish:
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that
breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside
the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that
remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water,
even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well,
by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede
without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are
but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a
bucket or some thing to draw with....
Translation, then, has high aims—and yet, as Smith is aware, the
history of translation is checkered and spotted. Smith does not hesi-
tate to admit this; in fact, he gives a very detailed history of the work
of translation throughout the centuries, from the first translation of
the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek through to his own time.
As he does so, he points out the challenges of the process and the
importance of being modest and humble about the results. He takes
issue with those who say that, since absolute perfection in translation
is not attainable, we might as well not even attempt it. He gives an

illuminating example from the Old Testament to reinforce this point.
When the second temple was built in the days of Zerubbabel, the
people knew that it wasn’t as glorious as the temple of Solomon; yet,
says, Smith, that didn’t mean it should be forsaken or rejected. We are
to think in the same way about this translation: its imperfections are
no reason to reject it.
Smith proceeds with another helpful analogy. He makes the
comparison between the imperfect work of translators and a child of
God, who though converted, still has many faults.
A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made
many slips in his life, (else, there were none vertuous, for in many
things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee
have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freckles upon his
face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated
should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant,
notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be
noted in the setting foorth of it.8
Thus we see how modestly the translators of the AV thought of
themselves. The work of translating the Scriptures is not for those
who think themselves so able and equipped, but is rather for those
who, though furnished with certain necessary skills, remain modest
and humble students of Scripture.
The Proper Regard for Scripture

One of the most helpful insights of the Preface is its comprehensive
view of the Scriptures being translated. A magnificent section in which
Smith shows the excellency of the Scriptures includes the following:
It is not onely an armour, but also a whole armorie of weapons,
both offensive, and defensive; whereby we may save our selves
and put the enemie to flight. It is not an herbe, but a tree, or rather
a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring foorth fruit every
moneth, and the fruit thereof is for meate, and the leaves for
medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oyle, which were
for memorie only, or for a meales meate or two, but as it were a
showre of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never
8. “For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables?”

so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oyle vessels; whereby

all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged.
In a word, it is a Panary of holesome foode; a Physions-shop...
of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable
lawes, against rebellious spirits; a treasurie of most costly jewels,
against beggarly rudiments; finally a fountaine of most pure water
springing up unto everlasting life.
This flood of images indicates how highly Smith and the transla-
tors esteemed the book they were translating. To them the Scriptures
were not simply a repository of information for the mind. They had a
full-orbed view of the Scriptures as well as of man and what he needs.
We can learn from this that we ought to treasure this book more than
we are apt to do.
In addition, Smith proceeds to speak more explicitly about the
source, authority, and attributes of Scripture:
The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the
authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the
wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men such as were sanc-
tified from the wombe, and endewed with a principall portion
of Gods spirit; the matter, veritie, pietie, puritie, uprightnesse;
the forme, Gods word, Gods testimonie, Gods oracles, the word
of trueth, the word of salvation, &c.
Smith proceeds to set forth the following array of effects of Scrip-
tures. He mentions
the light of understanding, stablenesse of persuasion, repentance
from dead workes, newnesse of life, holinesse, peace, joy in the
holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the studie thereof, fel-
lowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature,
fruition of an inheritance immortall, undefiled, and that never
shall fade away.
It is abundantly clear from these quotes that the translators had
the highest regard for the Scriptures. Their doctrine is not simply
orthodox; it is also beautifully experiential. In line with this, quoting
many Scripture passages, Smith shows that the Scriptures must be
studied and cherished.
The Scriptures we are commanded to search. Joh. 5.39. Esa.
8.20. They are commended that searched & studied them. Act.
17.11. and 8.28, 29. They are reproved that were unskilful in
them, or slow to beleeve them. Mat. 22.29. Luk. 24.25. They can
make us wise unto salvation. 2. Tim. 3.15. If we be ignorant, they
will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out
of order, they will reforme us, if in heavines, comfort us; if dull,
quicken us; if colde, inflame us.
He also warns against the neglect of the Scriptures: “The Scrip-
tures then being acknowledged to bee so full and so perfect, how can
wee excuse our selves of negligence, if we doe not studie them....” It
would be a happy day if the church today would have such an exqui-
site and majestic view of the Scriptures. Undoubtedly, a translation of
the Scripture that taps into such a well-rounded view of Scripture will
be sublimely fruitful among God’s people.
The Indispensability of the Spirit of God

The AV translators are clear that in order for us to profit from Scrip-
ture, we need the powerful work of the Holy Spirit to illumine our
minds, change our hearts, and correct our desires. Smith concludes
his Preface with these telling and appropriate words:
It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit
of his grace, which is able to build further then we can aske or
thinke. Hee removeth the scales from our eyes, the vaile from
our hearts, opening our wits that wee may understand his word,
enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may
love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end.
This is not unlike what the celebrated Geneva Bible impressed upon
the reader in its forematter:
Read not this book in any case
but with a single eye.
Read not, but first desire Gods grace
to understand thereby.
How true that we need grace to understand the Word of God and
truly profit from it. We are so sinful, stubborn, and selfish, and our
spirits are so blind that we do not profit from the Word on our own.
It is no wonder, then, that Smith goes on to end this Preface with
an appropriate warning, applicable now as much as four hundred
years ago:
Ye are brought unto fountaines of living water which yee digged

not; doe not cast earth into them with the Philistines.... Others
have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive
not so great things in vaine, O despise not so great salvation! Be
not like swine to treade under foote so precious things, neither
yet like dogs to teare and abuse holy things. Say not to our Sav-
iour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts; neither yet with
Esau sell your birthright for a messe of potage. If light be come
into the world, love not darknesse more then light; if foode, if
clothing be offered, goe not naked, starve not your selves.9... It
is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but
a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessednes
in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he
setteth his word before us, to reade it; when hee stretcheth out
his hand and calleth, to answere, Here am I; here wee are to doe
thy will, O God. The Lord worke a care and conscience in us
to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of
him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the
holy Ghost, be all prayse and thankesgiving.
9. Smith quotes the church fathers to provide further warning: “Remember

the advise of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great faire, and
to seeke to make markets afterwards: also the encouragement of S. Chrysostome, It is alto-
gether impossible, that he that is sober (and watchfull) should at any time be neglected: Lastly,
the admonition and menacing of S. Augustine, They that despise Gods will inviting them,
shal feele Gods will taking vengeance of them.”
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 25–40
Gethsemane’s King-Lamb:
A Sermon on John 18:7–8, 12–13a
joel r. beeke
q
John 18 introduces us to the greatest day in the history of the world:

the final twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life prior to His crucifixion and
death. How packed with action these hours are! We’re prone to con-
sider them exclusively as a theological event called the atonement,
forgetting that all the events recorded in this chapter happened in
real time. We lose the action, the tension, the horror, the pain, the
shame, and the bravery of our 33-year-old Savior. Christ did not die
a theoretical death. In John 18, Jesus enters the Holy Place as our
High Priest where He will tread the winepress of God’s wrath. The
culmination of His sufferings consists of the events that took place
in Gethsemane, the garden of agony; Gabbatha, the judgment hall of
Pilate; and Golgotha, the hill of execution.
Our chapter begins with Jesus and the disciples leaving Jerusalem
after celebrating the Passover. Christ is about to lay down His life for
His disciples, including the ones who were just disputing who was the
greatest among them, those who would forsake Him in His darkest
hour, and the one who would deny Him that night. To all He said,
“With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suf-
fer” (Luke 22:15). Greater love hath no man than this!
Jesus and His disciples leave Jerusalem through the gate north of
the temple. “He went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron,
where was a garden, into which he entered” (John 18:1). This gar-
den was known as Gethsemane, on the lower slopes of the Mount
of Olives where large, massive olive trees grew, and where the Lord
had often gone to pray. But this time He went forth not only to pray
but also to suffer betrayal, arrest, and captivity. That is emphasized in
verse 4, which says, “Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon
him, went forth.”
Do the words He went forth give you pause? If not, consider that
Jesus went forth, knowing that His disciples would abandon Him,
knowing the bitter suffering that was required to make satisfaction
for His people’s sins, and knowing the betrayal that Judas, His hand-
picked disciple—one of the twelve—had already negotiated with
the Jewish authorities. Jesus went forth, knowing that He would be
whipped and beaten and spat upon, knowing that the hairs of His
beard would be plucked out, and knowing that great nails would be
driven through His hands and feet. Jesus went forth, knowing how
full and how bitter the cup was that He must drink, down to the
dregs. He must be delivered into the hands of wicked men, be cruci-
fied, and abide for three dark hours under the wrath of God in the
torments of hell itself, until at last He will give Himself up to the
power of death itself. Knowing all this, He went forth undaunted and
strong in His determination to finish the work He had been given to
do in this world.
He knew all that, but He knew you too, and He knew me. He
knew His church. He knew that company of people there, which God
had told Abraham would be as numerous as the sand on the seashores.
He knew us with a loving knowledge, with a sympathetic knowledge,
with a forgiving knowledge. He knew that soon we would all be with
Him forever as His ransomed people and loved ones. What a joy to
be surrounded by everybody we love, without one missing! That was
the joy and hope set before Him that strengthened Him and enabled
Him to endure the shame of the cross.
Jesus went forth not as a martyr or a helpless victim, but as the
willing Suffering Servant of Jehovah, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah,
as the Lamb of God. No one will ever comprehend the magnitude
of the sufferings of the King-Lamb in this awesome hour at Geth-
semane. In this sermon, I wish to expound the theme of Christ in
Gethsemane as the King of kings and the Lamb of God, emphasizing
verses 7–8 and 12–13a of John 18: “Then asked he them again, Whom
seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told
you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way….
Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and
bound him, and led him away.”
I set two major points before you: (1) the King’s threefold sover-
eignty, and (2) the Lamb’s threefold submission.
Gethsemane’s King-Lamb 27
The King’s Threefold Sovereignty

Only eleven disciples entered the garden of Gethsemane with Jesus,
and only three of those were invited to go with Him still further into
the shadows and quiet of the garden. But even those three could not
enter all the way into His sufferings. Moving a stone’s throw beyond
His disciples, Jesus fell to the earth and cried out to God, asking if
there be any alternative to drinking this bitter cup of suffering. There
are no words strong enough to express His suffering in this garden.
Mark says that He was “sore amazed” (Mark 14:33); Luke, that He
was “in an agony” (Luke 22:44); and Matthew, that He cried out: “My
soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Matt. 27:38). In sum,
Jesus was overwhelmed, immersed, and burdened down with grief.
He knew with perfect clarity, even before they happened, that intense
sufferings would descend upon Him. The full weight of sin and the
awful curse that His Father placed upon it would be imposed upon
Him. Even worse, His Father’s comforting presence would be with-
drawn from Him in the midst of this horrible suffering.
If the power of His Godhead had not sustained Him, Jesus could
not have endured the horrors of Gethsemane, to say nothing of what
was to follow. Three times Jesus leaves His disciples to cry out as
He writhes in agony of body and soul on the ground. “Father, if
thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will,
but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Jesus sweats drops of blood as the
enemy is approaching to betray Him. He suffers and prays as His
choicest friends are sleeping.
After the third session of prayer, Jesus goes forth to meet Judas
and a band of soldiers. This is the same disciple who an hour or two
before sat with Him at the Last Supper. Judas left the table early to
go to the chief priests and Pharisees with an offer to assist them in
arresting Jesus. During the time of Passover, hundreds of soldiers,
called the Roman cohort or band, guarded the temple against revolu-
tions or uprisings. They were the most highly trained Roman soldiers
in the entire army. They were comparable, I suppose, to Green Berets
of today.
The chief priests and Pharisees went to the captain of this band
to ask for some soldiers to arrest Jesus. They had to convince the
captain that the Nazarene named Jesus was about to incite a riot or
lead a revolt and needed to be arrested. The captain agreed to send a
large part of the band to arrest Jesus. Scripture says a great multitude
of people followed Judas to the garden, including Jews and Gentiles,
believers and unbelievers. Many of the soldiers in the band came well
equipped; they were armed with swords and staves, carrying torches
and lamps to light their way in the night and to located Jesus in case
He tried to hide in the foliage of the olive tree. So they approached
the garden to surround it and tighten the noose around Jesus. No
doubt they expected to find Him cowering under one of the olives
trees, hiding behind its foliage like a defeated Saddam Hussein cow-
ering in a pit. Perhaps they feared that He and His followers would
offer armed resistance. The only uncertainty was whether they had
the right man. That was solved by arranging for Judas to kiss the man
they are looking for. Thus the plans are complete. They are certain
that this time Jesus will not escape.
The King’s Sovereign Question

Suddenly Jesus takes charge as Gethsemane’s King. He walks boldly
into the moonlight and asks the sovereign question: “Whom seek ye?”
Judas is so intent on his devilish plans that he is blinded to Jesus’ sud-
den display of His royal glory (krupsis). Judas boldly greets Jesus with
“Hail Master,” and kisses Him. The Greek form of the verb implies
a repeated action—that is, Judas kisses Jesus repeatedly, so that the
entire multitude knows this is the dangerous Nazarene. Those kisses
burn—they sting and betray. Astonishingly, God permits this; and
even more astonishingly, Jesus responds to Judas’s audacity with a
very mild rebuke, saying, “Friend [imagine that: friend!], betrayest
thou the Son of man with a kiss?”
Judas gave every appearance of being a religious, pious man two
hours before at the Supper. Now he betrays his Lord with a kiss. What
a hypocrite!
Tragically, we by nature are no better than Judas. We too have
rejected and betrayed Christ with our blatant unbelief and, as believ-
ers, with a vain show of religion. We too succumbed to the temptation
to bargain away our profession of faith in Him for whatever the world
offers us. Even after we receive grace, the Holy Spirit must teach us
that each new sin is another hypocritical kissing of Jesus. That is par-
ticularly true of ministers who sin far too easily although we know
better. How we need to cry out, “O God, preserve me. Keep me from
sinning, and from hypocrisy!”
Do we, like Judas, sit with believers one moment, and strike up a
bargain with God’s enemies the next? Are we two-faced in our walk
and our talk? Do our spouse and children see us behave differently at
home than in church? Would our colleagues in the office recognize
the man we try to be at church?
In a loud, clear, kingly voice, Jesus asks, “Whom seek ye?” There
is such boldness in these words. The band of soldiers is prepared to
surround the garden and lift their lamp-poles high to search for a
man in hiding. But now Jesus steps boldly into the light and asks,
“Whom seek ye?”
This question also comes to us today: “Whom seek ye?”
We are all seekers, but what or whom do we seek? Jesus, the only
Savior? Then what kind of Jesus do we seek? The multitude in the
garden also seeks Jesus. They want “Jesus of Nazareth”—literally,
“Jesus the Nazarene.” Nazareth is considered a place of reproach; you
may recall how Nathaniel asked, “Can any good thing come out of
Nazareth?” Though the title Jesus of Nazareth can be used reverently
(i.e., Acts 2:22), this multitude is implying that Jesus is a false prophet
and a wicked man. They want to arrest Jesus so they can ridicule,
despise, and trample upon Him.
We also do this by nature. We try to ignore the true Savior and
His calling. We shrug off Jesus’ question by saying, “I can’t save myself
anyway.” But if we refuse to answer His question, “Whom seek ye?”
now, we will be forced to answer it when everything and everyone we
have sought will become public on the Day of Judgment.
You may argue, “But I am much more religious than that!”
Indeed, you may well be. But what kind of Jesus are you seeking?
What kind of Jesus are people in your church seeking? Do you preach
to them in a searching manner, separating the precious from the vile?
Is your preaching discriminatory? Millions of people today say they
have received Christ, yet give little or no evidence that they have been
spiritually awakened from the dead. They do not need Jesus as living
Savior and Lord, and remain unresponsive to His spiritual beauty and
glory. Unlike Paul, they don’t count everything loss for the sake of
the excellency and surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus as the
altogether lovely Bridegroom and Lord (Phil. 3:8).
John Piper describes this problem well:
When these people say they “receive Christ,” they do not receive
him as supremely valuable. They receive him simply as sin-forgiver
(because they love being guilt-free), and as rescuer-from-hell
(because they love being pain-free), and as healer (because they
love being disease-free), and as protector (because they love
being safe), and as prosperity-giver (because they love being
wealthy), and as Creator (because they want a personal universe),
and as Lord of history (because they want order and purpose);
but they don’t receive him as supremely and personally valuable
for who he is…. They don’t receive him as he really is—more
glorious, more beautiful, more wonderful, more satisfying, than
everything else in the universe. They don’t prize him, or treasure
him, or cherish him, or delight in him. Or to say it another way,
they “receive Christ” in a way that requires no change in human
nature. You don’t have to be born again to love being guilt-free
and pain-free and disease-free and safe and wealthy. All natural
men without any spiritual life love these things. But to embrace
Jesus as your supreme treasure requires a new nature. No one
does this naturally. You must be born again (John 3:3). You must
be a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). You must be
made spiritually alive (Eph. 2:1–4).1
The King’s Sovereign Self-identification

Jesus then responds to the multitude with a second manifestation of
His kingship, declaring His sovereign self-identification. He says sim-
ply, yet profoundly, “I am he.” Ego eimi—literally, “I am.” As He does
in other “I am” statements in the Gospel of John, it appears that here
too Jesus is proclaiming His deity. In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before
Abraham was, I am.” In response, the Jews took up stones to kill
Him. Jesus now uses the same language that the Lord used in Exodus
3 and is repeated throughout Isaiah 40–55, in identifying Himself as
“I am.” Leon Morris writes, “The soldiers had come out secretly to
arrest a fleeing peasant. In the gloom they find themselves confronted
by a commanding figure, who so far from running away comes out to
meet them and speaks to them in the very language of deity.”2
1. John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2010), 71.
2. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 658.
Jesus’ proclamation has such profound effects on the multitude

that the people fall backward to the ground (v. 6). What good are
all the torches, lamps, swords, staves, officers, soldiers, and captains
against Jesus who proclaims that He is the great “I am”—the great
Jehovah, the unchangeable covenant-keeping God who was, is, and
will always be what He is? Even in the state of His humiliation, one
word from Jesus’ lips is enough to make an entire multitude fall to
the ground.
What then will be His power when He comes as Judge at the
last day? Scripture tells us that every knee will bow—some out of
gratitude and love for being saved, and others in fear of everlasting
perdition who cry out for the mountains and hills to cover them.
Robert Rollock (c. 1555–1599) wrote,
If the bleating of a lamb had such force, what force shall the
roaring of a lion have? Where shall the wicked stand? And if
the voice of the Lord Jesus, humbly, and like a lamb, standing
before them himself alone, and speaking with such gentleness,
had such an effect as to throw them down upon the ground,
what effect shall that roaring, full of wrath and indignation, at
that great day, not out of the mouth of a lamb, nor of an humble
man, Jesus of Nazareth, but out of the mouth of a lion, out of the
mouth of Jesus Christ the Judge, sitting in his glory and majesty,
and saying to the wicked, “Away, ye cursed, to that fire which is
prepared for the devil and the angels” (Matt. 25:41), what effect,
then, shall that voice have?3
What a difference between these two responses to Jesus’ sovereign
self-identification, “I am!” These words comfort His disciples and
terrorize His enemies. Those who were once enemies are now His
friends, causing them to fall forward in respect before Him. What
must it have been for Peter and the disciples to see not only the mul-
titude, but also Judas, fall back before Gethsemane’s Lamb? As they
gaze upon a helpless Judas, their former friend, how can they help but
think, “There but for the grace of God, go I!”
Has the great “I am” ever made you fall before Him in awe of His
powerful justice and merciful grace, crying out, “Have mercy upon
me, O Lord, thou Son of David”?
3. Select Works of Robert Rollock, ed. William M. Gunn (1844–1849; repr., Grand
Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 2:24.
Gethsemane’s King lets the confused and frightened band of sol-

diers get back on their feet. With royal authority, He then repeats the
question: “Whom seek ye?” At this point, don’t you want to cry out to
the multitude: “Do you not understand that the One you are seeking
to arrest is not only Jesus of Nazareth but the very Son of God? Don’t
you see the danger of challenging this King? Repent! Repent and bow
before Him before He destroys you.”
But the multitude is still totally blind. Incredibly, they repeat their
first answer, “Jesus of Nazareth.” We should not be surprised. God
is a God of second chances, but unbelievers will continue to cling to
their rejection of God’s Word if the Holy Spirit does not cause the
scales to fall from their eyes.
The King’s Sovereign Substitution

To their second rejection of Him, Gethsemane’s King not only speaks
with a sovereign question and sovereign self-identification, but also
with sovereign substitution. “I have told you that I am he: if therefore
ye seek me, let these go their way” (v. 8). What a staggering expres-
sion of kingly love this is! Not a single soldier dares to draw his sword
against Jesus or His disciples—not even when Peter lunges at Mal-
chus and cuts off his right ear.
Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) wrote, “Those words, ‘If ye seek
me, let these go their way,’ were like coats of mail to them…. The
disciples walked securely in the midst of the boisterous mob…. The
words of Jesus proved to be a right royal word; it was a divine word;
and men were constrained to obey it.”4
Christ’s mediatorial grace for His people is expressed in verse 9:
“That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which
thou gavest me have I lost none.” Protecting His disciples was more
than just kindness on Christ’s part; He was fulfilling the Father’s
commission to save His sheep. The Father has entrusted His elect to
Christ for salvation, and now Christ will walk alone to the cross so
that not one will be lost. Christ’s royal words will come true (John
6:39; 10:28; 17:2, 12, 19). As Don Carson notes, Christ’s care for the
4. Charles Spurgeon, “The Captive Savior Freeing His People,” Sermon 722 on
John 18:8, 9, Nov. 25, 1866, in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12 (repr., Pasadena,
Tex.: Pilgrim Publications, 1973), 650.
physical safety of His disciples offers us an “illustration” of His work

for their spiritual salvation.5
So Christ tells the soldiers to take Him but to let His disciples go.
Those who could not watch with Him even for one hour now hear
their glorious King declare that He is willing to be arrested, bound,
and led away as a lamb to the slaughter so that they might go free. He
will be scourged, but not they. He will be crucified, but not they. He
will fulfill the words of Isaiah 53:5, “But he was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of
our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” Truly,
there is nothing more loving than what He says: “Let Me be bound
for their sakes.” Have you seen Christ standing in the place of His
apostles, His people, His church—and you? Have you experienced
the power of His substitutionary, royal love?
If Jesus Christ had fled at this moment or simply destroyed His
enemies, our salvation would have been impossible. So He stands His
ground, saying: “Let these go their way.” He stands His ground so
that even cowards like us may be caught in His eternal net of love and
drawn to safety with His cords of love. But He also stands His ground
so that servants of God like us could be given “a royal passport in the
way of providence,” as Spurgeon called it, and then he added, “Fear
not, servant of Christ, you are immortal till your work is done.”6
Verse 12 says, “Then [literally, therefore] the multitude took
Jesus.” So after He clearly showed who was in charge in uttering His
sovereign questions, revealing His sovereign self-identification, and
declaring His sovereign substitution, Jesus is bound and led away (vv.
12–13a). He turns Himself over to His enemies. The King’s amazing
sovereignty gives way to the Lamb’s equally amazing submission.
The Lamb’s Threefold Submission

The Lamb’s Willingness to be Arrested
We first see Christ’s submission in His willingness to be arrested.
Verse 12 says, “Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews
took Jesus.” The original word translated “took” is actually the official
term for a formal arrest. So the soldiers formally arrest Jesus for the
5. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),

579.
6. Spurgeon, “The Captive Savior Freeing His People,” 652.
purpose of charging Him. And Christ willingly submits. See how the
Good Shepherd is willing to lay down His life for His sheep! Behold
the voluntary offering of Christ! See how He lays down His life and
no one takes it from Him (John 10:17–18)!
Spurgeon said, “You are clear that he went willingly, for since a
single word made the captors fall to the ground, what could he not
have done? Another word and they would have descended into the
tomb; another, and they would have been hurled into hell…. There
was no power on earth that could possibly have bound the Lord Jesus,
had he been unwilling.”7 Instead, the sovereign, speaking King will-
ingly becomes a submissive, silent Lamb.
Jesus wasn’t intimidated. He believed the promises of the Word of
God that He would have God with Him. He believed the prophecies
of that Word would be fulfilled. Jesus knew that this was His Father’s
appointed hour of suffering. All history had been moving toward this
hour of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. God had been at work during all
the previous centuries from the creation of the world and the fall of
man, down to this very night, with this hour ever before Him. God
willed it, God planned it, God worked it all out. The incarnate Son of
God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of man, is publicly arrested and taken.
No one can tamper with God’s plan—not Judas, Caiaphas, Herod,
nor Pilate, much less the fearful disciples. God decreed the rise and
fall of nations and empires for this end; He decreed that the high priest
and his cohorts should conspire to kill Jesus, that Judas should betray
Him into their hands, that wicked King Herod and weak Pontius
Pilate should fall in with their plans. So Jesus knew what was com-
ing. Satan’s hour had arrived, but ultimately it would be Jesus’ hour.
In dying, He would destroy the devil who had the power of death. He
would make the destruction of death itself an absolute certainty.
Jesus knew that His hour had also come—His hour! He wasn’t
afraid because His Father, the God of providence, with His hand of
almighty and everywhere present power, was in absolute control.
Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, the Roman soldiers, and the Jerusa-
lem multitude could not so much as move without His will. That
same God is in control of your life also. Nothing happens because
of chance. When your worst fears are realized it isn’t that the Son of
God has stepped away from the throne of the universe, abdicating
7. Spurgeon, “The Captive Savior Freeing His People,” 650.

responsibility for what is happening and abandoning you to the evil

that is in the world. Rather, He is operating among the affairs of men.
Do you believe with the psalmist:
Not unto us, O Lord of heaven,
But unto Thee be glory given;
In love and truth Thou dost fulfil
The counsels of Thy sov’reign will;
Though nations fail Thy power to own,
Yet Thou dost reign, and Thou alone!
And with William Cowper:
Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain
God is His own interpreter
He will make it plain.
Everything that happens to us is according to a plan and timetable
that was fixed before the foundation of the world. No one but the
Lamb of God has been found worthy to execute that plan for the sal-
vation of His people. What befalls us in this life is all part of the will
of our Father in heaven as executed by our Savior. What a comfort for
a Christian!
The Lamb’s Willingness to be Bound

Second, we see Christ’s submission in His willingness to be bound.
Jesus’ hands are chained like those of a murderer or criminal. Tradi-
tion claims that when people were arrested to be brought to a Roman
judge, the accusers bound the hands of the accused so tightly that
blood came out of the ends of their fingers. The goal was to prejudice
the judge against the accused and so incline him to find the accused
guilty as charged. That is probably what the soldiers do to Jesus. The
soldiers bind the hands of One who would gladly have gone with
them unfettered. They bind the blessed hands of One who never
sinned, healed the eyes of the blind and the lame, and blessed little
children. They bind the hands of One who washed His disciples’ feet
and broke bread for them in the Upper Room. They bind the hands
that have dripped with bloody sweat in prayer to the Father. Yet Jesus
offers His hands to be bound in meekness and humility.
Jesus’ bound hands are symbolic of much more. Let me mention

four ways this is so.
First, Jesus is bound to set us free from the bands of sin. Proverbs
5:22 says that by nature we are “holden with the cords of [our] sin.”
By grace, Jesus became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). Fettered with our sins,
He let Himself be arrested and be held captive to free us from the
captivity of sin and Satan, and from the bondage of being prisoners
of hell. As Rollock observed, Christ’s bondage corresponds to and
counteracts our being bound as captives to sin, the devil, and death.
He is a fit Redeemer for sinners because He was bound as we were.8
Therefore, when He arose and ascended on high, He led captivity
captive—bound by the cords of love—to capture His people in the
net of His substitutionary gospel. By His Spirit, He is still drawing
sinners with those bands of love today.
Second, Jesus is bound so that His people might be bound to Him
by obedience and love to serve Him all their days. When they see Him
voluntarily bound for their sake, they become willing to be His ser-
vants forever. When they see Him bound for their sake, no persecution
becomes too much. When they view His bonds, their afflictions and
trials are sweetened and sanctified. They may even rejoice in suffering
under His banner of love like Paul and Silas, who sang in prison and
counted it joy that they were reckoned worthy to suffer for Christ’s
sake (Acts 16:25). When the early church father, Ignatius, was bound
and chained for confessing Christ, he regarded his bands as spiritual
pearls. Do you know the joy of being bound for Christ’s sake as His
willing servant? Do you ever feel the sweetness of His bonds in pasto-
ral ministry when you are persecuted for Christ’s sake?
Third, Jesus is bound as the Second Adam to restore in the Gar-
den of Gethsemane what was lost by the first Adam in the Garden of
Eden. (1) The first Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden; the Second
Adam bore sin in the Garden of Gethsemane. (2) The first Adam was
surrounded with glory, beauty, and harmony in Eden and refused to
obey; the Second Adam was surrounded with bitterness and sorrow
in Gethsemane and was obedient unto death. (3) The first Adam was
tempted by Satan and fell; the Second Adam was tempted by all the
forces of hell, and did not fall. (4) The first Adam’s hands reached
out to grasp sin; the Second Adam’s hands were bound to pay for sin.
8. Rollock, Select Works, 2:39.

(5) The first Adam was guilty and arrested by God during the cool
of the day; the Second Adam was innocent and arrested by men in
the middle of the night. (6) The first Adam hid himself after fleeing;
the Second Adam revealed Himself after walking into the moonlight.
(7) The first Adam took fruit from Eve’s hand; the Second Adam
took the cup from His Father’s hand. (8) The first Adam was con-
quered by the devil; the Second Adam conquered the devil. (9) The
first Adam forfeited and lost grace in Eden; the Second Adam merited
and applied grace in Gethsemane. (10) The first Adam was driven out
of Eden; the Second Adam was willingly led out of Gethsemane so
that room might be made in the heavenly garden of paradise for sin-
ners who trusted in Him. Praise be to God—Christ regained all that
was lost in Adam, and more; in Eden, the sword was drawn and the
conflict of the ages began; in Gethsemane the sword was sheathed,
and the eternal gospel was displayed.
Finally, Jesus is bound above all by the will of the Father. “He
spared not His own Son” that His people might be spared. His being
bound is one of the ingredients of the cup that He had to swallow
in paying for the sins of His people. He was bound to Himself and
to His own work which He had undertaken from eternity. He was
bound to fulfill the eternal covenant of redemption. God bound to
God—how wondrous our God of salvation is!
In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ is the lowly Servant of the
Lord. He did not come to earth to do His own will but to do the will
of Him who sent Him. As Isaiah 42:1–2 tells us, Jesus was the obedi-
ent Servant of the Lord whom God chose, in whom God delights, and
upon whom God puts His Spirit. Likewise, as the Suffering Servant,
it pleases the Lord to bruise Him, to put Him to grief, and to make
His soul an offering for sin (Isa. 53). Jesus thus moves ahead with
quiet determination to do God’s will. As He says in John 10:17–18,
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of
myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
This commandment have I received of my Father.”
The Lamb’s Willingness to be Led Away

Third, we see the Lamb’s submission in His being led away. The
Leader and Shepherd of God’s people is led away as a “lamb to the
slaughter.” “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened

not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep
before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).
It is remarkable how fully this prophecy was fulfilled. Sheep that
were fed in the fields of Cedron were often led through a sheep-gate to
be sacrificed. This was a type of the messianic Lamb of God to come,
for the Lamb of lambs is now led through that same gate to be sacri-
ficed. He is led from place to place like a wandering sheep so that you
and I, who are wandering sheep, might find rest and guidance in Him.
Jesus is led a total distance of seven miles before being crucified.
He is led from Annas to Caiaphas to Pilate to Herod, back to Pilate
and then to the cross to be crucified. What a wonder that this inno-
cent Lamb not only lets Himself be taken and bound but is willing
to be taken from place to place while knowing that His end will be
the cross!
Let us ever thank the triune God for our great substitution-
ary Lamb, who was led away so that we might one day be led into
heavenly mansions! Have you ever seen such a complete and willing
substitute? Praise God that He was taken for criminals, bound for
captives, and led away for wanderers.
In the midst of it all, He was a willing, submissive servant. We are
like sponges soaked in salt water: when people press on us, we squirt
out bitter words of complaint and resentment. But when Christ is
crushed under malice and hatred, not one evil word comes out of His
mouth. His gentleness reveals that He is a perfect Savior from sin and
a perfect example for us.
We read in 1 Peter 2:21–25, “For even hereunto were ye called:
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye
should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in
his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suf-
fered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth
righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the
tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by
whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but
are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
Conclusion
Jesus is the Lord God Almighty, the great I Am. His very name and
word can bring men and angels to their knees. He is a Savior for
the lost, a Redeemer for the guilty, a Physician for the sick, a Friend
for the needy, an Intercessor for the sin-accused, an Advocate for the
law-condemned, a Surety for the debt-plagued, a Healer for the bro-
ken-hearted, a Helper for the self-ruined, and an altogether lovely
Bridegroom for an unfaithful bride. He is everything we need.
We cannot imagine a fuller redemption or a deeper love than what
is provided by Gethsemane’s Lamb. He who is taken and arrested also
takes and arrests sinners, causing them to cry out, “What must I do
to be saved?” He who is bound binds His people so that they declare
death on their self-righteousness and flee to Christ alone. He who
is led away leads sinners to see that salvation is exclusively in Him
and applies it to them so that they glorify Him for His full and free
salvation.
Apart from His great love for us, nothing explains our Lord’s
willingness to be arrested, bound, and led away; but in so doing He
shows Himself to be the perfect Christ for His own. He is arrested so
that He can arrest us as our Prophet and bring us from darkness into
His marvelous light. He is bound so that we can be freed from the bur-
den of sin and guilt that threatens to destroy us, when as both Priest
and victim He offers an acceptable sacrifice to God on our behalf. He
is led away so He can govern us as our King by His Word and Spirit,
leading us back to God, and preserving, guiding, and defending us in
the salvation He has purchased for us.
How unspeakably beautiful is our Lord Jesus Christ! Jonathan
Edwards (1703–1758) said, “In the person of Christ do meet together
infinite majesty, and transcendent meekness.”9 This, Edwards said, is
what makes Christ so very excellent. He is the mighty and terrifying
King, at whose presence the earth quakes. Yet He exhibits the greatest
humility, even under the bitter attacks and injuries of His enemies.
May Christ’s unique combination of majesty and meekness win your
heart to forever adore Him.
What a wonder it is that the great Deliverer delivers Himself up;
the divinely appointed Judge is arrested as a common criminal; the
great Liberator is bound; the great Leader is led away. Let us praise
Gethsemane’s Christ, the King of kings and the Lamb of God, and
resolve to trust Him more fully, follow Him more obediently, and
9. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 19, Sermons and Discourses, 1734–1738,
ed. M. X. Lesser (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 568.
look the more expectantly for His return to take us to Himself. Let us
take with us five practical ways in which Christ as Gethsemane’s King
and Lamb should impact our faith and life.
• Let us honor His authority as King with greater fear and
reverence.
• Let us submit to the trials He imposes on us without com-
plaint—indeed, with cheerfulness and thanksgiving—so
that we may drink the cup He places in our hands rather
than to plead for another.
• Let us learn to know when silence is a more powerful tes-
timony in the presence of evil and unbelief than any words
we might say.
• Like Paul, let us cherish the privilege of being admitted to
the fellowship of His sufferings.
• Let us honor His giving up of Himself for us with more
complete surrender of ourselves to Him, so that we would
request to be His willing servant, now and forever.
Systematic and
Historical Theology
q
PRJ 4, 1 (2011): 43–74
Toward a Theological System

of Michael Sattler
david saxton
q
Among any serious study of Protestant martyrology, one would cer-

tainly find the heart-wrenching account of the cruel execution of a
converted Romanist priest named Michael Sattler, along with his
faithful wife, Margaretha. Sattler’s story is so fascinating yet tragic
that, in recent years, it has been captured in a major motion picture.1
However gruesome his end may have been, it is Sattler’s life—a life
lived unto Christ and seeking the purity of the church—which ought
to be remembered most by God’s people.
Sattler was not primarily a martyr; he was a pioneer biblical
theologian of the “Radical” Anabaptists, or rather, the so-called free
branch of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. He
has been called by some the most significant leader of the first gen-
eration of Anabaptists,2 as well as “an outstanding leader of Swiss and
South German Anabaptism.”3 John Yoder proposed that Anabaptism
itself survived as a visible movement during its formative years, due
to the leadership of Michael Sattler.4 Though he died at the young
age of thirty-seven, his influential legacy continues beyond the grave
through his authorship of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, the
first formal doctrinal statement of the Anabaptist movement.
1. See Joel Kaufmann and Darryl Wimberley, The Radicals, DVD, directed by
Raul V. Carrera [Worcester, Pa.: Vision Video, 1990].
2. John H. Yoder, trans. and ed., The Legacy of Michael Sattler (Scottdale, Pa.:
Herald Press, 1973), 10.
3. Angel M. Mergal and George H. Williams, trans. and eds., Spiritual and
Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1957), 136.
4. Yoder, Legacy, 7.
Because of the brevity of his life, history has left us only a small
handful of Sattler’s written works. Among contemporary scholarship,
there is much debate as to which of these works can actually be attrib-
uted to Sattler himself. Thus, because of the limited number of writings,
it is often difficult to know what he actually believed or whether he
ought to be labeled a theologian at all. Adding to the mystery about Sat-
tler’s doctrinal beliefs is the question of exactly why he withdrew from
fellowship with and criticized some of the magisterial Reformers.
It is therefore the burden of this article to show that, although
journeying between medieval monasticism and Reformed theol-
ogy, Sattler should be respected as falling within the broad stream
of orthodox belief as an early Anabaptist and biblical theologian. In
order to make its case, this paper will seek to set forth a basic out-
line of Sattler’s theological system from his own writings, recorded
statements by witnesses, and from the correspondence of those with
whom he maintained a dialogue. All those studying the primary
source material of Sattler are indebted to the work of John H. Yoder,
whose English translations of Sattler continue to serve as the stan-
dard. Finally, although a number of men have written on the theology
of Sattler from the Anabaptist perspective, I will approach Sattler’s
theology from the standpoint of appreciating Reformed theology and
noting his departures from it.
The Formative Theological Influences on Michael Sattler

Before venturing into a reconstruction of Sattler’s theological sys-
tem, it is necessary to understand more about the man himself. To
this end, we will consider a brief biography of Sattler’s life, particu-
larly focusing on the theological influences in his experience, as well
as his reactions against other doctrinal systems. Sattler scholar C.
Arnold Snyder divides Sattler’s life into four periods,5 which we will
generally use as we survey his life and theological influences: his
early life and education, his life in monasticism, his transition from
monasticism to Anabaptism, and his life as an Anabaptist, which will
5. C. Arnold Snyder, “Life of Michael Sattler Reconsidered,” Mennonite Quar-

terly Review 52 (1978): 328–32. For more bibliographical information on Sattler’s life,
see C. Arnold Snyder, The Life and Thought of Michael Sattler (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald
Press, 1984).
Theological System of Michael Sattler 45
include his important interaction with Strasbourg Reformers, as well

as his martyrdom.
Sattler’s Early Life, Education, and Experience in Monasticism

Michael Sattler was born at Stauffen in the Breisgau, near Freiberg,
Germany, around 1490.6 Since Stauffen was under the jurisdiction of
the Roman Catholic Church at the time,7 young Sattler was appar-
ently noticed and set apart for higher religious education at an early
age. After becoming a Benedictine monk at St. Peter’s monastery,
he apparently attended classes at the University of Freiberg,8 which
was known for its humanist leanings. Although scholars differ on the
amount of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew Sattler actually knew, they are
uniformly agreed that he became a learned man for his day. Unlike
some Anabaptist leaders, Sattler had a basic understanding of histori-
cal theology, such as the early church councils and their important
decisions.9 Although Freiberg was a staunchly Catholic city, Sattler’s
university education would have introduced him to much of Euro-
pean Renaissance humanism, as well as medieval scholasticism.
Following his entrance into St. Peter’s monastery, a Benedictine
cloister in the Black Forrest just outside of Freiberg, Sattler rose to
become prior, second only to the abbot.10 Due to a fire destroying the
records, not much is known about Sattler’s experience at the monas-
tery, but “there would seem to be every reason to consider monasticism
as a potentially positive force, instrumental in shaping some of Sat-
tler’s later views.”11 Snyder feels that Sattler’s monastic background
with the Benedictines shaped his future Anabaptist thinking in the
following ways: 1) an emphasis on a disciplined community, 2) an
emphasis on obedience to Christ and the following of His example,
6. Snyder, “Sattler Reconsidered,” 329.

7. Consult Charles S. Anderson, Augsburg Historical Atlas of Christianity in the Mid-
dle Ages and Reformation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1967), 42–43.
8. “His name is not on the matriculation lists of the University of Freiberg;
nevertheless, it is possible that as a monk,...he attended lectures,” so says Gustav
Bossert, Jr., Harold S. Bender, and C. Arnold Snyder, “Sattler, Michael (d. 1527)” in
Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (GAMEO), 1989, http://gameo.org/
encyclopedia/contents/S280.html [accessed November 2, 2010].
9. Thomas N. Finger, A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology: Biblical, Historical,
Constructive (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 423–24.
10. Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 136.
and 3) an emphasis on both the renunciation of the world and separa-

tion from it.12
Sattler’s Transition from Monasticism to Anabaptism

Thus far we have seen that Sattler had both positive and negative
theological influences early in his life—positively, a good humanis-
tic training in the ancient languages, and, negatively, the baggage of
leftover medieval theology found in monasticism. However, the most
powerful influence was now to be experienced in his life—the trans-
forming power of the gospel.
During his stay at the monastery, Sattler had begun to study the
Pauline epistles and possibly some Lutheran works.13 It is also likely,
in light of the peasants’ close association with his monastery, that
he may have had personal contact with an Anabaptist from Oberlatt
named Han Kuenzi.14 His biblical studies, coupled with his apprehen-
sion of the “pomp, pride, usury, and great fornication of the monks
and priests,”15 led to his true spiritual conversion to Christ. Wiswedel
asserts: “Like Luther, so Sattler also came to certainty of belief and
salvation in the monastery. This inner transformation allowed the
monk from St. Peter’s to take off his cowl and take on a wife.”16 Hav-
ing been freed from his disillusioned life as a son of Rome, Sattler
left the monastery as a German Lutheran, married a former Beguine
nun named Margaretha, and hoped to proclaim Reformation truths
in his home area. His plans were soon altered, however, when he
and his new bride were forced to flee to the more Protestant-friendly
Zurich, Switzerland, since Ferdinand I was seeking to rid the Breis-
gau region of all “heretics.”17
Sattler’s Life as an Anabaptist

The next time Sattler is seen in history is March 1525, when he
appeared in Zurich as an Anabaptist, having been influenced by both

13. William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century
Anabaptism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 58.
14. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, 60.
15. Sattler, “Martyrdom,” in Yoder, Legacy, 72.
16. Snyder, “Sattler Reconsidered,” 330 –31.
Conrad Grebel and especially William Reublin.18 Like Grebel, Felix

Mantz, and George Blaurock, Sattler probably was drawn to Ana-
baptism after being dissatisfied with Zwingli’s failure to implement
biblical reforms quickly enough, especially the ending of the mass.
Rather than waiting for biblical reform through the Zurich city coun-
cil’s decision, Sattler moved ahead with the other Anabaptists leaders
and began to powerfully and zealously preach Anabaptist doctrine,
often in the forests around Zurich.19
Because of Sattler’s effective leadership abilities and growing influ-
ence, he was present at the third magisterially authorized disputation
with the Swiss Brethren concerning infant baptism on November 6,
1525.20 Unfortunately, reconciliation between these brethren did not
occur because an actual debate on the biblical teachings of baptism
was not allowed. The Zurich council simply delivered the Anabaptists
an ultimatum: every infant now had to be baptized within eight days
of birth or the family would suffer banishment. Although Zwingli
once said, “I did not learn my doctrine from Luther, but from God’s
Word itself,”21 he did not allow this same soul liberty to his consci-
entious former students. Having suffered two arrests, Sattler was
finally expelled from the Swiss Canton of Zurich on November 18,
1525.22 Yet, it was during this time he developed his strong Anabaptist
convictions, both through interacting with the founders of biblical
Anabaptism,23 as well as through debate with Zwingli. Though he
returned to his hometown of Stauffen as an advocate and preacher
of Anabaptism, he soon was forced leave this firmly Catholic region
again.24 Sattler and his wife then took refuge in the French Reforma-
tion city of Strasbourg. Although his experience with the Strasbourg
Reformers would be much more amiable than that which he shared
18. Leland Harder, ed., The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and
Related Documents (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1985), 563.
19. Bossert, GAMEO, 1.
21. Timothy George, The Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman Press,
1988), 113.
22. Bossert, GAMEO, 1.
23. See Estep, Anabaptist Story, 61. “His personal contacts with Grebel, Mantz,
and Blaurock ...gave him ample opportunity to observe the nature of the [Anabap-
tist] movement and its varied expressions in Switzerland and southwest Germany.”
24. Harder, Sources, 563.
with Zwingli, Sattler was now willing to question and even reject
certain Reformed views of the Bible.
Sattler’s Interaction with the Strasbourg Reformers

Sometime in 1526, Sattler arrived in Strasbourg, a city greatly
affected by the Reformation through the leadership of Martin Bucer
and Wolfgang Capito. Although a Reformed stronghold, Strasbourg
still maintained a reputation in Europe for its religious diversity and
toleration.25 Of course, this kind of openness served as a religious
magnet to draw in all types of dissenters, including a number of well-
known Anabaptists. Two notable Anabaptist refugees already in the
city when Sattler arrived were Hans Denck and Ludwig Haetzer. It
seems as if Sattler was nearer in spirit and theology to the Reform-
ers Bucer and Capito than to Denck and Haetzer. On December 24,
1526, after a debate with Bucer, Denck was forced to leave Strasbourg
under order of the city council, while Sattler was allowed to remain in
the city, eventually leaving of his own accord.26 Although Bucer and
Capito made many positive statements about Sattler’s character; it was
actually Haetzer that made one of the few negative statements about
him (outside his executioners), calling him “a shrewd and wicked
rascal.”27 Estep rightly concludes that “while both Haetzer and Denck
were...not appreciated by Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito....
[that was different] with Sattler, who was highly esteemed by both
Reformers.”28 Whereas it would be difficult to prove that Denck and
Sattler were vastly different in their basic theology and practice during
their Strasbourg encounter, Bucer and Capito felt that Denck “dis-
turbed [the] church exceedingly,”29 while the more reasonable and
peaceable Sattler was allowed to remain.
What then was the Strasbourg Reformers’ view of Sattler? To
answer this question, we turn to written correspondence expound-
ing the similarities and differences between the beliefs of Sattler and
25. The Anbaptists called Strasbourg “the city of hope” and “the refuge of righ-
teousness.” Cf. George Hunston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1962), 159.
28. Estep, Anabaptist Story, 62.
29. Estep, Anabaptist Story, 62. Here Estep is citing a letter from Capito to
Zwingli, following Hans Denck’s expulsion from the city.
those of the Strasbourg Reformers. These letters also provide us a

great deal of our understanding of Sattler’s own theology. First, we
have Sattler’s “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” which he
wrote shortly following his departure from Strasbourg in early 1527.
Though extremely gracious and irenic toward Bucer and Capito, 30
Sattler listed twenty reasons for why he was separating from them.
The points were mainly concerning differences he felt he had with
them about baptism, non-resistance, separation from the world,
and about the magistrate’s relationship to Christians. 31 This letter is
important because it shows that whereas Sattler disagreed with the
Reformers to the point that they could no longer work together, he
still accepted them as “dear brothers in God.”
Second, we have the “First Capito Letter,” written by Bucer and
Capito to the Burgermeister and Council at Horb, May 31, 1527, fol-
lowing the execution of their friend, Michael Sattler. In this official
letter, the Strasbourg Reformers show where they disagreed with Sat-
tler’s theology, but scolded the city council for killing, rather than
patiently instructing, this one who was “weak in the faith.”32 They
closed their letter by asking for the merciful release of Sattler’s follow-
ers who may be in error, but not heretics, writing:
Even if it might not be possible at once to convince them of all
the secondary points, then one must take time until God give
grace; for one should not break a bruised reed or quench a glow-
ing flax.... They are nevertheless confessors of the faith and of
the honor of God.33
Third, we have the “Second Capito Letter,” written at the same
time as the first letter by Bucer and Capito in order to encourage and
gently correct Sattler’s own congregation, following his death. Their
language is warm-hearted and pastoral. While it certainly offered cor-
rections to some of their faulty notions, such as Christians not being
30. See Sattler, “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 21.
The letter begins, “Michael Sattler to his beloved brothers in God Capito and Bucer
and other who love and confess Christ from the heart.”
31. Sattler, “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 23.
Sattler felt that heretics should be addressed by the church through the ban or
excommunication.
32. Capito, “The Capito Letters,” in Yoder, Legacy, 88.
free to serve as magistrates, the tone is not so much to correct heretics

as to comfort fellow Christians during a time of trial by fire. They
warmly closed this letter: “To my dear brothers and sisters who are
now testifying with their own bodies to Christ the crucified One, by
their imprisonment and suffering at Horb.”34
Thus from these three letters of correspondence between Sattler,
Sattler’s followers, and the Strasbourg Reformers themselves, one can
gain a clear view of the relationship between Sattler’s theology and
that of the Reformed faith. First, Sattler was clearly not coming down
squarely on the side of the Reformed expression of the faith, particu-
larly those of the magisterial Reformers. His parting letter shows that
his views of believers’ baptism and church purity, coupled with his
strict view of a Christian’s separation from any aspect of secular gov-
ernment, kept Sattler from remaining in the safe haven of Strasbourg.
Second, although Sattler was not thoroughly Reformed in his
expression of faith, the Strasbourg Reformers considered him within
Christian orthodoxy. The Strasbourg Reformers differed with Sat-
tler over errors related to secondary matters, rather than matters of
heresy. The fact that Sattler was clearly within broad evangelical ortho-
doxy becomes more apparent as one reads their written interaction.
In their “A Faithful Warning,” the Reformers write to distinguish
heretical Anabaptists from orthodox Anabaptists, such as Sattler:
“Thus we do not doubt that Michael Sattler, who was burned at Rot-
tenburg, was a dear friend of God, even though he was a leader in
the baptism order.”35
Though the Reformers appreciated and respected Sattler, this is
not to imply that they thought that his errors were unimportant. In
the Capito Letters, they write, “This Michael was known to us here
in Strasbourg and did hold to some errors regarding the Word, which
we faithfully sought to show him by Scripture.”36 Although clearly the
Reformers “were not in agreement with him as he wished to make
Christians righteous by their acceptance of articles,” yet they admired
his desire for a pure Christian church. 37 Referring to the scriptural
differences between him and the Reformers, they call them “sec-

35. Capito, “A Faithful Warning,” in Yoder, Legacy, 19.
ondary points,” “that in a friendly way38 they [Anabaptists] might be

better taught where they are in error, although in the main points of
the faith and its meanings they are not all wrong.”39 Thus, although
differing with Sattler on the role of the magistrate, the extent of sepa-
ration from the world, taking the oath, bearing arms, baptism, and the
like, the Reformers called Sattler and his followers “confessors of the
faith and of the honor of God and therefore children of God.”40 They
fairly defend Sattler’s followers, writing, “Their foundation is truly
that we must hear Christ the Son of God and that he who believes in
Him has eternal life.”41
Therefore, in their minds, the Reformers considered Sattler’s
death a true Christian martyrdom and a great travesty of justice.
Referring to their July 1527 “A Faithful Warning,” Williams notes
that Capito and Bucer “pointed out that even though Tertullian erred
as a Montanist Spiritualist, and Cyprian as an Anabaptist, they were
rightly revered as true martyrs of the church. Bucer expressly dis-
tinguished Sattler favorably from Denck, for example, on the crucial
issue of the atonement.”42
Third, Sattler’s theology was a hybrid of the Reformed doctrines
of faith, coupled with expressions which resembled more of a medieval
monastic spirit. Being fearful that some of the Reformation doctrines,
such as justification by faith, may lead to an antinomian spirit, Sat-
tler went to the other extreme of behaviorism or moralism. Leonard
Verduin wrote that Sattler believed that the Reformers “throw works
without faith so far to one side that they erect a faith without works.”43
This could explain why Sattler’s Schleitheim Confession deals exclu-
sively with behavior or practical matters, rather than beginning on
firm doctrinal footing. Consider how the Reformers expressed their
concern that Sattler mixed medieval monastic thought with Reforma-
tion theology:
38. “A friendly way” was with patient Christian instruction, not by the execu-
tioner’s sword.
39. Capito, “The Capito Letters,” in Yoder, Legacy, 91–92.
42. Williams, Radical Reformation, 187.
43. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1964), 105.
Now we were not in agreement with him as he wished to make

Christians righteous by their acceptance of articles and an out-
ward commitment. This we thought to be the beginning of
a new monasticism. We desired rather to the believing life by
contemplation of the mercies of God, as Moses based his exhor-
tations to good works, on the reminder of divine favors and of
the fatherly disciplining of the people of God.44
So then, the Strasbourg Reformers were concerned with Sat-
tler’s emphasis on submitting to a monastic-like rule of life, rather
than changing their Christian behavior as an evangelical response
to God’s love. Of this new monasticism, Finger wrote, “The Stras-
bourg Reformers, especially Wolfgang Capito, will find Sattler’s faith
basically sound. Yet they will caution that he insists too legalisti-
cally on performing good works and separates the true church too
sharply from society.”45 Williams concurs that Sattler’s new monasti-
cism or what could be called “evangelical monasticism” is what made
the Strasbourg Reformers most uneasy with him.46 So between the
Reformers and Sattler, there was a significant difference in emphasis.
While Sattler focused more on the fruits of personal righteousness,
the Reformers started with grace as producing those fruits of righ-
teousness. In conclusion, whereas Sattler was not comfortable with
the Reformed expression of faith, he was clearly within evangelical
orthodoxy. He could most precisely be considered a type of an evan-
gelical monastic.
Sattler’s Departure from Strasbourg and the Writing

of the Schleitheim Confession
Although it is debatable whether Sattler’s departure from Strasbourg
was premature and hasty, he apparently returned to Germany some-
time near the end of 1526 at the invitation of William Reublin. Goetz
believes that Sattler left Strasbourg only “when all hope of steer-
ing the Reformation in their own [the Anabaptists] direction had
vanished.”47 Sadly, Strasbourg was one of the last good opportunities

45. Finger, Anabaptist Theology, 22.
47. Hans Jurgen-Goertz, The Anabaptists, trans. Trevor Johnson (New York:
Routledge, 1996), 14.
for the Reformed and Anabaptist faiths to be mended together, if this

was at all ever possible. Following this separation, Sattler started his
pastoral work just north of Rottenburg. Horb became his center for
evangelistic operations.
It is during this time in early 1527, just after Sattler left Stras-
bourg and following the martyrdom of Felix Mantz,48 that Yoder
wrote of Anabaptism: it “must be recognized as the coming-of-age
of a distinct, visible fellowship taking long-range responsibility for
its order and faith.”49 By this “coming-of-age,” Yoder was referring
to the meeting of the Anabaptists at the border town of Schleitheim,
Switzerland, in order to formulate their first confession of faith. This
was their attempt, which proved to be quite successful, to consoli-
date the many free-flowing groups within Anabaptism into a distinct
movement. On February 24, 1527, the Anabaptists led by Sattler,
produced the document entitled “Brotherly Union of a Number of
Children of God Concerning Seven Articles,” more popularly known
as the Schleitheim Confession of Faith. Leonard Gross expressed the
importance of the Schleitheim Confession to the life and future of
the Anabaptist movement when he wrote that it “gave substance to a
movement which until then had largely been without form, a move-
ment seemingly as varied as the individuals espousing the cause.
Schleitheim brought structure and focus.”50
The Schleitheim Confession is made up of seven articles delin-
eating the Anabaptists’ position on what would be considered more
practical theology than doctrinal. However, it is thoroughly biblical
in its orientation and standpoint. The seven articles discussed include:
1. Baptism; 2. The Ban;51 3. Breaking of Bread;52 4. Separation from
Abominations; 5. Pastors in the Church; 6. The Sword; and 7. The
Oath.53 Although no mention is made in the Schleitheim Confession
as to what the Anabaptists have in common with the main Reformed
48. Felix Mantz was the first Anabaptist martyr at the hands of Protestants,
being killed in Zurich on January 5, 1527.
50. Leonard Gross, “Introduction,” in The Schleitheim Confession, trans. and ed.
John H. Yoder (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1973), 3 – 4.
51. This is church discipline or excommunication.
52. This is the Lord’s Table or Communion.
53. See William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, revised ed. (Valley
Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 25.
doctrines of the faith, one can infer that they had a basic agreement
with them on issues such as the sole authority of the Scriptures, as well
as salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ. John Yoder stated
that the Schleitheim Confession “concentrated [only] upon these
points on which the brothers differed from the rest of Protestantism,”
calling it “a common man’s handbook on Anabaptist distinctives.”54
He then goes on to cite Calvin’s understanding that these were only
their distinctives and not the totality of their beliefs: “They included
the sum of what they hold which is contrary to us and to the papists,
in the seven articles.”55 Williams agreed that the older view which said
the Schleitheim Confession primarily was an attack on the Reformed
faith is just not accurate.56 Rather, Schleitheim assumes agreement
with the main Reformation doctrines, only desiring to show their
own distinctives to distance themselves from more radical and unbib-
lical aspects of the Anabaptist movement. Estep agreed:
The Schleitheim Confession was not intended to be a doctrinal
formulation. There are no strictly theological concepts directly
asserted in it.... The articles are in the nature of a church man-
ual, such as the Didache of the second century.57
Whereas I agree with the modern conclusion, which states that
the Schleitheim Confession does not deny the main Reformation
doctrines, dealing rather with Anabaptist distinctives, I am still trou-
bled about why nothing was said about common doctrinal ground
with the Reformers. My theory is that they did not want to alienate
the many different strands of the Anabaptists with their first confes-
sion, but focus rather on unity.58 Clearly, the Schleitheim Confession

55. John Calvin, Brieve Instruction, quoted in Yoder, Legacy, 44 – 45.
56. Williams, Radical Reformation, 182. This is contrary to the view of church
historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity: Reformation to the Pres-
ent, vol. 2 (reprint of 1975 ed., Peabody, Mass.: Price Press, 1999), 782. Williams
continues on p. 185: “The Schleitheim Confession was far from being a balanced
testimony of the faith and practice of the Swiss Brethren. It was, rather, like most
synodal utterances, shaped by the immediate concerns of the movement to disavow
excesses and aberrations from within and to resist challenges from without.”
57. Estep, Anabaptist Story, 65.
58. Thus, the Schleitheim Confession may have actually allowed some hereti-
cal Anabaptists who disagreed with the core essential Christian beliefs to join in
fellowship with orthodox Anabaptists.
bears the historical legacy of a kind of Christian unity based on exte-

rior practice, rather than doctrinal accuracy. Sadly, this would open
the door to legalists and heretics being able to affirm the Schleitheim
Confession as their own. Thus, Schleitheim’s legacy is really more
moralistic, rather than distinctly evangelical.
One final word should be made about the authorship of the
Schleitheim Confession. It is universally accepted that Sattler was the
primary author of the Schleitheim Confession, and there are no seri-
ous challenges to this tradition. The Strasbourg Reformers believed
Sattler was the author in their first “Capito Letter,”59 and in a let-
ter written from fifty Swiss Brethren elders to Menno Simmons in
1555–1556, the Schleitheim Confession is referred to as “the agree-
ment of Michael Sattler.”60 Although there is no eyewitness account of
this as true, the parallel phrases and writing style of Schleitheim seem
to be clearly that of Sattler. Modern historians, however, are careful to
say that the Schleitheim Confession was technically only “under the
direction of ”61 and “mainly the work of ”62 Michael Sattler.
Sattler’s Trial and Martyrdom

While this article will not venture in detail into Sattler and his wife’s
unjust trial and horrible execution,63 many of his recorded statements
will be later used in an effort to reconstruct his theological system.
Sattler was captured in Horb,64 along with his wife and some other fol-
lowers, by the pro-catholic Austrian forces soon after the completion
of the great Schleitheim conference in February 1527. His “show” trial
and subsequent execution took place in the imperial city of Rottenburg
on the Neckar River during May 1527. During his trial, Sattler refused
59. Wolfgang Capito, “The Capito Letters: Letter to Burgermeister and Coun-
cil at Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 87.
60. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 23.
61. Frank Hamlin Littell, The Anabaptist View of the Church: A Study in the Origins
of Sectarian Protestantism, 2nd ed. (Boston: Starr King Press, 1958), 188.
62. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian
Church, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 299.
63. There are actually four extant accounts of Sattler’s trial and subsequent
martyrdom. This paper will reference the compiled and edited account in Mergal,
Anabaptist Writers, 136 – 44.
64. Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 136, says: “Sattler made the upper Hohenberg
region of Wurtemburg his missionary field with Horb as his headquarters.”
a defense attorney,65 choosing rather to simply and ably answer his

accusers from the Bible, although he was harshly treated in response.66
Sattler’s death truly was barbarous—having part of his tongue cut out
and his flesh torn from his body multiple times with hot irons before
being burnt to ashes. After their failure to obtain a recantation, Sattler’s
wife was martyred by drowning eight days later.67
In considering Sattler’s execution for Christ’s sake, it will suffice
to note that the dialogue recorded between Sattler and his accusers
provides a portrait of a man who was reasonable, thoughtful, theo-
logical, and biblical in his answers and responses to his accusers.68
His verbal defense is actually nothing more than series of biblical
quotes, followed by a doctrinal conclusion. This shows that Sattler
was not a raving mystic, but rather a biblical theologian. For example,
Sattler wisely affirmed that Mary was truly blessed because of her
honor of bearing the Savior of the world; nevertheless, he showed
that Scriptures never regard her as “a mediatrix and advocatess.”69
Sattler did not express his biblical beliefs as mere opinions or specu-
lation, proving the sincerity of his Christian beliefs with his own
blood and burnt flesh.
A Reconstruction of Michael Sattler’s Theology

The focus now is to demonstrate that Sattler’s theology and practice
lies somewhere between the Reformed position and medieval monas-
ticism; however, he was certainly within the bounds of orthodox

66. When Sattler said that he would be open to changing his views if he received
instruction from God’s Word, the town clerk answered: “The hangman will dispute
with you.” The town clerk continued to use the harshest language with Sattler: “It
were well if you had never been born.... If there were not a hangman here, I would
hang you myself and be doing God a good service” (Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 142).
Sattler only continued to appeal to Scriptures with no harsh words for his unjust
persecutors and false accusers.
68. It should also be noted that Sattler did not share total disdain or rejection for
the governmental authorities which were accusing him, referring to them often as
“ministers of God” and remaining respectful of them, even when he had to disagree
with them for sake of loyalty to God’s Word (see Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 141– 42).
69. Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 140. Sattler then continues to quote from specific
verses in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and other places that all true Chris-
tians are saints, not just Mary and those pronounced saints by the Roman Catholic
Church.
Christianity. Reconstructing a theological system of Michael Sattler

does not include a full display of his beliefs, as would be more pos-
sible with Caspar Schwenckfeld or Menno Simmons. This is due to a
lack of many extant writings of Sattler, since he was martyred at such
a young age.
The best collection of Sattler’s works was translated, edited, and
compiled together in 1973 by John H. Yoder. Yoder gave twelve dif-
ferent works70 either written by, attributed to in tradition, or directly
related to Sattler. For this reason, the title of his book is The Legacy
of Michael Sattler, rather than “The Works of Michael Sattler.” In his
own words, Yoder explained why he compiled all twelve of these
works together:
The title we have chosen for the present collection, The Legacy of
Michael Sattler, reflects the fact that, despite some possible serious
doubts about the authorship of some of the texts, they nonethe-
less all spring from the movement of which Michael Sattler was
a major architect and may worthily serve as to document the
character of his movement.71
I will limit myself to those primary sources which are considered
genuinely Sattler’s own work. This is not to say that Sattler’s theology
is not somewhat reflected in all twelve of Yoder’s translated works,72
but I prefer to deal with the known facts about Sattler’s beliefs. Thus,
Sattler’s theology will be reconstructed from the following sources,
which have strong historical support for authenticity:73
• Michael Sattler — Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers.
• Michael Sattler — The Schleitheim Brotherly Union.
• Michael Sattler — Imprisonment: Letter to Horb.
70. This number would increase to thirteen or fourteen if we include a hymn

and the short work entitled “Congregational order,” which was attached to an early
circulation of the Schleitheim Confession. However, there is no definitive evidence
that Sattler was its author.
71. Yoder, Legacy, 100–101.
72. For example, one of the late John Yoder’s former students, Dr. Myron S.
Augsburger, who himself went on to become a Sattler scholar, told me he felt that the
spurious works “On the Satisfaction of Christ” and “On Two Kinds of Obedience”
did reflect Sattler’s mediating position between Reformed and monastic soteriology.
73. See Yoder, Legacy, for this, as he provides both internal and external textual
evidence in his footnotes, as well as his introductions to each translated work.
• Klaus von Graveneck — The Trial and Martyrdom of Michael

Sattler.
• Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer — The Capito Letters.74
The Doctrine of Scripture

Earle Cairns wrote about the goal of Sattler and the other Anabaptists’
thinking: “They wanted to have a restitution, the return of the church
to biblical purity and to Christ in true discipleship.”75 It is this pursuit
of purity in life and doctrine which all Bible believers can appreciate.
Sattler’s desire for restitution to a pure church began with a high view
of the Bible. He believed that the Bible was God’s Word and thus
possessed the final authority on matters of faith and practice. Anyone
examining Sattler’s writings will be refreshed by the numerous scrip-
tural citations and paraphrases.
Sattler clearly held that both the Old and New Testaments were
to be considered God’s authoritative Word. In his Schleitheim Con-
fession, he purposely uses “God” interchangeably with “Scripture.”76
Although he normally quoted Scripture without giving the exact
reference, one can easily recognize his careful and repeated use of
biblical wording. For example, Sattler quoted from a large section of
Titus 2 in the cover letter to the Schleitheim Confession,77 making
reference often to the “rule of Paul,” which seems to be a favorite
thought with Sattler.78 In his prison letter to Horb, Sattler encour-
aged the Christians by citing what he called “the testimony of Paul,”
before quoting the larger section of 1 Corinthians 13.79 In closing this
same letter to Horb, Sattler authoritatively charged the brethren to
obey “what I point to with such Scripture and live accordingly.”80 In
his works, Sattler made specific references to the books of Psalms,
Matthew, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, James,
and 1 Peter.81 Yoder pointed out that in Sattler’s parting letter with the
74. This includes two letters— one to the city council of Horb and one to the
still-imprisoned Christian followers of Sattler.
75. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, 299.
76. Sattler, “The Schleitheim Brotherly Union,” in Yoder, Legacy, 41.
79. Sattler, “Imprisonment: Letter to Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 59.
81. See Sattler, “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 22;
Strasbourg Reformers, his “twenty theses are all direct New Testa-
ment quotations or allusions.”82
For Sattler, then, the Scripture was the final authority which a
Christian may appeal to for justification for his beliefs. His reliance
on the sole authority of the Old and New Testaments can possibly
best be seen when his very life was at stake. During Sattler’s “mock
trial” before his execution, he was allowed one last opportunity to
defend himself against the nine charges brought against him by the
magistrates. Sattler’s answers constitute an example for believers of all
time on how to graciously answer all accusations by appealing to the
simple authority of God’s Word. His answers include appeals to “the
Gospel and the Word of God,” the “Scripture,” what is “written,” “the
command of God,” “the Holy Scripture,” as well as specific references
given from numerous books of the Bible.83 Each of Sattler’s answers
to the nine charges against him were firmly based on the authority of
God’s Word alone. Sattler’s confidence in God’s Word led him to be a
bold proclaimer of the divine truth, even when his life was at stake.84
In his trial then, he not only showed himself to be a biblicist in
his approach to God’s Word, but he was a well-reasoned, gifted sys-
tematic theologian. For example, when answering the charge that he
had “rejected the sacrament of unction,” Sattler wisely answers based
on Scripture:
We have not rejected oil, for it is a creature of God. What God
has made is good and not to be rejected. But what pope, bishop,
monk, and priests have wanted to do is improve on it, this we
thinking nothing of. For the pope has never made anything
good. What the epistle of James speaks of is not the pope’s oil.85
Here he shows himself to be confident in comparing Scripture
with Scripture and giving confident theological conclusions derived
from reasoning from the text of God’s Word itself. This same type of
Sattler, “The Schleitheim Brotherly Union,” in Yoder, Legacy, 42– 44; Sattler quoted
in “Martyrdom of Michael Sattler,” in Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 71–72.
82. Sattler, “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 21.
83. Sattler, quoted in “Martyrdom of Michael Sattler,” in Mergal, Anabaptist
Writers, 139– 41.
84. Note Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 141, where he calls the magistrates “Turks
according to the Spirit,” for their religious hypocrisy.
85. Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 139– 40.
biblical confidence is also seen in the Schleitheim cover letter, where

he weaves together one doctrinal concept after another.86
Finally, Sattler wisely sought to correct the weaknesses of some of
the Anabaptists’ views of Scripture. Sattler was well aware that some
Anabaptists were more speculative than biblical in their understand-
ing of God’s revelation. To his credit, he denounced these plainly in
his letter to Horb:
Some brothers, I know who they are, have fallen short of this
love. They have not wanted to build up one another in love, but
are puffed up and have become useless in vain speculation and
understanding of those things which God wants to keep secret.
I do not admonish or reject the grace and revelation of God, but
the inflated use of this revelation.87
Far from taking a low or mystical approach to God’s Word, Sattler
was almost overly literal in his interpretations of Scripture, failing to
compare Scripture with Scripture at times. Hans Jurgen-Goertz even
asserted that “Michael Sattler marked the switch to a legalistic inter-
pretation of Scripture among the Swiss Brethren.”88 For example, in
his Schleitheim Confession, he took great pains to explain why all
swearing of oaths is absolutely forbidden, and why it is never right for
a Christian to be a magistrate or take up arms, but he seems to suffer
from proof-texting on these points without carefully bringing in all
the various passages to bear on these matters.
Besides his overly literal interpretation of Scripture at times, Sat-
tler was also a product of his time by his appeal to the Apocrypha.
In his letter to Horb, Sattler wrote, “I hope his entire body will soon
no longer be, as stands written in 4 Esdras 11.”89 Then again, in the
close of the same letter, Sattler cited a large section from Esdras again.
Whether Sattler felt that the Apocrypha held the same authority as
the canonical books is not known, but he definitely regarded it with
esteem. However, in his overall approach toward Scripture, Sattler
can be viewed as a careful theological student who strongly empha-
sized Scripture as authoritative.
86. Sattler, “The Schleitheim Brotherly Union,” in Yoder, Legacy, 34–36.

87. Sattler, “Imprisonment: Letter to Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 59–60.
88. Jurgen-Goertz, Anabaptists, 50.
The Doctrine of God

Although some Anabaptists maintained Arian views of Christ and
denied the doctrine of the Trinity, this was certainly not the case with
Sattler. He believed that God eternally exists as one in essence but as
three consubstantial, uncreated, equally divine Persons. In his “Part-
ing with the Strasbourg Reformers,” Sattler distinguished between
the three Persons of the Godhead, yet treated each member as essen-
tially God.90 Following the apostolic example of Paul, Sattler began
both his “Letter to Horb” as well as the Schleitheim Confession with
a Trinitarian blessing: “May joy, peace, [and] mercy from our Father,
through the atonement of the blood of Jesus Christ, together with
the gifts of the Spirit...[give you] strength and consolation...until the
end.”91
Having received training in the Patristics during his time as a
Benedictine monk, Sattler was familiar with the orthodox conclusion
and formula of Nicene. In his letter to Horb, Sattler closed with a
beautiful Trinitarian benediction:
May the peace of Jesus Christ and the love of the heavenly Father,
and the grace of the Spirit keep you flawless, without sin, and
present you joyous and pure before the vision of Their holiness
at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you might be found
among the number of the called ones at the supper of the one-
essential true God and Savior.92
Yoder explained that the term “one-essential” is the German
eingewesen, which was the translation for homoousios, “the Nicene
term for the identity of essence of the Son with the Father.”93 Thomas
Finger also believed that Sattler not only understood the issues and
terminology of the early Trinitarian councils, but was “perhaps
reflecting the Western filioque [clause].”94 Either way, Sattler held to a
historic orthodox view of the substance and persons of the Godhead.
90. Sattler, “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 22–23.
91. Sattler, “The Schleitheim Brotherly Union,” in Yoder, Legacy, 34. See also
Sattler, “Imprisonment: Letter to Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 56.
94. Finger, Anabaptist Theology, 423. The filioque clause of the Western Church
held that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This was in contrast
to the Orthodox Church, which held that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Sattler also believed that the Triune God directs all things for the
end of “His glory.”95 This glorification of His own Person is accom-
plished through His divine decree. Yet far from being impersonal,
God’s decree foreknows, chooses, and calls individual believers out
of this world.96 And thus, God’s “counsel is immutable.”97 In his “Let-
ter to Horb,” Sattler encouraged the brethren by writing, “The elect
servants...will be marked on their forehead with the name of their
Father.”98 Sattler practically saw God’s sovereignty working out in the
life of believers like a Father who chastens His own children for their
ultimate good, “drawn according to the will of the Father” in all perfect
wisdom and divine planning.99 Sattler’s confidence in God’s paternal
love, combined with a reliance on His eternal decree, led him to boldly
declare before his execution: “What God wills, that will come to
pass.”100 Finally, while having a sure trust in God’s providential control,
Sattler recognized that God allows difficult, hard-to-explain events to
occur in a believer’s life. In these difficult things, Sattler counseled, “If
you love God, you will rejoice in the truth and will believe, hope and
endure everything that comes from God.”101
In reference to God’s character, Sattler recognized both the
incommunicable and communicable attributes of God. Sattler viewed
God as righteous, immutable, eternal, and almighty.102 God is also
good and “grace is in Him alone,” as Sattler testified to those who
would execute him.103 Sattler knew that man left to his own sin apart
from Christ would be damned under God’s wrath.104 Man’s hope was
only to be found in God’s graciousness and merciful nature.105

96. Sattler, “Parting with Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 22.
100. Sattler, quoted in “Martyrdom” in Yoder, Legacy, 73.
102. Sattler, “The Schleitheim Brotherly Union,” in Yoder, Legacy, 41; see also
Sattler, quoted in “Martyrdom” in Yoder, Legacy, 74 –75.
Writers, 142.
104. Sattler, “Parting with Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 22–23.
The Doctrines of Man and Sin

While Sattler was clear that all mankind needs saving through Christ
and is naturally under the lordship of Satan to do his will,106 he never
spent time clarifying a doctrine of total depravity. We only see from
his writings that man needs forgiveness for his “shortcomings and
guilt,”107 and that this redemption comes only through God’s grace
expressed in the blood work of Christ.
It does seem, however, that Sattler viewed man after salvation as
having a great measure of ability to keep God’s Word in a pure man-
ner. Citing Esdras, Sattler spoke of believers as having “fulfilled the
Law of the Lord.”108 This may possibly suggest that Sattler believed
in the semi-perfectibility of the Christian man, although not enough
has been written by him on this matter to make a definite conclusion.
Sattler’s doctrines of man and sin then are largely unknown, which
have allowed subsequent generations of Anabaptists to have an overly
optimistic view of mankind and his possible perfectibility.
The Doctrine of Christ’s Person

As already seen above, Sattler affirmed the biblical and historic Nicene
Creed and doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, Christ is divine, possessing all
those attributes of God Himself. But more than this, Sattler’s theology
is Christ-centered rather than church- or sacrament-centered. While
defending his position on Mary and the saints at his trial in Rotten-
burg, Sattler affirmed that only “Christ is our mediator and advocate
with God.”109 Although given opportunity to lay some credit to the
person of Mary in order to possibly save his own life, Sattler made a
good profession of salvation through the person of Christ alone. Fur-
ther, he believed that the real body of Christ could not be present in
the sacrament, because the resurrected Christ Jesus has “ascended into
heaven and sitteth on the right hand of his Heavenly Father, whence
he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”110

Writers, 140.
Writers, 140.
Sattler presented Christ as the Head of the Church111 and the true
Shepherd of men’s souls.112 Thus, the members of the church have
but one allegiance and loyalty—Jesus Christ—for it is only “faith in
Jesus Christ [which] reconciles us with the Father and gives us access
to Him.”113 Further, the members of His body ought to strive to be
“as the Head” in all their behavior and seek to be “conformed to the
image of Christ.”114 Starkly contrasting his presentation of Satan as
the prince of this world, Christ is gloriously displayed as the “Prince
of the Spirit, in whom all who walk in the light live.”115 Not only,
though, is Christ “Prince of the Spirit,” but He was also set forth by
Sattler as “the Prince of our faith and its Perfecter.”116 Thus, Sattler
held to an orthodox, biblical view of Christ, presenting Him as the
all-sufficient Savior and Head of the Church.
The Doctrine of Christ’s Redemptive Work

Sattler’s view of Christ’s redemptive work can be summarized by his
first proposition in his work, “Parting with the Strasbourg Reform-
ers”: “Christ came to save all those who would believe in Him
alone.”117 As such, in contrast to the Reformers, Sattler held to a gen-
eral view of Christ’s atonement. But although he was not as Reformed
in his teachings on the work of Christ, Thomas Finger credited Sat-
tler with doing something that many of the Swiss Brethren, other
than Balthasar Hubmaier, failed to do—explicitly affirm that Christ
is the only one who can reconcile sinners with and grant access to the
Father.118 Sattler taught that Satan actively seeks to destroy mankind,
while Christ actively “seeks to save” mankind.119
In regard to Christ’s reconciliation with man, Sattler believed
that the ground of man’s salvation was His blood atonement. The
importance of the blood atonement to Sattler can be seen by making
an appeal to it in the opening words of the cover letter to the Schleit

118. Finger, Anabaptist Theology, 332–33.
heim Confession, writing, “May joy, peace, mercy from our Father,
through the atonement of the blood of Christ Jesus...[give] strength
and consolation and constance in all tribulation to the end.”120 And
far from Christ providing His blood atonement out of constraint or
because of man’s worth, Sattler noted that the reason for this work of
God is His mercy alone—a gift of His grace.121
Further, he believed that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is always
received through the means of a repentant faith. While testifying at his
trial, Sattler explained that the reason that he was being persecuted
was because he was continuing “in our faith in Christ.”122 Although in
his letter “Parting with the Strasbourg Reformers,” he wrote that “he
who believes and is baptized will be saved,” it is unlikely that he was
seeking to imply baptismal regeneration but is simply quoting from
Mark 16:15 without comment.123 For Sattler, Christ’s blood-bought
salvation was received through “believing prayer” and by “those truly
who believe that their sins are taken away through Christ.”124 Yet far
from being a dead faith, true saving faith is that which is accompanied
with “knowledge unto repentance” and “unto all those who have been
taught repentance and the amendment of life.”125
Sattler believed the result of the gift of Christ’s atonement received
by faith was “to redeem us from all unrighteousness and to purify
unto himself a people of his own, who would be zealous for good
works.”126 His redemption included wiping away one’s “shortcomings
and guilt, through the gracious forgiveness of God and through the
blood of Jesus Christ.”127
Commenting on Sattler’s theology of Christ’s redemption in his
Schleitheim Confession, Thomas Finger wrote, “To Christ’s blood
120. Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 7.

Writers, 142.
123. Sattler, “Parting with Strasbourg Reformers,” in Yoder, Legacy, 22. Sattler
also quotes the second half of Mark 16:15 which says, “He who does not believe
will be damned.” This indicates that unbelief in Christ, not being without water
baptism, sends a person to eternal judgment.
124. Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 10, 18.
125. Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 9–10.
Schleitheim attributed forgiveness.”128 To Sattler, the believer receives

not only forgiveness through faith in Christ’s atonement, but a posi-
tional holiness and righteousness of Christ.129 Forgiveness was only the
first part of Christ’s redemption of the believer’s life. His atoning work
also sanctifies or makes one “freed...from the servitude of the flesh and
fitted...for the service of God and the Spirit whom He has given us.”130
The Doctrine of Sanctification

In approaching Sattler’s doctrine of sanctification, it is important to
understand that this doctrine was of particular interest and impor-
tance to him. For Sattler, purity realized in the life of the believer
and church was paramount to one’s Christian experience. Anabap-
tist scholar C. Arnold Snyder explains that Sattler had such a high
view of maintaining purity in the church through the use of the ban
because of his “very optimistic view of the power of regeneration by
the Spirit of God.”131 His stress of personal and church purity can cer-
tainly be appreciated by God’s people, yet we find in Sattler emphasis
on the sanctifying effects of regeneration without an equal empha-
sis on justification by faith. Sattler’s fear was that the Reformed and
Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith would lead to a kind of
antinomianism, so he reacted or possibly overreacted against it. In
the introduction to the Schleitheim Confession, Sattler warned of “a
very great offense...introduced by several false brethren among us.”132
Sattler then explained that the “great offense” was believers who said
that “they have esteemed that faith and love may do and permit every-
thing and that nothing can harm nor condemn them.”133 It seemed as
if the “false brethren” to whom Sattler referred were those professing
believers who use the doctrine of justification by faith alone to excuse
their ungodly lifestyle. Because of this antinomian abuse by the “false
128. Finger, Anabaptist Theology, 333.

129. See Sattler, “Imprisonment: Letter to Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 53, where he
writes, “May the peace of Jesus Christ, and the love of the heavenly Father and the
grace of Their Spirit keep you flawless, without sin, and present you joyous and pure
before the vision of Their holiness at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
131. C. Arnold Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology (Kitchener, Ontario:
Pandora Press, 1997), 349.
brethren,” Sattler simply decided to focus more on regeneration and its

sanctifying effects instead, rather than on justification. Verduin wrote
that Sattler believed that the Reformers “throw works without faith so
far to one side that they erect a faith without works.”134 Sattler’s failure
to stress both the positional truth of justification, along with the expe-
riential realization of regeneration, produced an unfortunate legacy of
imbalance in Anabaptism to neglect the great Reformation doctrine
of justification by faith. It is not that Sattler rejected justification as
false doctrine; he simply hesitated to teach it in all its glory for fear of
those who would twist it to their own end. The result of this imbal-
ance in emphasis, combined with Sattler’s under-development of the
doctrine of total depravity, certainly tended toward perfectionism.
With this criticism in mind, Sattler developed a quite detailed
expression of sanctification, which he apparently practiced person-
ally and sought to apply among the Anabaptists. Sattler viewed
sanctification as that which was already accomplished positionally in a
believer’s life “through Christ’s blood”; yet he still needed to responsibly
continue to sanctify himself.135 Sanctification, then, was a process of the
believer being separated from every sin,136 which was always accom-
plished in the context of conflict between the flesh and the spirit.137
Sattler taught that believers continue their lifelong process of
sanctification by resisting the carnal promptings and by crucifying
“their flesh with all its lusts and desires.”138 He stressed to his con-
gregation the need to “watch and pray”139 and “to stand fast in the
Lord as obedient children of God...to persevere along the path we
have entered upon, unto the glory of God and of Christ His Son.”140
Probably reflecting his earlier time as a monastic, Sattler’s view of
sanctification was one of extreme personal discipline, yet he moder-
ated this rigidity by also stressing the necessity of love as the basis for
pursuing personal or corporate purity. Writing to his congregation at
Horb, Sattler admonished, “But if you will love the neighbor, you will
134. Verduin, Reformers and Stepchildren, 105.

135. Sattler, “Imprisonment: Letter to Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 58, 60, where he
writes, “Sanctify yourselves to Him who has sanctified you.”
138. Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 9, 19.
not scold or ban zealously…[and be] humble and sympathetic with

the weak and imperfect.”141 Just as God the Father lovingly chastens
and disciplines His children for their sanctification, so we are to love
one another in our discipline of each other.142
For Sattler, the goal of sanctification was for believers to have the
mind of Christ, being conformed to the very image of Christ.143 Sat-
tler wrote that “they are the true Christians who practice in deed the
teaching of Christ.”144 For him, when those who have “fully yielded
and have placed their trust in their Father in heaven,” they will in no
way turn to physical warfare, even in self-protection.145 So, for Sat-
tler, sanctification was intricately intertwined with following Christ’s
example. This is why the Strasbourg Reformers felt that Sattler was
introducing a new monasticism, which focused excessively on legalis-
tic obedience rather than a personal holiness in response to God’s free
redemption and justifying grace.
The Doctrine of Separation

Although intricately related to his doctrine of sanctification, Sat-
tler’s extensive treatment of the believer’s separation from the world
requires a separate point of explanation. For Sattler, separation from
the world was more than a separation from the rebellious spirit of the
age; it meant a separation from the normal aspects of civil govern-
ment and society. I would like to set forth three propositions about
Sattler’s incorrect view of the doctrine of the Christian’s separation.
First, Sattler’s understanding of separation from the world seems
to be grounded on a misunderstanding of the term “world” itself,
coupled with a failure to appreciate common grace. Sattler appar-
ently either rejected or did not understand common grace, writing
that “since all who have not entered into the obedience of faith...are
a great abomination before God, therefore nothing else can or really
will grow or spring forth from them other than abomination.”146
Lacking a well-defined doctrine of total depravity, he did not take into
account that man’s moral pollution has not necessarily affected every

142. Sattler, “Imprisonment: Letter to Horb,” in Yoder, Legacy, 58–59.
aspect of his being equally. Sattler could not understand how a person
without the Holy Spirit could still be appreciated for his mathematical
genius because, to him, he is “nothing but an abomination which we
should shun.”147
A number of Sattler’s propositions justifying his departure from
Strasbourg also indicate that Sattler was confused in his definition of
the world. Rather than distinguishing between the various uses of
the term “world,” Sattler seemed to include all aspects of the world
as evil.148 This would include the “world” as meaning “the world of
humanity,” “the world of material creation,” and “the world as an
organized spirit of rebellion.” Simply put, Sattler misunderstood that
to separate from the world meant to separate from “worldliness” or
the evil spirit of the age and not the neutral aspects of the material
world or fellow humans in general. For Sattler, then, things were very
black and white: since “the citizenship of Christians is in heaven and
not on earth,” then a Christian man has no civic responsibility, nor is
he even allowed to participate in civil dealings.149 This is because “the
devil is the prince over the whole world,” which would include the
material world, lost people, and its evil practices.150
Second, Sattler’s wrong view of separation required that the world
must be as pure as the church if he were to have any social deal-
ings with it. Sattler couldn’t understand how one could be a citizen
of heaven, yet at the same time a loyal citizen of an earthly country.151
It seems as if Sattler could not comprehend Paul’s explanation in
1 Corinthians 5 that Christians are allowed to associate with people
of the world, just not with disobedient professing believers.
Third, Sattler’s hyper-separatistic views led him to allow no
place for the Christian to serve in civil government or military ser-
vice. Although Sattler understood that the civil governments had
been established by God and are as such “ministers of God,”152 he
never participated in civil government, going so far as saying that a
Christian who is a magistrate is one who walks in darkness.153 His

152. Mergal, Anabaptist Writers, 141–42.
Schleitheim Confession bluntly charges “that it does not befit a

Christian to be a magistrate: the rule of the government is according
to the flesh, that of a Christian according to the spirit.”154 Thus, for
the magisterial Reformers, like Zwingli, attempting to use the civil
magistrate to enact religious reform was a syncretistic abomination
for Sattler. Writing of Sattler’s view, Snyder said, “Christians are no
more to participate in the governmental order than they are to par-
ticipate in any other [evil] works of the kingdom of darkness.”155 This
would certainly include taking up the sword in a battle against the
Turks, which was one of the reasons cited for Sattler’s execution.156
It is because of Sattler’s rigid separation from civil government that,
after his execution, the Strasbourg Reformers wrote to his impris-
oned followers and sought to help them understand that God actually
calls some believers into civil service. They argue that “a Christian
can be [both] an overlord [civil servant] and can serve God in his
command.”157 Unfortunately, these theological weaknesses of Sattler
have been largely inherited by modern Anabaptists.
The Doctrines of the Church and Sacraments

Although one is unable to definitively attribute the authorship of a
small work entitled “Congregational Order” to Sattler’s pen, it does
accurately reflect his understanding that the visible church is an orga-
nized institution for worship, service, and accountability.158 Sattler’s
desire for a more formal and organized church structure was actually
one of the reasons for his leadership at the Schleitheim Conference. As
was noted earlier, this conference largely dealt with practical matters
among the Anabaptist brethren. Sattler made it clear that he expected
his own congregation to hold to the Schleitheim Articles in a “strict”
fashion,159 in order that they may discern false teachers.160 If those in
the congregation did not follow that which was agreed upon, then

155. Snyder, Anabaptist History, 273.
158. See Yoder, Legacy, 44–45, for a copy of the “Congregational Order”
document.
they would be subject to the ban or face formal church discipline.161

The church leader who was to maintain purity in the church is the
pastor or shepherd, who
shall be to read and exhort and teach, warn, admonish, or ban
in the congregation, and properly to preside among the sisters
and brothers in prayer, and in the breaking of bread, and in all
things to take care of the body of Christ, that it may be built up
and developed, so that the name of God might be praised and
honored through us and the mouth of the mocker be stopped.162
One final word should be said about Sattler’s view of the two
ordinances of the church: believers’ baptism and the Lord’s Table.
First, Sattler was crystal clear that the ordinance of the Lord’s Table or
the breaking of bread has no efficacious effect. He seemed to hold to
the simple memorial or “remembrance view” of Zwingli.163 Sattler’s
requirements for partaking of the Lord’s Table included those who
have experienced water baptism, writing that “they must beforehand
be united in the one body of Christ, that is the congregation of God,
whose head is Christ, and that by baptism.”164
This last statement brings up a debate about Sattler’s view of water
baptism. Like almost all Anabaptists, Sattler believed that water bap-
tism was to be alone reserved for those who have personally decided
to follow Christ in faith. Although it is clear that Sattler is opposed
to infant baptism,165 some have felt that he believed that baptism was
necessary to gain entrance not only into the visible church, but also
into the invisible church. The Strasbourg Reformers were actually
not sure what Sattler believed on this point—whether baptism was
necessary for salvation or not. However, the Schleitheim Confession
solved the mystery by clearly stating that those will only be baptized
“who have been taught repentance...and [who] truly believe that
their sins are taken away through Christ.”166 Thus Sattler’s view of
the church and the ordinances are similar to many modern indepen-
dent, baptistic churches.

The Doctrines of the End Times and Satan

Michael Sattler’s willingness to be temporarily tortured and unjustly
executed for the doctrines of God’s Word reflected his personal belief
that he was living for another time—for eternity. Sattler knew all too
well that “he who does not believe will be damned” and “those who are
carnal belong to death and to the wrath of God.”167 Just as there is a lit-
eral hell with which to reckon, so there was a literal devil who is “prince
over the whole world” and who “seeks to destroy” mankind’s soul.168
Likewise, he knew that there is a wonderful Savior seeking to save lost
men and woman and destroy the works of the devil. Thus, Sattler lived
his life knowing that there is a reward in store for all true believers in
Christ and that his eternal destiny “is in heaven and not on the earth.”169
Sattler revealed his views of eschatology in his “Imprisonment:
Letter to Horb.” This letter was written in the midst of great per-
secution, with the understanding that he was near the end of his
life. This letter was his final words of farewell to the brethren in the
town where he labored so earnestly for Christ. In this context Sat-
tler revealed that he believed that the end of the world was at hand,
Christ’s coming was imminent, and that the eschatological day of
the Lord “must no longer tarry.”170 Like many persecuted believers
throughout the centuries suggested, he felt that the abomination of
desolations mentioned in Daniel and Thessalonians was taking place
in his day. He wrote to the brethren at Horb:
The time of threshing has come near. The abomination of
desolation is visible among you. The elect servants and maid-
servants of God will be marked on the forehead with the name
of their Father. The world has arisen against those who are
redeemed from its error. The gospel is testified to before all
the world for a testimony. According to this the day of the Lord
must no longer tarry.171
Based on his understanding that “the day of the Lord draws nearer,”
Sattler encouraged the brethren to greater united prayer, fellowship,
and holiness in light of the imminent return of the Lord. Sattler closed

his letter by quoting a large eschatological passage from the apocryphal

book of 4 Esdras 2:34 –37, which uses flowery apocalyptic language.
Although Sattler did not have time to develop his eschatology
fully, it is clear that he believed in a literal and imminent return of
the Lord in order to judge the wicked and consign them to hell fire,
as well as a literal and heavenly reward for believers. The sense of his
writings is that he had a futuristic view of the fulfillment of apoca-
lyptic sections of God’s Word, and that these future prophecies were
beginning to find fulfillment in his own day.
Concluding Lessons from Michael Sattler’s Theology

This paper has been burdened to show that, though not Reformed,
Sattler was theologically within broad biblical convictions. His theol-
ogy and practice indicated a man who was a thorough-going biblicist
in his convictions, yet having been greatly colored by the extreme
separatism of medieval monasticism. Coupled with this was his
overreaction against the Reformed theology of Zwingli, Bucer, and
Capito. Those who knew Sattler found him to be a warm-hearted,
evangelical, fervent Christian pastor and theologian, undoubtedly
part of that number spoken of in Hebrews 11:38: “of whom the world
was not worthy.”
The benefit of the modern historian is the opportunity to learn
both positive and negative lessons from the lives of those saints who
have gone before us.
How to Suffer According to God’s Will

First, Michael Sattler teaches us how to suffer graciously, uncompro-
misingly, and according to God’s will. At Sattler’s trial and martyrdom,
it became apparent that he knew and practiced the teachings of
1 Peter with all the graciousness of a Spirit-empowered child of God.
Any believer going through persecution for his faith would do well to
learn from his godly example. Sattler teaches us how to rightly suffer
and die for Christ. In all four accounts of his martyrdom, although
Sattler skillfully used the sword of the Spirit, God’s Word, with preci-
sion and clarity, one never found him using bitter language against
his adversaries. Whereas one may disagree with his radical pacifistic
approach to life, he certainly practiced what he preached. The Ana-
baptists lost a bright, young leader when Sattler was unjustly executed,
but they found in him an example of godliness under great trials.
Balancing Separation from Worldliness with Life in the World

Second, Michael Sattler teaches us the need to maintain a balance
between separating from worldliness while maintaining a proper rela-
tionship with the world. It is clear Sattler was confused about what it
meant to be in the world but not of it. As society grew darker, Sat-
tler tended to become hyper-separatistic in his stance to the world
and human government, going beyond rejecting evil in the world to
rejecting some aspects of the world that God created for mankind to
freely enjoy. Sattler’s brand of separation kept him from fully becom-
ing the salt and light that God would have him to be.
Don’t Sacrifice the Doctrinal on the Altar of the Practical

Finally, Michael Sattler teaches us about the need to maintain an
emphasis on the key doctrines of the Christian faith, even when
tempted to deal with more pressing, practical issues. Sattler’s theology
brings the question of priority before our eyes. Certainly, there are
many important practical matters for the church to deal with today,
but we must never sacrifice doctrine on the altar of the practical. Sat-
tler’s Schleitheim Confession was so taken up with practical matters
of their Anabaptist distinctions that no mention was ever made of
more important matters such as total depravity, justification by faith,
imputation, and the like. As did the post-apostolic church fathers,
Saddler needed more emphasis on salvation’s doctrines of grace to
balance out his moralistic strain. Because of Sattler’s failure to empha-
size doctrines like justification by faith in his teaching, the Anabaptists
ultimately restored more of a post-apostolic church with its moralistic
strain and doctrinal confusion, than restoring the doctrinal emphasis
of the apostolic church.
The sad conclusion to Sattler’s theology is that, in all his writings,
there is no clear explanation of the gospel. This holds a warning for
all of us. Many of the various aspects of the gospel are present in the
writings of Sattler, but the gospel takes a back seat to his practical con-
cerns. His low view of depravity, coupled with a diminishing view of
justification, opened him up to a perfectionistic view of Christian life.
Regardless of one’s perceived need to deal with more practical issues
in the church, we must never fall prey to the temptation to major
on moralism at the expense of proclaiming the primary doctrines of
Christ, redemption, grace, and salvation.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 75–90
Pierre du Moulin on the

Knowledge of God
Mark J. Larson
q
The impact of Pierre du Moulin surpassed his colleagues, the great

doctors of the Reformed world in the first half of the seventeenth
century. Several scholars make this point. Roger Nicole asserts, “His
stature outranks that of his theological contemporaries, as Louis XIV
outranks most other kings of France before and after him.”1 Brian
Armstrong affirms that he was “incontestably the leading ministerial
voice of the French Protestant Church in the first half of the seven-
teenth century.”2 Émile Léonard refers to him as “ce grand intellectual.”3
Gédéon Gory ranks him as the greatest among the doctors who fol-
lowed the Reformers: “Parmi les Docteurs, de Moulin fut, au dire de ses
contemporains, le plus grand.”4
In this article, I wish to provide a brief overview of Pierre du
Moulin’s life and his Protestant scholastic method before examining
in more depth his doctrine of the knowledge of God.
Pastor and Professor of Theology

Du Moulin was born of the higher nobility in 1568.5 It was a danger-
ous time for Reformed believers in France; the young boy was almost
killed in the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572. Ironically,
1. Roger Nicole, “Book Review,” Sixteenth Century Journal 29, no. 2 (1998): 554.
2. Brian G. Armstrong, “The Pastoral Office in Calvin and Pierre du Moulin,”
in Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag, ed. Willem van ’t Spijker (Kampen: Kok, 1991), 164.
3. Émile G. Léonard, L’Établissement (1564–1700), vol. 2 of Histoirie Générale du
Protestantisme (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1961), 321.
4. Gédéon Gory, Pierre du Moulin: Essai sur sa vie, so controverse, et sa polémique
(Paris: Librairie Fishchbacher, 1888), 3. Cf. J. Van Der Meij, “Pierre du Moulin in
Leiden, 1592–1598,” Lias 14 (1987): 32.
5. Gory, Pierre du Moulin, 7. Du Moulin was born on October 16, 1568. He died
on March 19, 1658, at the age of eighty-nine.
a Catholic woman hid the child under some straw, protecting him
from the attackers who would have murdered him.6
He left his parents’ home in Sedan at the age of nineteen and
began his formal education, first at Cambridge University under Wil-
liam Whitaker and then at Leiden University with Franciscus Junius.7
He developed political connections throughout Europe by cultivat-
ing personal ties with the leading figures of his time. “He gravitated
toward those who held the high positions of state.”8 He established a
close relationship with two monarchs of the early seventeenth cen-
tury, James I of England and Henry IV of France. He served as an
adviser to James I,9 and he became the chaplain of Henry IV.10
As one of the premier theologians of his time, du Moulin was
truly a colorful figure. He knew what it was to “smell the smoke of
battle,” witnessing Prince Maurice taking the city of Groningen in
1594 and thus putting to an end Spanish rule. He became one of the
pastors of the Huguenot church that met in Charenton, about one
mile from Paris.11 Du Moulin labored in this charge for over twenty
years. During these years he engaged in public debates at the Louvre.
Over three thousand people would come to hear these theological
duels, including the king and his court!12
6. Bernard Cottret, The Huguenots in England: Immigration and Settlement, c. 1550–

1700, trans. Peregrine and Adriana Stevenson (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), 89.
7. Gory, Pierre du Moulin, 13.
8. Brian G. Armstrong, “The Changing Face of French Protestantism: The
Influence of Pierre Du Moulin,” in Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of John Calvin, ed.
Robert V. Schnucker (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988),
137. He was particularly devoted to King James I. Elsewhere Armstrong makes the
point that du Moulin wanted “to elevate James to the leadership of the Protestant
world of the time” (“Pierre Du Moulin and James I: the Anglo-French programme,”
in De l’Humanisme aux Lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme, ed. Michelle Magdelaine
[Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1996], 22).
9. Brian G. Armstrong, Bibliographia Molinæi: An Alphabetical, Chronological and
Descriptive Bibliography of the Works of Pierre Du Moulin (1568–1658) (Geneva: Droz,
1997), ix.
10. Julien Massip, Un Vieux Predicateur Huguenot: Essai sur les Sermons de Pierre
du Moulin (Montauban: J. Granié, 1888), 13. He also preached before James I in the
royal chapel at Greenwich (Cottret, The Huguenots in England, 90).
11. Léonard, L’Establissement (1564–1700), 318.
12. Armstrong, Bibliographia Molinæi, ix.
Pierre du Moulin on the Knowledge of God 77
The precarious situation of the French Protestants even after the

Edict of Nantes is reflected in du Moulin’s flight from Paris in 1621
and in the burning of the church at Charenton in 1622 by Parisian
Catholics.13 Du Moulin sought refuge in Sedan and became pastor of
the Reformed church there and professor of theology at the Academy.14
This development opened a new era in du Moulin’s career; until
this time he had never served as a professor of theology. Shortly after
his arrival in Sedan he published De cognitione dei tractatus.15 Having
been entrusted with the responsibility of teaching a school theology, he
likewise chose in this particular treatise to utilize a scholastic method
in presenting his subject, the knowledge of God.16
The thesis of this author’s essay is that A Treatise of the Knowl-
edge of God is in fact a paradigm of Protestant scholastic theology—a
reflection of how most theological systems began with the topics of
theology, Scripture, and God. It manifests the shape of Reformed
scholastic systems, dealing with prolegomenon and the principia
13. Raoul Stephan remarks, “A Paris, les fanatiques se vengent sur de mal-
heureux protestants qui revenaient du temple de Charenton et brûlent l’édifice”
(Historie du Protestatisme Francais [Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1961], 145).
14. Stephan, Histoirie du Protestantisme Français, 152.
15. Petri Molinæi, De cognitione dei tractatus (London: Apud Iohannem Billium,
1624), was the very first edition that was published. All Latin quotations come from
this original text. All English quotations come from Pierre du Moulin, A Treatise of
the Knowledge of God, trans. Robert Codrington (London: A. Mathews, 1634). I have
updated the text by removing certain archaic Elizabethan expressions. In addition, I
have made spelling changes to the seventeenth-century text when it was warranted.
Finally, I have followed today’s conventions in terms of when and when not to capi-
talize, and also occasionally with respect to punctuation.
16. Protestant scholasticism, as to its essential character, was a theology designed
for the schools, institutions such as the academies at Geneva or Sedan. Richard A.
Muller, in his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from
Protestant Scholastics Theology, states that “its intention” is “to provide an adequate
technical theology for schools” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 8. David
C. Steinmetz remarks that when scholasticism is “stripped to its bare essentials,” it is
“school theology” (“The Theology of Calvin and Calvinism,” in Reformation Europe;
A Guide to Research, ed. Steven Ozment [St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research,
1982], 226). Cf. Richard A. Muller, “The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism—A
Review and Definition,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise,
ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001),
53–54; Ralph Keen, The Christian Tradition (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, 2004), 230–31; James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 193.
theologiae.17 In addition, his treatment of the doctrine of God is handled

in the medieval scholastic order—treating God’s existence, essence,
and attributes in succession.
Protestant Scholastic Systems

Du Moulin’s treatise mirrors the layout of typical Protestant scholastic
systems of his time, which usually began with the topics of theology,
Scripture, and God.18 These indeed are the three main topics which
du Moulin considers in his discourse.19
Du Moulin dealt with typical matters taken up in the topic of
prolegomenon. He established, for example, the relationship between
theology and the arts and sciences by declaring, “For the Arts are the
handmaids of divine wisdom, neither do they deserve a place in the
rank of honest disciplines if they profess not themselves to be attendants
on it.”20 He maintained further that theologia has both a “contempla-
tive” part and a “practical” part. “In Divinity that part is contemplative,
which treats of the nature of God, and of works of creation, guberna-
tion, and redemption; but that part which treats of the offices of piety
towards God, and charity towards our neighbor is practical.”21
Du Moulin contended that theology surpasses all the other sci-
ences in both its contemplative and practical aspects: “In one as in the
other, divinity does infinitely excel all sciences.”22 To cite just two of
his six criteria, du Moulin affirmed that in terms of the dignity of the
17. The expression principia theologiae refers to the “foundations of theology.”

According to the Protestant scholastics, theology has two principia: Scripture and
God. There is the revelation, and there is the one who reveals Himself. Muller
states, “The scholastic systems frequently begin with a definition of theology fol-
lowed by a statement of its principia, viz., a locus on Scripture and a locus on God”
(Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 245).
18. Muller states, “The topics of theology, Scripture and God stand together at
the beginning of most of the Protestant scholastic systems and together provide the
basis for understanding subsequent treatment of all other doctrines” (Prolegomena to
Theology, vol. 1 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics [Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1987], 20).
19. A fourth of du Moulin’s book takes up the subject of theology (55–72). He
refers to this as “the elements of the Christian religion” (55). Another fourth of the
volume focuses on the topic of Scripture (34–55). Half of the treatise concentrates
on the locus of God (1–34).
20. Du Moulin, A Treatise of the Knowledge of God, 67.
subject, which is “God himself,” divinity so far transcends all the arts
and sciences that “there is no comparison.”23 With reference to the
criterion of the excellence of the end, he maintained that “whatso-
ever there is of arts or sciences [theology] by a transcendant distance
does excel.”24 The reason for theology’s transcendent excellence is
that it does not “propose unto itself any particular or subordinate
end, but the last end of all, viz. eternal blessedness, which consists in
an union with God.”25
We see then that du Moulin presented a locus on prolegomenon,
but he also provided a discussion on the topic of Scripture. In his
locus on Scripture is a fundamental distinction between revelation and
special revelation: “God therefore who with a courser pencil has shad-
owed himself in his creatures, has expressed himself in his Word in
more bright and lively colors.”26
He argued at length for the necessity of the Scripture, presenting
such considerations as the need for the Word of God to understand
creation, the divine government of the world, and the requirements
of true religion.27 The fundamental reason for the need of Scripture
is that it alone provides the message of salvation. Natural revelation is
deficient in the sense that it does not reveal to us the reality of divine
mercy, “without the knowledge of which there is no salvation.”28
The Scripture, however, provides “the true and saving knowledge of
God.”29 It gives “a knowledge of him, as is sufficient to salvation.”30
In a fascinating passage, du Moulin maintained that it is appro-
priate for salvation to come by the Word: “Because that man fell by
believing the words of the devil, it was fitting that man should be
raised from his fall by believing the Word of God; for it was requisite
that contrary evils should be cured by contrary remedies.”31
While du Moulin provided a synopsis of Reformed thought on
prolegomenon and Scripture in his treatise, he mainly expounded

27. Du Moulin, A Treatise of the Knowledge of God, 35–43.
upon the doctrine of God—reflecting something of the importance

that the Reformed tradition has given to the principium essendi.32 In his
locus on God, we find du Moulin using the medieval scholastic pro-
cedure of teaching. To this topic we now turn our attention.
The Doctrine of God

Protestant scholastic theology, like its medieval antecedents, used a
particular order in its teaching procedure. There was an orderly pro-
cedure in examining a subject, “raising the right question at the right
time.”33 A proper teaching procedure in the scholastic mentality asked
these questions in the following order: Does it exist (an sit)? What is it
(quid sit)? Of what sort is it (quia sit)?34
When this logical teaching procedure is applied to the doctrine
of God, as in Aquinas’s Summa theologiae and in Turretin’s Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, it accounts for the order of presentation. First, there
is a consideration of the proofs of God’s existence (Does it exist?). Sec-
ond, there is a treatment of the essence of God (What is it?). Third,
there is an examination of the divine attributes (Of what sort is it?).
This is precisely what du Moulin did in his development of the
doctrine of God in A Treatise of the Knowledge of God. He considered, in
order, the proofs of God’s existence, the divine essence, and the attri-
butes of God. He was clearly committed to the medieval approach of
handling theological topics.
Let us consider how du Moulin dealt with each of these issues in
succession in his teaching on God.
Demonstrative Proofs
Protestant scholasticism was willing to look toward medieval models
for teaching methodology and order. But it also had another tendency
as well. There was a willingness to draw upon, not only medieval
pedagogical approaches, but even medieval theology (at points). Prot-
estant scholastic theology, Richard Muller observes, is “in continuity
32. In Reformed scholasticism, the doctrine of God was regarded as the “essen-
tial foundation,” the principium essendi. Muller notes that this term is applied to God
“considered as the objective ground of theology without whom there could be neither
divine revelation nor theology” (Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 246).
33. J. A. Weisheipl, “Scholastic Method,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967.
34. Richard A. Muller, Scholasticism and Orthodoxy in the Reformed Tradition: An
Attempt at Definition (Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1995), 10.
with the great tradition of the church.”35 With respect to Turretin, for
example, there is “a substantive use of medieval scholastic theology.”36
We see the same pattern in du Moulin. He had no problem
with using several of Aquinas’s classical proofs, and the “absence of
clear or direct citation of medieval sources is quite typical of Prot-
estant theology.”37 The reluctance to cite Aquinas’s name is due to
the charged polemical atmosphere at the time. Muller writes, “The
polemic between Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians was
so heated in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that
any positive citation of a potential adversary could easily bring down
charges of heresy on one’s head.”38 Nevertheless, without mentioning
Aquinas by name, du Moulin patently used some of his logical proofs.
Consider, for example, his use of Aquinas’s second way, the argu-
ment from efficient causality. Both theologians opposed the notion of
a cause that goes on to infinity, without stopping at a first cause. Du
Moulin stated his thesis: “Besides it is easy to be seen by evident dem-
onstration, that in the order of efficient causes it is impossible to proceed
unto what is infinite.”39 This is precisely the stand taken by Aquinas:
“Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity.”40
The first reason that du Moulin gave in support of his position is
this: “For if there was no chief and primary cause, there would be no
second, nor any third cause; and so of the rest, so that by this means,
there would be no cause at all.”41 This was likewise the position of
Aquinas: “In all efficient causes following in order, the first is the
cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of
the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one
only.” He added, “Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there would be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause.” 42
35. Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 13.

36. Richard A. Muller, “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Tur-
retin on the Object and Principles of Theology,” Church History 55, no. 2 (1986): 205.
37. Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob
Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 37.
38. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 37.
40. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, in Introduction to Saint Thomas Aquinas,
ed. Anton C. Pegis (New York: Random House, 1948), 26 (2.3).
42. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 26 (2.3).
The second argument presented by du Moulin against the notion

of an infinite regress of causes is this: “Besides we should never arrive
unto the last effect, for before we could travel to it, infinite causes must
be gone over. Now that is infinite which cannot be gone through, and
of which as there is no beginning, so there is no ending.”43 Again, this
is the same line taken by Aquinas: “But if in efficient causes it is pos-
sible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither
will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes;
all of which is plainly false.”44
Du Moulin basically presented himself in this treatise as a philo-
sophical theologian,45 acknowledging at the outset that he wanted to
“express how far human reason, having no relation to the Word of God,
can advance itself.”46 He maintained that reason takes two paths to the
knowledge of God. There is the way that the common people take—
“the vulgar tread in one path”47—and here he placed the teleological
argument.48 In addition, there is the way that the philosophers take:
“the higher way” when it comes to “the true knowledge of God.”49
In this section of his volume, du Moulin readily used the medieval
tradition in terms of Aquinas and also explicitly appealed to Aristotle
and his conception of “the first Mover...who is immovable.” He was
convinced that such logical argumentation in its total effect is cogent:
“The scope of all this, is, that by arguments borrowed from the light
of human reason...we may teach that...every being does depend and
is sustained by one chief and sovereign Being.”50 Du Moulin con-

44. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 26 (2.3).
45. John Patrick Donnelly writes, “In the whole history of theology there is
scarcely any major theologian less influenced by philosophy than Calvin (“Italian
Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” Sixteenth Century Journal
7, no. 1 [1976]: 82). In contrast, both Lutheran and Calvinist scholastics of the sev-
enteenth century are unabashed philosophical theologians.” In his essay “Calvinist
Thomism,” Donnelly adds this note: “Neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin were
philosophical theologians” (Viator 7 [1996]: 441).
46. Du Moulin, A Treatise of the Knowledge of God, 2. It should be recognized that
the entire first half of the treatise is basically an exercise in philosophical theology.
It is only at the halfway point that du Moulin announced that he was turning his
attention to Scripture (34).
tended that “human reason” by “assistance of philosophy” has “come

so far as to affirm that there is a God.” 51
The Divine Essence

After du Moulin dealt with the issue of the existence of God, he
turned, in the tradition of Aquinas, to consider the divine essence.
Human reason, he affirmed, does fairly well in correctly asserting the
reality of the divine existence. Our understanding, however, is struck
with blindness when it comes to answering the question as to what
God is. “When they come to describe the nature of God” a “huge and
thick mist of ignorance does overspread and cloud the sense, and the
light of God himself, turned into darkness, does strike the under-
standing with blindness and astonishment.” 52
The difficulty in ascertaining what God is, in terms of the divine
essence, is due to what God is like and what man is like. In the first
place, du Moulin stated, we must recognize that God, by the nature
of the case, is incomprehensible. “The essence of God, as it cannot
be expressed by words, so it cannot be conceived by the understand-
ing.” “A thing infinite cannot be comprehended by a thing finite.”53
Later, he expounded further: “To see into the mysteries of God, and
to know his essence is not granted unto any creature, no not unto the
angels, because there is no proportion between a finite faculty and an
infinite object.” 54 The nature of humanity also disables us from com-
ing to an understanding of what God is. There is, as we have seen,
man’s finitude; but there is also the problem of human sin, specifically
pravitas and neglentia. “There is added not only man’s slowness and
infirmity, but his perverseness and neglect.” 55
This manifest difficulty in attaining a true knowledge of God
has led many to embrace a position of agnosticism: “For these causes
there have not been wanting some, who turning desperation into
censure, have been of judgment that God could not be known, and
that in vain they travail that bestow their labors in searching out his
nature.”56 Human reason then is blinded, unable to tell us what God

55. Du Moulin, A Treatise of the Knowledge of God, 22. De cognitione dei tractatus, 45.
is. Du Moulin, however, allows some exceptions, namely, Plato and

Aristotle. “Plato,” he affirmed, “has delivered to the world many
true and excellent things concerning God.” Aristotle was even more
advanced in his theological contribution. The great Aristotle was
even “more sharp in understanding” than Plato.57
We are reminded in these statements from du Moulin that Prot-
estant scholasticism had a strong philosophical bent. It presented
a “transition,” David Steinmetz affirms, “from the purely biblical
orientation of the reformers to the more philosophically oriented
theology of the Reformed scholastics.”58 Muller calls attention to this
particular phenomenon with respect to du Moulin: “The fairly posi-
tive attitude toward philosophy is, of course, a point of contrast with
Calvin and Viret.”59
Despite widespread ignorance concerning the essentia Dei, du
Moulin will set forth his own conception as to what God is. “I am of
opinion, most aptly and as far as man’s capacity is able to conceive that
God may be thus defined, God is the first, the most chief, and most perfect
Being, from whom there flows and depends all entity and perfection.”60 God, in
His essence, is being. This is a typical scholastic conception: the divine
essence consists in the fact that God exists.61 The definition that du
Moulin offered included not only the assertion that God is the funda-
mental and primary Being, but that all other secondary beings derive
from God and depend upon Him for their continued existence.62
The Attributes of God

Having referred to the nature of God in his definition of the divine
essence, du Moulin then indicated that he was ready to begin a con-
sideration of the divine attributes. He declared that “God is” the “most
perfect Being.” He then added, “For other things which are his attri-
butes, as his eternity, his simplicity, his wisdom, and of like nature are
all contained under this word of chief perfection.”63

58. Steinmetz, “The Theology of Calvin and Calvinism,” 225.
59. Richard A. Muller, “Duplex cognition dei in the Theology of Early Reformed
Orthodoxy,” Sixteenth Century Journal 10, no. 2 (1979): 58–59.
61. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 106.
Du Moulin had answered the tacit questions that were tradition-

ally posed in medieval scholastic theology: Does it exist, and what
is it? He then turned his attention to one final issue in the doctrine
of God, the attributes of the Almighty. He essentially at this point
responds to the third classical medieval enquiry: Of what sort is it?
He willingly used human reason to set forth something regarding
the nature of God’s perfection. In this, he exemplifies the tendency
of Protestant scholasticism to give reason “a major role” in theology.64
Du Moulin set forth his own conception of the divine nature
by using three reasoning processes: negation, analogy, and inference.
He first considered the way in which reason ought to move from its
reflections upon human perfections and virtues to the examination
of God’s perfections. He here proposed that we may know what God
is like if we reason by way of negation, or subtraction. “Whosoever
therefore will exalt his thoughts without danger to the contempla-
tion of the Divine perfection, must run over in his own mind all the
perfections that are in a creature, and abstract and sever from him
whatsoever there is of imperfection, and also those perfections which
are the helps and crutches of imperfections, all these being subtracted,
that which remains will be God.”65
Du Moulin took the position that the perfection of God encom-
passes all the excellencies manifested in rational creatures.66 He insisted,
however, upon a certain kind of exception to this general rule that
God’s perfections embrace all the perfections in the creatures: “But
those perfections are excepted which are either the remedies of evils
or the helps and aids of imperfections.” 67 Once du Moulin announced
the exceptive principle that certain creaturely perfections cannot be
enfolded by the divine perfection, he provided a number of instances
of what he meant. He thereby surfaced some of the divine attributes.
64. Donnelly, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scho-

lasticism,” 82. Muller makes the point that “there remains in the Reformers” an
“antagonism to the development of a more speculative theological system based on”
the “use of philosophical argumentation” (The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in
the Foundation of a Theological Tradition [New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000], 176). Du Moulin had no such antagonism.
One example of this approach relates to the human perfection of

being able to reason logically. “So to discourse and frame a syllogism
is a perfection indued by God into the mind of man.” 68 Its presence in
the creature, though, is due to the creature’s frailty. “This perfection”
is “the remedy of ignorance and a help unto our weakness.” 69 Thus,
the human perfection of logical reasoning processes cannot be found
in God, for this would indicate weakness within the Deity. “It would
be prophane to look for it in God, who disputes not, nor makes it his
labor to find out the truth, nor collects one thing by another, for all
things are known to him alike, and he understands all things in one
pure and simple thought.” 70
Du Moulin presented God’s nature by way of negation, but he also
used another approach. He reasoned by way of analogy, or eminence.
He first issued a word of qualification. “Neither would I...infer that if
at any time the same perfection be attributed to God and the creatures,
that the same perfections are equal in the creatures as in God.” He
then cited an example of what he meant: “Wisdom and righteousness
are not attributed to the angels as to God, in one and the same sense.”71
We must recognize, he contended, that there is an inequality, a
distinction, between creaturely perfections and the divine perfec-
tions. Nevertheless, there is a similarity in the perfections found both
in the creature and in God. The perfections found in God are there in
the most exalted sense, while the same perfections in the creature are
a resemblance of the divine: “The wisdom and the righteousness of
angels are resemblances of the divine righteousness and sparks shin-
ing from it, and the knowledge of one does advance our spirits to the
contemplation of another.”72
Finally, du Moulin discussed the perfections of God by inferen-
tial reasoning. He stated his position this way: “Some of the divine
attributes are demonstrated by what goes before, while one attribute is
deduced from another by a necessary conclusion.”73 What divine attri-
butes are necessary deductions from others? Among others, du Moulin
mentioned God’s immobility and incorruptibility. Immobility is to be

inferred from the divine infinity: “Out of the infiniteness of God, his
immobility is demonstrated, for whither can he move himself who
is everywhere?”74 Incorruptibility, conversely, may be conceived from
the divine simplicity: “From the simplicity of the essence of God, we
may deduce his incorruptibility, for all corruption does proceed from
the dissolution of the compound.”75
In his discussion of God’s attributes, du Moulin proved willing to
use human reason in the service of theology.76 What specific benefits
are there in reflecting upon the divine nature by way of these ratio-
nal processes—reasoning by way of negation, analogy, and inference?
Du Moulin mentioned two benefits. In the first place, real knowl-
edge of what God is like may be obtained by using the “wings” of
rational reflection. “The understanding of man mounted on these
wings, can exalt herself to some knowledge of the divine nature.”77
Such reasoning processes, secondly, are helpful preliminary exercises
to the perusal of the biblical revelation concerning the knowledge of
God: “By which preexercitations the mind being stirred up does more
greedily receive, and more easily digest the instructions revealed in
the Word of God.”78
It may be noted that Calvin would have had a problem with du
Moulin’s approach to the divine attributes. He affirmed a different
position regarding the capabilities of reason. “Human reason,” Cal-
vin declared, “neither approaches, nor strives toward, nor even takes
a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or
what sort of God he wishes to be toward us.” 79 Not all the Reformed,
however, would have concurred with Calvin at this point. Peter
Martyr Vermigli, for example, maintained that “unaided reason can
attain” some understanding of God’s “attributes.”80 Francis Turretin

76. Donnelly makes the point that in Protestant Scholasticism “reason and
revelation become closely inter-meshed in the theological process.” Cf. Muller,
Prolegomena to Theology, 248. The typical linkage between reason and revelation is
reflected in the work of du Moulin.
79. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed.
John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 1:278 (2.2.18).
80. Donnelly, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasti-
cism,” 92.
wrote along similar lines, maintaining that “human understanding”

still possesses “rays of natural light.”81 He even affirmed that “reason
is perfected by faith.”82 He was willing, like du Moulin, to reflect
upon the attributes of God by “the three fold way of causality, emi-
nence and negation.”83
This does not mean that Turretin and du Moulin were rational-
ists, placing reason on an equal footing with the Bible.84 This was not
the case.85 The Reformed scholastics contrasted with the rationalists.
There remained a “genuine opposition between orthodox Protestant-
ism and philosophical rationalism.”86
Conclusion: Knowledge unto Salvation

After serving as a pastor for over twenty years, Pierre du Moulin
began his new career as a professor of theology at the Academy in
Sedan in 1621. He was in his early fifties. Not long after his arrival in
Sedan, he published his De cognitione dei tractatus, which was probably
a popularized version of his theological lectures.
As we observed in the preceding discussion, du Moulin’s trea-
tise stands as a representative model of Reformed scholastic theology.
Du Moulin decided in this volume to develop the doctrine of God
by using the teaching procedure of scholastic theology. Like the
medieval doctors before him, du Moulin treated in order the exis-
tence, essence, and attributes of God. In addition, the treatise as a
whole reflects the typical shape of Protestant scholastic systems by
81. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, trans. George Mus-
grave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1992), 29.
82. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 30.
83. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 179.
84. This is the position taken by Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut
Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 32, regarding the nature of Protestant Scho-
lasticism. He affirms that the scholastics employed “reason in religious matters, so
that reason assumes at least equal footing with faith in theology.”
85. Richard A. Muller makes the point that du Moulin manifests “great respect”
for “reason and philosophy” in his treatise, yet du Moulin “concludes that revelation
supplies man’s only hope” (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology,
vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], 299). Reason gives man “a sense of ter-
ror, an awareness of sinfulness, and a consciousness of just punishment” (298). “Only
the gospel reveals God as he wills to be toward man—as Father and Redeemer” (299).
86. Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 243.
dealing with three standard loci: prolegomenon, Scripture, and God.87

Throughout the treatise, one finds the characteristic tendencies of
Protestant scholasticism: the propensity to draw upon medieval the-
ology, the strong use of reason in the development of theology, a
strong philosophical orientation, and the making of careful, precise
distinctions and definitions.88
Finally, it must be noted that du Moulin’s treatise belies the
broad generalization that scholastic theology is arid and lifeless.89
Du Moulin displayed a pastoral concern that so few people ever
come to a true knowledge of God: “I cannot but here lament the
condition of human understanding which in trifling things does
express a most subtle and ingenious industry, but in the knowledge
of God alone does languish in a drowsy sloth.” 90 As a shepherd of
souls, he urged his readers to avoid the extreme of “negligence”
on the one hand and a “saucy curiosity” on the other.91 In contrast
to negligence, he gave the pastoral exhortation: “Labor...that you
may attain to the true knowledge of God.” 92 In contrast to a cocky
boldness, he warned his readers: “We must take heed, lest while
too much we employ ourselves in this study we offend God by our
sedulity; which comes to pass, when not content with what belongs
unto salvation, we labor in things unnecessary, and by a prophane
curiosity search after those things which exceed the compass of our
understanding or sobriety.” 93
The course of true wisdom for du Moulin lay between these two
errors: “In the doctrine which instructs us in the knowledge of God,
87. Muller asserts, “The Protestant scholastics did develop doctrinal exposi-
tions of these two principia and place them at the beginning of their theological
systems, usually placing the locus de Scriptura Sacra second in order after a prolegom-
enon and the locus de Deo third” (“The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism,” 57).
88. Scholasticism was renowned for its precise distinctions. Muller reflects
upon the contrast between the Scholastics and the Reformers: “Where the Reform-
ers painted with a broad brush, their orthodox and scholastic successors strove to fill
in the details of the picture” (Prolegomena to Theology, 19).
89. Muller refers to the tendency of the “older scholarship” to equate orthodoxy
with such pejorative terms as “rigid” and “dead” and to refer to “scholasticism” with
terms like “dry” or “arid” (After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological
Tradition, 25).
we must labor after those things which serve for the nourishment of
our soul, and abstain from those things which break our teeth.” We
must “refer all our knowledge and meditation to piety and manners,
and to the love of God.”94

PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 91–115
The Holy Spirit’s Role in John Owen’s

“Covenant of the Mediator” Formulation:
A Case Study in Reformed Orthodox
Formulations of the Pactum Salutis
Laurence R. O’Donnell III
q
John Owen (1616–1683) is widely recognized as a preeminent trini-

tarian and covenantal theologian of Reformed orthodoxy. Scholarship
on Owen has tended to focus either upon his trinitarian theology1 or
1. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, The Triunity of God

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 113–14; Brian K. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality:
John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion, Studies in Christian History and
Thought (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2008); Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth:
John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998); Trueman,
John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, Great Theologians Series (Aldershot,
England: Ashgate, 2007); Trueman, “John Owen as a Theologian,” in John Owen: The
Man and His Theology, ed. Robert W. Oliver (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2002), 41–68;
Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1987), 74–98; Ferguson, “John Owen and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in
John Owen: The Man and His Theology, ed. Robert W. Oliver (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R,
2002); Kelly M. Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology
of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), esp. ch. 5; Robert Letham, “John
Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context and Its Significance for Today,”
2006, http://j.mp/LethamOnOwen; J. I. Packer, “A Puritan Perspective: Trinitarian
Godliness according to John Owen,” in God the Holy Trinity: Reflections on Christian
Faith and Practice, ed. Timothy George (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 91–108;
Alan Spence, “John Owen and Trinitarian Agency,” Scottish Journal of Theology 43, no. 2
(1990): 157–73; Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of Christol-
ogy (London: T & T Clark, 2007); Dale A. Stover, “The Pneumatology of John Owen:
A Study of the Role of the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Shape of a Theology” (PhD
diss., McGill University, 1967). Also, although he does not specifically identify trini-
tarianism as a highpoint of Owen’s academic training, Sebastian Rehnman does note
Owen’s thorough imbibing of Western trinitarian sources, especially Augustine, patris-
tic authors, and Aquinas; Rehnman, “John Owen: A Reformed Scholastic at Oxford,”
in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef
Dekker, Texts & Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2001), 186, 188–89, 192–94.
upon his covenant theology2 accordingly. Few studies have focused

upon the nexus3 of the two, namely, Owen’s formulation of the “cov-
enant of the Mediator,”4 a doctrine known in Reformed orthodoxy as
the pactum salutis.5 Furthermore, no studies have examined the Holy
2. David Wai-Sing Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen” (PhD

diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 129–30; Peter Toon, God’s States-
man: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster
Press, 1971), 169–71; Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 20–36; Sebastian
Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen, Texts and
Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 2002), 162ff; Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology: John Murray’s and Meredith
G. Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought
(Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, Inc., 2004), 46–56; Carol A. Williams,
“The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Cov-
enant of Redemption” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005), 61.
3. Cf. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 87; Paul Smalley, “A Sweet Mys-
tery: John Owen on the Trinity,” Puritan Reformed Journal 3, no. 1 (2011): 98–99.
4. Owen refers to his formulation of the pactum salutis by various terms such as:
“covenant of the Mediator” (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. W. H. Goold
[Johnstone & Hunter, 1850], II:65, 179; III:192; V:191–94; XI:297; XIII:1; XIX:78;
XX:56; XXII:505), “covenant of the Redeemer” (Works, XI:123; XIX:1, 428; XX:1;
XXI:148, 193), and “covenant of redemption” (Works, XXIV:240, 475); cf. Ferguson,
John Owen on the Christian Life, 25; Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis:
Locating the Origins of a Concept,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 18 (2007):
13–14n23. Elsewhere Owen describes the pactum as “that compact, covenant, conven-
tion, or agreement, that was between the Father and the Son, for the accomplishment
of the work of our redemption by the mediation of Christ, to the praise of the glorious
grace of God” (Works, XII:497; cf. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25n6).
Furthermore, explicit and implicit references to the pactum in terms of eternal trans-
actions and federal relations “between the Father and Son” are found in many places
throughout Owen’s theological writings (Works, I:55–56; II:178; V:179–80, 191–92,
258; VI:434, 488; IX:586–88; X:185; XI:299; XII:605; XVI:341) and throughout his
Hebrews commentary (Works, XIX:131, 153, 196; XX:45, 225, 410; XXI:413–14, 495;
XXII:489, 577; XXIII:57, 448; XXIV:240, 349, 475). Owen also alludes to the pactum
in his Greater Catechism, Ch. 12, Q/A 1 (Works, I:481; cf. Williams, “David Dickson
and the Covenant of Redemption,” 113) and in his explication of Christ’s love for the
church in terms of the Canticles’ conjugal imagery (Works, II:118–19; cf. Kay, Trinitar-
ian Spirituality, 168). For simplicity’s sake, I use pactum salutis hereafter as a summary
of Owen’s various terms. Also, when citing Owen’s Works, I follow Goold’s original
24-volume numbering rather than the 23-volume reprints which omit Owen’s Latin
works in the original vol. 17 and renumber vols. 18–24 as 17–23 accordingly.
5. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn
Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), s.v.,
pactum salutis. For a detailed survey of the historical development of the pactum salutis
in early Reformed Orthodoxy, see Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis.”
The Holy Spirit’s Role 93
Spirit’s role in Owen’s formulation of the pactum.6 In this essay, then, I

attempt to weave together the two threads of this relatively unexplored
trinitarian-covenantal nexus by arguing a twofold thesis: (1) Owen
formulates the pactum salutis as the “mode” of the trinitarian consilium
Dei 7 with respect to salvation, and (2) Owen explicitly and implicitly
assigns the Holy Spirit a role in both the consilium Dei and the pactum.
Before attempting to make headway down an unmarked trail,
however, we need to get our bearings in the related scholarship.
Common Criticisms of the Pactum Salutis

The pactum salutis is a divisive doctrine in Reformed trinitarian the-
ology. One eminent twentieth-century Reformed dogmatician,
Herman Bavinck (1854–1921), hails the pactum as “the divine work
par excellence,”8 while another, Karl Barth (1886–1968), derides it as
a heterodox “mythology, for which there is no place in a right under-
standing of the doctrine of the Trinity.”9 Contemporary Reformed
6. Several studies have briefly mentioned the Holy Spirit’s role in Owen’s for-
mulation of the pactum (Toon, God’s Statesman, 170; Trueman, John Owen: Reformed
Catholic, 86–93; Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 10), but no single
study focuses specifically on this topic.
7. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s.v., consilium Dei.
8. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed.
John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 215. On
Bavinck’s formulation of the pactum, see Mark Jones, “Covenant Christology: Her-
man Bavinck and the Pactum Salutis,” in Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck,
A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology, ed. John Bolt (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen,
2011), 129–52; Laurence R. O’Donnell III, “Not Subtle Enough: An Assessment
of Modern Scholarship on Herman Bavinck’s Reformulation of the Pactum Salutis
Contra ‘Scholastic Subtlety,’” Mid-America Journal of Theology 22 (2011): 89–106.
9. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans.
G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), IV/1:65. Regarding Barth’s criti-
cisms of the pactum, see Carl R. Trueman, “From Calvin to Gillespie on Covenant:
Mythological Excess or an Exercise in Doctrinal Development?,” International
Journal of Systematic Theology 11, no. 4 (2009): 378–97; Trueman, “The Harvest of
Reformation Mythology?: Patrick Gillespie and the Covenant of Redemption,” in
Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, ed. Maarten Wisse, Mar-
cel Sarot, and Willemien Otten (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 196–214; A. T. B. McGowan,
“Karl Barth and Covenant Theology,” in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangeli-
cal Critiques, ed. David Gibson and Daniel Strange (London: T & T Clark, 2008),
113–35. Pace these studies, Amy Plantinga Pauw notes that Barth does not merely
repudiate the doctrine; rather, he “made an appeal to a ‘primal history’ underlying
all of God’s relationships ad extra that functioned in a way similar to the covenant
theologians are equally divided. Cornelius Plantinga, for example,

terms the pactum a “grotesque” and “seemingly barbaric idea” in
which the Son is a sort of whipping boy who provides catharsis for
the vengeful Father,10 whereas others advocate for the pactum.11
In addition to attracting general trinitarian critiques, the pactum is
specifically criticized as being sub-trinitarian for allegedly omitting a role
for the Holy Spirit.12 For example, Robert Letham describes the pactum
as an “extreme development” of covenant theology in which the “Holy
Spirit tended to be left out” and “strong elements of subordinationism”
were put in.13 Also, Herman Hoeksema critiques Louis Berkhof’s for-
mulation of the pactum for omitting the Spirit’s role and thus implicitly
denying the Trinity.14 Moreover, Willem J. van Asselt attempts to miti-
gate the pneumatological critique by explicating Johannes Cocceius’s
(1603–1669) formulation of the Spirit’s role in the pactum.15 Looking
of redemption in Puritan thought.” “The Supreme Harmony of All”: The Trinitarian

Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 116.
10. “The Threeness/Oneness Problem of the Trinity,” Calvin Theological Journal
23, no. 1 (1988): 37–38.
11. See David VanDrunen and R. Scott Clark, “The Covenant Before the
Covenants,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of
Westminster Seminary California, ed. R. Scott Clark (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub-
lishing, 2007), 167–96; cf. Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 77–110; Andreas J. Köstenberger and
Scott R. Swain, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), 169–73.
12. “Much of the more recent criticism of the pactum salutis revolves around the
contention that the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in this agreement. It does not really
have a Trinitarian character, it is contended, because only the Father and the Son are
named as participating subjects.” Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes
Cocceius (1603–1669), trans. Raymond Andrew Blacketer, Studies in the History of
Christian Thought (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), 233. However, van
Asselt provides only one example: Barth’s “mythology” criticism (ibid., 233n11).
13. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, Contours of Christian Theology
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 52–53. Letham also critiques
Owen’s formulation of the pactum as binitarian for allegedly omitting the Spirit’s
role; see Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context and
Its Significance for Today,” 10. We will treat his latter critique below.
14. Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed. (Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Free Publish-
ing Association, 2004), 1:416–17; cf. Ralph Allan Smith, The Eternal Covenant: How
the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology (Moscow, Ida.: Canon Press & Book Service,
2003), 15. Smith concludes incorrectly that Hoeksema’s critique of Berkhof is Hoek-
sema’s full view of the pactum salutis, which is certainly not the case.
15. Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669), 233–36.
at Owen’s formulation will thus provide an important historical case

study against which such criticisms can be evaluated.16
Owen’s Formulation in Pactum Salutis Scholarship

Several historians and theologians take note of Owen’s role in the
historical development of the pactum salutis, but few elaborate on his
particular formulation. For example, Herman Witsius (1636–1708), in
tracing the pactum’s development up to his day, remarks, “Dr. Owen
handles this very subject at large on Heb. T. 1. Exercit. iv. p. 49.”17 How-
ever, he offers no explication of Owen’s view. Likewise, J. Mark Beach
includes Owen on the list of Reformed predecessors who influenced
Witsius’s covenant theology, but he does not elaborate on the extent
of Owen’s influence or the nature of Owen’s formulations.18 Heinrich
Heppe simply lists Owen’s commentary on Hebrews as supporting
the existence of a federal relation between the Father and Son without
giving any interpretative comments.19 Geerhardus Vos, in discussing
16. David VanDrunen and R. Scott Clark aver that G. C. Berkouwer belongs
on the list of modern theological detractors of the pactum for allegedly rejecting it
as “a speculative doctrine” and as “tending to tritheism” (VanDrunen and Clark,
“The Covenant Before the Covenants,” 194–95). However, these charges mistake
Berkouwer’s discussions of the doctrine’s dogmatic difficulties for his conclusion.
VanDrunen and Clark reference G. C. Berkouwer’s Divine Election (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1960), 162–63, whereas his actual conclusion—which undermines their
allegations—is found on p. 171: “From the foregoing” Berkouwer concludes, “it is
evident that our reflection on the election in Christ and in connection with that on
the pactum salutis does not yield an abstract doctrine of election. But such abstraction
is a continuous danger to the doctrine—as is evidenced by its history—and must be
guarded against continually.”
17. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Com-
prehending a Complete Body of Divinity (Phillipsburg, N.J.: The den Dulk Christian
Foundation; Distributed by P & R Publishing, 1990), 1:177; cf. Muller, “Toward the
Pactum Salutis,” 13. I interpret Witsius to be referring to Part IV of Owen’s Exercita-
tions on Hebrews, which, in Goold’s edition, includes Owen’s fullest presentation
of the pactum, namely, Exercitation XXVIII.
18. J. Mark Beach, “The Doctrine of the Pactum Salutis in the Covenant Theol-
ogy of Herman Witsius,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 13 (2002): 102. Similarly,
Carol Williams argues that “Owen, Baxter, Cocceius and Witsius” are commonly
seen as progenitors of the pactum and that Owen is an important contributor to
British covenant theology; see Williams, “David Dickson and the Covenant of
Redemption,” 27, 61.
19. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, ed.
Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1950), 378.
the need to distinguish between predestination and the pactum salutis,

refers to Exercitation XXVIII in Owen’s Hebrews commentary, but
he does not elaborate on Owen’s formulation.20 Similarly, Herman
Bavinck cites Owen’s commentary on Hebrews 7:22 while reflecting
upon “scholastic subtlety” in the pactum’s development.21 However, it is
unclear whether Bavinck critiques Owen’s full formulation or merely
his exegesis of this one passage.
Jeong Koo Jeon surveys Owen as an important formulator of
Reformed covenant theology, but he interprets Owen exclusively in
terms of the contrast between the foedus operum and foedus gratiae. Thus,
Jeon does not even mention Owen’s pactum formulation.22 David Van-
Drunen and R. Scott Clark also refer to Owen’s use of the pactum to
argue, contra the Socinians and Remonstrants, “that the subordina-
tion [of the Son to the Father] was not ontological but economic.”23
However, they provide no analysis of Owen’s formulation. Addition-
ally, Ralph Smith briefly summarizes Owen’s formulation of the
pactum in his Exercitations on Hebrews and claims that Owen’s “discus-
sion of the covenant itself is not explicitly trinitarian.”24 He offers no
substantiation for this claim, however.
Richard Muller includes Owen in a handful of studies related to
the pactum salutis. First, he interprets Owen’s view of God’s love—that
the Son is the “principle object” of the Father’s eternal love—as an
antecedent to the Reformed development of the pactum.25 Second, he
alleges that John Gill (1697–1771) criticized Owen’s formulation of
the pactum for lacking a pneumatological aspect.26 Gill, however, does
not critique Owen’s entire doctrine of the pactum but only his exegesis
20. Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,”

trans. S. Voorwinde and W. Van Gemeren, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., in Redemptive
History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B.
Gaffin Jr., 234–67 (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2001), 246; a translation of
De verbondsleer in de gereformeerde theologie: rede bij het overdragen van het rectoraat aan de
Theol. School te Grand Rapids, Mich. (Grand Rapids: Democrat, 1891).
21. Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 213, 213n43.
22. Jeon, Covenant Theology, 1n1, 46–56.
23. VanDrunen and Clark, “The Covenant Before the Covenants,” 196.
24. Smith, The Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology, 20.
25. Muller, The Triunity of God, 266.
26. Richard A. Muller, “The Spirit and the Covenant: John Gill’s Critique of
the Pactum Salutis,” Foundations 24, no. 1 (March 1981): 8n19.
of Zechariah 6:13 as applied to the consilium Dei.27 Furthermore, Gill

mitigates his critique by admitting that Owen’s view can be harmo-
nized with his own. Thus he writes:
My objections to this sense [of Zech. 6:13 as interpreted by
Owen, et al.] have been that this council in eternity was between
the three Persons, and not two only; and that that is what is past;
whereas this is spoken of as future: but when I consider that
Jehovah and the Branch are the only Persons mentioned in the
text, and so could only, with propriety, be spoken of, though
the council was between the three; and that, in the Hebrew
language, tenses are frequently put for one another, the past for
the future, and so the future for the past; and things are said to
be, when they appear to be, though they are before; the sense
may be, that when the Man, the Branch, should grow out of his
place, and build the temple, and bear the glory and sit a priest on
his throne, then it should clearly appear, that there had been a
council of peace between them both, which was the ground and
foundation of all: and in this light, this sense of the passage may
be admitted, and so be a proof of the point under consideration.28
Third, Muller lists Owen as one of the “British writers” who wrote
on the pactum “slightly in advance of Cocceius.”29 Neither of these
three studies, however, intend to examine Owen’s formulation of the
pactum in particular.
The Pactum Salutis in Owen Scholarship

In Owen scholarship there exists a similar situation to the one found
in pactum salutis scholarship: his formulation is noted by many writers
but not thoroughly examined, especially in terms of its trinitarian and
pneumatological aspects. Nevertheless, several Owen-specific studies
make important contributions for our investigation.
For example, Robert Letham and Carl Trueman make oppos-
ing claims concerning the Holy Spirit’s role in Owen’s doctrine of
the pactum. Whereas the former charges Owen’s formulation with
27. John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity; or, A System of Practical
Truths Deduced from The Sacred Scriptures (London: Wittingham and Rowland, 1815),
1:150 (i.e., Doctrinal Divinity, Book II, ch. vi). For Owen’s exegesis of Zechariah 6:13
in relation to the pactum, see Owen, Works, XII:500–01; XIX:85.
28. Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 150.
29. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 13.
binitarianism for allegedly omitting the Spirit, 30 the latter avers that
Owen’s formulation is to be commended for its outstanding develop-
ment of the Spirit’s role in the pactum.31 These contradicting claims
will be evaluated below. Additionally, Peter Toon, in his very brief
summary of Owen’s covenant theology, explicitly includes the Holy
Spirit as a covenanting party in Owen’s formulation of the pactum.32
Similarly, David Wong includes the Spirit in diagrams depicting the
relationship between Owen’s eternal pactum salutis and Owen’s tem-
poral covenants of works and grace. 33 His corresponding explication,
however, does not mention the Spirit’s role.
Other Owen studies indirectly contribute to our thesis. For exam-
ple, Sinclair Ferguson provides a thorough examination of Owen’s
pactum formulation in relation to Owen’s overall covenantal scheme.
He argues that, for Owen, the pactum is “the foundation of the cov-
enant of grace.”34 He asserts further that Owen views the covenant
of grace as conditional, just like the covenant of works, but with one
major difference: in the covenant of grace the conditions “devolve on
the Mediator, rather than on those for whom the covenant is made.”35
This observation is highly significant since Owen’s view of condition-
ality in the covenant of grace “makes the covenant of redemption a
logical and theological necessity” in his covenant theology.36 Further-
more, Ferguson summarizes the conditions and promises included in
the pactum salutis, the key Scripture texts which Owen uses to prove
the doctrine, and the importance Owen places on the pactum in rela-
tion to Christ’s atonement. 37 Nevertheless, Ferguson’s treatment is not
entirely comprehensive. For example, he limits his study primarily to
volumes XII and XIX of Owen’s writings, whereas Owen utilizes the
30. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 8, 10–11.

31. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 86–87, 92–93; Trueman, The
Claims of Truth, 145–48.
32. Toon, God’s Statesman, 170.
33. Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 177, fig. 3.3; 271, fig. 3.10.
34. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25.
35. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 24–25. “And he was the surety of
it in that he undertook unto God whatever by the terms of the covenant was to be
done for man, to accomplish it in his own person, and whatever was to be done in
and by man, to effect it by his own Spirit and grace....” Owen, Works, XIX:78.
36. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25n1.
37. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25–27.
pactum throughout his entire corpus. Also, Ferguson does not men-
tion the Spirit’s role in Owen’s formulation of the pactum.
Brian Kay draws important connections between Owen’s pac-
tum formulation and his trinitarian theology. 38 In light of modern
criticisms which paint the pactum as a cold contractual arrangement,
Kay explains that, for Owen, the Father’s eternal love is prior to and
hence the ground of the Son’s mediation in the pactum rather than
vice versa.39 Furthermore, following Spence, Kay defends Owen’s
development of the Western doctrine of appropriations, which is a key
counterpart to the pactum.40 However, he does not examine Owen’s
pactum formulation comprehensively, and, aside from a general men-
tion of Owen’s trinitarian covenant theology,41 Kay does not treat the
Holy Spirit’s role in Owen’s formulation.
Summary
These three scholarly landmarks provide both warrant for our the-
sis and bearings by which we can direct our investigation. Reformed
theologians differ widely over the propriety of the pactum salutis, and
trinitarian and pneumatological critiques are commonly levied against
it. In pactum salutis scholarship Owen’s formulation is well known but
remains relatively unexplored. Similarly, in Owen scholarship the
doctrine of the pactum salutis—including the Spirit’s role in the pac-
tum—has received some scholarly attention, but no one has attempted
a thorough study of these topics. Therefore, our task is to examine
Owen’s formulation of the pactum salutis while paying particular atten-
tion to the Spirit’s role. We will ask whether Owen explicitly references
the Spirit in the context of the pactum. If he does, then these references
need to be correlated and analyzed. Furthermore, we will briefly com-
pare Owen’s formulation to other Reformed Orthodox formulations.
Owen’s Formulation of the Pactum Salutis

Owen uses the pactum salutis in a wide variety of places throughout
almost every volume of his collected writings, a breadth which is
38. For Kay’s references to Owen’s doctrine of the pactum, see Trinitarian Spiri-
tuality, xiii, 109, 127–29, 154–55, 158, 168, 195.
39. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 127–29.
40. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 106–113, 188–89; cf. Spence, “John Owen and
Trinitarian Agency.”
41. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 195.
insufficiently noted in Owen scholarship.42 The well-known locus clas-

sicus for his doctrine of the pactum—Exercitation XXVIII of Owen’s
commentary on Hebrews—contains his fullest explication.43 Thus,
our investigation will focus here, and at the same time we will incor-
porate insights from Owen’s other formulations.44
In part IV of his Exercitations, Owen presents the pactum salutis
in a Christological context. Specifically, it explains the eternal origin
and ground of Christ’s priestly office.45 Before arguing for the pac-
tum directly, however, Owen spends considerable effort in laying its
trinitarian foundations in God’s eternal decrees. Accordingly, there
is a twofold structure in Owen’s formulation of the pactum which
corresponds with two of his Exercitations: (1) there exist trinitarian
transactions in God’s eternal counsels (i.e., Exercitation XXVII), and
(2) these trinitarian transactions take on the form or mode of a cov-
enant (i.e., Exercitation XXVIII). Noting Owen’s correlation of these
two aspects is vital for a proper understanding of his formulation.
Trinitarian Transactions in the Consilium Dei

Owen’s first step in formulating the pactum salutis is to argue “that
there were from all eternity personal transactions in the holy Trinity
concerning mankind in their temporal and eternal condition, which
first manifested themselves in our creation.”46 Before looking at the
account of man’s creation in Genesis 1:26, however, he first deals
briefly with how man can gain knowledge of God’s decrees.
In Exercitation XXVI, Owen grounds the origin of Christ’s
priestly office in “the eternal counsels of God” (XIX:15), which
assertion sets the stage for his discussion of trinitarian transactions
in the consilium Dei. After dealing with perennially debated questions
in the remainder of Exercitation XXVI (i.e., whether Christ would
42. See note 4 above.

43. Owen himself writes that he treats the pactum salutis most fully in his
Hebrews Exercitations; see Works, V:191.
44. Owen treats the pactum at length in Book I of The Death of Death in the Death
of Christ (Owen, Works, X:157–200) and in Chapter XXVII of Vindiciae Evangelicae
(Works, XII:496–508).
45. Step one of Owen’s argument grounds Christ’s priestly office in the con-
silium Dei (Works, XIX:15), and step two narrows the ground to the pactum salutis
specifically (Works, XIX:84).
46. Owen, Works, XIX:43; hereafter cited in text.
have become incarnate if man had not sinned, how the ordering of
God’s decrees relates to Christ’s incarnation, etc.), Owen moves on
in Exercitation XXVII to inquire “more expressly into the nature of
the counsels of God in this matter, and their progress in execution”
(XIX:42). For Owen, man’s only possible access to God’s trinitarian
transactions is via revelation. He does not attempt to deduce Christ’s
priestly office from the consilium Dei in an a priori manner. Rather, to
“avoid all curiosity, or vain attempts to be wise above what is written,”
he asserts an a posteriori principle: God’s nature is known through
creation (Isa. 40:12–17; Rom. 1:19–21; Ps. 19:1–2), and God’s nature
as triune is known only through the creation of man in particular
(XIX:43). Therefore, according to Owen, God reveals His trinitarian
nature to man in Genesis 1:26.
In this text Owen finds a strong adumbration of God’s trinitar-
ian nature specifically in God’s plural self-identification: “Therefore,”
he argues, “the first express mention of a plurality of persons in the
divine nature is in the creation of man; and therein also are personal
transactions intimated concerning his present and future condition”
(XIX:43). By looking to the Trinity’s self-revelation in Genesis 1:26,
Owen finds access to the consilium Dei, a specifically trinitarian con-
silium no less. After treating this verse at length (XIX:43–58), Owen
devotes the rest of Exercitation XXVII to arguing that further evi-
dence for trinitarian transactions in the consilium Dei can be found in
Proverbs 8:22–31 (XIX:58–71), Psalm 2:7 (XIX:71–78), and Psalm
110:1–2 (XIX:78). He also refutes Jewish, Arian, Socinian, and Mus-
lim non-trinitarian interpretations of these passages.
The Holy Spirit in the Consilium Dei

Owen’s primary focus throughout Exercitation XXVII is upon the
Father and the Son. This makes sense when we recall that he sets up
his whole discussion of the pactum salutis in the context of grounding
Christ’s priestly office in the consilium Dei. Nevertheless, two times in
Exercitation XXVII Owen explicitly, albeit briefly, assigns the Holy
Spirit a role within these trinitarian counsels.
In the first place, he includes the Spirit as an actor in the trinitar-
ian transactions intimated in Genesis 1:26. “And that which hence we
intend to prove is,” argues Owen, “that in the framing and produc-
ing the things which concern mankind, there were peculiar, internal,
personal transactions between the Father, Son, and Spirit” (XIX:58).
He sees in this verse “mutual distinct actings and concurrence of the

several persons in the Trinity,” not just the Father and Son (XIX:58;
emphasis added). Furthermore, out of this same verse he draws a
“basic principle” of trinitarian revelation:
Man was peculiarly created unto the glory of the Trinity, or of
God as three in one. Hence in all things concerning him there is
not only an intimation of those distinct subsistences, but also of
their distinct actings with respect unto him (XIX:58).
Although Owen does not elaborate on the Spirit’s role, he does
explicitly list the Holy Spirit as an active participant in the trinitarian
counsels of Genesis 1:26, and he affirms a specifically trinitarian, as
opposed to binitarian, consilium Dei with respect to man’s salvation.
In the second place, Owen assigns the Spirit a role in the consilium
Dei based on Proverbs 8:22–31. With this passage in mind, he writes,
“A personal transaction, before the creation of the world, between the
Father and the Son, acting mutually by their one Spirit, concerning
the state and condition of mankind, with respect unto divine love
and favour, is that which we inquire after, and which is here fully
expressed...” (XIX:67). Owen does not explain how the Father and
Son act “mutually by their one Spirit”; he seems to simply presuppose
the Spirit’s role in the Trinity’s eternal counsels.
At the conclusion to Exercitation XXVII, however, he omits the
Spirit. He writes: “It appears, therefore, that there were eternal trans-
actions between the Father and Son concerning the redemption of
mankind by his interposition or mediation” (XIX:76). Again, recall-
ing the overall Christological context within which Owen formulates
the pactum, focusing on the Father and Son makes sense. Since he
mentions the Spirit twice in Exercitation XXVII but omits the Spirit
in his concluding statement, a bit of ambiguity regarding the Spirit’s
role attends his formulation.
There are two more explicit, though brief, references concern-
ing the Spirit’s role in the trinitarian consilium Dei beyond Owen’s
Exercitations on Hebrews. First, in the context of explaining how the
Father and the Son are indirectly involved in Christ’s incarnation, he
writes, “Now, this emptying of the Deity, this humbling of himself,
this dwelling amongst us, was the sole act of the second person, or the
divine nature in the second person, the Father and the Spirit having
no concurrence in it but by liking, approbation, and eternal counsel”
(X:175). Owen provides no elaboration on this passing reference to

the Spirit other than a general remark regarding concurrence with the
entire economy of salvation: the Holy Spirit “is evidently concurring,
in his own distinct operation, to all the several chief or grand parts
of this work” (X:178). Nevertheless, for the third time we see that he
assigns the Spirit a role in the consilium Dei.
Second, amidst his lengthy commentary on Heb. 1:1–2, Owen
argues “that the whole mystery of his will, antecedently to the revela-
tion of it, is said to be hid in God; that is, the Father, Eph. 3:9. It lay
wrapped up from the eyes of men and angels, in his eternal wisdom
and counsel, Col. 1:26, 27” (XX:34). Then he explicitly includes the
Holy Spirit as a “partaker with him [i.e., the Father] in this counsel,”
along with the Son (XX:34). Thus Owen mentions all three of the
divine persons as actors in the consilium Dei.
The significance of these four explicit references to the Holy
Spirit’s role in the consilium Dei will become apparent as we look next
at how Owen correlates the consilium with the pactum.
The Pactum Salutis as the Modus of the Consilium Dei

Owen’s second step in formulating the pactum salutis is found in Exer-
citation XXVIII. He writes, “That there were eternal transactions in
general between those distinct persons, with respect unto the salva-
tion of mankind, hath been evinced in the foregoing Exercitation
[i.e., XXVII]. That these were federal, or had in them the nature of a
covenant, is now further to be manifested [in Exercitation XXVIII]”
(XIX:84; cf. 77–78). He then argues in Exercitation XXVIII that the
trinitarian transactions in the consilium regarding man’s salvation are
“carried on ‘per modum foederis,’ ‘by way of covenant,’ compact, and
mutual agreement, between the Father and the Son” (XIX:77). Thus
for Owen there is a sense in which the consilium Dei is the pactum
salutis. In other words, he finds an inseparable connection between the
consilium and the pactum, between Exercitations XXVII and XXVIII.
That Owen draws a connection between the trinitarian counsels of
God and the pactum salutis is significant for our thesis in three respects.
An Underdeveloped Correlation
Owen scholarship has tended either to underplay or to miss altogether
the connection between Owen’s formulations of the consilium Dei
and the pactum salutis. For example, David Wong presents a detailed
examination of the role of the pactum salutis in relation to Owen’s cov-

enant theology as a whole. However, in developing the link between
Owen’s view of God’s trinitarian counsels and his covenant theol-
ogy, Wong omits the passage where Owen most fully explicates this
relationship—Exercitation XXVII.47 Instead of connecting the pac-
tum with the consilium, Wong argues that Owen employs a Platonic
relation between the pactum and the covenant of grace,48 and he ulti-
mately rejects Owen’s pactum formulation as a “Platonic philosophical
interpolation.”49 Similarly, Carol Williams surveys Owen’s Exercita-
tions and briefly explains the consilium-pactum relationship, but omits
Exercitation XXVII.50 Robert Wright also notes that Owen grounds
Christ’s priesthood in “the eternal counsels of the Trinity,” and he
further comments that Owen “devotes a whole essay to these federal
transactions between the Persons of the Trinity.”51 However, he does
not elaborate on either topic or their interrelation.
Sebastian Rehnman argues that Owen follows “Coccejus’ notion
of an eternal Trinitarian covenant” in arguing “that the covenant
of grace has its basis in the eternal covenant, pact, or transaction
between the Father and the Son.”52 Cocceius, however, is only cited
once when Owen explicates the pactum,53 so Rehnman’s observation
is slightly overstated. Furthermore, Rehnman mentions Owen’s pac-
tum formulation only in passing, and he does not relate the pactum to
the consilium in Owen’s thought. Dale Stover directly relates Owen’s
pneumatology to his covenant theology, even discussing Owen’s pac-
tum formulation at points.54 However, he grounds Owen’s covenant
theology not in the consilium Dei but in William Tyndale’s contract
47. Owen presents his view of the trinitarian counsels of God in Exercitation
XXVII of his commentary on Hebrews, which is entitled, “The Original of the
priesthood of Christ in the Counsel of God”; see Owen, Works, XIX:42–76.
48. Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 163.
49. Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 273.
50. Williams, “David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption,” 232–34.
51. Robert Keith McGregor Wright, “John Owen’s Great High Priest: The High-
priesthood of Christ in the Theology of John Owen, (1616–1683)” (PhD diss., Iliff
School of Theology and The University of Denver [Colorado Seminary], 1989), 183.
52. Rehnman, Divine Discourse, 168–69.
53. Owen, Works, XII:503. Only two other citations of Cocceius appear in
Owen’s corpus, both of which are found in Theologoumena Pantodapa; see Owen,
Works, XVII:158, 382.
54. Stover, “The Pneumatology of John Owen,” 144–213.
theory and in an allegedly abstract, deterministic notion of predesti-

nation inherited from William Perkins.55
Alan Spence comments on both the trinitarian nature of God’s
eternal counsels and the pactum as a specific instance of the trinitar-
ian counsels in Owen’s thought. He also highlights the relationship
between Owen’s consilium Dei formulation and his use of trinitarian
appropriations, especially in the context of Christ’s incarnation. Yet,
beyond grounding Owen’s doctrine of the incarnation in the pactum,
Spence does not elaborate on Owen’s consilium-pactum correlation.56
Sinclair Ferguson briefly mentions that Owen’s pactum is grounded
in a trinitarian transaction,57 but he references only Owen’s introduc-
tory comment on the first page of Exercitation XXVIII58 and does
not examine Owen’s full explication of God’s trinitarian counsel in
Exercitation XXVII. He thus misses Owen’s references to the Spirit
in the consilium, and he limits the consilium to transactions between the
Father and Son. Furthermore, Ferguson considers the consilium-pac-
tum relationship in terms of possibility and actuality,59 whereas Owen
treats this relationship in terms of modus.
Robert Letham avers that “Owen integrates the eternal counsel
of God, described as a covenant, with the atonement and justifica-
tion, providing the context within which both have meaning.”60 He
further comments that Owen “handles the covenant of redemption
better than others.”61 Nevertheless, he alleges that Owen’s pactum
formulation “is a binitarian construction. Amazingly the Holy Spirit
receives no mention! This, despite Owen’s focus elsewhere on the
Spirit.”62 Letham, however, only references Owen’s formulation in
55. Stover, “The Pneumatology of John Owen,” 211.

56. Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration, 28–30.
57. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25.
58. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25n5.
59. Ferguson reasons that Owen’s doctrine of the covenant of grace relates to
his formulation of the pactum in two senses: first, the pactum can only be possible
if distinctions among the activities of persons within the unity of the Godhead is
possible; second, the pactum can only become actual in the context of Christ’s incar-
nation. See Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25.
60. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 10; cf. ibid., 7–8.
61. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 10. Compare his earlier
statement: “Owen is one of the first exponents of the theologoumenon, the covenant
of redemption, and by far the best.” “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 7–8.
62. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 10. However, he had
Exercitation XXVIII63 and ignores his full treatment in XXVII. This

same omission undermines the charge of binitarianism: without see-
ing the consilium-pactum correlation, Letham misses Owen’s explicit
references to the Spirit.
Carl Trueman provides a robust evaluation of Owen’s formula-
tion of the pactum salutis. In addition to recognizing the pactum’s role
as the eternal ground for the trinitarian economy of salvation,64 he
argues for a “basic axiom of his theology that acts ad extra mirror the
internal intratrinitarian relationships.”65 Thus, Trueman appears to
pick up on the logic Owen uses to interpret Genesis 1:26. However,
despite his robust treatment, he omits any connection between the
concilium and the pactum.66 It is no surprise, then, that he references
Exercitation XXVIII but not XXVII.67
A Common Reformed Orthodox Pattern

In addition to its being underdeveloped or ignored, the consilium-
pactum correlation is significant in that several Reformed orthodox
theologians follow this two-step pattern in their formulations.68 For
example, David Dickson (1583–1662) grounds the pactum salutis in
Christ’s investiture with the office of mediator that began within the
consilium Dei. In Therapeutica Sacra, he writes:
A divine covenant we call, a Contract or Paction, wherein God is
at least the one party Contracter. Of this sort of Covenants about
remarked earlier that Owen “relates all aspects of classic trinitarian doctrine to
[the pactum salutis] and guards against misunderstandings in a way that is seldom
repeated and never bettered.” “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 8.
63. Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” 8.
64. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 80–83.
65. Trueman, The Claims of Truth, 132.
66. Owen’s fullest formulation of the eternal trinitarian counsels which cor-
respond with the pactum salutis is Exercitation XXVII in his Hebrews commentary
(Works, XIX:42–76), which work Trueman omits in his analysis of Owen’s pactum
formulation. See Trueman, The Claims of Truth, 129–50; Trueman, John Owen:
Reformed Catholic, 80–99.
67. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 85nn70–71.
68. Similarly, though referring to a broader context, Muller argues that the
trinitarian formulation of God’s decrees is an antecedent to Reformed orthodox
formulations of the pactum salutis. See Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Chris-
tology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 1986), 167.
the eternal Salvation of Men (which sort chiefly belong to our

purpose) there are Three. The First is, the Covenant of Redemp-
tion, past between God, and Christ [whom] God appointed
Mediator, before the World was, in the Council of the Trinity.69
Dickson further avers that the pactum “is in effect one with the eternal
Decree of Redemption,” thus making the pactum coextensive with the
consilium Dei regarding redemption.70
Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680), Owen’s friend and colleague,
formulated his doctrine of the pactum salutis along similar consilium-
pactum lines. The argument in Book I of Goodwin’s Of Christ the
Mediator begins, “God the Father’s eternal counsel and transactions
with Christ, to undertake the work of redemption for man, consid-
ered as fallen” and proceeds to the covenant of redemption as “the
conclusion of this agreement.”71
Furthermore, Patrick Gillespie (1617–1675) uses a similar two-
step formulation. In his extensive treatise on the pactum salutis, The
Ark of the Covenant Opened, to which Owen wrote the foreword,72
Gillespie argues that a variety of purposes in the consilium are presup-
posed by the pactum. For example:
The Covenant of Redemption wherein God entered with Christ,
did proceed upon supposition of these things mainly... 1. This
69. David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra: Shewing briefly the method of healing the dis-
eases of the conscience, concerning regeneration (Craig’s-Clofs: Printed by James Watson,
1697), 35. Compare Dickson’s summary in Head II of his shorter work: The Sum of
Saving Knowledge: or, a brief sum of Christian doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, and
holden forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms; together with the practical
use thereof (Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, & Co., 1871), 9–11; cf. Williams, “David
Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption,” 185–86.
70. Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra, 38; cf. Williams, “David Dickson and the Cov-
enant of Redemption,” 193–98. Owen, however, views the pactum as more than a
decree: “Thus, though this covenant be eternal, and the object of it be that which
might not have been, and so it hath the nature of the residue of God’s decrees in
these regards, yet because of this distinct acting of the will of the Father and the will
of the Son with regard to each other, it is more than a decree, and hath the proper
nature of a covenant or compact” (Works, XII:497).
71. Thomas Goodwin, The works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D., Sometime President
of Magdalene college, Oxford (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863), V:3–33.
72. John Owen, “To the Reader,” in 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 (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1677), n.p.
Covenant supposeth that God had purposed in himself, and

decreed eminently to glorify himself in the way of justice and
mercy.... 2. This Covenant supposeth that God had purposed
and decreed, that there should be objects qualified, and fit for
the glorifying of both these Attributes; and this was absolutely
necessary to that purpose.... 3. The Covenant of Redemption
supposeth God’s purpose and free decree, so far to follow his
Covenant truth and justice upon man, as not to acquit him
without a satisfaction to Justice in his own person, or by a surety
of the same kind that sinned....73
Thus, for Gillespie the pactum presupposes trinitarian transactions in
the consilium Dei. Moreover, John Gill (1697–1771) clearly follows this
consilium-pactum pattern in his Body of Doctrinal Divinity. Speaking of
the relationship between the consilium and the pactum, Gill writes:
These are generally blended together by divines; and indeed it
is difficult to consider them distinctly with exactness and preci-
sion; but I think they are to be distinguished, and the one to be
considered as leading on, and as preparatory and introductory to
the other, though both of an eternal date.74
Therefore, upon comparing these fellow Reformed orthodox for-
mulators of the pactum salutis, it is apparent that Owen’s two-step
argument for the pactum can be located within a stream of similarly
structured formulations both before and after his day.
An Implicit Connection to the Holy Spirit’s Role

Additionally, this consilium-pactum correlation is significant for our
thesis in that it provides an implicit argument for the Holy Spirit’s
role in Owen’s pactum formulation. This inference can be stated as a
syllogism: (a) the Holy Spirit has a role in the consilium Dei concern-
ing salvation; (b) the pactum salutis is the modus of the consilium Dei
concerning salvation; (c) therefore, the Spirit’s role in the pactum is the
execution of the role that the Spirit received in the consilium.
Even though Owen’s two-step formulation allows for the pos-
sibility of inference to the Spirit’s role, we must be cautions here since
73. 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 (Lon-
don: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1677), 32–33.
74. Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 148.
he does not draw this inference himself. Throughout Exercitation

XXVIII, he focuses exclusively upon the Father and Son. Having
described the three components of a general covenant and the three
supplemental components of special covenants, Owen avers that the
pactum salutis is a special covenant.75 He then devotes the rest of Exer-
citation XXVIII to marshaling support for the claim that the eternal
transactions between the Father and Son display the six components
of a special covenant. Significantly, he nowhere discusses the Holy
Spirit throughout his explication of these six components; even in his
discussion of the distinct covenanting parties in the pactum—the place
where we would most expect to find a mention of the Spirit—he only
points to biblical passages wherein the Father declares that He will be
God to His Son (Ps. 16:2, 9–11; 22:1; 40:8; 45:7; Mic. 5:4; John 20:17;
Rev. 3:12) (XIX:84). “The Father,” he writes, “was the prescriber, the
promiser, and lawgiver; and the Son was the undertaker upon his pre-
scription, law, and promises” (XIX:85).
In sum, Owen does not assign a role to the Holy Spirit in Exercita-
tion XXVIII. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the inference to the
Spirit’s role implicit in Owen’s two-step formulation; for, as we will see
in the following section, in writings outside of his Exercitations, Owen
does explicitly assign the Spirit a role in the pactum after all.
The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Pactum Salutis

There are two references in Owen’s writings where he references the
Holy Spirit’s role in the pactum salutis. In both cases, he merely men-
tions the Spirit without elaborating on His particular role.
The first reference is found in Book II, Chapter V of Pneuma-
tologia, Owen’s 1674 treatise on the Holy Spirit. In the context of
explaining how the resurrected and exalted Christ sends His Spirit
to build the church, Owen turns to Acts 2:33 (III:191). In the course
of his exposition Owen comments that Christ, before He ascended
into heaven, comforted His disciples with the promise of the Holy
Spirit and commanded them not to begin building the church until
the Spirit had come. The promise of the Spirit, however, did not orig-
inate merely at Christ’s ascension. Rather, Owen terms this promise
an “everlasting promise”:
75. Owen, Works, XIX:82–84; hereafter cited in text.

And herein lay, and herein doth lie, the foundation of the min-
istry of the church, as also its continuance and efficacy. The
kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and, in the animating principles
of it, invisible. If we fix our minds only on outward order, we
lose the rise and power of the whole. It is not an outward visible
ordination by men,—though that be necessary, by rule and pre-
cept,—but Christ’s communication of that Spirit, the everlasting
promise whereof he received of the Father, that gives being, life,
usefulness, and success, to the ministry (III:191).
While explaining this “everlasting promise,” Owen mentions
the Holy Spirit in the context of the pactum salutis. With Acts 2:33 in
mind, he distinguishes the inception of “the promise” to Christ in the
pactum salutis from the reception of “the thing promised” to Christ in
and for the church within the historia revelationis (III:191–92).
The promise, therefore, itself was given unto the Lord Christ,
and actually received by him in the covenant of the media-
tor, when he undertook the great work of the restoration of all
things, to the glory of God; for herein had he the engagement of
the Father that the Holy Spirit should be poured out on the sons
of men, to make effectual unto their souls the whole work of his
mediation: wherefore, he is said now to “receive this promise,”
because on his account, and by him as exalted, it was now sol-
emnly accomplished in and towards the church (III:192).
Owen sees two senses in which Christ received the promised Sprit.
First, in terms of the opera Dei ad intra, the Father promises the Spirit
to the Son in the pactum salutis. Second, in terms of the opera Dei ad
extra, Christ, at His exaltation, receives the promised Spirit “in and
towards the church.”76 The former promise grounds the latter.
Christ’s promise to send His Spirit to the church can be termed
an “everlasting promise” because Christ Himself “actually received”
this promise for Himself in eternity via the pactum salutis. Christ’s giv-
ing of the Holy Spirit to the church, then, is a sort of re-giving—a
historical (opera Dei ad extra) consequent to a heavenly (opera Dei ad
intra) antecedent. Furthermore, Owen turns to Psalm 68:18 and Ephe-
sians 4:8 to confirm his interpretation of this “everlasting promise.” 77
76. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s.v., opera Dei ad intra,
opera Dei ad extra.
77. Owen, Works, III:192.
He thus concludes in deep wonder that God “hath knit these things
together toward his elect, in the bond of an everlasting covenant!” 78
Now, we must admit that Owen refers to the Spirit’s role in the
pactum salutis only in a passive sense: the Holy Spirit is promised to
the Son by the Father as the efficient cause, so to speak, of Christ’s
mediation. Nonetheless, herein he explicitly assigns the Spirit a role
in the pactum: the Spirit is, from all eternity, the promised dispenser
of Christ’s benefits and builder of Christ’s church.
The second explicit reference to the Holy Spirit in the pactum is
even more subtle than the first. In Chapter XXVI of Vindiciae Evan-
gelicae, Owen is clearly focused not on the Spirit but on the “compact,
covenant, convention, or agreement, that was between the Father and
the Son.”79 Yet, he explicitly includes the Spirit when explaining the
general principle of trinitarian appropriations of God’s will in the
opera Dei ad intra:
It is true, the will of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but
one. It is a natural property, and where there is but one nature
there is but one will: but in respect of their distinct personal act-
ings, this will is appropriated to them respectively, so that the
will of the Father and the will of the Son may be considered
[distinctly] in this business; which though essentially one and
the same, yet in their distinct personality it is distinctly consid-
ered, as the will of the Father and the will of the Son.80
Even though Owen is clearly focused here upon the Father and Son,
he recognizes that the Spirit’s will is coessential with the unified will
of the Godhead. Thus, for the second time, he briefly mentions the
Spirit in a formulation of the pactum salutis.
The Pactum Salutis and the Historia Revelationis

With Owen’s two enigmatic references to the Spirit’s role in the
pactum salutis in mind, we are prepared to evaluate Carl Trueman’s
assessment of Owen’s pneumatological contribution to Reformed
orthodox formulations of the doctrine. He claims that Owen makes
“a significant contribution...in his attention to the role of the Holy
Spirit with reference to covenant” by specifically “describing the
78. Owen, Works, III:193. He refers to Isaiah 59:21 in support of this conclusion.
79. Owen, Works, XII:496.
80. Owen, Works, XII:497.
various roles played in the covenant of redemption by Father, Son,

and Holy Spirit; and in so doing,” Trueman continues, “he is being
consistent with his basic premise that every external act of God is in
its deepest sense an act of the whole Trinity.”81 After delineating the
roles of the Father and Son, Trueman describes the Spirit’s role in
Owen’s formulation as follows: “Finally,” he writes, “the Holy Spirit
is engaged in the work of incarnation and of Christ’s earthly ministry,
his oblation, and in his resurrection.”82 Furthermore, a few pages later
Trueman interprets the Spirit’s works in the historia revelationis as an
“expression” of the pactum salutis:
Owen’s elaboration of the Trinitarian structure of the covenant
of redemption continued throughout his career, and receives
perhaps its most sophisticated expression in his Pneumatologia,
where he employs some of the most sophisticated concepts in
patristic Christology particularly to expand upon the role of the
Holy Spirit relative to the Incarnation.83
Trueman’s claims involve a conflation, however; whereas the pactum
salutis belongs to the opera Dei ad intra, the historia revelationis belongs to
the opera Dei ad extra. Christ’s incarnation and earthly ministry belong
to the historia revelationis (an ad extra work). Thus, they are not a part
of the pactum salutis (an ad intra work). Yet, Trueman describes the pac-
tum as an ad extra work, and he explains the Spirit’s role in the pactum
salutis in terms of the historia revelationis (i.e., “Holy Spirit is engaged
in the work of incarnation,” etc.). These assertions, then, which view
the Spirit’s work in the historia revelationis as belonging to the pactum,
conflate the opera Dei ad intra and the opera Dei ad extra.84
These conflations appear to be anomalies in Trueman’s overall
excellent interpretation of Owen’s pactum formulation. In the very
next paragraph, for example, Trueman properly distinguishes the
Holy Spirit’s role in the pactum (ad intra) from His role in historia rev-
elationis (ad extra).85 Furthermore, it may be possible to interpret the
81. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 86.

84. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s.v., historia revelationis,
opera Dei ad extra, opera Dei ad intra, ordo salutis, pactum salutis.
85. “First, the Christological focus of the covenant [i.e., the pactum salutis] indi-
cates that it is rather the foundation of salvation history, its necessary Trinitarian
passage which Trueman incorrectly cites to support the Spirit’s role in

the pactum86 as indeed referring to the pactum, albeit indirectly rather
than directly. Applying Trueman’s “basic axiom” rule mentioned
earlier wherein trinitarian “acts ad extra mirror the internal intratrini-
tarian relationships,”87 we could argue by inference that the Spirit’s
role in the historia revelationis mirrors His prior role in the opera Dei ad
intra (i.e., specifically in the pactum salutis). In this light it may be pos-
sible to interpret Owen’s remarks about the Spirit’s role in the overall
economy of salvation as indirectly relating to the Spirit’s role in the
pactum. Speaking of this overall economy, Owen writes:
And thus have we discovered the blessed agents and undertakers
in this work, their several actions and orderly concurrence unto
the whole; which, though they may be thus distinguished, yet
they are not so divided but that every one must be ascribed to
the whole nature, whereof each person is “in solidum” partaker.
And as they begin it, so they will jointly carry along the applica-
tion of it unto its ultimate issue and accomplishment....88
Applying Trueman’s “axiom” rule, an inference from the opera
Dei ad extra to the opera Dei ad intra could be stated like this: if “the
blessed agents” work in their several actions of salvation via an “orderly
concurrence unto the whole,” and if “each person is ‘in solidium’ par-
taker” of the other persons’ works both ad intra and ad extra, then the
Holy Spirit must have a role in the pactum salutis (opera Dei ad intra)
insofar as the Spirit works “in solidum” and by “concurrence unto the
whole” in all of the opera Dei ad extra.
Nevertheless, in light of our investigation of Owen’s mere two
explicit references to the Spirit’s role in the pactum salutis, Trueman’s
claim that Owen is a singular developer of the Spirit’s role in the pac-
tum seems too strong. Unlike other formulators such as John Gill89
presupposition, if you like, which then makes the historical ministry of Christ, the
work of the Holy Spirit in applying the same, and thus the salvation of the elect, an
historical reality. It is the nexus between eternity and time with respect to salvation.”
Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 87.
86. Trueman cites a brief chapter entitled, “The peculiar actions of the Holy
Spirit in this business,” in Owen, Works, X:178–79; Trueman, John Owen: Reformed
Catholic, 87n75.
87. Trueman, The Claims of Truth, 132.
88. Owen, Works, X:179.
89. See “Of the Concern the Spirit of God Has in the Covenant of Grace”
and Johannes Cocceius,90 Owen does not provide any elaboration on

the Holy Spirit’s role specifically in the pactum.
Conclusions
Our inquiry into the Holy Spirit’s role in John Owen’s doctrine of
the pactum salutis has demonstrated (1) that Owen’s formulation of the
pactum is interrelated with his formulation of trinitarian counsels con-
cerning man’s salvation, and (2) that Owen assigns the Spirit a role in
the pactum, but without elaboration.
The Trinitarian Consilium Dei and the Pactum Salutis

Owen presents his formulation of the pactum in two steps. First,
he develops the idea of trinitarian transactions in the consilium Dei.
Second, he argues that the pactum is the modus of these trinitarian
transactions. In this light his formulation of the pactum in Exercitation
XXVIII cannot be properly understood apart from his prior argument
for a trinitarian consilium Dei in Exercitation XXVII. This correla-
tion has been consistently underdeveloped. Not a single scholar who
has written on Owen’s pactum formulation has referenced Exercita-
tion XXVII, and many studies abstract Exercitation XXVIII as if it
were Owen’s entire formulation of the pactum. Therefore, to obtain
a full picture of Owen’s formulation, Part IV of his Exercitations on
Hebrews must be read as an integrated whole.
Owen’s two-step approach is not idiosyncratic. Other Reformed
orthodox formulators of the pactum begin with the consilium and then
move to the pactum. One specific implication for Owen scholarship,
then, is that a comprehensive treatment of Owen’s pactum formula-
tion needs to include a robust study of Owen’s consilium formulation.
Furthermore, there is warrant for raising the question of whether this
ignored aspect of Owen’s formulation has been similarly ignored in
other studies of Reformed orthodox formulations of the pactum salutis.
The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Pactum Salutis

In quantitative terms, our investigation yields four explicit references
to the Holy Spirit in Owen’s formulation of the consilium Dei regarding
in Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, ch. 14 (pp. 173–75). In contrast to
Owen, note that Gill devotes an entire chapter to the Spirit’s role in the pactum salutis.
90. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 233–36.
man’s salvation. Furthermore, we found two explicit references to the

Spirit’s role in the pactum salutis. If we follow the reasoning of Owen’s
two-step formulation in his Exercitations, then by inference we can
conclude that Owen refers to the Holy Spirit’s role in the pactum salutis
at least six times throughout his writings. Thus it is incorrect, on the
one hand, to charge Owen’s formulation of the pactum salutis with
binitarianism or sub-trinitarianism for an alleged lack of references
to the Spirit’s role therein. On the other hand, the claim that Owen
is a singular developer of the Spirit’s role in the pactum is overstated.
The most that can be said is that he neither ignores completely nor
develops satisfyingly the Spirit’s role in the pactum.
In qualitative terms, Owen provides no explication of the Spirit’s
role in the pactum salutis. Many of his six explicit references to the
Spirit occur as mere passing comments in contexts where his focus
is directed either toward the roles of the Father and Son exclusively
or toward the general trinitarian principles regarding personal appro-
priations of the Godhead’s undivided will. Furthermore, in contrast
to other Reformed formulators of the pactum, he does not provide
separate discussions or elaborations on the Spirit’s role. What he does
provide, however, is a significant, fully trinitarian Reformed orthodox
formulation of the pactum salutis.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 116–134
The Christology of John Flavel

BRIAN H. COSBY
q
John Flavel in His Historical-Theological Context

John Flavel’s (bap. 1630–1691) The Fountain of Life Opened Up; or, A
Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory1 (1673) is arguably
the most extensive treatment of the person and work of Christ pub-
lished in English Puritanism during the seventeenth century.2 The
work spans over five hundred pages and presents a blend of meticu-
lous theology and practical application. Despite a recent awakening
of scholarly studies on Flavel, he remains a virtual unknown, over-
shadowed by the Puritan “greats”: John Owen, Richard Baxter, John
Bunyan, Richard Sibbes, Thomas Goodwin, Stephen Charnock,
William Perkins, and Thomas Boston. 3 But during the seventeenth
1. Originally published in London: Printed by Rob. White, for Francis Tyton,

at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet, 1673.
2. The Fountain of Life spans over five hundred pages and touches just about every
area associated with a study of the person and work of Christ. Other Puritan titles
that contend with The Fountain of Life include Thomas Goodwin’s Christ set forth in his
death, resurrection, ascension, sitting at Gods right hand, intercession, as the cause of justification,
object of justifying faith together with a treatise discovering the affectionate tendernesse of Christs
heart now in heaven, unto sinners on earth (1642); John Owen’s A Declaration of the Glori-
ous Mystery of the Person of Christ (1679), Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ
(1684), and Meditations and Discourses Concerning the Glory of Christ Applied (1691); and
James Durham’s Christ Crucified; or, The Marrow of the Gospel in 72 Sermons on Isaiah 53
(1683). Despite the prominence and influence of Flavel, there remains no in-depth
study or article on Flavel’s doctrine of Christ or of The Fountain of Life.
3. Other than a study of Flavel in 1952 by Kwai Sing Chang, “John Flavel of
Dartmouth, 1630–1691” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1952), no in-depth
study of his life or theology was published until 2007 with the publication of J. Ste-
phen Yuille, The Inner Sanctum of Puritan Piety: John Flavel’s Doctrine of Mystical Union
with Christ (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007). For recent scholarly
studies, see Clifford B. Boone, “Puritan Evangelism: Preaching for Conversion in
The Christology of John Flavel 117
century, there is substantial evidence that Flavel had as much influ-

ence as any of these Puritans.4
Anthony á Wood (1632–1695), the Oxford historian and Royal-
ist, once wrote that Flavel had “more disciples than ever John Owen
the independent or Rich. Baxter the presbyterian.”5 One of Flavel’s
contemporaries, John Galpine, wrote that Flavel was “deservedly
famous among the Writers of this Age.”6 Shortly after Flavel’s death,
the New England Puritan and Harvard College president, Increase
Mather (1639–1723), wrote optimistically of Flavel’s lasting influence:
“[Flavel’s] works, already published, have made his name precious in
both Englands; and it will be so, as long as the earth shall endure.” 7
To be sure, Flavel’s influence remained strong during the revivals
in New England during the early 1740s. Jonathan Edwards quotes
“Holy Mr. Flavel”8 —as he calls him—more than anyone else in Reli-
gious Affections (1746) except for Solomon Stoddard (1643–1728) and
Thomas Shepard (1605–1649). In fact, James I. Packer calls Edwards
the “spiritual heir” of Flavel.9 But since the mid-nineteenth century,
his influence seems to have waned.10
Late Seventeenth-Century English Puritanism as Seen in the Works of John Flavel”

(Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, Lampeter, 2009); Adam Burgess Embry, Keeper of
the Great Seal of Heaven: Sealing of the Spirit in the Thought of John Flavel (Grand Rapids:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); and John Thomas, Jr., entitled “An Analysis
of the Use of Application in the Preaching of John Flavel (Ph.D. diss., The New
Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007).
4. For a survey of Flavel’s life, theology, ministry, and influence, see Brian H.
Cosby, “John Flavel: The Lost Puritan,” Puritan Reformed Journal 3:1 (Jan. 2011):
113–32.
5. Anthony á Wood, Athenæ Oxonienses: An Exact History of all the Writers and
Bishops who have had their Education in the University of Oxford (New York: Lackington,
Hughes, Harding, et al., 1820), 4:323.
6. John Galpine, “The Life of Mr. John Flavell,” in Mr. John Flavell’s Remains:
Being Two Sermons, Composed by that Reverend and Learned Divine (London: Printed
for Tho. Cockerill, at the Three Legs in the Poultrey, 1691), 2.
7. Increase Mather, “To the Reader,” in “An Exposition of the Assembly’s Cat-
echism” by John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel (London: W. Baynes and Son, 1820;
repr., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968), 6:139.
8. Jonathan Edwards, “On Religious Affections,” in The Works of Jonathan
Edwards (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 1:248.
9. James I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1990), 312.
10. See Cosby, “John Flavel: The Lost Puritan,” for reasons for this decline of
influence.
John Flavel was born in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, and bap-

tized on September 26, 1630. His father, Richard Flavel (d. 1665),
was a dissenting minister and imprisoned with his wife for non-
conformity. Both of them contracted the plague while in prison
and, although released, died shortly thereafter. John matriculated at
University College, Oxford in 1646 and was appointed assistant to
the minister in the parish of Diptford on April 27, 1650. Ordained
by the presbytery at Salisbury later that year, Flavel continued his
ministry in the county of Devon—especially in the town of Dart-
mouth—until his ejection under the Act of Uniformity in 1662.
Even though the Five Mile Act (1665) forced him into neighboring
towns and forests to escape persecution and imprisonment, he con-
tinued to minister to the parishioners of Dartmouth by disguising
himself and holding secret meetings. Other than a brief respite from
persecution during 1672, Flavel did not enjoy substantial freedom
to preach until the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 under James
II. He preached his last sermon on June 21, 1691, and died five days
later from a stroke.11
Flavel’s theology was consistent with many of his Puritan con-
temporaries during the later-Stuart period. He was an heir of the
Westminster Assembly (1642–1652) and wrote one of the earliest
expositions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.12 Although Flavel was
a man of great learning—well versed in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin—
and one who understood the particulars of the theological debates of
his day, he desired to focus his attention to the subject of the person
and work of Jesus Christ. He explains, “There is no doctrine more
excellent in itself or more necessary to be preached and studied than
the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”13 It is the aim of this
brief study, therefore, to detail some of the more poignant aspects
represented in Flavel’s doctrine of Christ.
11. James William Kelly, “Flavell, John (bap. 1630, d. 1691),” Oxford Dictionary
of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); online ed., Jan 2008
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9678, accessed 4 March 2011].
12. John Flavel, 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 the first
year of liberty, 1688 (London: Printed for Tho. Cockerill, 1692).
13. John Flavel, The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential and Medi-
atorial Glory in The Works of John Flavel (London: W. Baynes and Son, 1820; repr.
London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1968), 1:34.
The Christology of John Flavel

While much of the discussion in this study will be drawn from Fla-
vel’s The Fountain of Life, it should be noted that his Christology is
certainly not confined to this work alone, but from the entire corpus
of his books, sermons, letters, and treaties.14 For the purposes of this
study, however, we will consider Flavel’s Christology from The Foun-
tain of Life in six divisions: (1) an introductory discussion of Christ, (2)
Trinitarian unity and the preexistence of Christ, (3) the two natures of
Christ, (4) Christ’s “general” work, (5) Christ’s work on the cross, and
finally, (6) Christ’s ontological nature and the application of His work.
Introductory Discussion of Christ

The transcendence of Christ is Flavel’s expression of the essence of
Christ’s divinity and of His divine attributes. He asks the rhetorical
question, “What shall I say of Christ?” His answer:
The excelling glory of [Christ] dazzles all apprehension, swal-
lows up all expression. When we have borrowed metaphors
from every creature that hath any excellency or lovely property
in it, till we have stript the whole of creation bare of all its orna-
ments, and clothed Christ with all that glory; when we have
even worn out our tongues, in ascribing praises to him, alas! We
have done nothing, when all is done.15
Flavel’s understanding of Christ’s transcendence—as with much of
his theological writing—is rarely separated from its application to the
reader. He exhorts, “Let your soul be adorned with the excellencies of
Christ, and beauties of holiness.”16
Flavel understood that writing about the doctrine of Christ would
not exhaust the breadth of the knowledge of Christ. He explains, “Yet
such breadth there is in the knowledge of Christ that not only those
who have written on this subject before me, but a thousand authors
more may employ their pens after us, and not interfere with, or
straiten another.”17 Flavel’s Christology, then, understands a “variety
of sweetness in Christ” and that neither his approach nor his conclu-
sions fully comprehend the doctrine and beauty of Christ.
14. See John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel.

15. Flavel, The Fountain of Life, 1:xviii.
16. Flavel, The Fountain of Life, 1:xix.
17. Flavel, The Fountain of Life, 1:23.
The admonition and application to the reader is twofold: study to

know Christ more extensively and more intensively. According to Flavel,
there are so many excellent properties in the person of Christ that any
study of Him will not be exhaustive. And yet, any study of Him by
faith will augment the sweetness and comfort of genuine Christian
experience.
Trinitarian Unity and the Preexistence of Christ

Flavel writes at length on the unity of the Trinity, the covenant of
redemption between the Son and the Father, and of Christ’s preexistent
state. Flavel did not divorce his examination of the person and work
of Christ from Christ’s union with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The union of the various elements of systematic theology, according to
Flavel, is essential to a right understanding of those various elements.
He writes, “It is the frame and design of holy doctrine that must be
known, and every part should be discerned as it hath its particular use
to that design, and as it is connected with the other parts.”18
Flavel views the riches of God’s grace as a Trinitarian tapestry of
goodness toward the saints: “I cannot but observe to you the good-
ness of our God, yea, the riches of his goodness: Who freely gave
Jesus Christ out of his own bosom for us, and hath not withheld his
Spirit, to reveal and apply him to us.”19 This unity of the Trinity, for
Flavel, understands Christ not only as a redemptive partner with the
Father and the Spirit, seen through the progressive revelation of God,
as well as in Christ’s pre-incarnational state.
He develops Christ’s preexistence from Proverbs 8:30, “Then was
I by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him.” In this passage, Flavel writes, Solomon
intends that “Jesus Christ is the fountain of grace” and that “the Spirit
of God describes the most blessed state of Jesus Christ, the wisdom of
the Father, from those eternal delights he had with his Father, before
his assumption of our nature.”20 These “delights” that Flavel speaks of
are twofold: the Father, Son, and Spirit (1) delighting in one another
and (2) delighting in the salvation of the elect. He continues by saying
that the “glorious condition of the non-incarnated Son of God” is that

20. Flavel, The Fountain of Life, 1:42–43.
Christ is the “only begotten Son who was in the bosom of the Father;
an expression of the greatest dearness and intimacy.”21
Flavel stresses the Trinitarian work primarily in creation and
redemption.22 Christ’s preexistence is assumed in His work of cre-
ation; that “Christ shewed himself such an artist in the creation of
the world.” Christ’s preexistent state was of “the highest and most
unspeakable delight and pleasure, in the enjoyment of his Father.”23
Flavel believed that the preexistence of Christ assumes His equality of
essence with the Father. He writes that Christ enjoyed “all of the glory
and ensigns of the majesty of God; and the riches which he speaks of,
was no less than all that God the Father hath...and what he now hath
in his exalted state, is the same he had before his humiliation.”24
Flavel’s discussion of Christ’s preexistence is particularly impor-
tant because it explains Christ’s eternal essence. The delight, riches,
majesty, and glory of the Godhead were shared between the persons
of the Trinity. Furthermore, Christ’s preexistent nature was unac-
quainted with grief or poverty, and never underwent reproach or
shame. It was never tempted, was never sensible of pains and tor-
tures in soul or body, and never experienced His Father’s wrath upon
Him. Jesus Christ was “one in nature, will, love and delight” with the
Father.25
Humanity’s involvement with the preexistent Christ is an out-
working of that love that exists between the Father and Son. Flavel
explains that “all of [God’s] delight in the saints is secondary, and for
Christ’s sake; but his delights in Christ are primary, and for his own
sake.”26 This reason for man’s salvation, then, is ultimately because of
God’s love toward the Son. Flavel calls this familial relationship the
“Covenant of Redemption” between the Father and the Redeemer.27

22. See later section entitled “Christ’s Ontological Nature and the Application
of His Work.”
23. Flavel, The Fountain of Life, 1:43, 44.
27. This terminology did not originate with Flavel, but appeared already in
1638 in George Walker (1581?-1651) The Doctrine of the Sabbath (Amsterdam, 1638),
69. Even then the idea of a “Covenant of Redemption” was not new (see John Cal-
vin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford
Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1960), 2.12.4. Because
Flavel writes, “The business of man’s salvation was transacted upon

covenant terms, betwixt the Father and the Son, from all eternity.”28
He emphasizes that this is not identical with the covenant of grace; in
the covenant of redemption, the Son offers Himself for the Father’s
service and the Father offers the Son the elect for His reward.
In his approach to redemption, Flavel again applies a Trinitarian
framework: “Each person [of the Trinity] undertakes to perform his
part in order to our recovery.”29 Again, he draws upon the operation
of the Trinity in terms of procession: “Though all the persons in the
Godhead are equal in nature, dignity and power, yet in their opera-
tion there is an order observed among them; the Father sends the Son,
the Son is sent by the Father, the Holy Ghost is sent by both.”30 Flavel
understands the persons in the Trinity to be co-partners in creation
and salvation, each existing from all eternity, and sharing in essence,
glory, and majesty.
The Two Natures of Christ

As noted above, Flavel understood the glorious deity of Christ, coex-
isting with the Father and the Spirit from all eternity, and equal in
essence, glory, and majesty. Christ’s humanity, according to Flavel,
takes a fully opposite character. He frames Christ’s incarnation in
terms of humiliation: “The state of Christ, from his conception to his
resurrection, was a state of deep debasement and humiliation.”31 He
breaks Christ’s humiliation into three categories: in His incarnation,
in His life, and in His death. The first two are of particular importance
for understanding Flavel’s Christology of the incarnation. The incar-
nation of Christ must take on the form of humiliation and abasement
so that He could then be exalted: “Christ should be deeply humbled,
then highly exalted.”32 He paints the exaltation by merism in that the
greatness of Christ’s glory cannot be acknowledged by believers with-
out first acknowledging the humiliation of the incarnation.33
of its relatively new terminology, though, the phrase did not make it into the West-
minster Standards.
Flavel draws on the “Christ Hymn” in Philippians 2:8, where

Paul writes, “He humbled himself.” He notes that this humiliation
is both a real and voluntary abasement. It was real in that “he did not
personate a humbled man, nor act the part of one, but was really, and
indeed humbled” before both God and man.34 Second, it was vol-
untary. The voluntary humiliation of Christ “singularly commends
the love of Christ to us.”35 The chronological parameters of Christ’s
humiliation, according to Flavel, were “from the first moment of his
incarnation to the very moment of his vivification and quickening in
the grave.”36 The humiliation of Christ, then, was made manifest in
the real and voluntary work of Christ that lasted only while on earth.
Flavel does not seek to explain the hypostatic union of Christ’s two
natures nor does he explain how the eternal God became a humbled
man, but rather describes this phenomenon simply as a “mystery”:
This is the astonishing mystery, that God should be manifest
in the flesh; that the eternal God should truly and properly be
called the MAN Christ Jesus.... It would have seemed a rude
blasphemy had not the scriptures plainly revealed it, to have
thought, or spoken of the eternal God, as born in time; the
world’s Creator as a creature; the Ancient of Days, as an infant
of days.... The infinite glorious Creator of all things, to become
a creature, is a mystery exceeding all human understanding. 37
Flavel qualifies Christ’s transcendence, in part, according to the mys-
tery of the incarnation and the hypostatic union of His two natures.
As for Christ’s righteousness, Flavel explains that the body of
Christ was “so sanctified that no taint or spot of original pollution
remained in it.” However, at the same time, “it had the effects of sin
upon it.”38 Christ was attended with every human infirmity such as
hunger, thirst, weariness, and pain. He was, of course, without sin,
but experienced the effects of sin throughout His incarnate existence.
Flavel holds this in relationship with Christ’s compassion, being a
result of His incarnation. By taking on human nature, Christ “knows

experimentally what our wants, fears, temptations, and distresses are,

and so is able to have compassion.”39
Flavel develops the dual-nature reality of Christ in terms of His
sanctification for the elect’s redemption. He explains the phrase “I
sanctify myself ” in John 17:19:
[This phrase] implies the personal union of the two natures in
Christ; for what is that which he here calls himself, but the same
that was consecrated to be a sacrifice, even his human nature?
This was the sacrifice. And this also was himself.40
Here, the one who consecrates is the consecrated sacrifice. According
to Flavel, the hypostatic union of Christ is a mystery. The incarna-
tion was the humiliation of the eternal God, which was both real and
voluntary. The humanity of Christ contained no pollution of original
sin, but at the same time, possessed the effects of sin. These effects of
sin were humanity’s fears, wants, pains, temptations, and distresses,
which Christ appropriated so that He could have compassion on
His elect.
Christ’s “General” Work

It is impossible to separate the being of Christ from His work. How-
ever, for an accurate understanding of Flavel’s Christology, the
ontological and effectual aspects of Christ must be seen indepen-
dently for His general work and for His work on the cross. These two
aspects will then be brought together in section 6 (Christ’s Ontological
Nature and Application of His Work). For the purposes of this structure,
Christ’s “general works” include: His dedication to His earthly mis-
sion, resurrection, ascension, session at the Father’s right hand, and
the Second Advent, taken together as His exaltation.
It is important for understanding Flavel’s Christology that Christ
did not just come, but that He came to fulfil a mission—a rescue mis-
sion for His elect. Flavel takes up Christ’s missionary work in Chapter
Seven of The Fountain of Life, which he titles, “Of the Solemn Conse-
cration of the Mediator.” He begins: “Jesus Christ being fitted with
a body, and authorized by a commission, now actually devotes, and

sets himself apart to his work.”41 He again draws on John 17: “And for
their sakes I sanctify myself ” (v. 19). The sanctification of Christ is His
consecration to holy mission and service. Christ is saying, as it were, “I
consecrate and voluntarily offer myself a holy and unblemished sacri-
fice to thee for their redemption.”42 The commissioning of Christ and
His dedication issue in perfect obedience to the Father, which came
to its ultimate agony on the cross and then to its ultimate fruition in
salvation for the elect.
Christ’s work on the cross will be studied separately because Fla-
vel distinguishes this work from the others, not necessarily in terms of
importance, but simply in terms of the vast amount of writing on the
subject. However, what chronologically follows the work of Christ
on the cross—His resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and interces-
sion—will be addressed briefly here.
Flavel calls the resurrection of Christ the first step of His exal-
tation. It is significant to note that Flavel usually makes the natural
contrast between Christ’s death and His resurrection. The resurrec-
tion, then, is the recovery of Christ’s light and glory that was “eclipsed”
by His humility and death. Flavel again draws upon the voluntary
work of Christ, even here in His resurrection. He explains: “‘He is
risen’ [from Matt. 28:6] imports the active power or self-quickening
principle by which Christ raised himself from the state of the dead.”43
While it was the human nature that died, “it was the divine nature,
or Godhead of Christ, which revived and raised the manhood.”44
The resurrection of Jesus Christ had many witnesses and Flavel does
not pass up the opportunity to assert its certainty: “No point of reli-
gion is of more confessed truth, and infallible certainty than [the
resurrection].”45 The weight of the Scriptures, according to Flavel,
hangs upon this theological truth—that Christ did, in fact, rise from
the dead. For if this were not the case, there would be no application
of His benefits or His blood for believers.46
Flavel understands Christ’s ascension to be the second step of
His exaltation. Flavel explains “that our Lord Jesus Christ, did not

only rise from the dead, but also ascended into heaven; there to dis-
patch all that remained to be done for the completing the salvation
of his people.”47
Flavel mines the different vantage points of the ascension to pro-
vide the reader with a holistic understanding. First, the ascension
has a public aspect: Christ ascending upon the elect’s behalf to God.
Christ is the forerunner, being the first to enter heaven directly in His
own name. He ascended triumphantly into heaven, victorious over
death and grave. And finally, for that which (with respect to Christ)
is called ascension, is (with respect to the Father) called assump-
tion—the receiving by the Father of the Son.48 Flavel concludes his
discussion by saying that “if Christ had not ascended, he could not
have interceded, as now he doth in heaven for us.”49
Flavel designates four parts to Christ’s exaltation. The first two
having been noted, the last two are Christ’s session at the Father’s
right hand and Christ’s advent to judgment. He summarizes the first
by writing, “When our Lord Jesus Christ had finished his work on
earth, he was placed in the seat of the highest honour, and author-
ity; at the right-hand of God in heaven.”50 By “God’s right hand,”
Flavel means that it is the hand of honor, where those who are highly
esteemed and honored are placed. Second, the right hand indicates
power and authority as a conqueror over His enemies. Third, the
right hand signifies nearness to the Father. Fourth, it imports the
sovereignty and supremacy of Christ over all. Finally, it implies the
perfecting and completing of Christ’s work for which He came into
the world.51
The fourth step of exaltation—Christ’s advent to judgment—is,
according to Flavel, a unique part of His exaltation and honor bestowed
upon Him. “The Lord Jesus Christ is ordained by God the Father to
be the Judge of the quick and the dead.”52 Though Flavel points out
that judgment is the act of the whole undivided Trinity, it is specifi-
cally the act of Christ in terms of visible management and execution.

Christ’s Work on the Cross

If Christology is the focus of Flavel’s theology, Christ’s work on the
cross is the center of that focus. It is here that God’s love and His wrath,
His grace and His justice, confront each other. What happened on the
cross gives history redemptive meaning. Flavel argues that Christ’s
work on the cross includes His death, suffering, sacrifice, and priestly
atonement, all of which are examined at length in The Fountain of Life.
The death of Christ was, according to Flavel, the last step of His
humiliation (which began in Bethlehem). By this death, Flavel con-
tends, we understand the most grievous and dreadful punishment for
the sins of sinners by the hands of men. He writes, “In respect of man,
it was murder and cruelty. In respect of himself, it was obedience and
humility.... Our Lord Jesus Christ was not only put to death, but to
the worst of deaths, even the death of the cross.”53 His death was vio-
lently excruciating but voluntary, laid down of His own accord (John
10:18). The violence and the depth of pain were indescribable: “Now,
to have pains meeting at once upon one person, equivalent to all the
pains of the damned; judge you what a plight Christ was in.”54
It is important to note that Flavel clearly understood this death
of Christ and His work on the cross to be part of God’s providential
ordering. He explains that “the principal cause, permitting, ordering,
and disposing all things about it, was the determinate counsel and fore-
knowledge of God.”55 Flavel presents God’s sovereign decree of Christ’s
death boldly when he writes: “God in design to heighten the sufferings
of Christ to the uttermost, forsook him in the time of his greatest dis-
tress; to the unspeakable affliction and anguish of his soul.”56 Though
Christ died at the hands of guilty and responsible men, that death was
ultimately determined by the definite counsel of God (Acts 2:23).
Christ’s work on the cross is a significant area in Flavel’s Christol-
ogy where Christ’s being and action are combined in the work of a
High Priest. Flavel’s discussion of Christ as Priest is foundational for
his understanding of the atonement. Flavel teaches that the justice of
God was fully vindicated in Christ’s sufferings, but what or who that
vindication was for is the cause behind Christ’s role as Priest—to make

atonement for the sins of the elect. Flavel emphasizes that this atone-
ment was only for “the sins of the elect,”57 and not for the sins of all
humanity. In this way, the atonement was both purposeful and definite.
Flavel divides Christ’s work as High Priest into two parts: the
excellency of the High Priest’s oblation and His intercession. When
dealing with these particular works of Christ on the cross, the fruits
of these works will naturally be brought forth since the work and
its effect are two aspects of one task. He works out Christ’s obla-
tion—Christ’s offering as an act of sacrifice—from Hebrews 10:14,
“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sancti-
fied.” He explains, “The oblation made unto God by Jesus Christ, is
of unspeakable value, and everlasting efficacy, to perfect all them that
are, or shall be sanctified, to the end of the world.”58 The sacrifice of
Christ was offered once, thereby paying all that was needed for the
elect’s salvation. “His appearing before God as our priest, with such
an offering for us, is that which removes our guilt and fear together.”59
The Oblation of Christ as High Priest

Flavel divides his discussion of the oblation of Christ into various
observations of the account of the cross. First, there were many other
priests before Christ, but “they were all sinful men and offered for
their own sins, as well as the sins of the people.”60 Jesus Christ, how-
ever, had no sin, nor was He guilty of anything.
Second, the blood shed was not the blood of animals, but Jesus’
own blood. Jesus Christ combined the work as a Priest and the sacrifice
as a Lamb on the cross. He made atonement for the sins of the elect and
yet, at the same time, became the sacrifice as the means for their atone-
ment. Flavel points to the direct effect of Christ’s oblation: as expiation
for “the sins of all for whom it was offered, in all ages of the world.”61
Third, Jesus brings this sacrificial act before God as a “sweet smell-
ing savor.” He writes, “As Christ sustained the capacity of a surety,
so God of a creditor, who exacted satisfaction from him; that is, he
required from him, as our surety, the penalty due to us for our sin.”62

Fourth, the persons for whom and in whose stead Christ offered
Himself to God were “the whole number of God’s elect, which
were given him of the Father, neither more nor less: So speak the
scriptures.”63 Flavel repeatedly argues for the Reformed doctrine of
“limited atonement.”
Finally, Christ’s oblation “was to atone, pacify, and reconcile God,
by giving him a full and adequate compensation or satisfaction for the
sins of these his elect.”64 Reconciliation is an important effect or fruit of
Christ’s oblation for it not only assumes justification, but also includes
familial relationship. Flavel defines reconciliation as “the making up of
that breach caused by sin, between us and God, and restoring us again
to his favour and friendship.”65 To this end, Christ offered up Himself
to God the Father.
The Intercession of Christ as High Priest

The second part of Christ’s work as High Priest is His intercession
before the Father. He introduces intercession by discussing the “eter-
nal Sacrifice” of Christ: “Though he actually offers [the sacrifice] no
more, yet he virtually continues it by his intercession now in heaven;
for there he is still a Priest.”66 Christ’s intercession is nothing else but
the virtual continuation of His offering once made on earth—being
medium reconciliationis, the means of reconciling.
Flavel draws many of his conclusions for this second act of Christ
as High Priest from Hebrews 7:25: “Wherefore he is able also to save
them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him, seeing he ever
liveth to make intercession for them.” This second act was typified
by the high priest’s entering with the blood of the sacrifice and sweet
incense into the holy place.67 Christ’s act of entering heaven to inter-
cede reflected the priest’s act of going within the veil with blood and
incense. Flavel describes this second part as the “principal perfective
part of the priesthood.”68 The first part of this work—the oblation—
on earth was in a state of deep abasement in the form of a servant;
but He fulfils this second part in glory, where He is taken up that He

67. Cf. Leviticus 16:12–14.
may fulfil His design in dying and give the work of the elect’s salva-
tion its last completing act.69
Flavel thoroughly examines the meaning of Christ’s work as inter-
cessor and gives four general observations, which are briefly outlined
here. First, he defines intercession as that which mediates between two
parties: to entreat, argue, and plead with one for the other. Christ con-
tinually endeavors to heal breaches between God and us both as our
attorney and advocate. He serves as a mediator also in His exaltation.
A second observation Flavel makes concerning intercession is that
Christ presents three things to the Father: (1) He presents Himself
before the Father “in our names and upon our account,” (2) He pre
sents His blood and all His sufferings, and (3) He presents the prayers
of His saints with His merits.70
Third, Christ’s intercession is powerful and successful. Christ is
in every way able and fit for the work in which He is engaged. What-
ever is desirable in an advocate is found in Him eminently.
Finally, Christ’s intercession is not only eternal—as the unceasing
role of Mediator—but also a cause for reverence and encouragement
in the believer’s heart. That the elect’s case is advocated only by and
through Christ should provoke a deep reverence for Him as High
Priest. It should also encourage the believer for it is Christ who is
there, who has paid for sin, and who has sacrificed on the elect’s behalf
so that he may not only be justified, but also be reconciled to God.71
Flavel focuses a large part of The Fountain of Life to Christ’s work
on the cross—His death, suffering, sacrifice, and atonement as High
Priest. He divides the atonement into oblation and intercession and
combines the work of Christ and the effect of the work manifested in
the lives of God’s elect. Thus, the believer’s confidence and encour-
agement is not in his merit or actions, but in Christ’s merit and His
work on the cross.
Christ’s Ontological Nature and the Application of His Work

The sixth section of Flavel’s Christology encapsulates his motive for
writing The Fountain of Life: the practical application of the being and
work of Christ for the believer. Christ’s “ontological nature” assumes

the work of Christ because the two cannot truly be separated. That is
why this study of Flavel’s Christology has intertwined both Christ’s
nature and work. His titles—Servant, Prophet, Priest, King, and
Mediator—represent these two elements, and also provide the effects
and fruit of them.
Flavel uses the titles of Christ to show the effects and application
of Christ’s work. The title “Servant” usually is qualified by “suffering.”
In the humiliation of His incarnation, Christ became a suffering Ser-
vant on behalf of God’s elect; He “groaned, wept, laboured, suffered,
sweat, yea, sweat blood, and found no rest in this world.”72 That is why
believers may come to Christ weary and heavy-laden and find rest.
For the believer, His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matt. 11:30).
Flavel uses the triplet “Prophet, Priest, King” to show that Jesus
Christ was the fulfillment of the Hebrew Messiah. By the title
“Prophet,” Flavel intends to show us that Christ was fully qualified
“to teach us the will of God” so that “we should be able to bear it.”73
Here he combines Christ’s being with the application of His work for
the believer. The work of Christ as High Priest, as discussed above,
is to make oblation and intercession on behalf of God’s people. The
effects and fruit of Christ’s role are the satisfaction for our sin and the
rich inheritance for the saints.74 The title “King” refers specifically to
His sovereign power and execution of that power. Flavel summarizes
this role when he writes, “Jesus Christ exercises a Kingly power over
the souls of all whom the gospel subdues to his obedience.”75 He lets
the idea of “glorious exaltation” ring in his readers’ ears when writing
of the King of kings. Flavel applies Christ’s Kingly office by saying
that this role applies the purchase of His blood to God’s elect in order
that they could have actual and personal benefit by His death.76 He
summarizes the work of Christ’s threefold office succinctly:
For what he revealed as a Prophet, he purchased as a Priest;
and what he so revealed and purchased as a Prophet and Priest,
he applies as a King; first subduing the souls of his elect to his

spiritual government; then ruling them as his subjects, and order-

ing all things in the kingdom of Providence for their good.77
The titles that Flavel uses of Christ display both His ontological work
and the direct effects of that work, which are applied to believers’ lives.
There are six major effects of Christ’s work that Flavel discusses
and applies throughout The Fountain of Life: (1) the forgiveness of
sins, (2) the regeneration that leads to holiness, (3) the consolation
of the believer, (4) the believer’s union and fellowship with Christ,
(5) a pattern of life to live by, and (6) the appropriation of joy as Christ
fulfils the desire of His people. All of these are understood by Christ’s
various titles, are intertwined with one another, and have been dis-
cussed above under the headings of Christ’s general work, His work
on the cross, and His ontological work.
Because the justice of God has been satisfied by the death of
Christ, believers are now forgiven of sin. This first effect is closely
associated with the second: the regeneration and redemption of life.
It is Flavel’s pattern to incorporate the work of the Trinity in the
redemption of God’s elect and, in so doing, describe the specific work
of all three persons of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit “opens the eyes
of the elect,” “displays Christ before the elect,” and “seals the work
of Christ objectively and effectually in the lives of the elect.”78 Christ
accomplishes the specific sacrificial work that makes atonement for
the sins of the elect. The Father elects those whom He predestines,
welcomes and receives the work of the Son, and is satisfied and gives
the elect to the Son. Thus, the Trinitarian union prescribes and effects
the regeneration and redemption of the elect.79
The third and fourth effects of Christ’s work are also closely
associated. Fellowship and union with Christ offer the believer con-
solation.80 One who is united with Christ has fellowship with Him
because of His gracious salvation. The natural effect of union is con-
solation. Flavel writes: “The loveliness, the desirableness, and the
glory of Christ, are all so many springs of consolation.... The saints

78. Flavel, The Fountain of Life, 1:35, 39, 95.
80. For an excellent study of Flavel’s doctrine of union with Christ, see J. Ste-
phen Yuille, The Inner Sanctum of Puritan Piety: John Flavel’s Doctrine of Mystical Union
with Christ (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007).
have not only so much consolation from Christ, but Christ himself is
the very consolation of believers: He is pure comfort wrapped up in
flesh and blood.”81 The believer’s confidence is not in the flesh, but in
Christ alone. Therefore, consolation comes not from individual piety,
but from Christ’s mediatorial glory. That Christ’s satisfaction by the
Father is perfect is reason for the believer to find consolation in Him.82
The fifth effect of Christ’s work is not that it necessarily pro-
vides a pattern for the role or function of Christ, but rather a pattern
of humility and service that believers should endeavor to imitate.
Flavel remarks: “Surely Christ is the highest pattern of self-denial
in the world.”83
And finally, the sixth effect of Christ’s work is that he becomes
the joy and desire of the believer. Flavel’s Christology finds meaning
in that faith gives way to joy in the object of that faith. “Jesus Christ is
the very object matter of a believer’s joy.”84 Flavel writes: “The desires
of God’s elect in all kingdoms, and among all people of the earth, are,
and shall be drawn out after, and fixed upon the Lord Jesus Christ.”85
Flavel repeatedly exhorts his readers not to stifle the desire of Christ
and the joy of fellowship with Him.
The effects of Christ’s work are the essence of what Flavel
wanted his readers to understand, for he was, as James I. Packer has
pointed out,
[a] man of outstanding intellectual power, as well as spiritual
insight...mental habits fostered by sober scholarship were linked
with a flaming zeal for God and a minute acquaintance with the
human heart...[Flavel] understood most richly the ways of God
with men, the glory of Christ the Mediator, and the work of the
Spirit in the believer and the church.86
Forgiveness, redemption, consolation, union, pattern, and desire are
all effects and fruits of what Christ has done.

86. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, 29.
Conclusion
John Flavel’s presentation of the doctrine of Christ in The Fountain of
Life is both highly doctrinal and yet, at the same time, deeply devo-
tional and practical. While carefully explaining the hypostatic union
and the two natures of Christ, the unity of the Trinity, Christ’s pre-
existence, Christ’s general works, His work on the cross, and His
ontological nature and how it applies to the life of the believer, Flavel
not only explains a wide range of topics but also shows an underlying
desire to point his readers to the work of Christ on their behalf. As a
virtual unknown among the Puritan “greats,” John Flavel—a meticu-
lous theologian and practical pastor—certainly deserves more study
by both pastor and church members.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 135–160
Remonstrants, Contra-Remonstrants,
and the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619):
The Religious History of the Early Dutch Republic1
WILLIAM VANDOODEWAARD
q
The year 2011 marked four hundred years since the penning of the
first formal Reformed statement, The Counter-Remonstrance of 1611, in
response to the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610, signaling the inten-
sifying of the controversy leading to the Synod of Dordt. While past
decades have seen a few publications on aspects of this important
chapter of church history, there remains surprisingly little English-
language publication on the Synod of Dordt and correspondingly
little awareness of its history—despite its relevance to ongoing dis-
cussions in contemporary Christianity.2 Some of this is undoubtedly
due to the fact that in the English-speaking world the Westminster
Confession of Faith stands as the preeminent confessional state-
ment of Reformed orthodoxy. However, the present paucity was
not always the case: among both contemporary seventeenth-century
Scottish Presbyterians and English Reformed theologians, and their
1. This article is reprinted and revised with permission from Canadian Journal of
Netherlandic Studies / Revue canadienne d’études néerlandaises 38 (2007): 140–65. Avail-
able online at http://www.caans–acaen.ca/Journal/issues.
2. The main twentieth century period of publication on the Synod of Dordt
spanned the late 1950s and 1960s. The best recent work of scholarship directly
focused on the Synod of Dordt is a collection of essays edited by Aza Goudrian
and Fred van Lieburg, Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011),
1–442. The best recent Dutch language publication is Willem Verboom’s De belijde-
nis van een gebroken kerk: de Dordtse Leerregels, voorgeschiedenis en theologie (Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum, 2005), 1–320. Richard Muller has contributed ongoing work rel-
evant to the Synod focused on Arminius, most recently in the essay, “Arminius and
the Reformed Tradition,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 19–48, as well
as in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). Several
related essays are also found in the volume edited by Carl Trueman and Scott Clark,
Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1997).
later successors, there was both a pervasive awareness of the Synod of

Dordt and a deep sense of gratitude for its theological contribution.3
This article seeks to contribute to filling the contemporary popular
and scholarly gap in English-language studies of the Synod of Dordt
by revisiting its history and theology in the context of the history of
the United Provinces.4
The United Provinces in the Early Seventeenth Century

The political events of the Union of Utrecht (1579) and the Act of Abju-
ration (1581) in part laid the foundations for the seventeenth-century
“Golden Age” of the Netherlands. This “Golden Age” of republican
independence and Protestant liberty in the northern United Provinces
was one of cultural development and national progression. It would be
the era of the formation of the prosperous Dutch East and West Indies
Companies, with exploration, trade, and colonization attempts ranging
from the New Netherlands and Suriname to the East Indies and For-
mosa. Great artists, including Rembrandt van Rijn, Johannes Vermeer,
and others, began their careers. The increasingly metropolitan and
well-connected Republic of the United Provinces, despite its compara-
tively small size and population, exerted substantial influence globally.
While the primary conflict with a declining Roman Catholic Spain
continued, the global influence of the Protestant United Provinces
was also attested in episodic tensions with her nearest ally, the English.
State papers and Privy Council documents show this throughout the
1600s, particularly in relation to tensions over trade and colonization
in the Americas. King James I of England’s ambassador to The Hague,
Sir Dudley Carleton, brought complaints on several occasions before
the States-General during the early part of the century, regarding what
the English viewed as Dutch incursion into their rightful territory.5 It
3. See, for example, G. D. Henderson’s extensive analysis of source material in

“Scotland and the Synod of Dort” in his collected essays Religious Life in Seventeenth-
Century Scotland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
4. W. Robert Godfrey laments the same paucity in his unpublished doctoral
dissertation, noting “how strange it is that the history of this great Synod has not
been exhaustively studied.” W. Robert Godfrey, “Tensions within International Cal-
vinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619” (Stanford
University: PhD diss., 1974), 5.
5. “Correspondence concerning New Netherlands (1616–1622)” and “Represen-
tation of Sir Dudley Carleton to the States General of the United Provinces (1622)”
in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America & West Indies (1574–1660) Preserved
The Religious History of the Early Dutch Republic 137
was in the midst of this era of warfare, prosperity, and growth that the
United Provinces were gripped by the Remonstrant controversy—a
politically charged theological division and debate over the nature of
God, the nature of man, his relationship to and condition before God,
and the nature of salvation, as revealed in the Scriptures. The debate
engaged the popular attention of all levels of society within the United
Provinces, along with that of both the theologically and politically con-
cerned of surrounding nations.
The Dutch Reformed Church

A proper understanding of the Remonstrant controversy of the early
seventeenth century includes acquaintance with the historical back-
ground of the Dutch Reformed Church in the United Provinces.
Prior to the sixteenth-century Reformation, the Low Countries, like
the rest of medieval Europe, were Roman Catholic. To be sure, there
were European influences that functioned as proto-Reformation
movements: the Lollards, the Brethren of the Common Life, and
a strong Augustinian presence not only bore marked similarities to
Reformation thought and church developments, but also directly
contributed to them. Along with these movements, the Reformation
in the Netherlands also gained impetus from the northern humanist
efforts of Erasmus in Holland, Reuchlin in Germany, and others.
It was in this late medieval to early modern setting that vari-
ous Protestant movements took root in the Netherlands. Lutheran
influence first arrived in the 1520s, and gained substantial support.
Towards the end of the decade and into the 1530s, a wave of radi-
cal Anabaptist thought and turmoil flowed into the Dutch provinces.
Initially a strong and popular movement with its “simple ecclesiastical
organization which appealed directly to Scripture” and strict moral
discipline, the Anabaptist movement fractured over internal divi-
sions.6 Anabaptist influence would reach its apex in the region by the
time of the Anabaptist Muenster rebellion of 1535 in nearby Ger-
in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, ed., W. Noel Sainsbury
(London: Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1860): 18, 21, 26–27. The friction
and competition over North American trade and settlement would continue beyond
the English conquest of New Netherlands. Cf. “‘New York,’ Whitehall, 23 October
1667” in Acts of the Privy Council of England. Colonial Series, vol. I. (1613–1680), eds. W. L.
Grant, James Munro, A. W. Fitzroy (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1908), 444–45.
6. Peter Y. De Jong, “The Rise of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,”
many. Despite the efforts within the Anabaptist movement to reject

violent apocalypticism, as advocated by the pacifist Menno Simons,
Anabaptism in the Netherlands would decline in influence while
retaining a legacy as a minor stream of Dutch Protestantism.
The third Reformation-era wave of Protestant influence into
the Low Countries proved to be more enduring and pervasive. After
1540, Calvinism gained a foothold in the Low Countries. Peter
De Jong notes that the “coming [of Calvinism] was...a complex phe-
nomenon” attributable to several streams of influence, among them
not only the positive influence of Calvinist thought, but also “the
political and ecclesiastical oppressions of Spain and the disillusion-
ment...with the Anabaptist movement.” 7 Robert Godfrey states that
“the origin and spread of Dutch Calvinism remains a historiographi-
cal problem, for the rigor of the inquisition conducted by Charles and
Philip obliterated much of the record.”8 What does appear from the
historical record is that the southern provinces of the Netherlands
(Belgium) were “the cradle of Dutch Calvinism...here its confession
was composed, its first congregations were duly organized, and its
first synods convened...here it suffered its severest persecutions....
[Yet] the changing political scene which within two decades rent the
southern provinces from the north compelled Calvinism to seek sup-
port and strength almost exclusively in the north.”9
The changing political scene which facilitated the birth of the
Dutch Reformed Church developed during the period of the Roman
Catholic Council of Trent (1545–1563). Pope Paul III called the coun-
cil in order to address contentious issues in the church, particularly the
growing and increasingly independent movements for church reform.
During the council leading Catholic figures including Charles V,
Cardinal Caraffa, the future Pope Paul IV, and Ignatius Loyola
called for a renewal of the Inquisition to attempt to turn back the
growing tide of Reformation Protestantism. This policy was imple-
mented in the Low Countries especially under the rule of Philip II
(1556–1581). Philip’s reign was marked by brutal persecution in the
attempt to repress religious dissent from Roman Catholicism and, as
in Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort,
1618–1619 (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 8–9.
7. De Jong, “The Rise of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,” 9–10.
8. Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism,” 25.
9. De Jong, “The Rise of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,” 9.
time progressed, political rebellion against Spain. Imprisonment, tor-

ture, and execution by beheading or burning became commonplace.
Politically, Philip’s brutality gave rise to the campaigns of William
of Orange and his successors to liberate the Dutch provinces from
Spanish rule. Religiously, this era of social and political turmoil saw
Calvinist thought spread through the Low Countries. Reformed
congregations, organized under Spanish repression, soon became the
largest Protestant body in the Low Countries despite the potential
and often real costs of allegiance.
When the Act of Abjuration (1581) declared the hard-won, yet
still-threatened independence of the northern United Provinces of
the Netherlands,10 the leaders of the new Protestant nation decided
to recognize the Reformed faith as the country’s official religion. In
doing so, they made the Dutch Reformed Church the state church
of the United Provinces. At the same time, as Peter De Jong notes,
the Reformed faith was not the only permitted religion: “Lutherans,
Anabaptists, and even Roman Catholics were tolerated in the land...
[though] at a decided disadvantage. They could only worship in private
dwellings. All church edifices were allotted to the Reformed....”11 The
relationship of the Dutch Reformed Church to the state would prove
a difficult one. In 1568, the gathered leaders of Reformed congrega-
tions had adopted a church order which called for a Presbyterian form
of church government; Presbyterianism stressed the independence of
church government from secular authority. The general desire of the
Dutch Reformed Church in the United Provinces during this early
period appears to have been for a continued Presbyterianism inde-
pendent of government interference, while respectful of and working
cooperatively with civil government. The Presbyterian system would
generally be followed in the newly established Dutch Reformed state
church, but with recurring struggle over state interference in the life
of the church as the election to and dismissal from church office, and
the convening of national synod gatherings, became increasingly sub-
ject to political approval.12
10. A state of war continued until the beginning of a twelve-year truce with
Spain in 1609.
11. De Jong, “The Rise of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,” 14.
12. De Jong, “The Rise of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,” 14–15.
In the officially established Dutch Reformed Church, all ministers

and other church officers were expected to subscribe to the Belgic Con-
fession.13 At a synod held in Emden in 1571, church leaders had agreed
that Calvin’s Genevan Catechism of 1545 should be used in French
or Walloon congregations, and the Heidelberg Catechism in those of
the Dutch, the latter practice also carrying on into the national Dutch
Reformed Church.14 These confessional and catechetical documents
shared a Reformed theological perspective, though they were arguably
“moderate statements” of Calvinistic belief, in terms of their limited
reference to predestination.15 As accepted and required by the Dutch
Reformed Church, these documents recognized and perpetuated a
distinctively Reformed theology and practice. The Reformed theology
of the church was further promoted by both church and state in the
United Provinces through the creation of Reformed divinity faculties
at universities such as Utrecht, Leiden, Franeker, and Groningen.
While being official dogma, Reformed theology faced opposition
from within the state church. Evidence suggests that the member-
ship of the Dutch Reformed Church coming out of persecution into
state legitimacy was a disparate group, though its mainstream was
decidedly Calvinist.16 Minority and dissenting influences within the
13. De Jong, “The Rise of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands,” 13. The
Belgic Confession of Faith was written in 1561 by the Flemish Protestant Guido de
Bres, and adopted by the Synod of Antwerp in 1566. Godfrey notes that “the Synod
held at Middelburg in 1581 reflected continuing trouble on this subject...order[ing]
all church servants to sign the Confession.” Godfrey, “Tensions within Interna-
tional Calvinism,” 29.
14. J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism (New York: Cassell, 1899), ch. 15.
16. Carl Bangs, “Arminius and the Reformation,” Church History 30 (June 1961)
2:155–60. Richard Muller challenges Bang’s argument that the disparate nature
of certain streams of thought in the Dutch churches during this period qualifies
Arminius as standing within the Reformed mainstream of the Dutch churches.
Muller examines Arminius’s scholastic method and thought, dispelling the mis-
taken though “frequent characterization of [Arminius’s] thought as a biblical and
exegetical reaction to the onset of speculative and scholastic style in Reformed
theology....” He goes on to note, “Indeed, Arminius’s opponents were as intent
on developing a biblical theology as he was, and their scholasticism was certainly
the equal of Arminius’s own.” Richard Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the
Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era
of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 25–26, 30. See also Carl Bangs,
“A Review of Richard Muller’s God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob
Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy,”
church included humanist thought, partial acceptance of Roman

Catholicism, along with others critical of varied aspects of Reformed
thought.17 Many of the dissenting minority also tended towards an
Erastian rather than a Presbyterian view of church government.18
Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609)

While there was a history of dissent in the Dutch Reformed churches,
the Remonstrant controversy was largely rooted in the thought of an
individual raised within the Calvinist mainstream—Jacobus Harmen-
szoon, or Jacobus Arminius. Born in 1560 in Oudewater, Holland,
Arminius grew up knowing the harsh realities of life under Span-
ish rule. Spanish troops massacred his mother; other relatives were
massacred in 1575.19 That same year he began his studies at the Uni-
versity of Marburg, transferring the following year to the University
of Leiden where he remained until 1581.20 The historian Carl Bangs
argues that the roots of Arminius’s later dissension from the pre-
dominant Calvinism of his day may be found during his early Leiden
years, where several of the faculty members opposed aspects of Cal-
vinism, and argued for Erastian government,21 humanism, and broad
Church History 66, 1 (March 1997):118–120, and Richard Muller, “Arminius and the
Reformed Tradition,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008):19–48.
17. Louis Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” in Crisis
in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619
(Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 24. See also Acta der provinciale en par-
ticuliere synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620
VI Friesland 1581–1620 Utrecht 1586–1620, ed. J. Reitsma and S.D. van Veen (Gron-
ingen, 1897), 298–307; Classicale Acta 1573–1620 Particuliere synode Zuid-Holland. I:
Classis Dordrecht 1573–1600, ed. J.P. van Dooren (The Hague, 1980), 265–69.
18. Erastians viewed “the civil government as the highest authority in ecclesi-
astical matters and sought to maintain their position in the churches by means of
the strong support of local and provincial authorities...the secretary of state, Old-
enbarnevelt, [an Erastian] wanted a national church which would make room for
all shades of religious opinion...[where] the civil authorities would have power to
appoint office–bearers as well as to convene and supervise ecclesiastical assemblies.”
Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” 26.
19. Robert Godfrey, “Who Was Arminius?,” Reformed Perspectives Magazine 9, 2
(Feb. 2007): 1–8.
20. J. Kenneth Grider, “James Arminius” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 81.
21. The Swiss theologian Erastus (1524–1583) rejected church censures, argu-
ing that the discipline of professing Christians properly belonged to the realm of
the state. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), who studied at the University of Leiden in the
toleration in the church. These included Jasper Koolhaes, who would

later be deposed from his pastorate and teaching position.22 Whatever
the early influences may have been, Arminius went on to enter the
Genevan Academy as a student in 1581, along with his close friend
Johannes Uytenbogaert.23 Together they studied under Theodore
Beza,24 a theologian dedicated to the pursuit of consistent Calvinist
theology, including the doctrine of predestination. Arminius’s only
apparent dissent at this time was over Beza’s use of Aristotelian logic:
both Arminius and Uytenbogaert followed Peter Ramus’s philosoph-
ical methodology. Despite this difference in scholastic method, there
was little indication of theological controversy. In fact, Arminius was
considered by his Genevan tutors to be a promising student, leaving
the academy with a letter of recommendation from Beza himself.25
Returning to the Netherlands, Arminius took a pastorate in the
Reformed church in Amsterdam in 1587. Here he was regarded as
an effective and caring pastor and preacher, though he increasingly
fell under suspicion as one who was diverging from certain areas
of the Reformed doctrine of the Belgic Confession, particularly as
understood and elucidated by the Calvinist mainstream of the Dutch
Reformed churches. Michael Williams notes that “between 1591 and
1596 Arminius started developing arguments for human free will,
and against predestination, in a series of sermons on Romans 7 and 9”
in which he argued “Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, are
not represented as individual persons by Paul...but as typological
1590s, became an articulate proponent of Erastianism in the early Dutch Republic

and a key political figure in the Remonstrant controversy.
22. Bangs, “A Review of Richard Muller’s God, Creation, and Providence in the
Thought of Jacob Arminius,” 160–61.
23. Grider, “James Arminius,” 81.
24. Beza was the leader in Geneva as Calvin’s successor. He began teaching at
Geneva in 1558, and became a leading figure of the Genevan Academy from Cal-
vin’s death in 1564 to his own in 1605. Beza played a key role in the development
of Reformed theology in the early post-Reformation era, and was strongly influ-
enced by both John Calvin and Martin Bucer. Joseph H. Hall, “Theodore Beza
(1519–1605)” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 135–
36; Michael D. Williams, “The Five Points of Arminianism,” Presbyterion: Covenant
Seminary Review 30, 1 (Spring 2004):11–36.
25. Bangs, “A Review of Richard Muller’s God, Creation, and Providence in the
Thought of Jacob Arminius,” 161–62; Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvin-
ism,” 2; see also Williams, “The Five Points of Arminianism,” 16.
characters.”26 He increasingly argued for a certain freedom of the

human will. In doing so, Arminius rejected both predestination and
the total depravity of man as understood and stated by Reformed
theologians and the confessions of the church. The Calvinist main-
stream believed Scripture to teach that salvation comes about when
God by unilateral, unstoppable, sovereign activity changes the human
will, bringing it to repentance and faith, and that He does so only in
those He has predestined to salvation. This action of God is neces-
sary because of the impact of Adam’s sin, which caused all subsequent
human nature to be innately bent in sin and rebellion against God.
Unrepented of and without faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, the innate
bent to sin and rebellion, along with the fruit of sin in a human life
against the infinite and holy God, bears the just consequence of eter-
nal punishment—perpetual suffering in hell under the wrath of God.
So, by God’s grace, mercy, and His transforming activity, individuals
whom He chooses come to willing repentance and faith in Jesus, are
forgiven and saved to eternal blessedness, gaining the inheritance of
heaven and earth. In contrast, Arminius came to argue that God gave
all men a general underlying grace, termed “prevenient” or “prevent-
ing” grace, enabling the human will free choice to repent of sin and
have faith. Arminius argued in later written works that predestina-
tion, as it was referred to in Scripture, should be understood as “the
foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those
individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and
through his subsequent grace would persevere.”27 This concept of
God’s foreknowledge was an essential aspect of Arminius’s thought,
necessitated by his stress on the freedom of the human will. His for-
mulation of the idea of foreknowledge was largely rooted in the work
of his Roman Catholic contemporary, Luis de Molina (1535–1600),
on divine “middle knowledge.”28
26. Williams, “The Five Points of Arminianism,” 16–17. See also Jacobus
Arminius, “Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans,” in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 2:471–683.
27. Jacobus Arminius, “My Own Sentiments on Predestination,” in The Works
of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 1:653.
28. Eef Dekker, “Was Arminius a Molinist?” Sixteenth Century Journal 27, 2
(1996):337–52. On the basis of his comparison of Luis Molina’s Liberi arbitrii cum
gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providential, praedestinatione, et reprobatione (Antwerp:
In 1603, the year in which he defended his doctoral thesis,

Arminius was appointed a professor of theology. He and Franciscus
Gomarus were chosen to take the places of the previous professors
of theology who had died in Leiden’s plague outbreak in October
1602. There was some controversy over his appointment, but it was
settled through the intercession of Johannes Uytenbogaert, now an
influential court preacher in The Hague, and the acquiescence of
Gomarus after a personal interview with Arminius. Both Gomarus
and Arminius had been Beza’s students, but after Arminius’s appoint-
ment, tensions quickly developed over his teaching. Michael Williams
states that
...the tensions within the University of Leiden soon overflowed
throughout the Reformed church as other teachers, pastors and
interested lay people aligned themselves with one or the other
of the two feuding professors. From the beginning, Gomarus
took the offensive, accusing Arminius of deviation from the
confessional standards of the Reformed church—the Belgic
Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.29
Williams goes on to note that the struggle reflected not only differences
in the view of God, man, and salvation, but also divergence over the
concept of the church: “the Calvinists argued that a Reformed church
I. Trognaesii, 1588, rev. 1595) with Arminius’s De Natura Dei later published as
Disputatio Publica 4, Dekker states, “We can say that Arminius somewhere between
1597 and 1603 became convinced of the fruitfulness of the theory of middle knowl-
edge.... Arminius not only mentions the theory of middle knowledge, but he has
also incorporated it into his theology.... Middle knowledge comes to this: God has
knowledge of the genuinely free choices that people would make, given certain
circumstances, before he decides which circumstances must be factual. By creat-
ing circumstances, God has genuine control over what people genuinely free will
do. Certainty of divine knowledge is thus combined with freedom of the human
will. Middle knowledge is vital for Arminius since it is a cornerstone in his attempt
to build a theory with the help of which he can show that both God and human
beings are free. The freedom of the human will is guaranteed because (1) the rela-
tion between circumstance and human volition is not strictly implicative, and (2)
God has no control over the realizability of a certain relation between circumstances
and human volition. The freedom of the divine will is guaranteed by the fact that
God is free in his choice of the circumstances....” (Dekker, 351–52). See also Travis
James Campbell, “Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique,” Westminster Theologi-
cal Journal 68 (2006):1–22.
29. Williams, “The Five Points of Arminianism,” 17.
is a confessional church...of particular confessional standards....

[However] following in the tradition of Erasmus of Rotterdam...
the Arminians championed the idea of the liberty of individual con-
science relative to doctrinal standards” within the church. 30 Arminius
sought to publicly defend his views as legitimately within the scope
of the language of the confessional standards, publishing and present-
ing his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) to the States-General in The
Hague; at the same time, he argued that the confessional standards
should be rewritten.31 In 1609, likely due in part to the pressures of
the controversy, Arminius fell ill and died.
The Remonstrants and the Remonstrance of 1610

By the early 1600s, the Dutch Reformed Church was increas-
ingly pushed in an Erastian direction. Civil magistrates played an
influential role in the appointments of both pastors and university
professors. Arminius’s teachings had gained the sympathy of other
pastors, particularly dividing Reformed churches in the Amsterdam
region.32 Congregations unhappy with teaching of pastors they saw as
departing from the church’s confessional statements found they were
unable to remove them from office; in other cases pastors faithful to
the confessional standards of the church were forbidden to preach.33
Louis Praamsma notes that the liberal movement sympathetic to
Arminius developed a “perplexing display of ‘liberal intolerance’”
with increasing attempts to force an unwilling Presbyterian-minded
church to submit to Erastian imposition. 34 Key figures in encourag-
ing Erastian church-state relations, in what after 1610 became known
as the Remonstrant movement, included Johannes Uytenbogaert,

31. Grider, “James Arminius,” 81.
32. It appears from the records of the Synod of Dordt, along with other pri-
mary documents, that Utrecht was also an area with a substantial Remonstrant
presence, albeit a more moderate or conciliatory variety than that of Amsterdam;
early on three Utrecht commissioners to the Synod of Dordt were Remonstrants.
See “De Vierentwintigste Zitting, Den 8en December, Zaterdag–voormiddag”
and “De Vijfentwintigste Zitting, Den 10en December, Maandag–voormiddag”
in Acta of Handelingen der Nationale Synode...Gehouden door autoriteit der Hoogmogende
Heeren Staten–Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden, Te Dordrecht, Ten Jare 1618 en 1619
(’s Gravenhage, 1620; repr. Utrecht: W.M. Den Hertog), 68–87.
34. Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” 30–31.
the ecclesiastical leader of the Arminian minority movement in the

Dutch Reformed Church, and Hugo Grotius, “the influential Eras-
mian humanist.” Also included on the Arminian side was the capable
political leader Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, who served as Grand
Pensionary in the States General, a position in which he became the
most powerful political leader in the United Provinces.35 In 1610,
Uytenbogaert published his Tractaet van’t ambt ende Authoriteyt eener
hoogher Christelicker Overheyt (Treatise concerning the Function and
Authority of a Higher Christian Government), in which he argued
for the supremacy of the States over the church to the extent that
“the States had the authority to call and install ministers, elders and
deacons, supervise the preaching, to frame an order for the churches,
to convene ecclesiastical assemblies as well as to preside over them.”36
Initially, it appeared that those sympathetic to the thought of Armin-
ius and the Remonstrant cause were ably and forcefully moving the
Dutch Reformed churches further away from their initial model of
church government and confessional identity.
The advance of the Remonstrant cause was perhaps most apparent
at the University of Leiden. After Arminius’s death in 1609, Con-
rad Vorstius, a brilliant young theologian sympathetic to and moving
beyond Arminius’s thought towards Socinianism, was chosen to
replace him. Gomarus was deeply upset by the support shown for the
new theological perspective he had strenuously opposed. Resigning
his post at Leiden in 1612 in protest, he took up a pastorate in Mid-
delburg, from which he would go on to teach theology at Saumar and
later at Groningen where he remained until his death in 1641.37 Public
and international outcry, including that of England’s King James I,
over Vorstius’s appointment led to his removal from active teaching
35. Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” 31. “In 1614
Grotius drafted his ‘Resolution for Peace in the Churches,’ according to which the
States of Holland had the right to prohibit preaching on controversial points....
Oldenbarnevelt [was] the father of the ‘Sharp Resolution’ of 1617 in which the States
of Holland decided that no national synod was to be convened, that the States would
retain their authority in ecclesiastical matters, and that the cities were authorized to
levy soldiers in defense of the Remonstrants.” Praamsma, “The Background of the
Arminian Controversy,” 31–32.
36. Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” 31.
37. Simon Kistemaker, “Leading Figures at the Synod of Dort” in Crisis in the
Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619 (Grand
Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 42–44.
by the States-General in 1612.38 However, Simon Episcopius, a for-

mer student and also a close friend of Arminius who was sympathetic
to his thought, was selected to succeed Gomarus as professor of the-
ology in 1612.39
While these shifts were taking place at Leiden, tensions and
division continued to increase in the Dutch Reformed churches, par-
ticularly in Amsterdam. Congregations opposed to the proponents of
Arminian theology and Erastian ecclesiology began to pressure the
government for the removal of such pastors from their pulpits. These
growing pressures from the churches led the loose group of Armin-
ius’s followers to organize after his death in 1609. In 1610, forty-six
supporters of Arminian thought gathered in Gouda under the leader-
ship of Uytenbogaert and Episcopius, where they worked to gain the
official protection of the state against churches seeking their dismissal.
At this meeting they formulated The Remonstrance, which included a
five-point statement of doctrinal defense and explanation against the
charges of heresy. The five points argued for a modified view of God’s
predestination and salvation of sinners, including the idea that the
atoning work of Christ was “for all men and for every man” though
only effectively applied to believers.40 Rather than the monergism of
Calvinism—which argued that the salvation and spiritual transfor-
mation of the soul was entirely the result of God’s sovereign, gracious
action, while human faith, activity, and obedience were the fruit or
result of God’s work—the Remonstrants argued for a synergism of
God’s grace and man’s activity, referring to grace as “this prevenient
38. Conrad Vorstius, due to the advocacy of Oldenbarnevelt on his behalf,

would receive a continued salary by obligation and settled in nearby Gouda. Here
he continued a steady stream of polemics against Reformed theology (officially
as a professor of theology at Leiden), eventually to the point of becoming a hin-
drance and embarrassment to the Remonstrant cause. He later completely embraced
Socinianism, with its denial of the Trinity and particularly the divinity and work of
Christ in salvation. Godfrey argues that the Vorstius case was integral to King James
I’s growing support for Dutch Calvinism and Prince Maurice. Kistemaker, “Lead-
ing Figures at the Synod of Dort,” 49–50; Godfrey, “Tensions within International
Calvinism,” 60–61. See also John E. Platt, “The Denial of the Innate Idea of God
in Dutch Remonstrant Theology,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment
(Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1999), 213–26.
39. Paul A. Mickey, “Simon Episcopius (1583–1643),” in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 359.
40. Peter Y. De Jong, Preface to “The Remonstrance of 1610,” in Crisis in the
Reformed Churches, 207–209.
or assisting, awakening, consequent, and cooperating grace.”41 In The

Remonstrance, they charged their Calvinist, Presbyterian opponents
in the Dutch Reformed Church with false accusations of heresy and
advocated “the authority of the State in ecclesiastical matters.”42 While
calling for revisions to the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Cat-
echism, the liberal-minded Remonstrants argued above all “that a
binding confession ultimately conflicted both with the authority of
Scripture and with the freedom of the individual conscience.”43
The publication of The Remonstrance in 1610 reflected one facet of
the deep and growing division within the Dutch Reformed Church
and, by implication, within the society and leadership of the early
Dutch Republic. The division was exacerbated by the fact that the lines
between the politically influential Remonstrant minority and the pop-
ular Calvinist majority also carried through into the political realm.
The doctrinal controversy continued to develop during the window of
military truce with Spain begun in 1609. Politically influential Remon-
strants tended to be open to peace talks with Spain, where leading
Calvinists viewed Spain as an enemy power which could not be trusted.
The political tensions combined with the religious tensions, creating
instability in the country. Many among the Calvinist majority believed
that Remonstrant theology, in seeking a “middle way” between aspects
of Roman Catholic theology and Reformed theology, weakened the
political will of the nation. Some feared an eventual recapitulation to
Spanish rule, while others feared the growing possibility of a civil war
due to the deepening divide in Dutch society.
The Contra-Remonstrants and the

Counter-Remonstrance of 1611
Immediately after The Remonstrance was completed, Uytenbogaert
gave it to van Oldenbarnevelt, to present to the States-General in the
hope that they would act and determine it as legitimate doctrine for
the church. However, the States-General, despite Uytenbogaert’s con-
sequent publication of his essay on state supremacy over the church,
41. “The Remonstrance of 1610, Article 4,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches,
208. See also Williams, “The Five Points of Arminianism,” 29.
42. De Jong, Preface to “The Remonstrance of 1610,” 207.
43. Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” 28. See also
Wylie, The History of Protestantism, 117.
decided not to discuss it for a period of several months. Concurrently,

they actively prevented any synods from convening to evaluate the
document, but rather encouraged, and even enforced, toleration of
what now became termed the “Remonstrant” position. The largely
Calvinist, confessional Dutch Reformed churches’ response was that
“they were prepared at any time to demonstrate to a properly consti-
tuted synodical assembly that the five articles of the Remonstrants
were contrary to both Scripture and the creeds.”44 Realizing the need
to respond to the general dissatisfaction with the Remonstrant posi-
tion, the States-General decided to call a limited conference between
six of the leading Remonstrants and six of the leading Calvinists, hop-
ing that they would reach a compromise.
The meeting called by the States-General began on March 10,
1611, in The Hague, and lasted over two months, ending May 20.
The two parties were granted permission to create and present two
documents each—a presentation of their own position and criti-
cism of that of their opponents, and secondly, a refutation of charges
against their position by their opponents. In preparation for the meet-
ing the Calvinists wrote The Counter Remonstrance of 1611, responding
to the charges of The Remonstrance, and requesting the States-General
once again to submit the matter to a “properly constituted synod”
or assembly of the Dutch Reformed church, clearly arguing for the
Presbyterian model of church government. The Counter-Remonstrance
also included seven doctrinal statements in response to the five doc-
trinal assertions of The Remonstrance. Here the doctrinally Reformed
Contra-Remonstrants argued, according to Scripture and the confes-
sions of the church, that:
(1) ...man in a state of sin was in a state of spiritual inabil-
ity “dead in trespasses...within them no more power”
to turn to God. It is God who chooses to work spiritual
transformation in some (the elect) who by this change
themselves come to desire salvation and a life of thankful
service to God.
(2) These elect include “not only adults who believe in
Christ and accordingly walk worthy of the gospel...but

also the children of the covenant so long as they do not in

their conduct manifest the contrary.”
(3) “That God in his election has not looked to the faith or
conversion of his elect...as the grounds of election; but
on the contrary in his eternal and immutable counsel...
purposed and decreed to bestow faith and perseverance
in godliness and thus to save those whom He according
to his good pleasure has chosen to salvation.”
(4) Christ’s death on the cross “though sufficient unto the
atonement of the sins of all men, nevertheless...accord-
ing to the counsel and decree of God, has its efficacy unto
reconciliation and forgiveness of sins only in the elect
and true believer.”
(5) The Holy Spirit works this salvation through the applica-
tion of the preaching of the gospel. The Spirit “works so
powerfully in the hearts of God’s elect, that He illumines
their minds, transforms and renews their wills, remov-
ing the heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh”
so that they are not only converted “but also actually and
willingly believe.”
(6) As the elect are converted by sovereign grace “without
any contribution in themselves,” so they are also “con-
tinually supported and preserved.”
(7) “Nevertheless the true believers find no excuse in this
teaching to pursue carelessly the lusts of the flesh, since it
is impossible that those who by a true faith are engrafted
into Christ should not produce the fruits of thankful-
ness.... The more they assure themselves and feel that
God works in them.... The more they persist in working
their own salvation.... The same Spirit prepares them for
this and thus also powerfully keeps them standing.”45
45. My summary, with select quotations of the seven doctrinal points of “The
Counter Remonstrance of 1611” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in com-
memoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619 (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship,
1968), 209–11.
The results of the conference of the spring of 1611 were incon-

clusive. Despite elucidated statements and positions, neither party was
willing to recant or compromise their position. The States-General,
due to the capable political influence of the Remonstrant party, con-
tinued to thwart the possibility of a national synod, while the Dutch
Reformed churches and Contra-Remonstrant clergy began to demand
all the more “the assembling of a National Synod, as a more legiti-
mate and competent tribunal for the examination and decision of such
matters.”46 A second attempt by the States-General at creating doctri-
nal compromise took place at Delft in 1613. It too failed. Meanwhile,
pamphlet warfare continued unabated. Godfrey notes that, by 1616,
“the polarization of Dutch society...had reached a critical point. The
Arminians and Calvinists were nearly ready to go to war with one
another.”47
Politically, the division cut deeply through the leadership of the
Dutch Republic—Prince Maurice and the statesman Oldenbarnevelt,
once close political allies, were already alienated from one another over
decisions related to the war, truce, and peace talks with Spain; this divi-
sion sharpened as Prince Maurice became allied with the Calvinists.
Riots, led by Contra-Remonstrants, broke out in 1617. Prince Maurice
refused to use his troops to maintain order. In May of 1617, four prov-
inces called on the States-General to convene a national synod. The
province of Holland, along with Oldenbarnevelt, refused the appeals.
Maurice’s sympathy for the Calvinists was prominently displayed
in the summer of 1617, as he now “refused to worship in the Court
Church at The Hague where Remonstrant leader, Uytenbogaert,
was the preacher...[worshipping] instead with the Contra-Remon-
strant congregation in The Hague.”48 This transition, heightened by
the increasingly clear support of King James I of England for Prince
Maurice and the increasingly frustrated popular majority of Calvinists
led Oldenbarnevelt to realize that his own position, the Remonstrant
cause, and the political power of the Dutch merchant oligarchy that
underlay his own, were increasingly precarious.
46. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, 118.

Understanding that the security of his political power now rested

in the support of the generally pro-Remonstrant leadership of the
province of Holland, Oldenbarnevelt
persuaded the States of Holland to pass the famous Scherpe Reso-
lutie...which reasserted Holland’s provincial right to prevent the
States-General from calling a national synod, declared that cities
were empowered to raise additional municipal troops to keep
order, and finally directed all civil officials and members of the
army to take an oath of allegiance to their municipal authorities
and to the States of Holland.49
Prince Maurice saw Oldenbarnevelt’s political move as a direct
challenge and threat to his own political status as Stadtholder and
commander of the army and turned, with the support of the Contra-
Remonstrants, to the States-General for support. In November of
1617, the States-General voted to call a national synod, with the sup-
port of Zeeland, Friesland, Groningen, and Overijssel, but opposed
by Holland, Utrecht, and Gelderland. Holland’s opposition went fur-
ther than the others, claiming that the Union of Utrecht required
unanimous consent of the provinces to pass a legitimate call for a
national synod. Maurice in turn, realizing that Holland was the
center of opposition, moved to politically and militarily isolate the
province. Traveling with troops to Gelderland, he installed Contra-
Remonstrant regents at Nijmegen and then moved on to Utrecht by
July of 1618. Initially the city refused him entry, but then decided
the wiser course of action was to submit to Maurice’s authority. The
province of Holland now stood alone. Local opposition troops there
quickly disbanded, realizing they stood little chance against Maurice’s
well-trained and seasoned military forces.50
Having quelled any possibility of civil war, Prince Maurice now
moved to deal with those he viewed as having brought the nation
to the brink of civil war through treasonous actions. In late August
1618, Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius, and other prominent leaders of the
pro-Remonstrant political faction were arrested and imprisoned.
Uytenbogaert fled the country fearing arrest. With the political tur-
moil now forcibly ended by “the popular centralizing forces headed
49. Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism,” 62–63.

by Maurice,” the way was also opened for a representative assembly

of the church to address the religious debate between the Remon-
strants and Contra-Remonstrants by means of a national synod.51
Keen international interest followed the unfolding events, both as a
result of the deeply religious worldview of the era and the awareness
that the United Provinces were an increasingly prominent European
power. Governments clearly recognized that religious thought in a
nation was not irrelevant to its politics or its neighbors. Rather, it was
and would remain profoundly important to politics and society.
The Synod of Dordt, 1618–1619

The States-General’s decree of 1617 was put into action in 1618,
with a national synod called to meet in Dordrecht in November of
that year.52 With the new political settlement, effected by Maurice’s
coup, the decades-old animosities of the Remonstrant controversy
had by no means died down. Where the States-General had called
the Hague conference of 1611 to bring together the two parties as
equals, the Synod of Dordt of 1618–1619 was not intended to be a
two-sided theological dialogue or debate. Instead, it was to be an
examination and evaluation of the teachings of the Remonstrants
by the constituted representative assembly of the Dutch Reformed
churches, in order to reach an ecclesiastically authoritative settlement
on the doctrinal issues dividing the churches.53 Provincial synods
chose and sent Dutch Reformed Church representatives, while the
States-General assigned political commissioners to supervise and
report on the proceedings.54
The call for the Synod of Dordt, as authorized by the States-
General, required that “foreign Reformed theologians were also to
be invited to insure a fair and catholic [or ‘universal’] decision on
51. Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism,” 64–65.

52. H. Florijn provides a fascinating, illustrated account of both the city of
Dordrecht at this time, the meeting place of the Synod, and brief biographies of
the delegates in “De Afgevaardigden en Geciteerden” in De Synode van Dordrecht in
1618–1619 (Houten: Den Hartog, 1994), 57–94.
54. For a complete list of delegates from the provincial synods to the Synod of
Dordt see “De Tweede Zitting. Den 14en November, Woensdag-voormiddag,” in
Acta of Handelingen der Nationale Synode...Te Dordrecht, Ten Jare 1618 en 1619 (’s Graven-
hage, 1620; repr. Utrecht: W.M. Den Hertog), 7–9.
the issues in question.”55 As a result, the representation at the Synod

would not only have a varied national, but also an international char-
acter. Foreign representation included a delegation of the Church of
England sent by King James I, functioning under the oversight of
both England’s ambassador to The Hague, Sir Dudley Carleton, and
the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot.56 Delegations were
also invited from the Reformed Churches of France, the Palatinate,
the Swiss Reformed cantons, and the republics of Geneva, Emden,
and Bremen, all of whom were asked to send their best theologians to
give counsel and help bring peace to the Dutch Reformed churches.57
Each international and provincial delegation functioned at the Synod
as an independent committee, studying and bringing its own assess-
ments and conclusions on each point of issue to the floor of Synod,
whereupon the Synod as a body would discuss, debate, and seek to
form concise, coherent statements on the issues at hand.58
Initially, the Remonstrants were asked to form a delegation of their
own. When it was made clear, however, that their role was simply to
state and elucidate their beliefs, and that they would have no place in
the actual deliberation and decision-making of the Synod, with the
exception of those who were stated delegates acting as representatives
of their provincial synods, the Remonstrants, led by Simon Episcopius,
refused to continue to participate in or cooperate with the Synod.59
55. Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism,” 65; see also “Voorrede
aan de Gereformeerde Kerken van Christus; In dewelke de oorsprong en voortgang
der Nederlandsche verschillen, om welke weg te nemen deze Synode voornamelijk
bijeen geroepen is geweest, kortelijk en getrouwelijk verhaald” in Acta, v–xxxviii.
56. See Anthony Milton’s collection of correspondence documents in The
British Delegation and The Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Woodbridge, Suffolk [U.K.]:
Boydell, 2005), 1–403.
57. Of all those invited to attend, only the French Huguenot delegation was
unable to attend because of the refusal of the king of France to grant permission. As
a result, a row of seats was left empty in honor of the French. Despite their absence,
some did maintain contact by correspondence, particularly the theologian Pierre
du Moulin. See Pierre du Moulin, The Anatomy of Arminianisme: or The opening of
the controversies lately handled in the Low–Countries... (London: Printed by T.S. for
Nathaniel Newbery, 1620), A2.
58. This is evident throughout the Acta. See, for example, “De Tweeenveertig-
ste Zitting. Den 29en December, Zaterdag–voormiddag” in Acta 152–70. See also
“Tweede Register van de Oordeelen, zowel der uitheemsche als der inlandsche The-
ologen, over de Vijf Artikelen der Remonstranten” in Acta 957–58.
59. Acta, 15, 71–86, 88, 101.
Lacking their verbal testimony and refused written testimony, the

Synod, guided by moderator Johannes Bogerman, moved to act, first
by establishing the doctrines of the Remonstrants from their writings
and second to evaluate the doctrines. The States-General, desiring
to maintain the public legitimacy of the proceedings, required that
“although the binding character of the creeds was involved, and the
Arminians were first opposed in Holland because of their alleged
infidelity to the Reformed creeds to which they had voluntarily sub-
scribed...the Synod of Dordt would judge the issues solely from
Scripture.... The Arminians were not to be judged by any human
writings. They were to be judged solely by the criterion of the Word
of God....”60 While the delegations of Reformed pastors and theolo-
gians certainly came to the task of exegesis and evaluation with their
own presuppositions in hand, “there is almost no reference to exist-
ing creeds or theologians.... The Acta provide ample evidence that the
Synod of Dordt engaged in study and debate as to the meaning of the
passages to which appeal was made.”61
Among the national and international Reformed delegates to the
Synod of Dordt there was a substantial and clearly expressed diversity
of opinion. Godfrey argues that there are
three broad divisions into which the various Judicia fall. The
largest group is composed of those delegations which expressed
a simple, strict Calvinist point of view. All the provincial Dutch
delegations, as well as the Palatine, the Helvetian, the Gene-
van, and the Emden delegations belonged to this group. The
Theses of Martinius represented the second, moderate group
although the sympathies of Davenant and Ward were also with
Martinius. The third group, which may also be called the medi-
ating group, placed themselves between the strict Calvinists and
the moderates. This aggregation included the Dutch profes-
sors, Lubbertus, the English, Crocius and Pareus. The Theses
of Isselburg, Hesse, Nassau and DuMoulin may also belong
with the mediating group, although they reflect a more rigorous
approach than others of this group.62
60. Fred. H. Klooster, “Doctrinal Deliverances of Dort,” in Crisis in the Reformed

Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619 (Grand Rap-
ids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 57.
61. Klooster, “Doctrinal Deliverances of Dort,” 88–89.
62. Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism,” 225. One of the stated
While at times the differing perspectives created fractious debate,

the final documents produced by the Synod appear to have been
agreeable to all present, including the foreign delegations.63 The
Synod spent much of its time and energy focusing particularly on the
Five Articles of the Remonstrance, and over the course of its one hundred
fifty-three sessions created five articles in response, each containing
both a negative refutation of the Remonstrant position, and a posi-
tive statement of the Reformed position.64 The five positive doctrines
stated by the Synod can be summarized as follows:
(1) Unconditional election and faith are a gift of God.
(2) While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to
atone for the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy
is limited to the elect.
(3) All are so pervasively corrupted by sin that they cannot
effect their own salvation;
(4) in sovereign grace God irresistibly calls and regenerates
them to newness of life.
(5) Those thus saved He preserves until the end; hence there
is assurance of salvation even while believers are troubled
by many infirmities.65
concerns of the “moderate party” was the “importance of the universal offer of the
Gospel.... The moderates claimed that the sincere offer of the Gospel could only be
undergirded by a broad statement on the sufficiency of Christ’s death.” The mediat-
ing party, Godfrey argues, enabled the strict and moderate parties to continue to
work together, despite occasional tensions. Godfrey, “Tensions within International
Calvinism,” 232.
63. Donald Sinnema, in his doctoral dissertation “The Issue of Reprobation
at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) in Light of the History of This Doctrine” (Toronto
School of Theology, 1985), argues that within the development of Reformed theol-
ogy on the doctrine of reprobation the position adopted at the Synod of Dordt was
more moderate than that of Calvin and Beza.
64. Donald Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary
Survey of Early Drafts and Related Documents,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), 291–311.
65. M. Eugene Oosterhaven, “The Synod of Dort,” in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 331–32. The full text of the Canons of Dort is
available in various publications, including Joel Beeke, ed., Doctrinal Standards, Lit-
urgy and Church Order (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999), 96–117.
The five doctrinal articles came to be known as The Canons of

Dordt, standing as an enduring and definitive position of the Dutch
Reformed churches on the controverted points. Part of their last-
ing nature is undoubtedly due to the fact that, as Nicholas Fornerod
states, “the definitive version of the Canons in April 1619...was
the expression of a laborious theological compromise worked out
between various Calvinist traditions represented at Dordt, and
not simply the triumph of the most rigid forms of Dutch Contra-
Remonstrant thought.”66 Along with the Belgic Confession and
Heidelberg Catechism, they became a third confessional document
of the churches67 and would bear a lasting influence on the continu-
ing stream of Reformed theology.68
Although it was in many respects central to its purpose and activ-
ity, responding to the Remonstrant controversy was not the only
activity of the Synod of Dordt. As the first national synod since the
Synod of The Hague (1586), there was much else to be done. Other
efforts included “matters pertaining to confessions and the church
order...preaching and catechesis for the children of the church...
training of ministers and Bible translation and missions were thor-
oughly discussed and decided.”69 Eight sessions of deliberations at
the Synod were devoted to preparing for a careful new Dutch Bible
translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Synod appointed six
Dutch theologians to the task, asking them to make annotations not-
ing translation difficulties or alternatives with brief explanations, and
give summaries of books and chapters. The task, completed in 1637,
66. Nicholas Fornerod, “A Reappraisal of the Genevan Delegation,” in Revisit-

ing the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 183.
67. Donald Sinnema argues that the Canons were not initially intended to
become a new confession: “at no point did the Synod ever make a decision declaring
the Canons to be a new confession.... However, the Canons in effect began to func-
tion as a confessional standard when the Synod required that they be subscribed
by all pastors, and soon after the Synod this was recognized when they came to be
regarded as one of the ‘forms of unity’ of the Dutch Reformed churches.” Donald
Sinnema, “The Canons of Dort: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional
Standard,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 314.
68. One example is the impact of the Synod of Dordt’s doctrinal statements on
the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms developed at the Westminster
Assembly (1643–1648) in England.
resulted in the publication of the Staten Bible, which saw long-stand-

ing use in the Netherlands and abroad.70
The Aftermath
The result of the doctrinal deliverances of Dordt, by implication and
synodical decision, was that the Remonstrants who had been cited to
appear at the Synod were guilty of heresy. Upon completion of the
Synod, each of the defendants, along with well over a hundred other
Remonstrant pastors, were called upon to subscribe to the Canons of
Dordt. Those who refused were brought before classes and regional
synods, deposed from their ministerial positions, and excommuni-
cated.71 Those who could not assent to the Canons of Dordt but who
promised not to teach contrary to them were allowed to remain in
the country.72 Some eighty ministers were banished from the United
Provinces; forty decided to conform their teaching to the decisions
of Dordt and were restored to ministry in the churches.73 Politically
influential Remonstrants were imprisoned at Loevenstein castle, in
part for their rebellion against the States-General.74 A tribunal tried
70. C.C. de Bruin, “De Bijbelvertaling,” in De Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en

1619 (Houten: Den Hertog, 1994), 121–156. The Staten Bible was translated into
English in 1657 by Theodore Haak as The Dutch Annotations Upon the Whole Bible:
Or, all the Holy Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, Together With, and
according to their own Translation of all the Text: As both the one and the other were ordered
and appointed by the Synod of Dort 1618, and published by Authority, 1637 (London:
Henry Hills, 1657). Introduction to the Facsimile Edition, The Dutch Annotations...
(Leerdam: Gereformeerde Bijbelstichting, 2002), 1–7.
71. Huib Noordzij, Gereformeerde of protestants: de strijd tussen remonstranten en
contra–remonstranten (Bedum: Uitgeverij Woord en Wereld, 1997), 86. As Fred Van
Lieburg ably demonstrates, the use of the process of church discipline and church
courts to deal with ministers charged with errant doctrine pre–existed the Synod of
Dordt. Fred Van Lieburg, “Gisbertus Samuels, A Reformed Minister Sentenced by
the Synod of Zeeland for His Opinions on Predestination,” in Revisting the Synod of
Dordt (1618–1619) (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1–22.
72. Willem van’t Spijker, “De synode en de Remonstranten” in De Synode van
Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 (Houten: Den Hertog, 1994), 117.
73. Declaration of the Decree Made by the Generall States of the United Netherland
Provinces, against certaine Arminians, or Remonstrants, for their perpetual banishment. Dated
15 of July 1619 (London: Felix Kyngston, 1619), 1–7. The total number of minis-
ters in the Dutch Reformed Church stood at approximately 1100 at this time. See
Noordzij, Gereformeerde of protestants, 86.
74. A number, including Hugo Grotius, managed to escape the castle and find
refuge in France.
Oldenbarnevelt, the former elder statesman of the States-General,

found him guilty, and meted out the penalty of death by beheading at
the Binnenhof, less than a month after the completion of the Synod.75
It was immediately evident that the Dutch Reformed Church was
and would remain Reformed by maintaining a required confessional
subscription and practice. During the remainder of the seventeenth
century, the national church grew in membership and influence, with
Calvinism “becoming a more central feature of society.” 76 Politically,
the United Provinces would submit to the consolidated leadership of
Prince Maurice until his death in 1625.
After 1625, the States-General permitted the Remonstrants to
return from exile and establish a separate church in the Netherlands.
The Remonstrant church became part of the milieu of the minority
streams of religious thought in the Netherlands, alongside Anabap-
tism, Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and other groups.
The return of the Remonstrants also signaled the continuation of
popular theological debate. The dispute entered the realm of histo-
riography when Kerckelijke Historie, a massive history of the religious
troubles by the Remonstrant Johannes Uytenbogaert, posthumously
published in 1646, was answered by the Reformed historian Jacob
Trigland’s equally massive Kerckelijcke Geschiedenissen in 1650.77
While the Synod ensured the maintenance and strengthening of
Reformed theology and ecclesiology in the Dutch Reformed Church,
the wider theological disagreement clearly did not end: the people,
events, and documents of the Remonstrant controversy and Synod
of Dordt contributed to lasting streams of Dutch and international
75. Oldenbarnevelt’s two sons sought to avenge his death in a failed attempt to
assassinate Prince Maurice; one was arrested, tried, and executed; the other man-
aged to escape arrest and fled the United Provinces.
76. Charles Parker notes that in the province of Holland “membership levels
rose from 20% of the adult population in the early 1600s to about half the adult
population by mid–century, and to 68% of the population at the beginning of the
nineteenth century.” Charles H. Parker, “Two Generations of Discipline: Moral
Reform in Delft Before and After the Synod of Dort,” in Archiv für Reformationge-
schichte 92 (2001):215–31.
77. Charles H. Parker, “To the Attentive, Nonpartisan Reader: The Appeal to
History and National Identity in the Religious Disputes of the Seventeenth Century
Netherlands,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28, 1 (Spring 1997):57–78. See also W. van’t
Spijker, “De Synode in de Geschiedschriving,” in De Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en
1619 (Houten: Den Hertog, 1994), 11–16.
theology, both Reformed and Arminian. With the present resurgence

of appreciation for the biblical doctrines of sovereign grace some four
hundred years later, and continuing challenges to them as well as
debates over the nature of the church and confessional identity, the
Synod of Dordt provides a valuable case study and example of an effort
to maintain and promote the doctrines revealed by God to us in His
Word, along with a contextual understanding of the Canons of Dordt.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 161–183
Regulae de Observatione Sabbathi:

The Synod of Dort’s (1618–19)
Deliverance on the Sabbath
Daniel R. Hyde
q
“What is your view of the Sabbath?” This is a pressing question for

Reformed Christians seeking to live out the historic Reformed faith
in a twenty-first century context. The question itself assumes there
are more views than one, offering options for the Reformed believer.
One of the popular ways of expressing this is to say that there are two
views of the Sabbath in Reformed churches: the Continental view
and the Puritan view. What is the difference? R. C. Sproul wrote that
the former allows for recreation, while the latter forbids recreation on
the Lord’s Day.1 More recently he has written of this “division of the
house among Reformed theologians,” saying,
To see how these views [Continental v. Puritan] collided, imag-
ine the consternation of John Knox, who was expelled from
England during the reign of Bloody Mary, and first sought ref-
uge in Germany and finally went to Geneva, Switzerland, under
the auspices of John Calvin. Knox was shocked when he arrived
in Geneva and found Calvin, with his family, lawn bowling on
the Sabbath day. Calvin took the Continental view, while Knox
took the Puritan view. This difference among Reformed think-
ers has gone on for a long time.2
1. R. C. Sproul, Now, That’s a Good Question! (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House

Publishers, Inc., 1996), 351.
2. R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession
of Faith, Volume 2—Salvation and The Christian Life (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub-
lishing, 2007), 342. Cf. the harsh language of J. C. Ryle towards the “Continental”
view of the Sabbath in Sabbath: A Day to Keep (rev. ed., Rowlett: Faith Presbyterian
Church Reformed, 2007): “Sunday amusements and sport have been long tried in
Continental cities. But what benefit have they derived that we should wish to imitate
them? What advantages have we to gain by making a London Sunday like a Sunday
Further evidence of this supposed division is shown in compar-

ing the representative catechisms of each tradition. When one looks
at Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 103, the emphasis is on attendance at
public worship as well as the eschatological aspect of the Sabbath day,
while the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 115–121, emphasizes
the day of the Sabbath (116) and the duty of resting on that day (117–
121). Jay Adams engages in this type of argument, setting John Calvin
and the Heidelberg Catechism’s heavenly focus against the “legalistic”
emphasis of the Puritans and Westminster Standards. 3
In order to evaluate whether such a division exists, it is necessary to
delve into the history and practice of the Dutch Reformed churches as
representative of the Continental Reformed tradition. Reformed Chris-
tians over the past four centuries have known “the great Synod of Dort
in 1618–1619” (De grote Synode van Dordrecht in 1618–1619) from
its work in the third confessional document of the Dutch Reformed
churches, the Canons of Dort. While not being as familiar to Reformed
Christians as the warm and experiential Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
or the majestic Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), the Canons
offer a thoroughly biblical and pastoral response to the teachings of the
Remonstrants of the early seventeenth century. Yet unbeknownst to
many of these Reformed Christians who love the Reformed confes-
sions, even to those of the Dutch Reformed tradition, the Canons of
Dort were not the only doctrinal deliverance from the great Synod.
The purpose of this article is to examine and demonstrate that the
great Synod’s rules of Sabbath observance (regulae de observatione Sab-
bathi) held a moderate Reformed orthodox position not at odds with the
principles and practice of their English compatriots.4 This will be seen
in Paris or other continental cities. It would be a change for the worse, and not for the
better.... Away with the idea that a pleasure-seeking, Continental Sabbath is mercy to
anyone! It is nothing less than an enormous fallacy to call it so. Such a Sabbath is real
mercy to nobody, and is positive sacrifice to some.... I fear that hundreds of British
travelers do things on Sundays on the Continent, which they would never do in their
own land” (http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/ryle_sabbath.htm; accessed on
November 3, 2009).
3. Jay E. Adams, Keeping the Sabbath Today? (Stanley, N.C.: Timeless Texts,
2008), 20–30. See the review article by Ryan M. McGraw, “Jay E. Adams, Keeping
the Sabbath Today?,” Puritan Reformed Journal 1, 2 (2009): 275–81.
4. Cf. W. Robert Godfrey, “Calvin and Calvinism in the Netherlands,” in
John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, ed. W. Stanford Reid (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 109.
Regulae de Observatione Sabbathi 163
by examining their context in early-seventeenth-century Netherlands

and by analyzing them briefly in comparison with a major proponent
of the English “Puritan” view of the Sabbath in William Ames (1576–
1633). We will also conclude by seeing their contemporary relevance for
Reformed churches in the twenty-first century.
The Sabbath Debate at Dort

After the international delegates from Great Britain, the Palatinate,
Hesse, Switzerland (Zurich, Berne, Basel, Schaffhausen, Geneva),
Bremen, Emden, and Nassau-Wetteravia departed in session 154 on
May 9, 1619, the Dutch delegates dealt with many issues facing the life
of their churches in what is known as the Post-Acta.5 One such issue
was a question concerning the law of God, specifically, what relation-
ship did the Sabbath of the Old Testament have to the Lord’s Day of
the New Testament, and what did this mean practically for the aver-
age Hollander’s observance of the day?
This issue first was raised at session 148 as the doctrine of the
Heidelberg Catechism was approved by all the collegiate suffrages
as agreeable to the Word of God, notwithstanding the English del-
egates’ right to interpret Christ’s descent into hell differently. This
discussion of the Catechism led the delegates sent by King James I
to publicly state their offense at the lack of Sabbath observance in the
town of Dordrecht. Positively, they pled with the Synod to petition
the civil magistrates to forbid commerce and trade on the Sabbath
day. Subsequent to this, the Middleburg elder delegate and doctor
of law, Josias Vosbergius, then moved that the Synod take up the
larger issue of the observance of the Sabbath in general, given that
the Reformed did not observe the seventh day.6 Later, in his depart-
ing address to the States General on May 18, 1619, Bishop George
5. For a list of the international and national delegates as well as the political
commissioners to the Synod, see Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemo-
ration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, ed. Peter Y. De Jong (Grand Rapids:
Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 213–20.
6. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), ed. Anthony Milton,
Church of England Record Society 13 (Woodbridge, England: The Boydell Press,
2005), 328–29. Cf. Gerard Brandt, The History of the Reformation and Other Ecclesiasti-
cal Transactions in and About the Low-Countries: From the Beginning of the Eighth Century,
Down to the Famous Synod of Dort, Inclusive (1720–1723; repr., New York, N.Y.: AMS
Press, 1979), 3:290.
Carleton called the Dutch magistrates to a holy observance of the

day of the Lord, “which is the Christian Sabbath” (quod est Christia-
num sabbatum).7
At session 162, then, on May 16, 1619, among the many gra-
vamina was the fifth gravamen “concerning abuses and desecration
of the Sabbath” (De tolendis Sabbathi profanationibus) in the Nether-
lands.8 At session 164 on May 17, 1619, the Synod appealed to the
States General to enact new and strict (rigidioribus) laws against the
increasing profanation of the Sabbath.9 This led to “a question con-
cerning the necessity of observing the day of the Lord” (Quaestio de
Necessitate observationis), which was becoming an issue in the prov-
ince of Zeeland.10 In response to this question, the Synod appointed
the theological professors, Johannes Polyander of Leiden, Fran-
ciscus Gomarus of Groningen, Anthonius Thysius of Harderwyk,
and Antonius Walaeus of Middleburg, to “arrange a friendly private
conference” (amicam privatim instituant collationem) with the Zeeland
delegates to come up with general rules on the issue with “common
consent” (communi consensu).11 Finally, in this 164th session the Synod
of Dort adopted the following “rules on the observance of the Sab-
bath, or Lord’s Day” regarding this issue.12
1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a
ceremonial and a moral element.
2. The ceremonial element is the rest of the seventh day after
creation, and the strict observance of that day imposed
especially on the Jewish people.
3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain defi-
nite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is
needful for worship and hallowed meditation.
4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abolished, the day of
the Lord must be solemnly hallowed by Christians.
7. The British Delegation, 356.

8. Post-Acta, 150.
9. Post-Acta, 171.
10. Post-Acta, 171.
11. Post-Acta, 171.
12. Regulae de observatione Sabbathi, seu diei. Kuyper, Post-Acta, 184.
5. Since the times of the apostles this day has always been
observed by the old catholic church.
6. This day must be so consecrated to worship that on that
day we rest from all servile works, except those which
charity and present necessity require; and also from all
such recreations as interfere with worship.13
The Context of Dort’s Regulae

Before examining the regulae, we need first to understand the social
and theological context in which they were adopted. In a word, these
regulae did not just appear as pristine principles, but they arose out of a
decades-long struggle to reform the church in the Netherlands.
Theological Context
W. Robert Godfrey has periodized the Reformation in the Netherlands
into four theological eras. First, a Lutheran era (1517–1526); second, a
Sacramentarian era (1526–1531); third, an Anabaptist era (early 1530s–
early-1540s); and fourth, the Reformed era (from the mid-1540s in the
South and approximately 1560 in the North) [figure 1].14
13. Howard B. Spaan, Christian Reformed Church Government (Grand Rapids:

Kregel Publications, 1968), 208; J. L. Schaver, Christian Reformed Church Govern-
ment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1937), 123; Biesterveld and Kuyper, Ecclesiastical
Manual, 187; Brandt, The History of the Reformation and Other Ecclesiastical Transactions
in and About the Low-Countries, 3:320.
The Latin text from the Post-Acta may be found in De post-acta van Dordrecht,
ed. H. H. Kuyper (Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser, 1899), 184–86:
Regulae de observatione Sabbathi, seu diei Dominici, à D.D. Professori-
bus, sum fratrum Zelandorum consensus, conceptae, praelectae atque approbatae
fuerent hae sequentes.
I. In Quarto Legis divinae praecepto aliquid est Ceremoniale, aliquid Morale.
II. Ceremoniale fuit quies diei septimi à creatione, et rigida ejusdem diei obser-
vatione populo Judaico peculiariter praescripta.
III. Morale verò, quod certus et status dies cultui Dei sit destinatus, ac tanta
quies quanta ad Dei cultum sanctamque illius meditationem est necessaria.
IV. Abrogato Sabbatho Judaeorum, dies Dominicus à Christianis est solem-
niter sanctificandus.
V. Hic dies inde ab Apostolis in priscâ Ecclesiâ Catholicâ semper fuit observatus.
VI. Idem dies sic cultui divino est consecrandus, ut in eo cessetur ab omnibus
operibus servilibus, exceptis ijs, quae sunt charitatis et praesentis necessitas, et ab
hujusmodi recreationibus, quae DEI cultum impedivat.
14. W. Robert Godfrey, “The Dutch Reformed Response,” in Discord, Dialog,
The Reformation in the Netherlands

mid-1540s
early-1530s–
1517–26 1526–31 (South)/
early-1540s
1560 (North)
Lutheran Sacramentarian Anabaptist Reformed
Figure 1
Further, it is helpful to add Richard A. Muller’s periodization of

post-Reformation Protestant orthodoxy into this discussion. Muller
classifies Orthodoxy as early (first phase: 1565–1618, second phase:
1618–1640), high (first phase: 1640–1685, second phase: 1685–1725),
and late (post-1725) [figure 2].
Post-Reformation Protestant Orthodoxy

Early High Late
1 2 1 2
1565–1618 1618–1640 1640–1685 1685–1725 Post–1725
Figure 2
The theological and ecclesiastical context of the Synod of Dort’s

regulae, then, is the end of the era of Reformed theology known as
the first phase of early orthodoxy.15 As Muller summarizes, this was
a transitional year in which the Reformed theology of John Calvin,
Wolfgang Musculus, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Andreas Hyperius
passed to a new generation who solidified a confessional orthodoxy.16
Social Context
This pronouncement came not only out of that theological context,
but also out of the political and social context of the Dutch revolt that
broke out in 1572 and was not settled until 1648 at the end of the
and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, ed. Lewis W.
Spitz and Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1977), 166.
15. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Devel-
opment of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume One: Prolegomena to
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 30–32. Hereafter, Muller, PRRD.
16. Muller, PRRD, 31.
Eighty-Years’ War. William of Orange (1533–1584) sought to keep the

seventeen provinces of the Low Countries united against Spain in a
political revolt, not a religious crusade, since he relied upon Catholic
nobility for financing and troops. With the Pacification of Ghent in
November 1576 and the Spanish acceptance in the Union of Brussels
in January 1577, religious toleration came to the Netherlands. Revolt
flared up again, though, and led to the seven Northern provinces
forming into the Union of Utrecht in January 1579, while the south-
ern provinces, led mainly by Catholic nobles, united into the Union
of Arras in May 1579. On July 26, 1581, the Union of Utrecht rejected
Philip II’s (1527–1598) claim to be sovereign over all the provinces of
the Netherlands.
This led to social, political, and theological complexities through-
out the Netherlands. For example, Godfrey has shown how, in 1580,
the province of Holland passed a law allowing both Reformed and
Lutheran churches to exist at a time in which the Reformed church
was supposed to have a favored position. This inevitably led to oppo-
sition from the Reformed ministers.17
Another issue was that of ministerial appointments. The earliest
Dutch Reformed church orders specified that ministers’ calling was
an ecclesiastical affair. Yet theory often gave way to practice in places
such as Rotterdam, where the town council sought to impose Pieter
Hyperphragmus upon the church and where the church was forced to
compromise in dismissing its orthodox minister, Aegidius Johannes
Frisius.18 Other issues show the constant struggles of the Reformed
churches in various locales with the magistrates, such as with the reg-
ulation of school teachers, control of diaconal ministry to the poor,
and control over access to communion.19 It was this latter issue that
opened up the issue of the Sabbath.
17. Godfrey, “The Dutch Reformed Response,” 168–70.

18. Andrew Pettegree, “Coming to Terms with Victory: The Upbuilding of a
Calvinist Church in Holland, 1572–1590,” in Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1620, ed.
Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke, and Gillian Lewis (Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1994), 164–65.
19. Pettegree, “Coming to Terms with Victory,” 168–74. On the issue of church
discipline, excommunication, and Lord’s Supper access, see Christine Kooi, Liberty
and Religion: Church and State in Leiden’s Reformation, 1572–1620, Studies in Medieval
and Reformation Thought 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 90–124.
The Reformed sought godly communities, though they as a

church made up only ten percent of the population in 1587 and less
than twenty-five percent by 1622.20 Even in the strongholds of Cal-
vinism, the provinces of Holland and Zeeland, the Reformed church
was still a minority of the population up to 1650.21 Alongside the
Reformed movement were those who were sympathetic politically
and socially, known as liefhebbers (lovers of arts and liberty) or toe-
hoerders (auditors). Yet these did not unite to the Reformed churches,
as most of the people of the Netherlands did not. The Sabbath was a
major issue since the ordinary affairs of towns as well as social events
competed directly with Reformed services. Andrew Pettegree illus-
trates this with an account of a conversation between a Reformed
minister and a local authority in Dordrecht, in which the minister
requested moral legislation. The burgomaster replied that it was the
church’s task to discipline. Yet therein lay the issue. The Reformed
church had jurisdiction not over an entire parish, but only over those
within the parish that were members of the church.22 Even in towns
where the church’s and magistrates’ interests overlapped and where
civil moral ordinances were passed, social events such as games, the-
aters, dances, and fairs were not outlawed. Pettegree concludes his
chapter, saying, “Notwithstanding frequent protests from synods,
and from the classis, there is no sign that even in Dordrecht any mag-
istrate or state official did anything to enforce Sunday observance in
the period before 1590; abuse of the Sabbath remained a running sore
until well into the seventeenth century.”23 As Alexander Leighton said
of the Netherlands and Sabbath observance in 1624,
This sin cryes in England; and roares in Holland, where by open
shops, and other works of their calling, they proclaim, with open
mouth, their little regard of God, or his Sabbath.... I wish to
God that the United Provinces, and all others that professe the
Gospell, would looke to this.24
20. Alastair Duke, “The Ambivalent Face of Calvinism in the Netherlands

1561–1618,” in International Calvinism 1541–1715,” ed. Menna Prestwich (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1985), 109–10.
21. Godfrey, “Calvin and Calvinism in the Netherlands,” 103.
22. Pettegree, “Coming to Terms with Victory,” 176.
23. Pettegree, “Coming to Terms with Victory,” 178.
24. Alexander Leighton, Speculum Belli sacri: or the Lookingglasse of the Holy War
(n.p., 1624), 267–68, 279.
This situation gave rise to the preachers of the Nadere Reformatie

(Dutch Further Reformation) to refuse to use the term “Sunday”
(zondag) and instead to call it “sins-day” (Zonden-dag), because of the
prevalence of ungodliness in Dutch society.25
The context of Dort’s regulae, then, was that while Reformed the-
ology was becoming worked out and applied in new situations, often
its implementation was not as complete, universal, or successful as the
Reformed desired.
Analysis of Dort’s Regulae

Before moving to a comparison of Dort’s regulae with an exemplary
English Puritan, a brief analysis is necessary. Dort’s rules are pre-
sented in thesis form, which was a common scholastic (scholasticus)
tool in the universities in the seventeenth century.26 As Muller notes,
“‘Scholasticism,’ properly understood, indicates a method, capable
of presenting and arguing a variety of theological and philosophical
conclusions, and not a particular theology or philosophy.”27 Unlike
the Canons, which were written in a popular, prose form complete
with spelled out Bible passages, the rules were written in a terse form
and intended as a communication between professors, ministers, and
the entire Synod.
1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a
ceremonial (Ceremoniale) and a moral (Morale) element.
The first rule hints at the traditional medieval doctrine of the
threefold division of the law.28 So commonplace was this that John
Calvin could call it a “common division” and Melanchthon, “the old
25. Karel Blei, The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571–2005, trans. Allan J. Jan-
sen, The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 51 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 42.
On the Nadere Reformatie see Joel R. Beeke, “The Dutch Second Reformation
(Nadere Reformatie),” Calvin Theological Journal 28, 2 (Nov. 1993): 298–327.
26. Donald Sinnema, “Reformed Scholasticism and the Synod of Dort (1618–
19),” in John Calvin’s Institutes: His Magnum Opus, Proceedings of the Second South
African Congress for Calvin Research, July 31–August 3, 1984 (Potchefstroom, South
Africa: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1986), 469–70.
27. Muller, PRRD, 1:35.
28. For a brief and popular treatment in defense of the threefold division of
the law see Jonathan Bayes, The Threefold Division of the Law (Newcastle upon Tyne,
England: The Christian Institute, 2005). For a more thorough defense, see Philip S.
and customary divisions.”29 Later in the seventeenth century, Francis

Turretin would write in his Institutio theologiae elencticae that the law
was “usually distinguished into three species” (Lex per Mosem lata in
tres species solet distingui).30
Where did this division of the law come from? In speaking of
Calvin’s doctrine of the law, I. John Hesselink traced the three-
fold division back to the medieval theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas
(1225–1274):31
We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old
Law; viz., ‘moral’ precepts, which are dictated by the natural
law; ‘ceremonial’ precepts, which are determinations of the
Divine worship; and ‘judicial’ precepts, which are determina-
tions of the justice to be maintained among men. 32
Aquinas located this distinction in Deuteronomy 6:1, which
mentions the commandments (moral), statutes (ceremonial), and
judgments (judicial) of the LORD. As well, he looks to Paul’s words in
Romans 7:12, which speak of the law as holy (ceremonial), righteous
(judicial), and good (moral).
Just prior to Aquinas, John of La Rochelle sought to reestab-
lish the traditional Christian reading of the law against William of
Auvergne in his Tractatus de praeceptis et legibus (ca. 1236–1245). John
wrote that the law was divided into three: “moralia clarified the law
of nature; iudicialia repressed evil desire and served as a source for
the wicked; ceremoniala signified the law of grace.”33 Aquinas, though,
Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division
of the Law (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2010).
29. Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis
Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 4.20.14; Philip Melanch-
thon, Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes 1555, trans. and ed. Clyde
L. Manschreck (1965; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 83; cf. Heinrich Bull-
inger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger (1849–52; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2004), 2.2; Johannem Polyandrum, Andream Rivetum, Antonium
Walaeum, and Antonium Thysium, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, ed. H. Bavinck
(Leiden: Didericum Donner, 1881), XVII.v.
30. Francisci Turrettini Opera: Tom. II (New York: Robert Carter, 1847), 11.24.1.
31. I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick
Publications, 1992), 102.
32. Summa Theologica I Ilae, xcix, 4.
33. Cited in Stephen J. Casselli, “The Threefold Division of the Law in the
Thought of Aquinas,” Westminster Theological Journal 61, 2 (Fall 1999): 198.
cites Augustine (354 –430) for this distinction. Augustine said in his
treatise against Faustus, “For example, ‘Thou shalt not covet’ is a
moral precept, ‘Thou shalt circumcise every male on the eighth day’
is a symbolical precept.”34 When answering how he would answer
a Jew as to why he did not follow all the law if he believed the Old
Testament, he said, “The moral precepts of the law are observed by
Christians; the symbolical precepts were properly observed during
the time that the things now revealed were prefigured.”35 The Fathers
made distinctions between different kinds of laws. Tertullian (160–
220) distinguished “the primordial law” or “the natural law” from
“the sacerdotal law” or “the Levitical law.”36 Justin Martyr (100–165)
makes a threefold division for piety, for shadowing the Messiah, and
for the people’s hard hearts.37
2. The ceremonial element is the rest of the seventh day
after creation, and the strict (rigida) observance of that day
imposed especially on the Jewish people.
The second rule goes on to discern what precisely was ceremonial
in the fourth commandment. Peculiarly ceremonial, that is, acciden-
tal, to the fourth commandment are two things: first, the day upon
which the Sabbath fell—the seventh day—and second, the strictness
of the commandment under the Old Covenant with Israel (Ex. 35:1–3;
Num. 15:32–35). As we will see in relation to Ames, this was the
common teaching of the orthodox Reformed.
3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain defi-
nite day (certus et status dies) is set aside for worship (cultui
Dei) and so much rest as is needful (necessaria) for worship
(Dei cultum) and hallowed meditation.
The third rule discerns what was moral, that is, substantial, to the
fourth commandment. The moral element consisted in three things.
First, that one particular day in seven be set aside; second, that this
particular day be devoted to worship and meditation; and third, that
this particular day include rest.
34. Contra Faustum, 6.2.

35. Contra Faustum, 10.2.
36. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, 2 and 5.
37. Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1973), 223.
4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abolished (abrogato),

the day of the Lord must be solemnly hallowed (solemniter
sanctificandus) by Christians.
The fourth rule pertained to the change in the history of salvation
of the day in which the fourth commandment was to be observed.
Since creation the Sabbath day was the seventh day of the week. This
was observed by the Jews in the wilderness (Ex. 16:22–30) and reit-
erated at Mount Sinai in the law (Ex. 20:8–11). This particular day
on which the moral element of the commandment was observed was
abolished (abrogato). Now Christians solemnly sanctify the Lord’s Day.
5. Since the times of the apostles this day has always been
observed by the old catholic church (priscâ Ecclesiâ Catholicâ).
Rule five gives further evidence of this practice by making an
appeal to the history of the church, claiming that “the old catholic
church” (priscâ Ecclesiâ Catholicâ) has always (semper) observed this
day. In saying this, the Dort divines were identifying their doctrine
and practice as that of the historic Christian church and not just the
patristic age, but the ancient and primitive age of the apostles. There-
fore, the divines used this word to make the point that their doctrine
was not a novelty, but biblical and historical.
6. This day must be so consecrated to worship (cultui divino est
consecrandus) that on that day we rest (cessetur) from all ser-
vile works (omnibus operibus servilibus), except those which
charity (charitatis) and present necessity (praesentis necessitas)
require; and also from all such recreations (recreationibus) as
interfere with worship (DEI cultum impedivat).
Finally, rule six gives the practical requirements of the Lord’s Day
for Christians. While being only a bare outline of the things required
(worship and rest) as well as the things to be forbidden (servile labors
and recreations), this rule can be read as nothing less than a moderately
sabbatarian rule. While it is true that English delegates to the Synod of
Dort complained about the lack of Sabbath observance in the town of
Dordrecht and some of the Dutch theologians complained about the
English’s practice of the Sabbath as Figmentum Anglicanum (an English
figment), this needs to be read in light of the social and cultural strug-
gles facing the Reformed churches in practically implementing the
Sabbath in their day, not as a rebuke of Dutch Reformed principles. 38

For while the regulae do not say everything there is to say in terms of
principle and practice, they are clearly to be located within the realm
of orthodox and even moderately Puritan thought.
Comparing Dort’s Regulae with Ames

One way to highlight this is to show both the continuities and discon-
tinuities between Dort’s regulae and English Puritanism on the topic
of the Sabbath, which can best be seen in a comparison between Dort
and an exemplar of the English Puritan movement. William Ames
not only taught at the Dutch University of Franeker, but he had pre-
viously been the personal secretary to Johannes Bogerman, president
of the Synod of Dort.39 His role in the Collatio Hagiensis and his sub-
sequent treatise, Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, no doubt had an
impact on Bogerman’s choice of Ames as his secretary.
According to William Ames in his “Preface” to William Bradshaw’s
English Puritanisme, Lord’s Day observance was a distinctive mark of the
Puritan, “In that they hold the Lord’s Day to be of divine institution, and
say that it ought wholly to be spent in an holy rest.”40 Ames expanded
38. As late as 1672 John Owen complained about “sundry divines of the United
Provinces, who call the doctrine of the Sabbath, Figmentum Anglicanum.” “Letter 79.
To John Eliot,” in The Correspondence of John Owen (1616–1683): With an Account of
His Life and Work, ed. Peter Toon (London: James Clarke, 1970), 154.
39. For a brief introduction to the relationship between English and Dutch
thought, see J. Douglas MacMillan, “The Connection between 17th Century Brit-
ish and Dutch Calvinism,” in Not By Might Nor By Power, Papers Read at the 1988
Westminster Conference (London: Westminster Conference, 1989), 22–31.
For biography on Ames see Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William
Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana, Ill.: University
of Illinois Press, 1972). For the theology of Ames see John Dykstra Eusden, “Intro-
duction,” in The Marrow of Theology (1968; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 1–70,
and Joel R. Beeke and Todd M. Rester, “The Learned Doctor William Ames and A
Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism,” in A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, trans. Todd
M. Rester, Classic Reformed Theology 1, gen. ed. R. Scott Clark (Grand Rapids:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), xii–xxxii.
40. William Ames, “To the Unbiased Reader” (London, 1660). This tract was
prefaced to William Bradshaw’s English Puritanisme as early as 1610 by Ames. It was
finally distinguished as the preface to the work by Ames in the 1660 edition of Brad-
shaw’s Several Treatises of Worship and Ceremonies (London, 1660). For an account of
the history of this tract see Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames:
Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana, Ill.; University of Illi-
nois Press, 1972), 96–97.
upon this terse statement in several places in his works. For example,
the longest section of his Medulla Theologiae is book 2, chapter 15, enti-
tled, “The Time of Worship.”41 He also devoted book 4, chapter 33, of
his De Conscientia to this issue. Below is a summary of Ames’s thought
in light of Dort. As is typical of Ames’s Ramist approach, he deals first
with the principle of the Sabbath before moving to the practice of the
Sabbath. He includes a comparison with Dort’s first five regulae.42
Ames begins with natural reason, which not only “dictates that some
time be set apart for the worship of God”43 but also “a natural moral law”
known even to the heathen is to observe this on “some particular day.”44
Ames then moves to the realm of “positive law” which “decrees that
this holy day should occur at least once in a week, or in the compass of
seven.”45 Setting worship one day every week was not a ceremonial or
temporal law because it was not only commanded of the Jews, but was
in fact evidenced in the creation account in which “the seventh day, or
one day out of seven” was set apart.46 Beyond natural reason and the law
that is derived from God’s example of resting, the institution and moral
authority of the Sabbath command is “primarily based on the express
command in the decalogue.”47 Here Dort’s third rule that a “certain defi-
nite day is set aside for worship” and Ames are in agreement.
41. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. and ed. John Dykstra Eusden
(1968; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 287–300. Hereafter, Ames, Marrow.
42. For more on the relationship between Ramus and Ames see Keith L.
Sprunger, “Ames, Ramus, and the Method of Puritan Theology,” Harvard Theologi-
cal Review 59, 2 (April 1966): 133–51.
43. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.3.
46. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.8. Ames went on in 2.15.10 to answer the objection that
there was no account of the patriarchs observing the Sabbath day:
1. Everything the patriarchs did was not recorded in Scripture.
2. Even if the patriarchs did neglect the Sabbath, this did not nullify its
original institution.
3. Before the Sabbath command was given the Jews observed the Sabbath
(Ex. 16:24–30), as the past tense is used, “The LORD has given you the
Sabbath” (Ex. 16:29).
4. Even among the heathen there were traces of Sabbath observance
(e.g., Josephus, Against Apion 2.40).
5. The Israelites’ neglect of the day was rebuked with the word, “Remember.”
47. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.11.
Ames shows his honest wrestling with the Sabbath. He is no mere

proof-texting sabbatarian; he describes what he calls “the matter” of
the fourth commandment as being “not in degree or mode of the
same moral nature as that of almost all the other commandments, for
it is part of the positive law and not natural law.”48 What he means is
that while the first three commandments of the Decalogue are nega-
tively stated (“Thou shalt not”), the fourth is stated positively before
being addressed negatively.49 Here Dort’s first rule—that there is a
ceremonial and moral part to the fourth commandment—and Ames
are in agreement.
Ames then pauses to answer several objections concerning the
Sabbath. Some argued this command was ceremonial, but Ames
points back to previous discussion as well as to the fact that there are
ten “moral precepts” in the law, not only nine.50 Some argued that the
moral precept of this command was “only that some time or certain
days be assigned to divine worship.” Ames responds that these “do
not make the ordinance any more moral than the building of the tab-
ernacle and temple among the Jews.”51 By this Ames means that these
stripped the commandment of its authority and applicability. These
latter argued that the prescriptions in the law for annual feast days,
new moons, and other days were ceremonial and “teach us that some
suitable days should be appointed for public worship” and that since
this “contains no command at all for men collectively or individually”
and “private men do not have the power to ordain certain days for
public worship,” only public officials were authorized to call for days
of worship.52 Ames responds with the logical conclusion, that since
“no particular commandment is given them...they may act accord-
ing to their own wisdom in setting apart days for public worship,”
which Ames says could have been every twenty or thirty days without
breaking the fourth commandment.53
Does this mean that there were no ceremonial aspects at all in
the fourth commandment? Again, Ames is not arguing in a simplis-
tic manner for complete continuity with regards to the Sabbath, but
48. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.12.

49. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.12.
50. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.14.
51. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.15.
52. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.16.
53. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.16.
instead upheld the classic distinctions within the law. If there were
ceremonial aspects to the fourth commandment, they were only “an
addition or something extrinsic to the nature and first institution of
the sabbath” but not to the “particular moral significance of the insti-
tution of the seventh day.”54 The actual observance of the Sabbath day,
then, was not ceremonial, and this observance was no more ceremo-
nial than the fourth commandment can be said to have been judicial
because of the penalties associated with it.55 The ceremonial elements
were twofold, in agreement with Dort’s second rule. First, the sev-
enth day observance, given as an accommodation to “the special state
of the Jews.”56 Second, the “more strict observance” given “in those
days of tutelage and bondage which is not binding in all ages.”57 This
strictness, though, does apply to Christians, since the prohibition of
kindling of fire and preparing of food were given for very particu-
lar situations, since fires were kindled at the tabernacle and manna
was given from heaven.58 Finally, Ames answered another objection
of some who held that the Sabbath was ceremonial because it was
given after the deliverance from Egypt. Ames’s response was that all
the commandments, then, would have been ceremonial, since they all
refer to the deliverance in the preface to the law and that there is noth-
ing in particular about the Sabbath that ties it to their deliverance.59
The final principal issue Ames deals with in relation to the Sab-
bath concerns the day on which the Sabbath occurred. In harmony
with Dort’s second rule, Ames states that God ordained the last day
of the week as the Sabbath at creation.60 As Dort said in its fourth
rule, Ames likewise said that this day has been changed. Its change
was not by human authority, but divine authority, since only He who
is Lord of the Sabbath can change it, which is why it is now called
the Lord’s Day.61 As Dort said in its fifth rule that the Lord’s Day
has been observed “since the times of the apostles,” Ames wrote that
the authority of the apostles to change the day in which to celebrate
54. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.17.

55. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.18, 21.
56. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.21, 22.
57. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.22.
58. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.24.
59. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.25.
60. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.26.
61. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.27.
worship was exercised not only in their “propounding the doctrine

of the gospel by word of mouth and writing” but also because they
were “guided by the Spirit in holy practices.”62 In relation to Dort’s
first five regulae, Ames propounded substantially the same doctrine
of the Sabbath and Lord’s Day. The only difference was that while
Dort said the strictness imposed upon the Jews was ceremonial and
thus abolished, Ames said that the particular application of picking
up sticks and kindling fires was abolished, but that there was a moral
element to this strictness that applied to the Christian observance of
the Lord’s Day.
Ames then moves to the practical application of the command-
ment with the general observation that guides him: “Experience also
teaches that license and the neglect of holy things more and more
prevail when due respect is not given to the Lord’s Day.”63 Ames’s
practical exposition is divided into two areas: rest and sanctification
of that rest.64 This was what Dort also said in its sixth rule: “This
day must be so consecrated to worship that on that day we rest from
all servile works, except those which charity and present necessity
require; and also from all such recreations as interfere with worship”
(emphasis added).
Like Dort, Ames defined “rest” as “the cessation from all work
which might hinder divine worship.” What is meant by “work”? Ames
goes on to define this as “all works properly called servile.”65 Servile
works are “those to which servants or servile men are accustomed—
all mechanical work and those in which great bodily labor is required,
such as plowing and digging.” In addition to these, “all of our usual
work is forbidden.”66 In a word, Ames said all our work is forbidden,
even though it may not be servile or mechanical, since the Lord says,
“On the sabbath you shall not do any work.”67 Ames clarifies that
this cessation of labor and rest pertains to all men, and not just ser-
62. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.28. In fact, Ames said that the day was actually changed
by Christ through his apostles (2.15.30) and that it was not a mere tradition, contra
Rome (citing Roman Catholic writers Suarez and Pope Alexander III against Rome
itself) (2.15.31).
63. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.33.
64. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.36.
65. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.37.
66. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.39.
67. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.40.
vants or those of low degree. For freemen, Sabbath rest means natural
and civil things that lead to gain and profit such as “studying and the
pursuit of the liberal arts...traveling and handling business affairs.”68
Ames does go on to state what is not explicitly stated by Dort. While
Ames distances himself from some divines who conclude from Isaiah
58:6 that “every human word or thought” is sin on the Lord’s Day,
Ames stated that only words and thoughts that pertain to our wealth
and profit or are “unlawful and repugnant to the exercise of worship”
are forbidden, citing Isaiah 58:3 and 58:6. These are called “solicitous
cares” about external employments.69 Ames also cited Exodus 34:21 to
show that working during harvest time was forbidden, Exodus 31:13
to show that work on the holy tabernacle was forbidden, Exodus 31:13
to show that ordinary journeys were forbidden, and Nehemiah 13 to
show that visiting markets was forbidden.70 In De Conscientia, Ames
stated the meaning of “rest” more succinctly:
What things otherwise lawful, are unlawful on the Lord’s Day?
All those employments which do notably hinder a man from
attending upon God and his worship, either public, or private,
are regularly, and ordinarily unlawful, from the end of this
institution.71
Concerning recreation, like Dort’s prohibition “from all such rec-
reations as interfere with worship,” Ames said all works belonging
to pleasure and recreation were forbidden “if they be such as hinder
from attending on God.”72
What about Dort’s double exception to the command to rest in the
cases of charity and present necessity? Ames actually mentions four
exceptions. Ames lists works imposed by special necessity according
to Matthew 12:11. These works were not those “which men make or
pretend to make necessary,” but those which the providence of God
brings unexpectedly and are unavoidable—for example, the need
68. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.41; cf. William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases
Thereof (London, 1639), 4.33.5. Spelling modernized. Hereafter, Ames, Conscience.
69. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.42; cf. Ames, Conscience, 4.33.8.
70. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.42.
71. Ames, Conscience, 4.33.2. Ames went on to say that there was no difference
between “a mechanical or corporal work, which is called servile, and that which is
called liberal” since by synecdoche, when servile works were forbidden, all works
were forbidden. Conscience, 4.33.3.
72. Ames, Conscience, 4.33.4.
of a doctor’s care for our neighbor.73 Ames agrees with Dort in De

Conscientia that works of mercy are permitted.74 However, Ames also
lists works that are part of honorable conduct, that is, those in which
the “modest delight of life is cherished, and exercises of piety are not
hindered,” although this is not to be taken too far as “sumptuous prep-
arations for banquets, cannot consist with the due rest of this day.”75
Finally, Ames lists works that affect worship, citing Matthew 12:5 and
John 5:8–9.76 These latter two exceptions do not contradict Dort and
in fact may be subsumed under charity and necessity, respectively.
Like Dort’s third and sixth rules, sanctification of rest is the “chief
matter” of the day.77 The chief place of worship on the Sabbath even
led Ames to specify that services should be held both before and after
noon, citing the burnt offerings of the tabernacle in Numbers 28:9,
which should happen “in a Church well constituted, and enjoying her
liberty,” citing Psalm 92:1 and Acts 20:7.78 The rest of the day is to be
spent in “pious activity,” as the added Sabbath offering to the daily
sacrifices in Numbers 28:10 evidenced.79 Public worship was to be cel-
ebrated with Scripture reading, meditation, prayer, holy discourse, and
contemplation of the works of God.80 By these “we may be more open
to public worship and worship may become truly effective in us.”81 In
De Conscientia, Ames stated it thus: “We are so to be employed in those
exercises, that we may get spiritual refreshment thereby, by virtue of
which we may be made the fitter to pass the rest of the week holily [in
a holy manner].”82 This meant that contrary to this holy observance
was business, trade, feasts, sports, and anything else that “draw[s] the
mind of man away from the exercise of religion” (2.15.54).83
While Ames was more explicit in several areas than Dort,
what we learn from this comparison is that Dort and Ames present
73. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.43; cf. Ames, Conscience, 4.33.9, 10–11.

77. Ames, Marrow, 2.15.46.
83. Ames, Conscience, 4.33.6; cf. 4.33.7 in which Ames said “those things which
pertain to courts and judicatories” were also forbidden.
substantially the same doctrine and practice of the Sabbath or Lord’s

Day. While some have attempted to pit Puritanism against main-
stream Reformed theology on this topic, the evidence is not there.
For example, in 1636, King Charles I’s chaplain, Peter Heylyn, sought
to place a wedge between the two, saying that Ames “had learnt his
lirry in England” and then taken it with him to the Netherlands and
sought to impose a doctrine and practice embraced by no other repu-
table theologian.84 Even Keith Sprunger has argued this in an article,85
listing three marks of “Puritan Sabbatarianism”:
(1) the doctrine that the Sabbath, now Sunday or the Lord’s Day, had
been ordained by God as a day of worship and rest—“Remember
the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”; (2) the cessation of work on Sun-
day so that it could be soley a day of worship and rest; all work
except the most essential was to stop and shops must be closed;
(3) the prohibition of frivolous recreation and sports on Sunday.86
Judged by the standard of these three points, one hardly can see how
the regulae of Dort could be considered anything other than “Puritan” or
“Sabbatarian.” Sprunger goes on to locate the difference between Eng-
lish and Dutch practice in the failure of Dutch magistrates to implement
laws concerning the Sabbath as the English had done.87 For this reason,
Dort can be called a moderately Puritan position on the Sabbath.
Relevance of the Dort Regulae

Having examined the context and substance of Dort’s regulae and hav-
ing compared them to William Ames’s teaching, it remains to say a
word about the ongoing relevance of Dort’s regulae. This pronounce-
ment of Dort is a part of the historic faith and practice of churches in
the Dutch Reformation. An example of their continuing relevance
and use in the Reformed churches is the fact that, in the early decades
of the Christian Reformed Church, Dort’s regulae were adopted at the
Synod of 1881. They were then reaffirmed at the Synod of 1926.
84. Peter Heylyn, The History of the Sabbath. In Two Books (London, 1636),
2:184–88.
85. Keith L. Sprunger, “English and Dutch Sabbatarianism and the Develop-
ment of Puritan Social Theology (1600–1660),” Church History 51, 1 (1982):24–38.
86. Sprunger, “English and Dutch Sabbatarianism,” 26.
87. Sprunger, “English and Dutch Sabbatarianism,” 28–29.
The six points of 1881 are to be regarded, even as the three points
of 1924, as an interpretation of our Confession. First, the Synod
of 1881 did not add a new confession to the Forms of Unity, but
accepted the six points as an interpretation of the confessional
writings, in so far as they express the Reformed position relative
to the fourth commandment. Secondly, such an interpretation
given by synod must be regarded as the official interpretation,
and is, therefore, binding for every officer and member of our
denominational group. Thirdly, one cannot place one’s personal
interpretation of the Confessions or a part thereof above the
official interpretation of synod. That would make void the sig-
nificance and power of the Forms of Unity.88
The context of this reaffirmation was a case between the James-
town Christian Reformed Church consistory and its minister, the
Rev. H. Wierenga, who preached on Lord’s Day 38 and was found to
be in error.89 In response to his lengthy appeals, the Synodical com-
mittee found his sermon to contradict the six points of Dort that had
been previously adopted by Synod 1881. His sermon contradicted
point one, that there is a moral element; point three, that a definite
day is set aside; point four, that the Lord’s Day must be kept holy; and
point six. On this last point of Dort the committee felt it necessary to
emphasize that “there is an imperative ‘must’ in this sixth point, an
imperative that the ethical element of the law justified, that certainly
pronounces the doing of certain things sinful because it is done on
the Sabbath day.”90 Synod 1926 upheld Rev. Wierenga’s suspension
from the pulpit and deposition from office as just on the basis of the
regulae of Dort.91
These regulae continue to be a relevant statement of the Reformed
doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Day as well as a helpful guide in
our time and place. It goes without saying that we live in a time that
also could be described with the words surrounding Dort’s discus-
sion—days of “increasing abuses and desecration of the Sabbath.”
We see this not only in the world at large around us, but within the
professing church of Jesus Christ as well. There are three areas of
88. Acts 1926, art. 136, pp. 191–92.

89. Acta der Synode 1926 van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk (n.p., 1926), 79, 89–94.
90. Acta der Synode 1926, 187; cf. 185–88.
91. Acta der Synode 1926, 188–200.
need in which the Dort pronouncement would serve the Reformed

churches well today.
1. For the witness of the churches. This is seen in two ways: first, we live
in a time of great confusion and even lawlessness when it comes to the
Sabbath or Lord’s Day, not only in the world, but also among Calvin-
istic-type evangelicals and Presbyterians.92 Second, as the Reformed
churches continue to expand their witness through church planting
and evangelism of unbelievers, as well as by the infusion of numerous
newly Reformed Christians, Reformed ministers and elders need to
be able to present a common position on this issue to all.
2. For the unity of the churches. In light of the above, it is a pastoral
duty to give members biblical and historically tested principles and
practical guidance on the Reformed understanding of the fourth com-
mandment. For example, one Dutch Reformed denomination speaks
of its congregations as having covenanted together that its consistories
“shall call the congregation together for corporate worship twice on
each Lord’s Day.”93 By keeping Dort’s pronouncement ever before it,
the churches will have official, public principles concerning the Sab-
bath or Lord’s Day. What is often described as a peculiar practice in
calling two services each Lord’s Day will have a rationale via the regu-
lae. The beauty of Dort’s pronouncement is that it is broad enough to
protect Reformed churches both from legalism and libertinism.
3. For the identity of the churches. With more and more cross-pollina-
tion between members of NAPARC congregations in the twenty-first
century and the prevalence of the internet, many Christians come to
Reformed churches with the understanding that they hold to the so-
called “Continental” view of the Sabbath or Lord’s Day over against
the so-called “Puritan” view. This contrast is posited by comparing
and contrasting Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 103 with the Westmin-
ster Larger Catechism Q&A 115–121. The practical result is that many
use this as a means to reject any regulations and to live in a loose way
on the Lord’s Day. The Synod of Dort’s regulae reflect the historic
Reformed understanding of the Sabbath or Lord’s Day and is the best
92. For example, see John MacArthur’s position in “Are the Sabbath laws bind-
ing on Christians today?” (http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA135); for
Meredith G. Kline’s position see God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of
Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 187–98.
93. Church Order of the United Reformed Churches in North America (Third
edition, 2004), art. 37.
interpretation of the Three Forms of Unity, vis-à-vis, the Belgic Con-

fession Article 25 and the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 103.94
Conclusion
We have placed the Synod of Dort’s six “rules for the observance of
the Sabbath or Lord’s Day” within the theological period of early
orthodoxy as a new generation of Reformed theologians and min-
isters sought to apply and develop their inheritance from men such
as John Calvin. We have also placed this development within the
struggles of the early seventeenth-century Dutch Reformed churches
with the Dutch civil magistrates as they sought to implement their
new independence from Spanish rule. We have also seen that Dort’s
rules were a clear Christian presentation founded upon centuries-old
exegesis and distinctions of Augustine and Aquinas. Finally, Dort has
been shown to be a moderately Puritan and Reformed position on
the Sabbath or Lord’s Day, contrary to the thesis of others. As a mod-
erately Puritan position on the Sabbath in such a tumultuous time
as seventeenth-century Netherlands, Dort’s regulae give to us a clear,
balanced, and pastoral direction as Reformed Christians and churches
seek to sanctify the Lord’s Day in twenty-first-century culture.
94. Cf. Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, The Church Order Commentary:
A Brief Examination of the Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church (1941, repr.;
Wyoming, Mich.: Credo Books, 2003), 275–76.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 184–198
Presbyterians in Space:
The Problem of Disconnected Presbyterians
on the American Frontier (c. 1782–c. 1800)
Andrew M. McGinnis
q
Space or physical distance, a seemingly neutral phenomenon, has

in fact had a significant impact on the contextualization and spread
of Christianity in America.1 In the early Republic, as populations
pushed westward and began establishing new settlements in largely
unpopulated areas like Kentucky and the Ohio River Valley, major
denominations struggled to keep up with the rapid growth and
expansion.2 This dissemination of new settlements presented unique
challenges to churches with a connectional polity. The mobility and
adaptation of Methodists to this spacious frontier context has been
noted often.3 However, the ways in which Presbyterians experienced
and addressed the problem of distance remains a neglected area of
study. This analysis will consider the Presbyterian experience of the
problem of distance both from a national perspective, by looking at
synod and General Assembly records, and from a local perspective,
1. Sidney E. Mead, “The American People: Their Space, Time, and Religion,”
in The Lively Experiment: The Shaping of Christianity in America (New York: Harper
& Row, 1963), 1–15; Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1996), 229–30; Rhys Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia,
1740–1790 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982); Amy DeRo-
gatis, Moral Geography: Maps, Missionaries, and the American Frontier (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2003).
2. John B. Boles, The Great Revival (1972; repr., Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky, 1996), 43.
3. See, e.g., Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 81–93; John H. Wigger, Taking Heaven by Storm:
Methodism and the Rise of Popular Christianity in America (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1998), 21–38, 56–62; Richard P. Heitzenrater, “Connectionalism and
Itinerancy: Wesleyan Principles and Practice,” in Connectionalism: Ecclesiology, Mis-
sion, and Identity, eds. Russell E. Richey, et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 23–38.
Presbyterians in Space 185
by examining the records of Transylvania Presbytery in Kentucky.

How Presbyterians experienced and sought to address the problems
that physical distance posed to Presbyterian polity and ministry in the
early-Republic period will be explored. I hope to contribute to further
understanding not only of Presbyterianism on the American frontier,
but also of the significant role that geographical distance plays in the
contextualization of Christianity in America.
Of the challenges facing Presbyterians on the American fron-
tier, the revivals of the so-called Second Great Awakening have
received nearly exhaustive historical discussion.4 I will not retread
that well-worn path here. Another challenge, the shortage of Pres-
byterian ministers on the frontier, while frequently acknowledged,
has received only occasional scholarly attention.5 Certainly the Pres-
byterian churches on the frontier in the ante-bellum period were
crying out to their presbyteries and synods, “Send us ministers!”
Yet, at the same time, the presbyteries, synods, and General Assem-
bly were equally crying out to the frontier churches, “Send us your
ministers!” That is to say, “Send your commissioners to the local,
regional, and national assemblies of the church so that we may prop-
erly conduct the ministry of the church.” This call—a kin call for
4. See, e.g., Robert H. Bishop, An Outline of the History of the Church in the State of
Kentucky, During a Period of Forty Years: Containing the Memoirs of Rev. David Rice (Lex-
ington: Thomas Skillman, 1824); Robert Davidson, History of the Presbyterian Church in
the State of Kentucky (New York: Robert Carter, 1847); Wesley M. Gewehr, The Great
Awakening in Virginia, 1740–1790 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1930; repr.,
Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1965); John Opie, “James McGready: Theologian of
Frontier Revivalism,” Church History 34/4 (1965): 445–56; idem, “The Melancholy
Career of ‘Father’ David Rice,” Journal of Presbyterian History 47/4 (1969): 295–319;
Boles, The Great Revival; idem, Religion in Antebellum Kentucky (Lexington: University
of Kentucky Press, 1976); Louis B. Weeks, Kentucky Presbyterians (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1983); Marilyn J. Westerkamp, Triumph of the Laity: Scots-Irish Piety and the Great
Awakening, 1625–1760 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Paul K. Conkin,
Cane Ridge: America’s Pentecost (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990); Hatch,
Democratization; Ellen Eslinger, Citizens of Zion: The Social Origins of Camp Meeting
Revivalism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999); Leigh Eric Schmidt,
Holy Fairs: Scottish Communions and American Revivals in the Early Modern Period, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); Andrew M. McGinnis, “Between Enthusiasm
and Stoicism: David Rice and Moderate Revivalism in Virginia and Kentucky,” The
Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 106/2 (2008): 165–90.
5. For a survey of the history of this problem in American Presbyterianism, see
Barry Waugh, “The Ministerial Shortage Problem in Presbyterian History & George
Howe’s Appeal for More Ministers,” The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008): 43–51.
ministers in reverse—highlights the fact that the spread of churches

to remote regions presented a growing problem to Presbyterian pol-
ity and ministry. With respect to the General Assembly and regional
synods, these church assemblies wrestled with the poor attendance
of ministers and elders. Attendance at these meetings was particu-
larly difficult for members of remote presbyteries for whom travel to
synod and General Assembly was not only extremely hazardous, but
also arduously long and prohibitively expensive. With respect to the
local context, ministry within Transylvania Presbytery was impacted
by the distance between settlements and churches. This local problem
of distance, as we will see, changed the practice of settled Presbyte-
rian ministry to a de facto itinerancy.
“Afflicted at the Circumstances of Distance”: The Problem

of Distance at the National and Regional Levels
Prior to the 1789 restructuring of the church and formation of the
General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church was governed at the
national level by synods—two of which combined to form the
Synod of New York and Philadelphia in 1758. It is not surprising that
this Synod drew the bulk of its commissioners from the traditional
strongholds of Presbyterianism in mid-Atlantic and northeastern
cities, with additional significant representation from churches in
Virginia and North Carolina. However, from as early as the 1780s,
Synod noted the challenge of rapid expansion and the difficulty of
organizing dispersed members for meetings.
In 1783, the Presbytery of Orange (North Carolina) was so
dispersed that it was unable to meet in one place. Furthermore,
in one instance the presbytery reported to Synod that it could not
even cite a particular minister to appear since he lived at “so great a
distance.”6 Additionally, in the roll for 1785, the minutes of Synod
report the absence of all the members of the distant presbyteries of
Hanover (Virginia), Orange, and South Carolina. These absences
led Synod to send a letter to these presbyteries regarding their lack
6. Minutes of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia (1758–1788), 21 May 1784,
p. 588. These minutes are found in the collection: Minutes of the Presbyterian Church
in America 1706–1788, ed. Guy S. Klett (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Soci-
ety, 1976), 339–638. Hereafter cited as Minutes of Synod, and followed by the date of
the record and the page reference in Klett’s volume.
of attendance.7 The letter expressed concern “that for several years

past, very few members have attended, from some of our distant
Presbyteries,” and communicated the importance that Synod placed
upon the connected nature of the church and ministry:
We [Synod] are very sensible that your great distance, & the
difficulties of the times have rendered an attendance very
inconvenient. [B]ut they cannot refrain from expressing their
apprehensions, lest, if such non-attendance continue, the mem-
bers of the Body may become entire Strangers to each other; &
the general interest of the Churches under our care sustain dam-
age, thro’ want of proper information & Joint council respecting
the State of Affairs in the various parts.8
Although we should be careful not to draw too strong a connection
between the events, it is notable that a few days after this letter was
approved an overture was brought to Synod for the reorganization of
the Presbyterian Church into multiple synods under a General Assem-
bly. In the original overture, the problem of distance was not explicitly
stated. However, the stated rationale for the reorganization was “for the
better management of the Churches under our care,” which implies that
the expanding national church had become in some sense unmanage-
able for Synod, and it is safe to assume that the problem of distance
and poor attendance was a motivating factor in the reorganization. This
assumption is confirmed by Synod’s rationale expressed the following
year, that it was the “number and extent of the Churches under their
care” that necessitated the restructuring.9 Ultimately, Synod’s attempt to
spur the ministers of the remote presbyteries to better attendance seems
to have had little effect. Attendance at Synod by members of the pres-
byteries of Hanover, Orange, South Carolina, Abingdon (Virginia and
Tennessee), and the newly formed presbyteries of Lexington (Virginia)
and Transylvania (Kentucky) remained sparse up to the restructuring.10
7. Minutes of Synod, 18 May 1785, p. 590. One member of the Presbytery of

Orange, Daniel Thatcher, did eventually arrive and gave sufficient reasons for his late
arrival and for failing to attend in previous years (Minutes of Synod, 19 May 1785, p. 591).
8. Minutes of Synod, 19 May 1785, p. 593.
9. Minutes of Synod, 23 May 1785, p. 597; 19 May 1786, p. 603.
10. Minutes of Synod, 17 May 1786, pp. 599–600; 16 May 1787, pp. 614–616; 21
May 1788, pp. 630–631.
Little appears to have changed after the restructuring. At the

first meeting of the General Assembly in 1789, the Assembly noted
the problem of distance and the corresponding poor attendance at
the first meeting. In a letter encouraging the full participation of the
synods and presbyteries, the General Assembly characterized itself
as “afflicted at the circumstances, both of distance, and perhaps of
poverty.” Furthermore, the physical separation resulting from such
circumstances was understood to tend toward what was perceived
to be a more dangerous kind of separation. As the Assembly put it,
“Division of sentiment, and, perhaps, in the end, alienation of mind,
will result from division of counsels, and the want of concert, in that
great source of power, which ought to pervade and unite the whole
body.” In an effort to avoid continued physical separation—and the
feared ideological separation that it entailed—the Assembly recom-
mended that each synod set up a fund, or see that the presbyteries
set do so, in order to defray the costs that ministers would incur by
travelling to General Assembly.11
However, such attempts to facilitate stronger attendance were
unsuccessful. For example, the next year, the Assembly reported that
only two of the four synods had complied with its letter—namely, the
northeast synods, the Synod of New York and New Jersey, and the
Synod of Philadelphia. The other two synods, Virginia and the Caro-
linas, had not complied. In fact, the Synod of Virginia said that it had
never received the letter, and there was no information available about
the Synod of the Carolinas since none of its members were present at
the Assembly.12 In 1791, the Assembly reported more compliance with
its call for stronger attendance, and the Synod of the Carolinas, with
one representative present, expressed its desire to fully comply but
noted the particular difficulty it faced: “It has given us no small degree
of anxiety that distance and other circumstances have rendered it so
inconvenient for our several Presbyteries to send up a more full and
respectable representation to our supreme judicatory.”13 This synod
would continue to have great difficulty conveying commissioners
11. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America from its Organization A. D. 1789 to A. D. 1820 Inclusive (Philadelphia: Presby-
terian Board of Publication, n.d.), 25 May 1789, pp. 9–10.
12. Minutes of the General Assembly, 20 May 1790, p. 22.
13. Letter from Synod of the Carolinas to the General Assembly, Minutes of the
General Assembly, 18 May 1791, p. 32.
from its presbyteries to the Assembly. In 1794, the Assembly noted

that “the Presbyteries of Abingdon and South Carolina [members
of the Synod of the Carolinas]...had not sent commissioners to the
General Assembly for several years past.” The Assembly could only
once again state that such attendance was “expected and required.”14
The Synod of the Carolinas continued to express its regret at this
failure, and, in 1798, it again begged the Assembly’s pardon, but this
time said that it was nearly impossible for it to comply:
The Synod of the Carolinas having found from past experience
the very great difficulty and even almost impossibility of the
Presbyteries under their care being fully represented in the Gen-
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and being persuaded
that it arises not from a want of an earnest desire to comply with
their duty in this respect; but that the very great distance at which
the meetings of the General Assembly have hitherto been, the
length and expensiveness of the journey to Philadelphia, and the
inconvenience of being so long absent from their families and
charges, have generally discouraged those who would other-
wise have attended. This Synod do therefore earnestly request...
that you would...relieve us from this great inconvenience, by
appointing your future meeting at some place as far southerly as
may be thought expedient.15
This practical suggestion to move the meeting place of the General
Assembly further south reflected not only Synod’s desire for a more
convenient location, but also the reality that the membership of the
Presbyterian Church was in the midst of a great shift to the south and
west, and thus Philadelphia could no longer be considered the geo-
graphic center of the national Church. Perhaps in response to Synod’s
request, the Assembly met in Winchester, Virginia, the following year
(1799), some 200 miles west-by-southwest of Philadelphia. This change
was short-lived, however, as the Assembly returned to Philadelphia the
next year and continued to meet in that city for the next two decades.
Of all the distant presbyteries that struggled to participate in the
Presbyterian Church’s national judicatories, the Presbytery of Tran-
sylvania likely struggled the most. Formed in 1786 in the lead-up
14. Minutes of the General Assembly, 17 May 1794, p. 84.

15. Letter from Synod of Carolinas to the General Assembly, Minutes of the
to restructuring, this presbytery was part of the church’s response

to frontier expansion and the corresponding problem of presbyter-
ies becoming “too extensive in their limits.”16 Covering the entire
region of Kentucky and all the settlements along the Cumberland
River, the Presbytery of Transylvania first met at the courthouse in
Danville, Kentucky, on October 17, 1786, with five ministers (David
Rice, Adam Rankin, Andrew McClure, James Crawford, and Terah
Tamplin)17 and five ruling elders.18 That these men had a desire to
participate in the Presbyterian system at the national level is clear
from their minutes and communications. However, equally clear is
that they were often prohibited from participating by the extremely
long and hazardous journey that faced them if they wanted to attend
assemblies in Philadelphia.
From the minutes of its first meeting it is evident that the Transyl-
vania Presbytery was informed of the actions of the national church
and that it sought to comply with the orders of the higher judica-
tory. It possessed a copy of the proceedings of the 1786 meeting of
the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, and therefore was aware
of the plan of restructuring the church under a General Assembly.
Furthermore, the Presbytery was aware of Synod’s concerns regard-
ing the many vacant congregations and Synod’s recommendations
that these congregations should be properly organized and regularly
catechized.19 With respect to the latter recommendation, the Tran-
sylvania Presbytery took action in a manner adapted to their frontier
circumstances. Synod’s recommendation that vacant congregations
be catechized assumed that this would be the work of ordained min-
isters. The Presbytery, while agreeing that ministers should pursue
this task as they were able, began appointing laymen as “catechists...
16. Minutes of Synod, 22 May 1786, pp. 608–609.

17. Thomas Craighead was also one of the constituting members, though he
was absent the first meeting and frequently absent during the early years of the pres-
bytery. Terah Tamplin (or Templin) was a minister in the Hanover Presbytery but
was received as a member at the first meeting.
18. Minutes of Transylvania Presbytery, 17 October 1786. The manuscripts of the
minutes of Transylvania Presbytery (hereafter cited as MTP, followed by date of the
record) are available on microfilm and held at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary.
Extracts have been published in William Warren Sweet, Religion on the American Fron-
tier, 1783–1840, vol. 2: The Presbyterians (New York: Cooper Square, 1964), 129–281.
19. MTP, 17 October 1786; cf. Minutes of Synod, 23 May 1786, p. 612.
for the purpose of instructing the young and ignorant.”20 Thus, from
the beginning, the Transylvania Presbytery showed some level of
adaptation in the implementation of the orders of higher judicatories.
As for sending commissioners to the national assemblies of the
church, the Transylvania Presbytery showed a desire to do so, even if
it was not always able to fulfill that desire. At the first General Assem-
bly, they were able to send minister Adam Rankin as an unofficial
representative, though, in what was perhaps a comical scene, Rankin
arrived late and stated that Presbytery had not received the news of
the Assembly’s meeting in time for it to make a proper appointment.
While the minute on Rankin’s late arrival gives few details, one can-
not help but imagine him running in to the meeting out of breath and
bedraggled from the 650-mile journey.21 It would not be until 1795
that the Transylvania Presbytery was able to send official commission-
ers to the Assembly, and did so only infrequently thereafter. In several
instances, a commission of the Presbytery was appointed to attend the
Assembly, but, for reasons that are not recorded in the minutes, they
failed to attend.22 Though they also made some efforts to report to the
Assembly by letter, as late as 1802, the Assembly was still largely igno-
rant of the state of the churches under its Presbytery’s care.23
As these several examples show, the geographic expansion of
the church caused problems for Presbyterian polity at the national
and regional levels. What we do not see, however, are any unusual
or creative responses to this phenomenon on the part of the national
judicatories. As I have suggested, the restructuring of the Presbyterian
Church into four regional synods under a General Assembly was at
least in part a reaction to the growth of the church and the great dif-
ficulty of maintaining national participation of all of the presbyteries,
particularly those at the greatest distance from the traditional centers
20. MTP, 17 October 1786.

21. Minutes of the General Assembly, 21 May 1789, p. 2. Rankin, it should be
noted, had personal motivations to attend. He wanted to present his case against
congregations singing Watts’s Psalter.
22. Minutes of the General Assembly, 21 May 1795, p. 94; MTP, 6 October 1790, cf.
Minutes of the General Assembly, 18 May 1791, p. 30; MTP, 4 October 1791, cf. Minutes
of the General Assembly, 17 May 1792, p. 49; MTP, 9 October 1795, cf. Minutes of the
23. MTP, 24 February 1790; Minutes of the General Assembly, 21 May 1790, p. 25;
22 May 1802, p. 241.
of Presbyterian strength in the cities of the mid-Atlantic and northeast.

This restructuring may be understood as a kind of adaptive measure
given the church’s new circumstances, but it certainly did not abandon
or greatly modify traditional Presbyterian connectedness. The one
attempt to relocate the meeting place of the General Assembly further
south and west seems to have been another effort to address the prob-
lem of distance; it is unclear why this idea was abandoned.
It is notable, however, that the church did in fact recognize that
physical separation was not a neutral factor. In the Assembly’s opinion,
physical separation was closely related to ideological and doctrinal sepa-
ration. The Assembly felt the anxiety of separation and appealed to the
biblical imagery of the church as a body in the hopes of maintaining
its unity.24 Hence, in the Assembly’s view, the inability of ministers to
meet together for fellowship and discussion of their churches threatened
church unity on a much higher plane than mere geographic proximity.
Transylvania Presbytery: Local Challenges and Adaptations

We have already looked at the Transylvania Presbytery from the
perspective of national-level church involvement. This presbytery,
however, which at its organization was one of the most isolated pres-
byteries in the whole church, also offers a unique lens through which
to view the problem of disconnected Presbyterians at the local level.
I suggest that the situation of a rapidly growing church and the dis-
semination of the congregations over a wide area was a factor in the
Transylvania Presbytery’s adoption of a kind of itinerant ministry.
Prior to the formation of the Transylvania Presbytery in 1786,
Presbyterian ministry in Kentucky had been conducted as a mis-
sion work mostly under the direction of the Presbytery of Hanover,
which had begun to send several ministers into Kentucky around
1783, when David Rice first journeyed to the region.25 Even at the
time of the establishment of the Transylvania Presbytery, the mass
emigration of European-Americans into Kentucky was still in the
early stages, with most settlements being less than twenty years old.26
24. Minutes of the General Assembly, 25 May 1789, pp. 9–10.

25. Davidson, History, 65, 79; Bishop, Outline, 65-67; William Henry Foote,
Sketches of Virginia: Historical and Biographical, 2d series (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott,
1855), 47; McGinnis, “Between Enthusiasm and Stoicism,” 174–77.
26. On the settlement and development of Kentucky, see the fascinating early
work by John Filson, The Discovery, Settlement And present State of Kentucky: And An
It is difficult to know precisely how many Presbyterian congrega-

tions were in Kentucky prior to 1795, the year when the Transylvania
Presbytery delivered its first report to General Assembly.27 In fact,
given that settlers were forming Presbyterian congregations before
the arrival of any Presbyterian ministers in Kentucky,28 and assuming
that this process of laity-led church formation continued for some
time,29 it is fair to say that even the first members of the Transylva-
nia Presbytery did not always know exactly how many congregations
were within their bounds. In his short history of the presbytery,
R. A. Johnstone identified over a hundred different preaching loca-
tions listed in the minutes prior to 1799. 30 Despite the enormity of the
task, the Presbytery was devoted to meeting the ministerial needs of
every congregation. In the minutes of its first meeting, it committed
itself to “seek after and give proper encouragement to the members
of our society scattered up and down in small settlements: to assist in
organizing and supplying them [with preaching and the sacraments]
as far as our circumstances will allow.”31
As for the scattered churches that the Transylvania Presbytery
was committed to supplying, the precise distances between them are
difficult to determine in many cases. Until comparatively late in its
history, this Presbytery did not record the names or precise locations
of the churches under its care. Rather, it identified congregations in
its lists of supply preaching assignments, and most of these vacant
churches were identified according to their proximity to various geo-
graphical features, especially creeks and rivers. Using the early map by
Essay towards the Topography, and Natural History of that important Country (Wilming-
ton: J. Adams, 1784). For a more recent history, see Stephen Aron, How the West Was
Lost: The Transformation of Kentucky from Daniel Boone to Henry Clay (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1996).
27. Minutes of the General Assembly, 26 May 1795, p. 106. Here Presbytery
reported thirty-two total congregations, which included 21 vacant churches. Even
this total may not be the precise number of local congregations since it was the
practice of Transylvania Presbytery to not count a church as officially vacant unless
it testified to Presbytery that it was able to support a minister (MTP, 20 April 1789).
28. Bishop, Outline, 65–67.
29. This is suggested by the requests for supply preachers that were brought
to Presbytery from new congregations. See, e.g., MTP, 17 October 1786; 6 October
1789; 4 October 1791; 24 April 1792; 12 April 1796.
30. R. A. Johnstone, An Historical Sketch of the Presbytery of Transylvania, Kentucky
(Louisville: Bradley & Gilbert, 1876), 21.
John Filson and the approximate locations of congregations recorded

in the minutes, we can estimate that most of the congregations at the
founding of the Transylvania Presbytery were located within an area
of about 350 square miles. Yet, we also know that within a few years
congregations were spread across the region of Kentucky almost as far
west as the Mississippi River. The minutes indicate that, by 1810, the
ministers of the Presbytery had traversed a massive area, preaching
in congregations throughout Kentucky and in parts of what are now
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.32
The task of supplying every vacant congregation with regular
preaching and administration of the Lord’s Supper dominated the
early ministry of the pastors in the Transylvania Presbytery. This had
the effect of changing the Presbyterian practice of settled ministry to
a de facto itinerant ministry. Of course, most of the ministers of Pres-
bytery were settled—that is, most of them functioned as the regular
pastor of particular congregations and received payment for their ser-
vice. Some, like David Rice, served as the settled pastor of multiple
congregations in an area. Nevertheless, every minister also served as
a supply preacher in addition to his regular duties. Lists and sched-
ules of preaching assignments for ministers are regular features of the
minutes of the Transylvania Presbytery to 1800 and beyond.33
To see what this ministry looked like in practice, we will look
briefly at Terah Tamplin. Tamplin (or Templin) was a minister in the
Transylvania Presbytery from his reception as a member at its first
meeting in 1786 until his death in 1818. Originally licensed in the
Hanover Presbytery, Tamplin was ordained as a minister sine titulo
(“without title”) at either Danville or Cane Run around 1785. He
then organized several churches in Washington County (southeast of
Louisville) and was a regular supply preacher.34
What is notable about Tamplin is that in the minutes his name
does not appear to be associated with only one congregation. It is
thus unclear as to whether he was ever a “settled” minister, especially
since we are not told what church or churches he served when he was
not serving as a supply. At most he only preached about two supply
32. Filson, Discovery, map between pp. 112 and 113; Johnstone, Historical Sketch,
20–21.
33. In his extracts of the minutes, Sweet omits most of these lists after the
year 1790.
34. Bishop, Outline, 164.
assignments per month, but we simply do not have enough informa-

tion to reconstruct his monthly schedule. What we do know, however,
is that, between 1786 and 1800, Tamplin was assigned to preach in
fifteen different locations, some of which included multiple congre-
gations.35 The precise locations of his supply preaching appointments
are not always clear. For instance, the 1786 minutes record the generic
assignment of preaching in the “vacant churches in Jefferson & Nel-
son counties.”36 Most often he preached in small settlements located
in the area between the towns of Louisville, Lexington, and Danville.
What is more striking, however, is that he spent significant time in
what was the western-most county in Kentucky, Livingston County,
which then extended to the Mississippi River and whose settlements
were over 250 miles from Lexington.37
Tamplin’s ministry was not unusual among the members of the
Transylvania Presbytery. Although the minutes record regular pres-
bytery duties such as deciding church disputes and discipline cases
and the process of training, licensing, and ordaining ministers, the
amount of attention given to supply assignments is remarkable. 38 Cer-
tainly it would be false to say that the Transylvania Presbytery had
abandoned traditional Presbyterian ministry for some Methodist ver-
sion of itinerancy. The evidence does not support such a conclusion.
35. According to MTP, Tamplin supplied at the following locations: “Jefferson

& Nelson counties,” Hopewell Church, Wilson’s Creek, Rowland Fork, Pennsylva-
nia-Run, “the neighborhood of Hopewell,” Simson’s Creek (or, Symson’s Creek),
Baregrass (or, Beargrass), Baird’s Town (or, Beardstown), Forks of Dick’s River,
Cane Run, Pisgah, Green River, Danville, and Livingston County.
37. MTP, 9 April 1799. Here he was assigned to preach “two sabbaths in Liv-
ingston county.” Bishop also records that Tamplin was “regular supply to several
churches” in this distant county and implies that Tamplin resided in the area for
some time (Bishop, Outline, 164). For maps of Kentucky’s early counties, see Aron,
How the West was Lost, 83 and 128.
38. With respect to ordaining ministers, the ordination of James Kemper (or,
Camper) may reflect some adaptation to the frontier circumstances. Not only was
Kemper an early catechist (see above discussion), but he was also “examined on
Geography” during his probationer’s exam. This was not unusual in the sense that
presbyteries throughout the church examined prospective ministers on general
subjects one would learn in their studies for the bachelor’s degree. The context,
however, leads one to think that Kemper was probably not examined in geography
in general, but local geography, in order that he would not get lost while travelling
to the dispersed congregations (MTP, 22 July 1789)!
Yet the records do suggest that Presbytery was operating in a kind

of emergency situation in which the shortage of ministers combined
with the large number and wide dissemination of the congregations
required adaptation to the frontier circumstances. The Presbyterian
adaptation was to, as it were, unsettle the settled ministers through
a scheduled itinerancy designed to meet the preaching and sacra-
mental needs of each congregation. In typical Presbyterian fashion,
this was done decently and in order, and by order of the Presbytery.
Furthermore, this practice was not an innovation of the Transylvania
Presbytery, but rather represented a contextualization of the tradi-
tional practice of presbyteries sending ordained missionaries into new
areas, as the Hanover Presbytery had done some years earlier in send-
ing their ministers into Kentucky.
Disconnected Presbyterians: A Few Conclusions

The challenge of geographical separation was part of a complex net-
work of new realities facing Presbyterians in the era of westward
expansion—realities such as rapid emigration into new regions, the
struggle to develop and sustain new towns in dangerous frontier cir-
cumstances, and the inadequate number of Presbyterian ministers to
meet the demands of rapid church growth. The problem of distance
is by no means an independent phenomenon. Yet, as I have suggested,
the problem of distance and the experience of Presbyterians in this
era is worthy of further attention, particularly since it was a prob-
lem noted in the official records of the church and addressed through
some adaptive measures.
Among the major denominations of American Protestantism,
Presbyterians have at times been depicted as ill-equipped for the reali-
ties of westward expansion. In some cases, they have been criticized
for being inflexible, lacking creativity, or having little ability when
it came to adapting to the frontier circumstances. 39 While American
Presbyterians have seldom led the charge of ecclesiological innova-
tion, the examples we have seen of their responses to the problem of
separation suggest that they were not inflexible, uncreative, or lack-
ing in ability. Instead, the restructuring of the church in 1789, the
attempts to address attendance problems, and the adaptive measures of
the Transylvania Presbytery all suggest that Presbyterians responded
39. Opie, “Melancholy Career,” 303; Boles, The Great Revival, 43–44.
to the problem of separation within the traditional parameters of their

system of church polity. Of course, this kind of restrained creative
adaptation may simply remind us of the truth that one denomina-
tion’s creativity may be another denomination’s traditionalism.
There is certainly room for further historical analysis of discon-
nected Presbyterians. For example, the problem could be pursued
from the perspective of particular congregations and their relation-
ship to the whole church, or from the perspective of ministers who
attempted to overcome the challenge of physical distance. Another
intriguing line of study would be Presbyterian responses to the Great
Revival in Kentucky and the resulting divisions in the church. Was the
problem of geographical separation a significant factor in the failure
of the Transylvania Presbytery to maintain unity among its churches
and ministers in the era of the so-called Second Great Awakening?
Such questions have yet to be explored and may further indicate that
the seemingly neutral phenomenon of physical separation was, as the
first General Assembly noted, a kind of “affliction” that threatened
the doctrinal and ideological unity of American Presbyterians.
Lastly, the experience of disconnected Presbyterians in the era
of westward expansion causes us to think more deeply about geo-
graphical separation and its impact on American Christianity more
generally, especially since we now live in a world in which technology
has, in some sense, reduced the disconnectedness that geographical
distance traditionally entailed. Perhaps technology has introduced a
different kind of isolation, but travel and communications are such
that churches in America now have unprecedented ways of staying
connected. For example, Presbyterians may now watch the pro-
ceedings of the General Assembly online, and ministers and elders
may now have session meetings by phone or video-conference call.
In the early days of American Presbyterianism, Francis Makemie
(1658–1708) noted that healthy Presbyterian churches depended on
physical nearness and the ability to gather together easily for worship
and instruction. For Makemie, settled towns and communities were
essential to the development and maintenance of strong Presbyterian-
ism and fervent Christian piety.40 From the perspective of Christians
living in colonial America, the problem of distance loomed large
40. D. G. Hart, “Francis Makemie and the Meaning of American Presbyterian-

ism,” The Confessional Presbyterian 2 (2006): 72–73. For similar points, see D. G. Hart
since to be separated by distance was to be separated entirely. As we

have seen, the situation was no different in the early-Republic period.
However, these observations may lead us to question whether or not
distance continues to have such an impact. I suspect that it does con-
tinue to be a powerful factor in American Christianity, but whether it
continues to be an “affliction” to churches, or whether distance plays
a more positive role, are lines of inquiry that are worth tracing out.
and John R. Muether, Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism
(Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2007), 24–32.
Experiential
Theology
q
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 201–222
The Piety of Joseph Hart as Reflected

in His Life, Ministry, and Hymns
Brian Golez Najapfour
q
In June 5, 1768, John Hughes preached a sermon during the funeral

service for his brother-in-law, Joseph Hart. In that sermon, which was
based on 2 Timothy 4:7, the Baptist Hughes appealed four times to his
audience to remember their dear and godly departed friend Hart: “O
ye saints of God, he [Hart] has a right to be remembered of you all.”1
Indeed, Hart, regarded by one of his admirers as “the most spiritual
of the English hymn-writers,” deserves to be remembered.2 Yet, sadly,
today his name is almost forgotten. In fact, since 1910, no major biog-
raphy has been written about him,3 and, since 1988, no major article on
him has been published.4 His hymns, even among evangelical churches,
are rarely sung. This article hopes to contribute to the study of Hart by
examining his piety as reflected in his life, ministry, and hymns.
A Sketch of Hart’s Life: “What He for my poor soul has done”5

Joseph Hart was born in London about 1712. Not much is known
about his family and his early life, except that according to his memoir
1. The Christian Warrior Finishing His Course. A Sermon Occasioned by the Death
of the Rev. Mr. Joseph Hart, preached in Jewin-Street, June 5, 1768. By John Hughes,...
And An Oration Delivered at His Interment by Andrew Kinsman (London, 1768), 28, 29.
Hereafter referred to as Funeral Sermon and Oration.
2. Cited in Thomas Wright, The Life of Joseph Hart (London: Farmcombe &
Son, 1910), ix, 99. This book is part of the series of “The Lives of the British Hymn
Writers, Being Personal Memoirs Derived Largely from Unpublished Materials.”
3. To my knowledge, there is only one existing biographical book on Hart—The
Life of Joseph Hart by Thomas Wright. See footnote 2. This is the definitive work on Hart.
4. Peter C. Rae, “Joseph Hart and His Hymns,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical
Theology 6 (1988): 20–39. This article focuses on Hart’s hymns.
5. The quote is from Hymn 27, “The Author’s Own Confession,” hereafter
referred to as “Confession.”
he “had the happiness of being born of believing parents.”6 Andrew

Kinsman, Hart’s close friend, who delivered an oration at Hart’s inter-
ment and who knew his parents personally, said that Hart was “the
son of many prayers.”7 Hart’s godly parents, who were Calvinists and
members of an Independent congregation, no doubt earnestly prayed
for their son, especially for his salvation. Yet the Lord did not answer
their fervent prayers until their son was nearly forty-five years old.
Recalling his early life, Hart writes: “I imbibed the sound doctrines
of the gospel from my infancy...but the impressions were not deep,
nor the influences lasting, being frequently defaced and quenched by
the vanities and vice of childhood and youth.”8 How painful it must
have been for Hart’s parents to see their young son living in sin. But
they did not lose hope. They persevered in their prayers, begging God
to save their son.
Piety without Faith (c. 1732 to c. 1740):

“My soul I pampered up in pride”9
When Hart was about twenty-one years old, he began to come under
conviction to change his sinful living: he was “under great anxiety
concerning my soul. The spirit of bondage distressed me sore; though
I endeavoured...to commend myself to God’s favour by amendment
of life, virtuous resolution, moral rectitude, and a strict attendance on
religious ordinances.”10 But the problem was that he tried to be godly
without faith in Christ. Hart was pursuing religious activities as an
unbeliever; his piety was not the fruit of a redeemed soul but of a self-
righteous spirit. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, Hart performed
good works, thinking that it would earn his soul a ticket to heaven:
“I strove to subdue my flesh by fasting, and other rigorous acts of
penance and mortification; and whenever I was captivated by its lusts
6. Joseph Hart, Hymns Composed on Various Subjects: With the Author’s Experience
[Fowler’s edition] (London: Groombridge, 1857), 19. Besides the Supplement and
Appendix, this edition contains a memoir of the author and an index to the first line
of every verse. The second part of this book includes a selection of hymns by Henry
Fowler. There are many available editions of Hart’s hymns. The one I will use in
this paper is the Fowler’s edition of 1857. The quote is from “The Author’s Experi-
ence,” hereafter referred to as Hart’s “Experience.”
7. Kinsman, Oration, 41.
8. Hart, “Experience,” 19.
9. Hart, Hymn 27, “Confession.”
The Piety of Joseph Hart 203
(which indeed was often the case) I endeavoured to reconcile myself

again to God by sorrow for my faults; which if attended with tears,
I hoped would pass as current coin with heaven; and then I judged
myself whole again.”11
Hart boasted of his righteous deeds before God and others.
Later, in his autobiographical hymn entitled “The Author’s Own
Confession,” Hart confesses his pre-conversion sins, he singles out
this sin of pride:
The road of death with rash career
I ran, and glorified in my shame;
My body was with lust defil’d,
My soul I pamper’d up in pride;
Could sit and hear the Lord revil’d,
The Saviour of mankind denied!
I strove to make my flesh decay
With foul disease and wasting pain;
I strove to fling my life away,
And damn my soul—but strove in vain!12
Faith without Piety (c. 1740 to c. 1751):

“Expected to be saved by Christ, But to be holy had no will”13
Hart did not stay in this self-righteous religion that attempted to win
salvation by good works. In 1740, when he was twenty-eight, he real-
ized that this religion could not save him.
I began to sink deeper and deeper into conviction of my nature’s
evil, the deceitfulness and hardness of my heart, the wickedness
of my life, the shallowness of my Christianity, and the blindness
of my devotion. I saw that I was in a dangerous state, and that I
must have a better religion than I had yet experienced before I
could with any propriety call myself a Christian.
If his old religion promoted salvation by good works, his new
religion promoted salvation without the need of good works. He
shifted from one extreme to another—from being a legalist to being
a libertine.

12. Hart, Hymn 27.
13. Hart, Hymn 27.
[R]ushing impetuously into notions beyond my experience, I

hastened to make myself a Christian by mere doctrine, adopt-
ing other men’s opinions before I had tried them; and set up for
a great light in religion, disregarding the internal work of grace
begun in my soul by the Holy Ghost. This liberty, assumed by
myself, and not given by Christ, soon grew to libertinism, in
which I took large progressive strides, and advanced to a dread
height both in principle and practice.14
Hart had once exercised piety, thinking it would save him. Now,
he felt he was saved and there was no need for him to be holy. As he
later admitted:
The way of truth I quickly missed,
And further strayed, and further still;
Expected to be saved by Christ,
But to be holy had no will.15
This libertine religion focused only on the doctrine of faith in
Christ. Mere belief in Christ garnered salvation without bearing
fruits of righteousness. As could be expected, this delusive belief
encouraged Hart to sin more: “My actions were in a great measure
conformable to my notions: for having (as I imagined) obtained by
Christ a liberty of sinning, I was resolved to make use of it, and
thought the more I could sin without remorse, the greater hero I was
in faith.”16 Essentially, Hart thought that grace abounds more when
we sin more—a misconception that the Apostle Paul refutes when he
asks, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1)
—to which he answers, “God forbid” or “By no means!”
Hart continued in this libertine religion for the next nine or
ten years. During this “gloomy, dreadful state,” he influenced and
infected “others with the poison of [his] delusions”:17
Abused His grace, despised His fear,
And others taught to do the same.18

15. Hart, Hymn 27.
16. Hart, “Experience,” 20–22.
17. Hart, “Experience,” 20, 22.
18. Hart, Hymn 27.
Using his impressive knowledge in classical languages (Hebrew,

Greek, Latin, and French), Hart influenced others by publishing
“several pieces on different subjects, chiefly translations of the ancient
heathens; to which [he] prefixed prefaces and subjoined notes of a
pernicious tendency, and indulged a freedom of thought far unbe-
coming a Christian.”19 Such translations included works by Phycolides
(translated from Greek in 1744) and Herodian (translated from Latin
in 1749). Significantly, it was during this period that he composed The
Unreasonableness of Religion. Being Remarks and Animadversions on Mr.
John Wesley’s Sermon on Romans viii.32 (1741). Ironically, when Hart
penned this pamphlet, he was yet unregenerate, though he wrote as
if he were already saved. It is also important to understand that Hart
wrote this treatise against the backdrop of the eighteenth-century
Evangelical Revival in Great Britain. To enter into Hart’s thinking,
we need to briefly look into the doctrinal issues that distinguished the
two leaders of this movement.
George Whitefield (1714–1770) and John Wesley (1703–1791)
were key preachers who worked together to advance this revival. In
1741, however, because of the issue of predestination, the Calvinist
Whitefield, a firm believer in the doctrine of predestination, broke
with the Arminian Wesley. The division between these two started
when, in 1739, Wesley published his sermon called Free Grace. In it
Wesley argued against predestination, saying that it “is not a Doctrine
of God, because it makes void the Ordinances of God....”20 He fur-
ther asserted: this doctrine “directly tends to destroy that Holiness,
which is the End of all the Ordinances of God.”21 It destroys “several
particular Branches of Holiness. Such are Meekness and Love.”22 As
Wesley saw it, this doctrine also “directly tends to destroy our Zeal for
Good Works.”23 In other words, Wesley thought that predestination
tends to promote libertinism.
[T]he Doctrine itself, “That every Man is either Elected, or
not Elected, from Eternity; and that the one must inevitably be

20. John Wesley, Free Grace ([Boston]: Bristol, printed. Philadelphia, re-printed
by Ben. Franklin: Boston: again re-printed, and sold by T. Fleet, at the Heart and
Crown in Cornhill, 1741), 12.
21. Wesley, Free Grace, 12.
saved, and the other inevitably damn’d,” has a manifest Ten-

dency to destroy Holiness in general. For it wholly takes away
those first Motives to follow after it, so frequently propos’d in
Scripture, the Hope of future Reward, and Fear of Punishment,
the Hope of Heaven and Fear of Hell. That these shall go away into
everlasting Punishment, and those into Life eternal, is not Motive to
him to struggle for Life who believes his Lot is cast already. It
is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably
adjudged either to Life or Death.24
The tendency Wesley references here had actually taken place in
Hart’s life, who fell into the heresy of libertinism. Hart sided with
Whitefield on the issue of predestination and wrote a tract on the
topic against Wesley, defending it from the viewpoint of libertine
and antinomian theology. But Whitefield would never agree with
Hart’s libertinism. Later Hart would publicly repent of having writ-
ten the treatise.
Hart’s main thesis in his tract was that “Religion and Reason are
not only widely different, but directly contrary, the one to the other.”25
“Reason tells me,” explained Hart, “that in order to secure an Interest
in eternal Life, I must by mine own Natural Strength, strive, struggle
and labour; and pray for the Assistance of God, to enable me so to
please Him here, that I may Shun His Wrath, and Enjoy Him in Bliss
hereafter. But religion plainly shews me, that when I was in my Natu-
ral State, it was impossible for me to move one Step towards Heaven;
no, not so much as to implore the Divine Assistance aright; but was
utterly Dead in Trespasses and Sins; and as incapable of exerting the least
Power, or Motion towards any Spiritual Good, as a Dead Carcass is of
performing any Action of Natural Life.”26 Hence, in Hart’s thinking,
religion and reason were antithetical.
Hart’s explanation implied two crucial doctrines. First was the
Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity. This doctrine teaches that
man by nature is unable to save himself. He cannot even repent and
24. Wesley, Free Grace, 12–13.

25. Joseph Hart, The Unreasonableness of Religion. Being Remarks and Animad-
versions on Mr. John Wesley’s Sermon on Romans viii.32 (London: Printed for the
author, 1741), 5.
26. Hart, The Unreasonableness of Religion, 6.
believe, unless God grants him faith to do so. Recalling his libertine
days, Hart wrote:
How often did I make my strongest efforts to call God MY
GOD! But alas, I could no more do this than I could raise the
dead! I found now, by woful experience, that faith was not in
my power; and the question with me now was, not whether
I WOULD be a Christian or no; but whether I MIGHT: not
whether I should repent and believe; but whether God would
give me true repentance and a living faith.27
The second doctrine implied in Hart’s explanation was justification
by faith alone. He now was convinced that salvation was apart from
good works; on this Hart would not find contradiction from his fellow
Calvinists. However, in the latter part of his tract, his libertinism and
antinomianism become obvious, especially when he avers that sinner’s
“Sins do not Destroy but often Increase their Comfort even here.”28
Hart’s libertinism and antinomianism—both promoting a reli-
gion of theology without practice—are exactly the opposite of his old
legalism, a religion with piety but without faith. Of course, a libertine
or antinomian faith is not true faith at all, for a true saving faith will
bear fruit. Likewise, pharisaic piety is not true piety at all, for true piety
springs from saving faith. At this time, therefore, as Faith Cook observes,
“Hart was confusing head-knowledge with true heart experience.”29
Years later, after his conversion, Hart would discover that true religion
was both intelligent (with faith) and experiential (with piety):
True religion’s more than notion;
Something must be known and felt. 30
Faith in Christ with Piety (1757):

“a daily increase in all true grace and godliness”31
Before Hart finally experienced true conversion, he had gone through
two spiritually painful stages, the first of which was reform not rooted

28. Hart, The Unreasonableness of Religion, 59–60.
29. Faith Cook, Our Hymn Writers and Their Hymns (Darlington, England:
Evangelical Press, 2005), 150.
30. Hart, Hymn 56, “Another” (Part 1).
31. Hart, “Experience,” 31. Hart uttered these words when he came to the sav-
ing knowledge of Christ.
in conversion (1751–1756). Forty years old, Hart “began to reform

a little [outwardly at least], and to live in a more sober and orderly
manner,”32 about the time he married Mary, a woman fourteen
years younger than himself. Hughes described her as “a loving, vir-
tuous woman.”33 Mary, no doubt, was a significant factor in Hart’s
reformation.
Also at this time, Hart thought that because he was “not only
sound in principles, but sober and honest in practice,” he could not
“but be in the right way to the favour of God.”34 Later, writing in his
“Experience,” he acknowledged that he was still not yet truly saved.
“The fountains of the great deep of my sinful nature,” admits Hart,
“were not [yet] broken up!” He was then just experiencing reform
not rooted in conversion—a similar experience he had when he was
a legalist, the only difference being that he was now aware of the doc-
trine of justification by faith in Christ, though he confessed that he
“was so far from seeing or owning that there was such a necessity for
his [Christ’s] death.”35
And now, as I retained the form of sound words, and held the
doctrines of free grace, justification by faith, and other orthodox
tenets, I was tolerably confident of the goodness of my state;
especially as I could now add that other requisite, a moral behav-
ior.... I looked on his death indeed as the grand sacrifice for sin;
and always thought on him with respect and reverence; but did
not see the inestimable value of his blood and righteousness
clearly enough to make me abhor myself, and count all things
else but dung and dross. 36
Nevertheless, he was not yet a believer. John Bunyan (1628–

1688) had gone through a similar experience. In his Grace Abounding
to the Chief of Sinners, Bunyan remarked that before he knew Christ

33. Hughes, Funeral Sermon, 29. Repeatedly, Hughes is referred to as Hart’s
brother-in-law, but, as Wright notes, “whether Mrs. Hart was Hughes’s sister or
whether Hughes married Hart’s sister is not disclosed.” See Wright, The Life of Joseph
Hart, 26.
savingly, he had experienced “some outward Reformation.”37 Because

this outward change was not rooted in the gospel, however, it did
not last. This book, which is Bunyan’s spiritual autobiography, was to
some extent comparable to Hart’s “Experience.” In fact, the two share
similar stories of conversion.
The second stage that Hart went through before experiencing true
conversion was severe despondency caused by the absence of Christ
(1755–1757). Around the age of forty-four, Hart “fell into a deep
despondency of mind, because [he] had never experienced grand rev-
elations and miraculous discoveries” of Christ.38 He assumed he was
saved but could not feel the presence of Christ in his life. During this
time, as Hart recalled later, he “was very melancholy,” and “shunned
all company, walking pensively alone, or sitting in private, and bewail-
ing my sad and dark condition, not having a friend in the world to
whom I could communicate the burden of my soul; which was so
heavy, that I sometimes hesitated even to take my necessary food.”39
This melancholic experience was not infrequent among the
Puritans. Bunyan, for example, also suffered melancholy or deep
depression, both before and after his conversion.40 Timothy Rog-
ers (1658–1728), a Puritan divine, had to resign from the ministry
because of this struggle. In his book Trouble of Mind and the Disease of
37. John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, ed. Roger Sharrock
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 12–13.
40. Richard Greaves feels that Bunyan’s description of his spiritual struggles in
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners was more than spiritual in nature. He believes
that Bunyan was suffering from depression, which was also known in Bunyan’s
time as melancholy. He concludes: “The evidence strongly suggests that Bunyan suf-
fered from recurrent, chronic dysthymia [‘sometimes referred to as reactive, mild,
neurotic, or psychogenic depression’] on which a major depressive episode was
imposed about late 1653 or early 1654. The onset of the illness would have occurred
about early 1651 and terminated, by Bunyan’s reckoning, in approximately late 1657
or early 1658. There would be at least one further apparent recurrence, triggered by
anxiety about late 1663 or 1664 during his imprisonment. During his illness in the
1650s, he suffered from pronounced dysphoria, marked feelings of worthlessness,
impaired rational ability at times, apparent insomnia, and diminished pleasure in
normal activities. He thought periodically about death, even to the point that he
was ‘a terror to myself,’ yet he was afraid to die because of the judgment he expected
in the afterlife.” Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press, 2002), 57–58.
Melancholly (1691), Rogers calls melancholy “the worst of all Distem-

pers; and those sinking and guilty Fears which it brings along with
it, are inexpressibly dreadful.”41 Nevertheless, none of these pastors
allowed their melancholy to stop them from pursuing Jesus.
Hart continued to suffer great spiritual turmoil for a long period
of time. On Whit Sunday, May 29, 1757, he “happened to go in the
afternoon to the Moravian Chapel in Fetter Lane, where [he] had
been several times before.”42 There he heard a sermon on Revelation
3:10, which the Lord used to save him. The story of his conversion
cannot better be expressed than in his own words:
I was hardly got home [from church] when I felt myself melt-
ing away into a strange softness of affection which made me
fling myself on my knees before God. My horrors were imme-
diately dispelled, and such light and comfort flowed into my
heart as no words can paint. The Lord by his Spirit of love
came, not in a visionary manner into my brain, but with such
divine power and energy into my soul, that I was lost in blissful
amazement.43
In his “Confession,” he writes:
What an amazing change was here!
I looked for hell—He brought me heaven.
Cheer up, said He, dismiss thy fear;
Cheer up; thy sins are all forgiven.44
Humbled and amazed by God’s grace, Hart could only wonder
why such a holy God would save a wicked sinner like him:
I would object; but faster much
He answered, Peace! What, me?—Yes, thee.
But my enormous crimes are such—
I give thee pardon full and free.45
41. Timothy Rogers, A Discourse Concerning Trouble of Mind and the Disease of
Melancholly In Three Parts: Written for the Use of Such As Are, or Have Been Exercised by
the Same (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst and Thomas Cockerill, 1691), 3.
44. Hart, Hymn 27.
45. Hart, Hymn 27.
With this newfound assurance of forgiveness, Hart could now

enjoy “sweet peace” in his soul. However, not long after his conver-
sion and for some months, he was “terribly infested with thoughts
so monstrously obscene and blasphemous” that they could not be
described.46 Yet he was “sensible that most of God’s children [were]
sometimes attacked in like manner,” though he felt that his thoughts
“were foul and black beyond example, and seemed to be the master-
pieces of hell.”47 Fortunately, this experience did not endure; Hart soon
began to experience what he thought could be called “reconversion”:
I soon began to be visited by God’s Spirit in a different manner
from what I had ever felt before. I had constant communion
with him in prayer. His sufferings, his wounds, his agonies of
soul, were impressed upon me in an amazing manner. I now
believed my name was sculptured deep in the Lord Jesus’ breast,
with characters never to be erased. I saw him with the eye of
faith, stooping under the load of my sins; groaning and grovel-
ing in Gethsemane for me.48
It seems that Hart did not have the full assurance of salvation
until his “reconversion” experience. The gospel of Christ became
increasingly precious to him, and the gospel to which Hart often fled
for comfort, especially in time of distress and doubt, became the cen-
tral theme of most of his hymns, as seen in Hymn 115:
Jesus, when on the bloody tree
He hung, through soul and body pierced,
In heaven He lives, our King, our Priest;
There for His people ever pleads:
How sure is our salvation! Christ
Died, rose, ascended, intercedes.49
It was also during this experience that Hart began to sincerely and
strongly long to know Christ more and more and he “desire[d] at the
same time a daily increase in all true grace and godliness.”50

49. Hart, Hymn 115, “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again
for our justification.” Rom. iv. 25.
Hart’s Ministry: “Some service might by me be done,

To souls that truly trust in Him”51
Thus delivered from misery, Hart was filled with gratitude and joy.
He was so thankful that he wanted to serve the Lord in a full-time
capacity: “I threw my soul willing into my Saviour’s hands, lay weep-
ing at his feet, wholly resigned to his will, and only begging that I
might, if he was graciously pleased to permit it, be of some service to
his church and people.”52 God did not immediately grant Hart’s desire
to be a minister; He first made him a hymn writer.
In 1759 he published the first edition of his Hymns, which included
a preface containing a brief summary account of his experience and
the great things that God had done for his soul.53 “This publication
most likely drew him into the notice of many godly persons, and was
the means, under God, of calling him into the ministry.”54 Indeed, in
1760, a year after the publication of his hymn-book, he became min-
ister of Jewin Street Meeting-House in London, where many people
came to hear him preach.
A Gifted Preacher: “many refreshed under

the preached word from his lips”55
Sadly, of all the sermons of Hart, only one has survived—The King of
the Jews. This message, preached on December 25, 1767, is an exposition
of the question in Matthew 2:2: “Where is he that is born King of the
Jews?” Reading this sermon, it is easy to see that Hart preached expe-
rientially. In fact, at the beginning of his message, after introducing his
main points, Hart declared that it is his “wonted manner” to “proceed
to a suitable word of application from the whole.”56 That is, it was his
practice to provide practical applications at the end of the sermon.
51. Hart, Hymn 27.

53. This is the exact title of the first edition: Hymns composed on various subjects,
containing a brief and summary account of the author’s experience, and the great things that
God hath done for his soul.
54. “Memoir of Joseph Hart” in Hart, Hymns Composed on Various Subjects: With
the Author’s Experience [Fowler’s edition], 7.
55. Hart, “Memoir of Joseph Hart,” 9.
56. Joseph Hart, The King of the Jews, series 30, no. 10 (Grand Rapids: Inheri-
tance Publishers), 4. “It was preached at Jewin Street Chapel, London, and in every
publication the date is given as ‘December 25th, 1768’—but Mr. Hart died in May
of that year,” 3.
Hart also preached discriminately, addressing both unbelievers

and believers. The following citations will show this fact:
I shall address myself to the unconverted who take pleasure
in anything that is sinful, if it will but satisfy their sense for a
moment. I would ask you, in the midst of your mirth and jollity,
in the midst of your sensual pleasures, “Where is He that is born
King of the Jews?”
Then, addressing the believers, Hart proclaimed with passion:
But some, perhaps, may be dejected and distressed on account
of the weakness of their faith, and may be tempted to argue and
conclude that they are not believers because their faith is so weak
and small. I would ask you, my brother believer, how was Christ
first born? Was He made a perfect man at once? No, He Himself
was once a little, weak, feeble Babe, although He was at the same
time the mighty God that held up heaven and earth.57
We also know from Hughes that, in the institution of the Lord’s
Supper, Hart demonstrated extra “power, and presence of the dear
Lord Jesus.”58 This practical, discriminatory, passionate, and power-
ful preaching, empowered by his piety and the presence of the Lord,
attracted many people to come to hear him preach. In fact, the num-
ber of people who came to listen to him was often more than their
meeting-house could accommodate. Many were “refreshed under the
preached word from his lips.” Indeed, Hart must have been a gifted
preacher by God’s grace.
A Watchful Shepherd: “I will keep my

pulpit as chaste as my bed” 59
The Calvinist Hart was always on guard, watching over his flock,
making sure that they received sound teachings. To protect his con-
gregation from any defective doctrine, he “made it his inviolable rule,
not to let an Arian, an Arminian, or any unsound preacher, occupy
his pulpit so much as once. His usual saying on these occasions
was, I will keep my pulpit as CHASTE as my bed.”60 Hart strove to
57. Hart, The King of the Jews, 23, 26.

58. Hughes, Funeral Sermon, vi.
preach nothing but the pure Word of God. Not only did he guard his
congregation from false doctrines, he also refuted those false teachers.
With all his strength, says Hughes, Hart stoutly defended “the doc-
trines of the gospel, viz. the Trinity in unity; the electing love of God;
the free justification of the sinner by the imputation of Christ’s righ-
teousness, and salvation alone by his precious blood; the new birth
and final perseverance of the saints.”61
Hart was not only concerned with doctrinal purity of his church,
but also firmly maintained the need for moral purity. As Hughes
again testifies, Hart always entreated his congregation to live accord-
ing to the gospel62 because he had learned personally that true piety
emanates from the gospel. Apart from the gospel there could be no
true piety; any form of righteousness that does not stem from the
righteousness of Christ is artificial. Hart did not just want to see his
flock equipped with sound heads, but also with pure hearts.
A Diligent Pastor: “like the laborious ox

that dies with his yoke on his neck”63
Hart’s laborious work in the ministry is also worth mentioning.
Entering the ministry at the age of forty-eight, Hart made a com-
mitment to use all his energy for the advancement of the kingdom of
Christ. Describing how industrious Hart was, Hughes likens him to a
“laborious ox that dies with his yoke on his neck.” According to Kins-
man, Hart specifically “labored hard...for the conversion of souls,”
proclaiming “the glories of the incarnate Saviour, and his finished
redemption.”64 Hart, adds Kinsman, frequently warned his congre-
gation “to flee from the wrath to come, to renounce [their] own
righteousness, and put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” 65 To borrow the
words of Richard Baxter (1615–1691), Hart preached “as a dying man
to dying men.”66 This earnestly gospel-centered preaching, coupled
with God’s benediction, resulted in the conversion of many souls.
61. Hughes, Funeral Sermon, 28.

66. Isaac David Ellis Thomas, comp. ed., The Golden Treasury of Puritan Quota-
tions (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1977), 223.
A Suffering Servant: “labouring under

many deep temptations” and trials
If one word can best describe Hart’s ministry, it is suffering. Those
who knew him were very well aware of this fact, including Hughes:
“[he] came into the work of the ministry in much weakness and
brokenness of soul; and laboring under many deep temptations, of
a dreadful nature; for though the Lord was pleased to confirm him
in his everlasting love to his soul; yet...he was at times so left to the
buffetings of Satan, for the trial of his faith, and to such clouds and
darkness on his soul, that he has been oftentimes obliged to preach to
the church with sense and reason flying in his own face; and his faith
at the same time like a bruised reed; insomuch that he has often done
by the church, as the widow of Zarephath did to the prophet Elijah,
who made him a cake of that little she had, when herself seemed at
the very point of starving.”67
Hart faced challenges at home as well. He raised five children; his
youngest son, who was only six years old when he entered the min-
istry, struggled with epilepsy. On August 18, 1763, his third son died
at the age of three. Furthermore, his wife, like Hart himself, was also
sickly.68 That Hart himself was in poor health is evident in his two
autobiographical hymns on sickness:
When pining sickness wastes the frame,

Acute disease, or tiring pain;
When life fast spends her feeble flame;
And all the help of man proves vain;
Joyless and flat all things appear;
The spirits are languid, thin the flesh;
Medicines can’t ease, nor cordials cheer,
Nor food support, nor sleep refresh.69
Yet God “so ordered it, that it was a means of making him through
the super-abundant grace of God, experimentally wise and humble.”70

68. When Hart died, his “widow has been for some months in a bad state of
health, and is now incapable of doing any thing.” See Advertisement in Hughes,
Funeral Sermon, i.
69. Hart, Supplement 40. The other hymn on sickness is in Supplement 39.
70. Hughes, Funeral Sermon, 20–21.
Hart’s afflictions did not shake his faith; rather, they strengthened it.
Nor did they stop him from preaching Christ; rather, they encouraged
him more to preach Jesus—so much so that according to Hughes,
Hart “preached Christ...with the arrows of death sticking in him.” 71
Nevertheless, in all these trials, Hart was aware that though
Trials may press of every sort;
They may be sore, they must be short;
We now believe, but soon shall view,
The greatest glories God can shew.72
One cannot but feel Hart’s longing to be free from pain and to
see that glory in heaven. When composing this hymn, he must have
had in mind Romans 8:18: “…the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in
us,” and 1 Peter 1:6: “…though now for a season, if need be, ye are in
heaviness through manifold temptations.” And because of Hart’s tre-
mendous suffering in life, Wright comments that “few hymnists can
approach Hart when he is upon the subject of sorrow.”73
Hart’s Hymns: “a treasure of doctrinal,

practical, and experimental divinity”74
As a learned poet it was natural for Hart to compose hymns. His first
edition of Hymns, which was released on July 7, 1759, contains 119
hymns (written between 1757 and 1759).75 In the Preface, Hart told
his readers that he had included a few poetical pieces devised many
years previous during his graceless days.76 The dates of his first three
hymns, framed in April of 1757, bear this out, since he was saved in
May of the same year.
In 1760 he resumed writing hymns. This resulted in his Sup-
plement (eighty-two hymns written between 1760 and 1761) and
Appendix (thirteen hymns written between 1761 and 1765). All in all,
including his seven doxologies and “Fast Hymn,” Hart composed 221

72. Hart, Hymn 21, “The wonders of Redeeming Love.”
73. Wright, The Life of Joseph Hart, 44.
74. Cited in Hart, “Memoir of Joseph Hart,” 9.
75. I follow Wright’s dating of Hart’s hymns. See his table of dates of Hart’s
hymns for more information about the dates. See Wright, The Life of Joseph Hart, 42.
76. Preface to the first edition of his hymn book, in Hart, Hymns, 17.
hymns.77 These “simple, but experimental and comfortable hymns,”

pronounces Hughes,
have been a means of refreshing the souls of many, who have
been ready to give up all soul affairs for lost; and many poor
prodigals, who have long fed on husks, and have been almost
starved, have ventured with him, to arise and go to their father;
and say: father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight,
and am no more worthy to be called thy son; and with him have
received their father’s kiss; and have had their poor wandering
feet shod with the gospel-shoes; and the best robe (even that of
Christ’s righteousness) put on them; and on the right hand of
their faith, the ring of everlasting Love.78
This statement answers Hart’s humble wish, as expressed in the
Hymn’s preface: he desired that through his hymns “Jesus of Naza-
reth, the mighty God, the friend of sinners, would be pleased to make
them [i.e. his hymns] in some measure (weak and mean as they are)
instrumental in setting forth his glory, propagating and enforcing the
truths of his gospel, cheering the hearts of his people, and exalting his
inestimable righteousness, upon which alone the unworthy author
desires to rest the whole of his salvation.”79
This expressed desire reveals three features of Hart’s hymnol-
ogy. First, his hymns are evangelical. Similar to other hymnists of
the eighteenth-century revival, Hart aimed to present the gospel of
Christ. For this reason, his hymns were used for the salvation of
sinners, as Hughes’s words imply. This evangelical emphasis is best
seen in Hart’s most celebrated hymn—“Come and welcome to Jesus
Christ,” a favorite hymn for evangelistic meetings. In this song, the
Calvinist Hart who believes in God’s absolute sovereignty, compel-
lingly invites sinners to come to Christ.
J. I. Packer, in his classic book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God,
uses this hymn to illustrate that the “belief that God is sovereign in
77. The Hymn 13, “The Lord’s Prayer,” in the Appendix is not by Hart, but is
usually appended to his hymnbook. This then makes the total number of his hymns
as 220. The “Fast Hymn,” says Wright, “is placed in front of the book in the 4th
edition, the edition in which it first appears as No. 14 of the Appendix.” See Wright,
The Life of Joseph Hart, 42.
78. Hughes, Funeral Sermon, vii.
79. Preface to the first edition of his hymnbook in Hart’s Hymns, 18.
grace does not affect the genuineness of the gospel invitations, or the
truth of the gospel promises.” Then Packer adds, “The whole hymn
is a magnificent statement of the gospel invitation,”80 as we can see:
Come, ye sinners, poor and wretched,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore,
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity joined with power;
He is able, He is able, He is able;
He is willing; doubt no more.
Ho! Ye needy, come and welcome;
God’s free bounty glorify;
True belief, and true repentance,
Every grace that brings us nigh,
Without money, without money, without money,
Come to Jesus Christ and buy!81
The second important feature of Hart’s hymns is that they are
not only doctrinally biblical but also eminently experiential. This
point is well explained by John Towers, who wrote an advertise-
ment for the ninth edition of Hart’s Hymns: “Herein the doctrines
of the gospel are illustrated so practically, the precepts of the word
enforced so evangelically, and their effects stated so experimentally,
that with propriety it may be styled, a treasury of doctrinal, practical,
and experimental divinity.”82
When analyzing Hart’s experiences, we cannot help but say that
his spiritual journey was an important factor in his becoming an expe-
riential hymnist. For instance, his painful experience in conversion
enabled him to relate well to those struggling with the same problem.
His hymn titled “A Dialogue between a Believer and his Soul,” which
has an autobiographical tone, illustrates this point. In the first stanza
of this hymn the believer speaks:
Come, my soul, and let us try,
For a little season,
Every burden to lay by:
80. James I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1961), 100.
81. Hart, Hymn 100, “Come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.”
82. Cited in Hart, “Memoir of Joseph Hart,” 9.
What is this that cast thee down?

Who are those that grieve thee?
Speak, and let the worst be known;
Speaking may relieve thee.
The second verse is the troubled soul responding:
Oh! I sink beneath the load
Of my nature’s evil;
Full of enmity to God;
Restless as the troubled seas;
Feeble, faint, and fearful;
Plagued with every sore disease;
How can I be cheerful?
This stanza echoes Hart’s experience: overburdened by his sin
and without hope of forgiveness, he found comfort in Christ and His
suffering. Thus in verse three, Hart aims to comfort distressed souls.
He specifically points them to Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane as
well as on Golgotha:
Think on what thy Saviour bore
In the gloomy garden,
Sweating blood at every pore
To procure thy pardon!
See Him stretched upon the wood,
Bleeding, grieving, crying;
Suffering all the wrath of God;
Groaning, gasping, dying!83
The theme of Christ’s suffering is a repeated motif in Hart’s
hymns. Whenever he felt cast down, he always looked to the cross
and found relief. Cook rightly observes: “Perhaps more than any
other hymn-writer, Hart would become the poet of the cross, and the
word ‘Gethsemane’ occurs time and time again in his writings. The
very first hymn he wrote set the theme.”84
Come, all ye chosen saints of God.
That long to feel the cleansing blood,
83. Hart, Hymn 24, “A Dialogue between a Believer and his Soul.”
84. Cook, Our Hymn Writers and Their Hymns, 154.
In pensive pleasure join with me,

To sing of sad Gethsemane
In Eden’s garden there was food,
Of ev’ry kind for man, while good;
But, banish’d thence, we fly to thee,
O garden of Gethsemane!85
The third and final important feature of Hart’s hymns is “the
practical godliness they insist upon.”86 Not only did Hart pen his
hymns to promote the gospel and comfort the weary, he also intended
to encourage believers to a holy life. He desired that through his com-
positions singers might be drawn closer to Christ. However, as he had
learned himself, knowing Christ was not the only goal. The redeemed
must also long to become more like their Lord and Savior, more con-
formed to His likeness. As Hart expresses in supplemental Hymn 63:
But ’tis a blessing
To know the Holy Son.
Then Hart prays:
Lord! help us by Thy mighty power
To gain our constant view;
Which is, that we may know Thee more,
And more resemble too.
In contrast with some contemporary music, Hart’s hymns are
Christ-centered, especially focusing on His atonement. This is pre-
cisely why many prize his hymns. As W. J. Latham states, “I value
Hart’s hymns, 1. Because there is nothing ‘thin’ or ‘unreal’ in them.
They are not mere pious reveries, but are full of vigour and virility.
2. Because they exalt the Divine Person and atoning work of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and in this are strikingly unlike many of the sickly sen-
timental hymns that are in use to-day. They also honour the Holy
Ghost in a marked degree. 3. Because they are steeped in personal
religion, they are deeply experimental, and are the breathings of the
heart at peace with God.”87
85. Hart, Hymns 1, “On the Passion.”

86. Hart’s Memorial (London: J. Gadsby, 1877), 24.
87. Cited in Wright, The Life of Joseph Hart, 99.
Likewise, J. K. Popham observes: “I have long thought that for

depth and clearness of doctrine, for rich and unctuous experience, a
godly sense of sin, a humbling reception of the atonement of Christ,
a melting realization of the love of the Father, a knowledge of the
indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and for a consistent enforcement of
Christian practice—all tersely and finely expressed—Hart is prob-
ably not equaled, certainly not surpassed.”88
Not surprisingly, Hart’s hymns endeared themselves to many
people of his own time. His admirers were so many that more than
twenty thousand people attended his funeral. Hart died on May 24,
1768 at the age of fifty-six. His body was buried in Bunhill Fields,
joining the other great Independent saints such as Thomas Goodwin,
John Owen, and John Bunyan. In this graveyard, declaims Kinsman,
“the precious remains of a dear husband, an indulgent and affection-
ate father, pastor and friend” are deposited.89 This statement succinctly
summarizes the personality of Hart whose hymnbook has become a
blessing to many. This book, says Towers, “so exactly describes the
preaching of its author, that it may be justly said, that in them, ‘he
being dead, yet speaketh.’”90
Concluding Remarks: “O ye saints of God, he has

a right to be remembered of you all”91
Some may ask why we remember Hart, who will benefit from his
work, or how they can profit from reading him. Consider the follow-
ing answers.
First, for heavily disquieted believers, especially those who are
about to lose hope and who struggle with their assurance of salvation,
Hart’s “Experience” can be a source of strength. Hart himself attested
that, in God’s providence, many Christians have been “much blessed”
by the chronicle of his conversion.92 In “Experience,” one cannot fail
to see “the great things that God hath done for his soul.”93

90. Cited in “Memoir of Joseph Hart,” 9. Towers, perhaps thinking of Abel,
utters these words. See Hebrews 11:4.
91. Hughes, Funeral Sermon, 28–29.
92. Preface to the second edition of Hart’s Hymns, 15.
93. See footnote 54.
Second, Hart can serve as a good model for pastors. He was an

outstanding example of a godly, diligent, compassionate, and faithful
minister, who continued serving the Lord even in the midst of enor-
mous trials. Suffering and discouraged pastors can draw inspiration
from Hart.
Third, Hart’s experiential hymns can be a fountain of comfort,
joy, and rest for the church. As Daniel Smart states, these hymns “have
been a great blessing to the Church of God; but truly to have fel-
lowship with them we must be taught the same truths by the same
Spirit. What a blessed hymn is that on Temptation!”94 The last stanza
of that hymn which epitomizes the Christ-centered message of all
Hart’s hymnology:
But here’s our point of rest;
Tho’ hard the battle seem,
Our Captain stood the fiery test,
And we shall stand thro’ him.95
Therefore, “O ye Saints of God, he has right to be remembered
of you all!”

95. Hart, Hymn 70, “Temptation.”
Pastoral Theology
and Missions
q
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 225–232
Preachers: Who Are They?1

Nam Joon Kim
q
Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my
beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But
when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves,
saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may
be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What
therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come
and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.
And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.1
— Luke 20:13–16
There is one person that a believer cannot avoid facing in his or her life.
That person is the preacher. Relativism governs today’s value system.
Hence, some say that the preaching of the Christian faith should not be
as central as it was before. Many people say that one preacher taking up
most of the worship time does not fit the spirit of this age when com-
munication is overly emphasized. Various attempts to relay Christian
messages through skits, movies, or dramas instead of sermons—even
in evangelical churches—also reflect the spirit of this age. However,
we must be determined to go back to the truth of Scripture. Thomas
Carlyle, a Scottish writer in the Victorian era, despite being very critical
of the Protestant churches and confessions, often referred to preachers
by using such terms as “heroes,” “great men,” or “priests.” These denote
that preachers are the spiritual captains of God’s people.2
1. Dr. Nam Joon Kim is a well-known Reformed preacher of a large congre-

gation in South Korea and a prolific author. This article was his opening chapel
address at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for
the 2011–2012 school year.
2. John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth
In this busy and complex society, people demand that the church
play a more diverse role, so today’s pastors have enormous tasks
before them—pastors in Korea particularly so, as they are expected
to do so many different things. They are obliged to be more like a
CEO of a company, going beyond such classical roles as teaching the
congregation, visiting a church member’s house or business, preach-
ing, consulting, and much more. They involve themselves effectively
in numerous things such as construction, finance, administration,
human resources, publications, broadcasting, public relations, inte-
rior and exterior designs, accounting, food and drink selection, web
design, internet, social services, and relief work. In the midst of this,
the inherent tasks of ministry can often be overlooked, and one of
these is preaching.
Who Are Pastors?

First, we need to make sure to understand the identity of pastors. All
pastors are called by God to be responsible for their own sphere of
ministry. In turn, they are responsible for carrying out the demand of
their own religious and social obligations. Certainly, there would be a
big difference between becoming a pastor in the Reformation era and
becoming one in the twenty-first century. But the essential quality of
a pastor must not change because of his environment or what he is
required to do.
So who are preachers? The Reformers and Puritans give us a very
clear view on this, in that, pastors are the descendants of the prophets
of the Old Testament who shed their blood for God’s glory, and of the
apostles of the New Testament who willingly underwent martyrdom,
going to the ends of the earth for the gospel of Christ.
In order to become a worker at a church, it is possible to take
courses that an institution has prepared. But for a man to have the
urge to spread the good news and to preach Christ’s gospel with a
heart like that of the prophets and apostles, it is not enough to just
go through courses at a local seminary. One must experientially
encounter Christ, who is the light, and have the internal calling that
he cannot help but proclaim the glory of Christ and beauty of the gos-
pel. Of the calling of a preacher, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones said: “The
true call always includes a concern about others, an interest in them, a
Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 34–35.

Preachers: Who Are They? 227
realization of their lost estate and condition, and a desire to do some-

thing about them, and to tell them the message and point them to the
way of salvation. This is an essential part of the call; and it is impor-
tant, particularly, as a means whereby we may check ourselves.”3
The Parable of the Wicked Farmers and the Preacher

Background of the verses
One day Jesus was talking about the gospel to people in the Jerusa-
lem Temple. The high priests, scribes, and elders approached Jesus and
asked Him, “Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or
who is he that gave thee this authority?” (Luke 20:2). The reason why
the Jewish leaders desperately challenged Jesus can be found in Luke
19:48: “for all the people were very attentive to hear him.” They were
asking two things. First, they asked Him to tell them the basis for the
authority by which Jesus was preaching the gospel, and, second, they
asked Him who gave authority to Him. They asked these questions,
but their aim was not to get answers. They would not acknowledge
that God had given Jesus the authority to preach the gospel.
Doubting that God has sent the preacher is the most common
way of denying the Word of God given through a sermon. We are
called to preach to unbelievers caught in the spirit of our time, and to
preach the gospel to Christians who are infected with the spirit of our
time. We cannot help but preach in such an environment. Therefore,
in this era, we need to be firmly assured that God has called us; such
a strong assurance can overcome the spirit of the unbelieving age and
derives from our spiritual experiences with Christ and from a strong
faith in what the gospel is all about.
Four things that the parable teaches

Jesus wisely ended the dispute with the religious leaders. He asked
them whether John the Baptist’s baptism came from heaven or from
men. In this way, He terminated their challenge of His authority.
Afterward, He gave the disciples a parable, known as the parable of
the wicked farmers. This parable teaches us four things.
3. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (London: Hodder & Stough-
ton, 1998), 104–105.
1. The purpose of sending preachers

First, this parable talks about why God sends preachers. The owner
who planted the vineyard and rented it to farmers was a very gener-
ous and scrupulous man. The Bible is very concise in saying that he
“planted a vineyard and let it forth to husbandmen” but the parallel
account in Matthew says that he also “planted a vineyard, and hedged
it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower” (Matt.
21:33). The owner prepared everything that is needed to grow the
vineyard and then he left. At harvest time, he sent his servant to get
some of the fruit of the vine as his rent. It was not an arbitrary time,
but it was the time to harvest the fruit of the vine. Isaiah 5:7 describes
the vineyard as follows: “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the
house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked
for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold
a cry.” Jesus Christ used this parable to teach about the relationship
between God and His people of Israel. Jesus compared the farmers to
Israelites who had sinned and left God and the servants to prophets
who were sent to Israelites.
God sent prophets to the people of Israel because He wanted
justice and righteousness from them. Christ sends preachers to His
church and the world because He wants them to spread the gospel to
those who cannot live by justice and righteousness. God has sent us
not only to tell the good news itself but also to preach with the power
of the Holy Spirit what we all need to believe and live according to the
gospel. The Reformed Puritan theologian John Owen once said that
to know the gospel is to know the gospel itself and its doctrine.4 The
pure gospel, through the Spirit, can make a man believe Jesus Christ
and be saved, but for him to live as a true Christian requires a more
detailed doctrine. Today’s preachers are inheriting this kind of calling.
When the Jerusalem church was growing, the apostles felt remorse
about neglecting the Word of God in order to serve tables when they
should have been praying and preaching the word of the Lord. They
did not need a new discovery; they needed to go back to the proper
task of the prophets in the Old Testament. That is also the essential
task that we must seek grace to fulfil today.
4. John Owen, On the Nature and Causes of Apostasy, and the Punishment of Apos-
tates in The Works of John Owen, vol. 7, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1988), chapter 3.
Therefore, God’s righteousness must be the central message of all

preachers. The mission of a preacher is to preach the gospel so that,
by the Spirit’s grace, the people of his generation might abandon their
sinful lives for lives of righteousness. In doing so he must let the rain
of God’s righteousness pour (Hos. 10:12) on this world by declaring
to those who have already believed Jesus Christ how to live accord-
ing to the Word of God. Accordingly, since God’s will upon sending
a preacher to the people of his generation is to call them to a righ-
teous life, he must not fear pronouncing the judgment of God, nor
give the wrong message of God’s love and let them live a licentious life
without fearing the living God. The righteousness of God as well as
His sovereign majesty must be the subjects that sing in the heart of a
preacher. We can only desire that God’s kingdom be fulfilled on this
earth as much as we desire God’s kingdom be fulfilled in our hearts.
This is why a preacher has to take the righteousness of God through
Christ to heart and enjoy living according to His righteous govern-
ment. Preachers are to call this unrighteous generation to repent and
live according to God’s righteousness.
2. The hardships of preachers

Second, this parable teaches us about the hardships that preach-
ers face. There are three servants in the text. They were all faithful
servants. How did the farmers treat them? Scripture says of the first
servant that “they beat him, and sent him away empty.” What about
the second servant? They beat him also and entreated him shame-
fully, and sent him away empty. What about the third servant? They
wounded him and threw him out. Clearly, these servants are proph-
ets. The Israelites persecuted these men of truth who were called by
God and who cried out to them to live a righteous and just life. They
beat them, wounded them, and cast them out. They even killed the
prophets, rejecting the Word that urged them to live according to the
commands of God.
These prophets were those who loved God more than all else
and enjoyed a close relationship with God. They listened carefully
to God’s voice of revelation and feared the Lord in the midst of hav-
ing spiritual fellowship with Him. Why did God leave His beloved
prophets alone and let them be beaten, wounded, and even killed?
Why did He leave them if He knew beforehand the unfaithfulness of
the Israelites? Why did He not help these suffering prophets whom
He had sent? Before answering these questions, we must first real-

ize what it is to live as a preacher. Of course, somewhere in this dark
world, there will be those who are thirsting for the truth and thirsting
for God’s grace. Even if you speak the truth in the midst of darkness,
there are sheep of God who cling to the Word, even if they are small
in number. A majority of people do not like it when a preacher speaks
the Word of truth to them. Unbelievers armed with human philoso-
phy, even those unbelievers inside the church, as Jonathan Edwards
says, are essentially the enemies of God. How can they enjoy the voice
of a prophet who requires them to find their salvation only in Christ
Jesus and to live justly and righteously?
The great Reformer Martin Luther said, “If you do not have hard-
ships, you are a false preacher; if you do, you are a true preacher.” This
is why he mentions tentatio, namely, hardships or suffering, in addition
to prayer and meditation, as the proper way to study theology. Tentatio
is “the touchstone which teaches you not only to know and under-
stand, but also to experience how right, how true, how sweet, how
lovely, how mighty, how comforting God’s Word is, [even] wisdom
beyond all wisdom.”5
Today we are living in a peaceful time. Most preachers do not
know what it is to endure hardships by proclaiming the truth. But we
must sincerely ask ourselves whether this peace is the result of aban-
doning the proclamation of the whole counsel of God’s Word or the
result of fully submitting people to God’s Word.
God showed intimacy towards His prophets. He called them “my
servants the prophets” in Jeremiah 26:5. But they did not suffer hard-
ships just because God loved them. This is evident in God’s calling
of Jeremiah to a mission: “For, behold, I have made thee this day a
defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole
5. Martin Luther gives a lesson on doing theology based on Psalm 119 by offer-
ing the following three elements: prayer (oratio), meditation (meditatio) and suffering
(tentatio). Oratio is an expression of our humility, with which we ask the Holy Spirit
to illuminate our mind. Meditatio denotes not only contemplation but concentration
and reflection accompanied by the devotion of our mind. Tentatio helps us to realize
the solace and power of truth by experiencing the value of what we have learned
from afflictions in our lives. This lesson was what Luther personally experienced.
Martin Luther, “Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther’s German Writings,
1539,” in Luther’s Works, ed. Lewis W. Spitz (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960),
34:285–87.
land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against
the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. And they shall
fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with
thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee” (Jer. 1:18–19).
The same holds true for us. Preachers are men who have been
offered to God. The preachers’ glory is to suffer hardships for the
Word of God. Without being resolute for the truth and having a firm
conviction about holy living, no one has any reason to suffer like
this. Although the mode of the hardships that we as preachers must
suffer may be different from that of the hardships of the prophets
in the Old Testament, there is no difference in the essence of these
hardships. We are called to live under God’s government in opposi-
tion to this age of unbelievers. You must not fear hardships but live
according to your calling as preachers.
3. God’s love
Third, this parable teaches us about God’s love. God’s beloved servants
were beaten, wounded, treated badly, and even killed. Nevertheless,
God continued to send His servants to the wicked farmers. In the end,
He sent His own Son to them and they killed His Son. The farm-
ers believed that if the son were killed, the vineyard would become
theirs. Without doubt, the Son who died is Jesus Christ. From the
beginning, Jesus was called to hand Himself over to substitutionary
death for men’s sins. Thus it was necessary that Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, had to die. However, God didn’t need to have His servants
beaten, wounded, and killed. Why did God continue to repeatedly
send His servants to the wicked farmers without collecting any rent
from them? Why were the servants handed over to the way of death
which was obviously expected? What does this mean?
This is the love of God. The servants of God, the prophets of
Jehovah God, and the preachers of the Word are those who loved
God more than anything on earth and who received God’s love.
They saw the glory of God that others had not seen and experi-
enced Christ’s grace. So God called them and entrusted them with
the truth. Nevertheless, they would encounter many beatings, mis-
treatments, and even injuries; the history of prophets is a history of
martyrdom. Still, God continued to send His eminent prophets. He
sent the more eminent ones to worse generations, to have them suf-
fer hardships and be treated badly, sometimes even killed. God loves
His servants the prophets but He also loves His chosen people. That
is why He is sending preachers to wicked mankind. He would rather
see His servants suffer and even His only begotten Son die on the
cross, for He wants sinners to return to His loving bosom. He has
shown what love is to worthless, evil sinners. Because of this love,
numerous preachers were beaten, caught, imprisoned, and killed.
4. God’s Word does not fail

Fourth, the parable tells us that God’s Word does not fail in the end.
The wicked farmers rejected the requests of the faithful servants,
but, in the end, the owner judged them. This shows us the fact
that although a preacher may die, his preaching will remain. Verses
16 through 18 reveal what kind of judgment the people who have
rejected the warnings of the prophets will receive. “Whosoever shall
fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall,
it will grind him to powder” (Luke 20:18). This is referring to the
judgment of Jesus Christ. The first half speaks about the judgment
that those who have misunderstood and opposed Jesus when He was
on this earth will receive. The second half is about the judgment on
the last day of the world and how Christ will punish those who did
not believe. Three or more servants went according to the will of the
lord. The last one, who was his son, proclaimed the word and died. A
preacher may be forgotten after being rejected, but his words remain,
holding accountable those who heard them.
Preachers are called to proclaim the Word of God. Proclaiming
God’s truth by preaching the gospel of Christ is the glorious duty that
we must die for. This is the reason why we study theology. Therefore,
those who are on the road of theology must be the ones who know
the glory and joy of living before the holy God. Our hearts must
be aching because Christ’s kingdom is not within the people of the
world. We must believe that we are alive and called to preach Christ
Jesus for this reason. That is what preaching is about (1 Cor. 2:2)!
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 233–263
Practical Application
in Preaching
Joel R. Beeke and David P. Murray
q
Today, much of what is preached on Sunday mornings falls short of

biblical preaching. We hear academic lectures, colorful storytelling,
or moralistic lessons, but not true, biblical preaching. J. I. Packer once
said that preaching consists of two elements: teaching plus application.
Where those two elements are missing, “something less than preach-
ing occurs.”1
In Why Johnny Can’t Preach, T. David Gordon estimates that in
Reformed and Presbyterian churches “less than 30 percent of those
who are ordained to the Christian ministry can preach an even medi-
ocre sermon.”2 The failure to preach well is particularly evident in
preachers’ application of Scripture to people’s lives. And, as Geof-
frey Thomas says, “Preaching that lacks application is the bane of the
modern Reformed pulpit.”3
Many preachers who are called to Christ’s work in His church
are misguided about applicatory preaching. Because of this, we need
to seriously reflect on applicatory preaching. When we fail to apply
what we preach in a biblical way, our people are left starving for the
truth. Sinclair Ferguson writes, “We live in an age when the primary
need is for our people to be instructed in the teaching and application
of Scripture.”4
In this article, we will explore what applicatory preaching is, why
the church needs applicatory preaching, prerequisites to applicatory
1. J. I. Packer, “Introduction: Why Preach,” in Samuel Logan, ed., The Preacher

and Preaching (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1986), 3. Thanks to Kyle Borg for research
assistance on this address.
2. T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can’t Preach (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2009), 11.
3.Geoffrey Thomas, in Logan, The Preacher and Preaching, 380.
4. Sinclair Ferguson, “Exegesis,” in Logan, The Preacher and Preaching, 195.
preaching, general principles for applicatory preaching, basic subject

matter for application, and forms and methods to use in applicatory
preaching.
What Applicatory Preaching Is

To explain what applicatory preaching is, we must first recognize the
difficulty of answering this question. An effective sermon is like a
multi-faceted jewel. All of a sermon’s parts work together to give it
richness, beauty, and completeness. A sermon cannot be complete
without expository preaching, doctrinal preaching, Christ-centered
preaching, experiential preaching, and practical preaching. But we
must limit ourselves in this address to examine just one diamond-like
facet of a sermon—its applicatory element. William Perkins (1558 –
1602), the great Puritan of Cambridge, defines sermon application as
“the skill by which the doctrine which has been properly drawn from
Scripture is handled in ways which are appropriate to the circum-
stances of the place and time and to the people in the congregation.”5
More simply, application is the process by which God’s Word is
brought into the lives of listeners, enabling them, by the Spirit’s grace,
to put Christianity into practice.6
Jay Adams’s definition of sermon application is even more specific:
“Application is the...process by which preachers make scriptural truths
so pertinent to members of their congregations that they not only
understand how these truths should effect changes in their lives but
feel obligated and perhaps even eager to implement those changes.” 7
Like the Puritans, Al Martin puts more focus on the conscience, say-
ing, “Application is the arduous task of suffusing the sermon with
pointed, specific, and discriminating force to the conscience.”8
Application is the process by which the unchanging principles of
God’s Word are brought into life-changing contact with people who
live in an ever-changing world.9 Building on these definitions, we
would say that applicatory preaching takes place when the unchanging
5. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002), 54.
6. Jay Adams, Truth Applied (Stanley, N.C.: Timeless Texts, 1990), 17.
7. Adams, Truth Applied, 17.
8. Al Martin, Quoted in David Murray, How Sermons Work (Darlington, Eng-
land: Evangelical Press, 2011), 107–108.
9. David Murray, lecture in Homiletics I, Puritan Reformed Theological Semi-
nary (October 2010).
Practical Application in Preaching 235
truths, principles, and doctrines of God’s Word are brought to bear

upon people’s consciences and every part of their lives to increasingly
transform them into Christ’s likeness.
In one sense, these definitions seem obvious. However, some
preachers think that once they have explained the meaning of a Scrip-
ture text, their work is done. They make little attempt to determine
what the text means to people today. Exegesis thus becomes merely a
scholarly exercise detached from real life.
Other preachers want to connect Scripture with practical living
but believe that application is the Holy Spirit’s job, not theirs. They
say, “We explain the text, the Spirit applies it.” This tends to leave
listeners at the mercy of their own subjective inclinations. Douglas
Stuart talks about the unfairness of this approach, saying, “The exe-
gete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective
sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least.”10
What is more likely is that listeners will do nothing at all. John
Calvin writes: “If we leave it to men’s choice to follow what is taught
them, they will never move one foot. Therefore, the doctrine of itself
can profit nothing at all.”11
Why the Church Needs Application

Is application an indispensable element of biblical preaching? Should
we agree with John Bettler who says, “The essence of preaching is
application”?12 Many advocates of redemptive-historical preaching
argue against personal application. Bill Dennison, for example, says
that “[g]ood preaching does not apply the text to you, but applies you
to the text. The preacher is not drawing the text into your world; he
is drawing you into the world of the text. The preacher ought not add
to his preaching text subjective applications to a supposed objective
historical text. Rather, the preacher as a herald of God’s living Word
should proclaim the Word...and allow the Spirit to use it as He wills.”13
10. Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis (Louisville: Westminster Press, 2001),
27–28.
11. John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1983), 2 Timothy 4:1–2.
12. John F. Bettler, “Application,” in Logan, The Preacher and Preaching, 332.
13. Bill Dennison, http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.
php?119 (accessed August 22, 2010).
Preaching without application often focuses on history to the

exclusion of ethics. It emphasizes the indicative at the expense of the
imperative. Geerhardus Vos’s sermons, Grace and Glory, are an exam-
ple of this.14 There you will find beautiful and instructive sermons
with little application. They leave application to the reader or listener.
Scripture justifies and warrants application. Here are just a few of
the many examples of application that we find in the Bible:
• In Matthew 19:16–22, Christ applies the law to a rich
young ruler.
• Peter, in Acts 2:22–27, applies the prophecies of the Old
Testament to his generation (vv. 25–28; 34–35). His intent
is to change his hearers. Notice how often he uses the sec-
ond person (vv. 22, 23, 29, 33, 36) to call people to action
(vv. 38, 39). By the Spirit’s grace, such preaching prompts
this question in listeners: “What shall we do?” (v. 37).
• In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says the history
of Israel was written as an example and admonition to later
generations (10:11).
Our Reformed and Puritan forefathers were united in emphasiz-
ing the need for applicatory preaching. William Gouge (1575–1653)
writes, “Ministers are herein to imitate God, and, to their best endeav-
our, to instruct people in the mysteries of godliness, and to teach
them what to believe and practise, and then to stir them up in act
and deed, to do what they are instructed to do.”15 Puritan preachers
stressed the need to inform the mind, to prick the conscience, then to
bend the will, believing that a sermon must connect with the people,
and by the Spirit’s grace transform them and their wills. That is the
heart of applicatory preaching.
In his classic The Christian Ministry, Charles Bridges (1794–1869)
powerfully promotes applicatory preaching. He says, “For this end
we must show them [our hearers] from first to last, that we are not
merely saying good things in their presence; but directing what we
say to them personally, as a matter which concerns them beyond
14. Geerhardus Vos, Grace and Glory (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994).
15. William Gouge, A Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews (Edin-
burgh: James Nichol, 1866), 2:195 (emphasis added).
expression.”16 Likewise, the great preacher Charles Spurgeon (1834–

1892) stresses the necessity of application in saying, “Where the
application begins, there the sermon begins.”
Well-known twentieth-century preachers also agree with the
need for application in preaching. John Stott writes:
This was an essential element in the classical understanding of
public speaking. Cicero had said in The Orator that “an elo-
quent man must so speak as to teach (docere), to please (delectare)
and to persuade ( flectere or move).” Augustine quoted Cicero’s
dictum and applied it to the responsibility of Christian preach-
ers to teach the mind, delight or inspire the affections and
move the will. “For,” he went on, “to teach is a necessity, to
please is a sweetness, to persuade is a victory.” Our expecta-
tion, then, as the sermon comes to an end, is not merely that
people will understand or remember or enjoy our teaching, but
that they will do something about it. “If there is no summons,
there is no sermon.”17
In ongoing conversations today about the issue of application,
many say that the very character of Scripture teaches the need for
application since the indicatives of Scripture are never divorced from
its imperatives. The apostle Paul says, “For whatsoever things were
written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through
patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).
The Holy Spirit and the human authors of the Bible agree that God’s
Word is never to remain an abstraction.
This indicative-imperative pattern abounds throughout the epis-
tles and sermons of the apostles. They continually connect the truth of
God with real-life situations and real people because the gospel mes-
sage is connected with the people who hear it. This truth sets a pattern
for our preaching, which is to take those truths forged in God’s divine
counsel and proclaim them to men. The message is God’s message,
not man’s message (Gal. 1:11), and since God has not left His truth in
abstraction, neither can we when we preach those truths.
16. Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of

Truth, 2006), 269.
17. John Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 246.
Prerequisites to Applicatory Preaching

There are many prerequisites for applicatory preaching, but let us
examine three important ones.
First, to be sound applicatory preachers, we must first have per-
sonal, experiential knowledge of the doctrines we preach. In Robert
Murray M‘Cheyne’s memoir, Andrew Bonar says of M‘Cheyne:
“From the first he fed others by what he himself was feeding upon.
His preaching was in a manner the development of his soul’s expe-
rience. It was a giving out of the inward life. He loved to come up
from the pastures wherein the chief Shepherd had met him—to
lead the flock entrusted to his care to the spots where he found
nourishment.”18
True, applicatory preaching cannot be learned in seminaries or
through textbooks unless preachers have studied in Christ’s school
and fed on the manna of the Word. If we endeavor to preach on the
intercession of Christ, we will fail to apply it adequately if we are not
personally acquainted with its reality and riches. As under-shepherds
of Christ, we feed the flock with the nourishment our Shepherd gives
us. If we would have our congregants know how to live, we ourselves
must walk in the footsteps of our Master. Charles Spurgeon notes,
“The truth as it is in Jesus must be instructively declared, so that the
people may not merely hear, but know, the joyful sound.”19
Second, to be sound in application as preachers, we must cultivate
personal closeness with God. Fellowship with God makes Christian-
ity real and personal; a man cannot, consequently, be a great preacher
if he lives distant from the Lord. In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the apostle Paul
explains the contrast between true and false preachers. A true minis-
ter of the gospel is sincere, Paul says; he cannot fake nearness to the
Lord. Like children who listen to every word and observe every move
of their parents, true children of God are always listening to their
preacher, looking at him, and examining the way he lives. If he is not
living close to God, his preaching and counsel will eventually expose
any falseness and hypocrisy. Richard Baxter says, “Pride makes many
18. Andrew Bonar, Memoir and Remains of Robert Murray M‘Cheyne (Grand Rap-
ids: Baker Books, 1978), 59.
19. Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1954), 70.
a man’s sermons; and what pride makes, the devil makes.” Likewise,
what hypocrisy makes, the devil makes.20
How is this closeness to be cultivated? God reveals Himself to
us in His Word, in prayer, and in other spiritual disciplines. A min-
ister’s solemn duty and joyful privilege, then, is to labor tirelessly
in private prayer and to be a diligent student of the Bible. In regard
to prayer, Spurgeon says, “Prayer will singularly assist you in the
delivery of your sermon; in fact, nothing can so gloriously fit you
to preach as descending fresh from the mount of communion with
God.”21 Prayer must be the life-blood behind the sermon, for you
need divine assistance, first, as you prepare for the sermon and, sec-
ond, as you deliver the sermon. As for studying Scripture, Geoffrey
Thomas observes, “We will not be affected by the Scriptures, we will
not tap the power that is in them, unless we read, read, read, and read
them yet some more.”22 We should also consult teachers of the Bible
who will help give us clarity and insight into the mysteries of the
gospel. In this our Reformed forefathers and the Puritans can be of
immense value—whether it be Owen’s majestic eloquence, Sibbes’s
Christ-centeredness, or Flavel’s simple style.
A third prerequisite for applicatory preaching is to understand
human nature. If you want to connect your message with people,
you must know people’s natures and personalities, especially those in
your own flock. The heart is the throne of natural corruptions, fears,
weaknesses, and sin. A preacher must strike a balance between how
things are and how they ought to be. A medical doctor must know
how the body ought to operate before he can diagnose an ailment.
You trust his prescriptions, or even his scalpel, because he has proven
himself to be an expert of the human body. Likewise, the pastor must
discern from the Scriptures how things are and ought to be as well as
how biblical remedies should be applied. You must be a master of the
human soul so that your people can trust what you prescribe.
Principles for Applicatory Preaching

There are many principles of application. Here are ten of them:
20. Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo
Gloria, 2000), 4:403.
21. Spurgeon, Lectures, 45.
22. Thomas, “Powerful Preaching,” in Logan, Preacher and Preaching, 373.
1. Applications are derived from rightly preaching a text. It may seem obvious
to say that applications in a sermon should be based upon the Bible,
particularly the text being preached. However, we need this emphasis,
because today, many churches increasingly set aside the Bible to make
space for moving stories and personal anecdotes from which the pas-
tor draws morals or inspiration. The faithful preacher must instead
base his application on God’s Word, particularly on the passage from
which he is preaching. Douglas Stuart says: “An application should
be just as rigorous, just as thorough, and just as analytically sound as
any other step in the exegesis process. It cannot be merely tacked on
to the rest of the exegesis as a sort of spiritual afterthought. Moreover
it must carefully reflect the data of the passage if it is to be convinc-
ing. Your reader needs to see how you derived the application as the
natural and final stage of the entire process of careful, analytical study
of your passage.”23
To rightly apply a text, we must first understand the text rightly,
both in its context and in the broader context of all Scripture. Sound
hermeneutics paves the way for sound application. Charles Bridges
warns: “The solid establishment of the people may be materially hin-
dered by the Minister’s contracted statement, crude interpretations,
or misdirected Scriptural application.”24 We must be careful not to
base a doctrine or practice on an isolated or obscure text without first
ensuring that the doctrine is consistent with Scripture as a whole.
We may be tempted to preach right application from the wrong
text. Thankfully, the Word itself directs us in application. The divine
author has intended, through Scripture, to accomplish specific pur-
poses in every generation.25 In determining this, we learn another
crucial lesson in interpreting Scripture. “It is absolutely critical to
determine the purpose of a text if I am not going to pervert it and
compromise the integrity of Scripture,” writes Bettler. “The applica-
tion must be that of the text.”26
Application that does not emerge from “the purpose for which
God himself gave his Word [will] lack credibility and power to
23. Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis (Louisville: Westminster Press, 2001),
27–28.
24. Bridges, Christian Ministry, 28 (emphasis added).
25. Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2007), 13.
26. Bettler, “Application,” in Logan, Preacher and Preaching, 339.
motivate hearers,” adds Dennis Johnson.27 If we rightly understand

our text, the heart of its application has already been given to us. So
we must labor to discern the mind of the Spirit in our interpretation.
In short, getting the text right paves the road to applying it correctly.
2. Determine the primary application. We must not draw applications

from the accidental, incidental, or coincidental parts of a passage, but
from its essentials. This is especially important when preaching from
historical narratives or parables. Often parables make one main point,
so we must not found a doctrine or practice on one of its incidental
points. Or, as an old Baptist minister used to tell young preachers,
“Don’t turn a monopod into a centipede.”
One of the best ways of finding the primary application of a par-
ticular passage is to ask, “What was the application to the original
audience at the original time of writing?” Jay Adams says, “The truth
God revealed in Scripture came in an applied form and should be
reapplied to the same sort of people for the same purposes for which
it was originally given. That is to say, truth should be applied today
just as God originally applied it.”28
3. Make applications throughout your sermon. Although at times it may be

appropriate to put most applications at the conclusion of a sermon,
it is usually best to offer them throughout. Bridges highlights the
persistent application of history and doctrine throughout the book
of Hebrews and concludes: “The method of perpetual application,
therefore, where the subject will admit of it, is probably best calcu-
lated for the effect of applying each head distinctly.”29 Of course, we
should avoid the clinical method of inserting precisely one application
after each exegetical or doctrinal point of a sermon, as that makes the
sermon appear contrived.
We must also remember that application is not an epilogue to
the sermon. John Broadus says, “The application in a sermon is not
merely an appendage to the discussion or a subordinate part of it, but
is the main thing to be done.”30 Right application is what Bridges calls
27. Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 14.

29. Bridges, Christian Ministry, 275.
30. John Broadus, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (New York: Harper
Collins, 1979), 210.
“perpetual application.”31 Listeners must realize that all of a sermon is

useful; all its doctrines, historical circumstances, and its prophecies
are for our advantage, not just the last part of a sermon. Bridges likens
a good sermon to a portrait, saying, “A good portrait...looks directly
at all, though placed in different situations, as if it were ready to speak
to each—‘I have a message from God unto thee.’”32 So a sermon
should address a congregation in various situations so that individual
listeners know that in every word, God is speaking to them.
Adams speaks of applicatory introductions as well as conclu-
sions, saying, “It [application] should begin with the first sentence
and continue throughout.”33 We must not think that listeners have the
natural capacity to make all the applications of a sermon, nor that we
should leave this task for the Holy Spirit. To be sure, the Holy Spirit
will make applications during or after a sermon that we may not have
considered, for which we praise God, but His normal way is to use
preacher-spoken applications.
Bettler says that all preaching is application. That goes a bit too
far, but he is right that a preacher must keep application in mind
from choosing a text to post-sermon discussions. He should think of
applications throughout the preparation, preaching, and post-delivery
discussion of a sermon.
4. Prepare and pray for applications. While many preachers spend hours
on the exegesis of a text, they often spend little time on application.
Sometimes this is for theological reasons. The preacher cites texts
such as Matthew 10:19, which says the Spirit will provide the words
in accord with His promise. However, such promises of the Spirit’s
help in speaking without preparation were given to disciples facing
arrests, court trials, or other dangers, not to ordinary preachers in
their pulpits. Remember what Stuart says: “An application should be
just as rigorous, just as thorough, and just as analytically sound as any
other step in the exegesis process.” Failing to prepare applications in
a sermon usually results in repetitive and ineffectual applications, as
the preacher, who is mentally tired after the exertions of explaining

his text, resorts to the well-worn lines of application that he has used
in the past.
One of the best ways to prepare applications is to pray over a ser-
mon, asking God to show you how to apply it. God’s Spirit knows
the hearts of listeners better than you do, and He can reveal people’s
needs to you by His Spirit.
All of this does not mean that you need to stick rigidly to pre-
pared applications while preaching. A prayerful spirit while preaching
can also result in God guiding you to speak to specific needs in your
hearers that you did not contemplate during your sermon prepara-
tion. What an early theological instructor said about preaching as a
whole is particularly true of making good applications: “We need the
Holy Spirit twice in every sermon—first, in the study, and then on
the pulpit.”34
Finally, because the fear of man can ensnare and disable applica-
tions, we must pray for constant deliverance from such sinful fear,
particularly in applying a text. John Brown says that proper fear,
which is esteeming the smiles and frowns of God to be of greater
weight than the smiles and frowns of men, should prevail.
5. Make up-to-date applications. There is no point in simply taking the

applications made by early Puritans and Reformers and repeating
them verbatim to people today. Their applications were up-to-date
when written, but some of them are now well past due. Others may
be used but need to be translated into contemporary language and
freshened up. One of the greatest helps in finding applications is to
keep informed about the people we preach to and the world in which
they live. We must know our people’s troubles, struggles, problems,
and needs to preach to them.
Another way to improve applications is to go through your con-
gregation, describing each person in a word or two that characterize
his or her spiritual condition. You will then have a ready-made check-
list of various kinds of listeners in your congregation on which to
focus your applications. To get you started, some broad categories
of listeners include: Christian /non-Christian, Old / Young, Rich /
Poor, Parents/Children /Singles, Employer/ Employee, Government /
Citizen, Male/ Female, Atheist /Agnostic/ Persecutor. More specific
34. Jan C. Weststrate, class lecture, September, 1974.

categories of people in the broader categories include: sick, dying,

afflicted, tempted, backslidden, hypocritical, immoral, discouraged,
worried, tired, salvation-seeking, doubting, proud, bereaved, broken-
hearted, and convicted.
6. Make applications personal. Daniel Webster once said, “When a man

preaches to me, I want him to make it a personal matter, a personal
matter, a personal matter!” His point is that application starts with
a preacher’s application of God’s Word to himself. Al Martin says:
“Here is the main reason why there is so little applicatory preaching.
Men are not applying the Word to their own hearts. A minister’s life
is the life of the minister.”35
What we want to focus on here is the importance of second-person
application. That is not to say that other applications are wrong or out of
place. Application may sometimes work well with first-person singular
or plural pronouns. When the preacher wishes to personally identify
with the application, he uses terms such as “We must,” “He died for us,”
or “Our privilege is...” (e.g. Heb. 4:1, 11, 14, 16). Application may also
include the third-person approach. For example, a sermon preached
to a congregation including singles on the duties of husbands or wives
may include terms such as “Husbands will,” “When wives are,” or “She
usually knows.” An application about the errors of false religions and
the cults may also include the third-person approach, “They wrongly
believe and teach” (e.g. Titus 1:10–16; John 3:5).
While first-person and third-person applications are both scrip-
tural and, at times, appropriate, the majority of applications are better
off using second-person pronouns, such as “You must,” “You should
understand,” or “Your experience will be” (e.g. John 3:7; Rom. 12:1).
This does not exclude the preacher from his own application. How-
ever, it does reflect that the preacher holds an office and so is not
preaching in his own right but as an ambassador of God sent to deliver
a message to the people of God. He therefore speaks in Christ’s stead,
or as Christ would speak, were He present. This practice avoids this
difficulty described by Al Martin: “Many sermons are like unad-
dressed, unsigned letters which if one hundred read them would not
think the contents concerned them.”36
35. Quoted in Murray, How Sermons Work, 113.

36. Quoted in Murray, How Sermons Work, 114.
Sermon listeners must know they are personally and individually

being addressed. As Charles Bridges says: “Preaching, in order to be
effective, must be reduced from vague generalities, to a tangible, indi-
vidual character—coming home to every man’s business, and even
his bosom.”37
The editor of the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper kept a notice on his desk
saying, “Always remember that a dog fight in Brooklyn is more impor-
tant than a revolution in China.” The point is that what happens at home
is more important than what happens far away. Go through your con-
gregation one by one, and ask how to apply your message to each person.
7. Make application pointed. It is not enough just to draw a general prin-

ciple out of a passage, such as, “You should be holy.” This general
principle must be broken down so it applies to specific, concrete,
everyday situations. Only by answering the questions of who, when,
what, where, how, and why of holiness does an application become
pointed. David Veerman puts it this way: “Application is answering
two questions: “So what?” And, “Now what?” The first question
asks, ‘Why is this passage important to me?’ The second asks, ‘What
should I do about it today?’”38
We should not expect listeners to make precise applications for
themselves. As Bridges says, “We must not expect our hearers to apply
to themselves such unpalatable truths. So unnatural is this habit of
personal application, that most will fit the doctrine to anyone but
themselves.”39 Massillon, a famous French preacher, used to say, “I
don’t want people leaving my church saying, ‘What a wonderful ser-
mon, what a wonderful preacher.’ I want them to go out saying, ‘I will
do something.’”40
One way of sharpening the point of our sermons is to make each
application specific. John the Baptist preached the necessity of fruit-
bearing repentance, but then specified exactly what fruit each group
should bring forth (Luke 3:10–14).
Another way of making our sermons pointed is by directing
most of our applications within an overall application, rather than

38. David Veerman, “Sermons: Apply Within,” Leadership (Spring 1990), 121.
40. Cited in Murray, How Sermons Work, 115.
offering a disparate disconnected series of exhortations. This should

culminate at the very end of a sermon. Bryon Chapell says, “The last
sixty seconds are typically the most dynamic moments in excellent
sermons. With these final words, a preacher marshals the thought
and emotion of an entire message into an exhortation that makes all
that has preceded it clear and compelling. A conclusion is a sermon’s
destination. Ending contents are alive—packed with tension, drama,
energy, and emotion.”41
Our sermons must also point to the main issue. We must insert
the knife of God’s Word into the parts of people’s lives that are espe-
cially putrid. We must lance the boils. John Stott tells about Alexander
Whyte, who experienced a crisis towards the end of his ministry in
Edinburgh. He knew that some people regarded him as little short of
a monomaniac about sin, and he was tempted to muffle that note in
his preaching. But one day while walking in the Highlands, he heard
what he deemed a divine voice speaking with all-commanding power
in his conscience. Whyte says,
He said to me as clear as clear could be: “Go on, and flinch not!
Go back and boldly finish the work that has been given you to
do. Speak out and fear not. Make them at any cost to see them-
selves in God’s holy law as in a glass. Do you that, for no one else
will do it. No one else will so risk his life and his reputation as to
do it. And you have not much of either left to risk. Go home and
spend what is left of your life in your appointed task of showing
my people their sin and their need of my salvation.”42
When God’s Word is pointedly applied to people’s hearts, it will bring
friction that causes pain and heat. When we apply the sword of truth,
we can expect action and reaction!
8. Strive for balance in application. We must vary our applications. Some

preachers condemn while preaching a text such as, “Comfort ye,
comfort ye my people.” Others comfort when preaching, “Flee the
wrath that is to come.” Such preachers are unbalanced in their appli-
cations. We achieve balance first by preaching from Scripture passages
41. Bryan Chapell, Christ-centered Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 254.
42. John Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 310.
that allow us varied applications, and second, by applying the Word in

a varied way. John Stott illustrates this point by saying:
Anthony Trollope in Barchester Towers very evidently despised
his character, the Rev. Obadiah Slope, for this very thing.
Although “gifted with a certain kind of pulpit eloquence,” yet,
Trollope wrote, “in his sermons he deals greatly in denuncia-
tions.” Indeed, “his looks and tones are extremely severe.... As
he walks through the streets, his very face denotes his horror of
the world’s wickedness; and there is always an anathema lurking
in the corner of his eye.... To him the mercies of our Saviour
speak in vain.... In a neat phrase of Colin Morris, he used the
pulpit “to purvey Good Chidings rather than Good Tidings.”43
Following our Master and the apostle Paul, we must call sinners to
behold both the goodness and truth of God in our applications.
Most preachers have a bias that they should be aware of, lest they
become unbalanced. Some are great comforters and some are great
disturbers. Stott concludes: “Every preacher needs to be both a Boa
nerges (having the courage to disturb) and a Barnabas (having the
charity to console).”44
9. Be passionate in application. No part of a sermon requires more of a

preacher’s emotional involvement than application. The arguments
have been made; now is the time for persuasion. Robert L. Dabney
writes: “To produce volition, it is not enough that the understanding
be convinced; affection must also be aroused.”45
The preacher’s emotions should reflect the nature of the appli-
cation. If his application issues a warning, the preacher should be
solemn; if it calls for worship, the preacher must show devotion; if
it offers a promise, the preacher should show confidence; if it offers
comfort, he should show tenderness; if it commands something, the
preacher should show authority. Dabney explains:
The preacher’s soul should here show itself fired with the force
of the truth which has been developed, and glowing both with
light and heat. The quality of unction should suffuse the end
43. Stott, Between Two Worlds, 312.

44. Stott, Between Two Worlds, 315.
45. Robert L. Dabney, Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1979), 234.
of your discourse, and bathe the truth in evangelical emotion.

But this emotion must be genuine and not assumed; it must be
spiritual, the zeal of heavenly love, and not the carnal heat of the
mental gymnastic.... It must disclose itself spontaneously and
unannounced, as the gushing of a fountain which will not be
suppressed. What can give this glow except the indwelling of the
Holy Ghost? You are thus led again to that great, ever-recurring
deduction, the first qualification of the sacred orator, the grace
of Christ.46
This emotional connection with the Word is related to what our fore-
fathers referred to as Spirit-given unction. It is better caught than
taught, better experienced than explained.
10. Be Christ-centered in application. Holy passion must be peculiarly

manifest when preachers speak about the beauty and glory of Christ
Jesus, our Immanuel. Samuel Rutherford speaks of the need to preach
a “felt Christ.” Today, one of our greatest needs in preaching is for
more Christ-centered applications. Christ-centered applications help
God’s people fall more in love with their perfect Bridegroom. They
simultaneously deliver preachers from moralizing and legalism.
For example, if a sermon is based on biblical history, Christ-
centered application will show how history pre-figures and points to
Christ, or eventually leads to Him. If a sermon is based on a Psalm,
Christ-centered application will show how the psalms help us wor-
ship Christ. If the sermon is based on Proverbs, Christ-centered
application may show how Christ is ultimately the Wisdom of God.
If the sermon is based on the prophets, Christ-centered application
will show how prophecy predicts Christ. If preaching is from the law,
Christ-centered application will show how the law points to our need
of Christ. If preaching practical duties, Christ-centered application
will show how to practice obedience by loving Christ. If preaching
Christ’s words, Christ-centered application will show how what we
say can magnify Christ. If preaching on suffering, Christ-centered
application will show how suffering brings us into fellowship with
Christ’s sufferings. If preaching duty, Christ-centered application may
show how Christ forgives our failings in the line of duty. If preach-
ing about love, Christ-centered application may stress the example of
46. Dabney, Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric, 176.

Christ. If preaching about sin, Christ-centered application may reveal

Christ as the only Savior from sin. Let all applications bring us to the
feet of Christ.
Subject Matter for Applications

Here are some suggestions on the basic truths of God that we should
communicate to listeners through applicatory preaching:
First, to apply truth in preaching, you must preach the truth
about God. As obvious as this seems, let me ask how often you have
preached about God in His holiness, sovereignty, compassion, and
mercy in the past few months. Have you poured out your heart to
your congregation like Thomas Watson who says, “His mercy is His
darling attribute”?47 Have people felt who God really is through your
preaching? Or, are you caught up with so many social issues and other
things in your preaching that the focus is really not on God? It is criti-
cal that your focus remains upon the Lord. The greatest goal of all
sermons is to bring people closer to the great and wonderful, holy and
terrible, majestic and merciful God. Let people, through your text,
feel the character of the living God; apply His attributes to inform
their mind, penetrate their conscience, move their affections, and
bend their will.
At times, provide applications specifically for children. I have used
the following illustration when preaching on the omniscience of God:
Two little girls were asked to bring cookies to their Grandma
about a mile away. Their mother told them, “Make sure you
don’t eat any on the way!” Well, on the way, Cindy got tired and
hungry. She set the cookies down, looked around, and whis-
pered to Julie, “Is anyone looking?” Not waiting for an answer,
she opened the lid, and began reaching for a cookie.
Julie grabbed her by the arm, saying, “Wait! Someone is
looking!”
“Who?” asked Cindy, looking all around.
Julie pointed up, saying, “God is looking! He sees all that
we do.”
The lid quietly went back on the basket. Every cookie made
it safely to Grandma’s house.
47. Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008), 93.
Dear boys and girls, do you live like Julie, knowing that
God knows and sees everything—not just what you say or do,
but even what you think? God knows everything!
Second, preach the truth about man. We cannot afford to shy away
from the truth of man’s sin at the risk of sounding offensive. Preach,
dear brothers, about how sinful and depraved we are apart from divine
grace. Compel listeners to reckon with their corrupt natures and the
strength and vileness of their inner sin. John Owen told his listen-
ers: “Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could;
every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief
atheism, might it grow to its head.”48 You do people a favor when you
expose their sins because you can then, by the Spirit’s grace, draw or
drive them to Christ to find sufficiency in Him. Sometimes the best
way to make unpleasant applications is to use an illustration. Here is
an illustration that I have used to personalize depravity:
Martin Luther became so weary of his inward corruption that
he turned to his wife one day and complained that his heart was
like his beard. Every day he tried to clean himself up by shaving
his beard, but the next morning inward depravity would spring
out again, much like his beard. Have you ever felt that, no mat-
ter what you do to uproot it, sin keeps growing in you every day?
Does this knowledge drive you to Jesus Christ, who is the only
remedy for sin?
Third, preach the need for true repentance. The apostles never left
their hearers comfortable in sin; they preached to incite people to
action. Paul thus writes, “I testified to you publicly and from house
to house repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus
Christ” (Acts 20:20–21). Let us never forget that though repentance
is the work of grace, not nature, yet it is through the means of apply-
ing imperatives to repent and believe that the Spirit works genuine
repentance in sinners’ hearts.
Preach repentance experientially as well. Show people that repen-
tance involves searching out sin, grieving over sin, confessing sin,
forsaking sin, bowing under sin’s just punishment, and taking refuge
in Christ.
48. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000),
6:12.
Fourth, preach Christ. William Perkins summarizes his entire

book on preaching this way: “Preach one Christ, by Christ, to the
praise of Christ.”49 You must press Christ, in all of His offices, states,
natures, Persons, and benefits, on the souls the souls of saints and sin-
ners. There is no end to the preaching of Christ. Preach Him as the
grand remedy for the great malady of our sinfulness. Preach how He
meets the needs of undeserving sinners like us. Preach Him as Sav-
ior and as Lord. Preach His crucifixion, His righteousness, and His
beauty. Preach Christ as chief among ten thousand and the one who
is altogether lovely. Preach Him in such a way that your congregation
knows that you wish with all your heart that they would know Jesus
and live out of Him.
“Preaching is not Christ,” however, as Samuel Rutherford says.50
Preaching is never the end; Christ is. Preach to make listeners feel
that they do not need a sermon as much as the Christ proclaimed
in the sermon. The sermon is the lowly means of bringing souls to
the greater Truth. Oh, preach Jesus Christ—let Him be the diamond
that shines in the bosom of your every sermon!51 Preach this Savior of
men and let people know that He loves souls more than people love
their own souls.
Fifth, preach the truth about salvation. Teach people that salvation
means to be delivered from the greatest evil, sin, and brought into
supreme good, fellowship with the Father and the Son by the Spirit.
Teach them that this glorious salvation is essential, available, free, and
has lifelong, yes, eternal, consequences.
Dear colleagues in the ministry, if people do not hear about this
salvation from you, who will they hear it from? Consider the world
around us; in more than a thousand ways, people are being told they
have no need of salvation and are sufficient in themselves. We there-
fore must fit the enemies’ arrows onto our bows and arm ourselves
with the strategies he uses. Our strategies, thank God, are more pow-
erful, because they are motivated by eternal love. With an unrelenting
spirit and great urgency, we must compel people to come to Christ.
Preach with the conviction that you have the ability to draw them to
49. Perkins, op. cit., 79.

50. Samuel Rutherford, The Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 2006), 202.
Christ, yet realizing that you have no ability to do so, for that is ulti-
mately the Spirit’s domain.
Sixth, preach the truth about the Christian. The Christian always
finds himself in the dilemma of the apostle Paul in Romans 7: “the
good that I would I do not: but the evil that I would not I do.” Do not
gloss over the ups-and-downs of the Christian life, but openly and
honestly preach about the inward struggles against indwelling sin, the
frustrations of sanctification, and the struggles of consistent use of the
spiritual disciplines. Set before others the challenges of being Christ’s
disciples. Geoffrey Thomas writes, “In applicatory preaching, the
implications of Christian discipleship are made very plain to distin-
guish between believers who are walking in the spirit and those who
in some area of their lives are walking in the flesh.”52 But also preach
the infallible hope of every Christian, that one day every Christian
will be perfectly conformed to the image of Christ.
Finally, preach the whole counsel of God to the conscience. Have
you ever considered that the preaching of the apostle Peter, especially
on the day of Pentecost, thrust “that sword relentlessly into their
hearts, and he would not stop while they rejected the Lord Jesus”?53
The people “were pricked in their heart,” says Acts 2:37. So do not be
afraid to preach the reality of hell and damnation, warning people of
the impending judgment of the soul. Pierce their consciences with
these weighty truths.
In short, preach the whole counsel of God to the whole man.
Whether you preach God, Christ, the nature of man, salvation, or
hell, do so with convicting and heartfelt power. In 1 Corinthians 2:4,
Paul reminds the church at Corinth that his preaching “was not with
enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit
and of power.” The demonstration of the Spirit and power must be
evident in all of our preaching.
“Whether the matter of preaching is a doctrine or a word of reproof
or practical application it is to be done powerfully,” says Thomas.54
We confess with Romans 10:17 that the preaching of the Word causes
change, so let us preach with the power of this life-changing Word. Let
us apply the Word as people who have been mastered by its immortal
52. Thomas, “Powerful Preaching,” in Logan, Preacher and Preaching, 379.

53. Thomas, “Powerful Preaching,” 377.
54. Thomas, “Powerful Preaching,” 370.
truths, conquered by its supreme wisdom, captivated by its content,

and enthralled with its message. Let us preach it as the Word of life.
Methods of Applicatory Preaching

Applicatory preaching has many forms. Let us briefly summarize
twenty methods of using Scripture in a life-changing way. We will
briefly explain each method, provide an example from Scripture to
justify that method, then give an example of the method at work.
1. Declaration
“Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative,” says J. Gresham
Machen.55 One type of applicatory preaching, then, is an authoritative
declaration of divinely inspired facts. The preacher communicates
vital information from the all-knowing God to ignorant human
beings. This process of replacing ignorance with knowledge and false-
hood with facts is, in itself, the first application of God’s Word. It is
a potentially transforming experience for the hearer as his ignorance
and prejudices are replaced with knowledge and truth. By announc-
ing God’s Word with authority, the preacher is saying, “It is vital that
you know these facts.” He is not in the business of suggestion but of
declaration, assertion, and affirmation. This first application of God’s
Word changes lectures into sermons. Authoritative declarations of the
truth establish and confirm the faith of God’s people.
• Scriptural Example: In Acts 17:22 and following, Paul
preaches the knowledge of God to ignorant, prejudiced
listeners. He announces and declares life-changing his-
torical and theological facts.
• Sermon Example: A sermon on “God is love” (1 John 4:8)
benefits listeners by replacing misunderstanding about
God’s love with accurate knowledge of it. This transforma-
tional knowledge is, in itself, an application of God’s Word.
2. Exclamation
Information becomes more memorable when a preacher expresses his
approval or disapproval of what he is saying. Spurgeon says a preacher
55. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1977), 47.
should pepper his sermons with many “Ohs.” An exclamatory phrase

may also begin with “What a great Savior!” or “How great God is!”
Though such exclamatory phrases should not be overdone, they
can help listeners realize the preacher’s appreciation or deprecation
(“Woe!”) of what is being preached. They also prepare people for what
is coming. Exclamatory words appeal to the heart as well as the head.
• Scriptural Example: The Psalms abound with exclamation
(Pss. 8:1, 9; 73:19; 104:24). After explaining the awesome
sovereignty of God, the apostle Paul exclaims, “O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways
past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33). Matthew 23 is an example
of Christ’s seven woes as He denounces the Pharisees.
• Sermon Example: When preaching on the beauty of Christ,
instead of simply stating, “Christ is beautiful,” a preacher
might exclaim, “O, the beauty of Christ!” This applies the
truth of feelings and inflames the heart.
3. Interrogation
Having given information and invited the congregation to enjoy it,
the preacher may then challenge listeners with questions about their
relationship to these truths.
• Scriptural Example: Interrogation abounds in Romans.
For example, in Romans 2:21 Paul asks, “Thou therefore
which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou
that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?”
Notice also the prophet’s use of rhetorical questions in
Isaiah 40:12–14.
• Sermon Example: A preacher could conclude a sermon
on doing religious things only to be seen and applauded
by men (Matt. 6:1–6) by asking: “Why do you come to
church—to be seen of men or to see God? Why do you
pray—so that others will hear or so that God will hear?”
4. Obligation
A preacher presents the truth, then gives his congregation commands
that follow logically from that truth. W. E. Sangster recommends that
we do not just say, “Do this or that,” however. He says, “In ethical
preaching, it [the point] is to make the people thrill over a particular
virtue or grace, and not merely to thrill about it, but to long for it
and study to secure it in their own hearts; or, conversely, to make
them loathe a particular vice, turn from it, and scheme to become
its master.”56 But is this not being moralistic? Many advocates of
redemptive-historical preaching confuse morality, which is bibli-
cal and Christ-honoring, with moralism, which is Christ-less and
unbiblical; they end up condemning both. Biblical morality requires
ethical change empowered by thankfulness for Christ’s forgiveness
and prayer for Christ’s power. Moralism is simply legalism; it sets
out God’s requirements and requires obedience. It fails to point the
believer to Christ as the reason, basis, and power for obedience. While
we should shun moralism in applicatory preaching, we must promote
morality and its Christ-centered basis. It is wrong to set up a false
dichotomy between biblical history on the one hand and ethics or
morality on the other.
• Scriptural Example: In Exodus 20, God says, I redeemed you
(vv. 1–2); therefore, obey me (vv. 3–17). Paul concludes
the doctrinal part of Romans (chaps. 1–11) with a number
of imperatives in chapter 12.
• Sermon Example: A sermon on the lukewarm church of
Laodicea (Rev. 3:16) may be permeated with imperatives
such as, “Be zealous...committed...serious...whole-
hearted...single-minded.”
5. Exhortation
Exhortation is somewhat less confrontational than imperative appli-
cation. It often uses the hortatory “Let us….” Through exhortation
the preacher takes more of a sympathetic stance in motivating listen-
ers to do something.
• Scriptural Example: The apostle Paul addresses converted
Jews in his letter to the Hebrews with a number of mutual
exhortations, such as, “Let us therefore come boldly unto
the throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16; cf. 4:1; 4:11; 6:1).
56. W. E. Sangster, The Craft of the Sermon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,

1960), 137.
• Sermon Example: In a sermon on the condescension of

Christ in His incarnation (Phil. 2:5–11), a preacher may
conclude the apostle’s application with exhortations to
peace, unity, and humility (2:3) in imitation of Christ (2:5).
6. Motivation
Sometimes a preacher adds to these first five methods of applicatory
preaching by stressing their motivation, accenting motives for infor-
mation, exclamation, interrogation, obligation, and exhortation. He
thus increases the likelihood of listeners receiving the information,
joining him in exclamation, answering interrogation, binding them-
selves to the obligation, and agreeing with the exhortation by giving
the scriptural motives for doing so.
• Scriptural Example: In 1 Corinthians 15:34, the apostle
commands listeners, “Awake to righteousness, and sin
not,” then adds the motivating reason, “for some have not
the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.”
• Sermon Example: When informing a congregation about
the deceitful and desperately wicked nature of the human
heart (Jer. 17:9), a preacher may motivate listeners to
respond by explaining the vital importance of understand-
ing our disease in order to seek the right cure.
7. Imitation
Advocates of redemptive-historical preaching cannot deny that the
Old and New Testaments contain examples of exemplary preach-
ing. Richard Gaffin highlights how “a subordinate, even incidental,
aspect of the Old Testament narrative is taken by James and used to
encourage New Testament Christians to continue patiently in pray-
ing.” He says, “James knew that Elijah was a prophet with a role in
the history of redemption, but he also knew that he was a man just
like us, a sinner saved by grace, who battled to pray aright.”57 In Cor-
inthians, Paul draws a straight line from Old Testament examples to
his readers, showing how they should and should not act in present
circumstances (1 Cor. 10; Heb. 12).
57. http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?119 (accessed

May 15, 2008).
• Scriptural Example: After highlighting parts of Israel’s his-

tory, Paul says to the Corinthians, “Now these things were
our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil
things, as they also lusted” (1 Cor. 10:6; cf. v. 11).
• Sermon Example: A sermon on David’s courage when fac-
ing Goliath in God’s strength (1 Sam.17) might go on to
urge the same response in modern Christians as they face
ungodly powers with God’s help.
8. Illustration and metaphor

Sometimes the best way to apply a truth is with an illustration, meta-
phor, story, or picture. W. E. Sangster suggests using illustration to
nail down the concluding application of the sermon. He says, “The
people are a little tired, maybe, from thirty minutes of serious think-
ing, and yet one cannot part from them without gathering it all up for
its final reception into their believing hearts. Put it in an illustration.
Hold up a picture that will both recapitulate and apply all that is in
your mind. Having given the illustration, end. Make the illustration
so good that it is utterly unnecessary to add more than a conclud
ing sentence or two afterward—and be glad when it does not even
require that.”58
Below are examples for story, then illustration.
• Scriptural Example: In applying the teaching of “Love your
neighbour as yourself,” Jesus tells the story of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37).
• Sermon Example: In a sermon on Christ’s substitution-
ary death, a preacher could show the gratitude and love
that should result by telling how, as a teenager, he became
indebted to his father who took his son’s large credit bill
and paid it for him.
• Scriptural Example: Instead of warning His disciples to be
on their guard lest hypocrisy gradually and imperceptibly
encroach on them, Jesus uses a vivid baker’s metaphor and
says, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and of the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6).
58. Sangster, The Craft of the Sermon, 145.

• Sermon Example: When a preacher wants to emphasize the

importance of “keeping the heart” (Prov. 4:23) he might
use the illustration of a computer’s hard drive and how it
impacts everything else.
9. Quotation
A preacher may apply Scripture by quoting from the sayings and writ-
ings of others. These may help buttress and emphasize the lessons in
the sermon. There are many examples of biblical authors using previ-
ously written Scripture in this way. However, there are also examples
of biblical authors using secular writers to help apply the truth.
• Scriptural Example: Apart from frequently quoting the Old
Testament, Paul quotes a Greek poet to support one of his
points during his sermon in Athens (Acts 17:28).
• Sermon Example: Quoting the words of John Calvin or
Charles Spurgeon may support a pastor’s preaching and
make his listeners more receptive. Or, a preacher may use
the words of famous non-Christians to show the despair
and meaninglessness in successful, worldly people. Such
quotes can have a dramatic impact on unconverted hearers.
10. Conversation
One of the best ways to get a congregation’s attention is to set up a
dialogue or conversation between two people. For example, it may
be a debate between the preacher and an opponent, or between the
preacher and a genuine seeker after the truth.
• Scriptural Example: In Romans, Paul frequently set up
dialogues between himself and an opponent to apply the
truth (Rom. 3:1–9; 6:1–3).
• Sermon Example: In a sermon on creation (Gen. 1:1), a
preacher may apply the truth by carrying on a hypotheti-
cal conversation between himself and an evolutionist,
answering the evolutionist’s questions and challenging
him in return.
11. Condemnation
Once you teach the truth, it may be necessary to highlight and con-
demn distortions and denials of the truth.
• Scriptural Example: Most of Jude’s epistle exposes and con-

demns false teachers in the Church of Christ.
• Sermon Example: A sermon on the uniqueness and sufficiency
of Christ’s death (Heb. 10:14) may conclude with the teach-
ing of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the ongoing
sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, which a preacher may then
prove is both a blasphemous and dangerous doctrine.
12. Invitation
Having set Christ forth, it is incumbent upon the preacher to call sin-
ners to Him.
• Scriptural Example: In Psalm 2, the psalmist concludes his
description of the Messiah’s ultimate victory over his foes
with, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from
the way” (Ps. 2:12).
• Sermon Example: No sermon on Christ as the Good Shep-
herd (John 10:14) should be concluded without calling
listeners to follow Christ and be fed by Him.
13. Demonstration
Sometimes it is not enough for preachers to simply urge their hearers to
do something; they must show exactly how to do what they have heard.
• Scriptural Example: When the Ten Commandments are
given in Exodus 20, the following chapters give concrete
examples of how to obey them.
• Sermon Example: A preacher who urges listeners to evan-
gelize the lost on the basis of “Ye shall be witnesses unto
me” (Acts 1:8), may spend a large part of his sermon on the
practicalities of how to evangelize in specific situations.
14. Adoration
A preacher should quite naturally feel adoration welling up within
his heart as he preaches the truth. As his devotional spirit is excited,
he may let out expressions of worship or send brief petitions heaven-
wards. Such spontaneous responses to the truth bring its reality and
importance home to listeners.
• Scriptural Example: In the Psalms, writers often move

from third-person narratives about God to second-person
expressions of praise to God (Ps. 106:4, 47)
• Sermon Example: When preaching on the everlasting destruc-
tion of sinners, a preacher may occasionally turn from his
congregation to God, saying things such as, “Lord Jesus,
Thou art merciful.... Gracious Lord, save us all from hell....”
15. Admonition
The congregation may need to be rebuked or admonished before it is
led to true confession.
• Scriptural Example: Isaiah 1–39 sets forth God as the only
hope for Israel. In light of that, the prophet repeatedly
rebukes God’s people for turning away from God to ask
ungodly nations to save them (Isa. 30).
• Sermon Example: Someone preaching on “Love not the
world...” (1 John 2:15) may go on to rebuke his listen-
ers’ worldliness, then lead the congregation in confessing,
“Holy God, we have loved the world, we have copied the
world, we have followed the world, we have admired the
world. Turn us and we shall be turned.”
16. Consolation
There are times when a congregation needs the comfort and encour-
agement of the truth.
• Scriptural Example: In Isaiah 40–66, Isaiah turns from
rebuke to comfort. His prophecies assume that Israel is
captive in Babylon, so the prophet encourages people to
put their trust in God and look forward to restoration in
their land (Isa. 40).
• Sermon Example: A sermon on the Lord’s pursuit of Peter
after his denial (John 21) may be used to encourage back-
sliders not to despair but to return to an all-merciful and
all-forgiving God.
17. Examination and Discrimination
When preaching on the internal marks of a true Christian, a preacher
may impress on listeners the need to examine their hearts to discover
whether they have these marks. He may then explain how a true
Christian thinks and feels in certain situations, and how that differs
from the reactions of unbelievers.
Some redemptive-historical preachers emphasize the importance
of determining a single meaning in a portion of Scripture. This is
commendable and confessional. Nevertheless, by deducing from
a single meaning the imperative for only a single application, they
often confound two separate ideas. They argue against discriminatory
preaching which applies the text’s single meaning to different kinds
of listeners. As Sidney Greidanus says, “One message throughout the
sermon...implies that a multiple application which would address a
separate word to different categories of people is out of the question....
The preacher is to proclaim to all alike the Word of God as given in
his text. It is one Word that is spoken, but this Word has a dual effect:
it calls up faith here, hardens hearts there; it equips for greater service
here, increases resistance there; it saves here, condemns there.”59
Greidanus then favorably quotes Holwerda, who says: “Let the
preacher preach the gospel to all! Only then does he swing the ax of
Christ. Woe to the preacher who presupposes divisions in the church
and directs the word of text to only one group. He must preach it to
all and by that means Christ shall make the divisions.”60
• Scriptural Example: In Luke 6:20–26, Jesus describes the
blessed identifying marks of the true Christian, then con-
trasts this with the characteristics of the unbeliever.
• Sermon Example: In a sermon on “The joy of the Lord is
your strength” (Neh. 8:10), a preacher may distinguish the
joy of the Christian from the joy of the non-Christian by
examining the object of each joy, the nature of each joy, the
duration of each joy, and the end of each joy. Listeners may
then be encouraged to search their hearts to see what joy
is their strength and to derive comfort on discovering true
spiritual joy.
59. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 166.
60. Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura (Toronto: Wedge, 1970), 100.
18. Reconciliation
One important part of sermon application is to reconcile the truth of
a preached passage with modern science, with human experience, or
even with the rest of Scripture.
• Scriptural Example: In Romans 9, the Apostle Paul shows
that the doctrine of human responsibility is not incompat-
ible with divine sovereignty (Rom. 9:19–23).
• Sermon Example: In a sermon on God’s leaving Hezekiah
(2 Chron. 32:31), a preacher may show how this leaving is
consistent with the promise that God will never leave nor
forsake His people (Heb. 13:5). He may then explain how
the leaving was not objective but subjective.
19. Anticipation
Many Scripture passages anticipate Christ’s person and work. They
may have a primary reference to Israel and its experiences; however,
subsequent Scripture shows they have a further significance.
• Scriptural Example: Prophetic anticipation (Hos. 11:1; Matt.
2:15), typological anticipation (Exod. 25; Heb. 9:24), and
analogical anticipation (Jonah 2; Matt. 12:39–40) all point
to Christ.
• Sermon Example: Few sermons on David would be com-
plete without showing how his life and character anticipate
Christ, the Son of David.
20. Modernization
The Bible addressed the problems of an ancient people in ancient
times. The preacher, therefore, must contemporize when preaching
on many passages of Scripture. He must explain what the people were
like when a Scripture passage was written, what problems they were
struggling with, and why God gave them this message. Having done
that, the preacher can deduce a timeless principle for application.
• Scriptural Example: In Deuteronomy 25:4, Moses instructs
the children of Israel to allow the ox that is treading corn
to eat the corn. In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18,
the apostle Paul takes the principle behind this verse—the
one who labors should be supported by those for whom

he labors—and uses it to justify financial, congregational
support of ministers.
• Sermon Example: Proverbs 20:23 says, “Divers weights are an
abomination unto the Lord; and a false balance is not good.”
Although few Christians use balances and weights today, a
preacher may take this text, extract the principle of fairness
and justice in buying and selling, then use this principle to
exhort present-day Christians to practice honesty, fairness,
and truthfulness, both in business and everyday life.
Conclusion
Let us conclude by returning to Perkins’s definition of application as
“the skill by which the doctrine which has been properly drawn from
Scripture is handled in ways which are appropriate to the circum-
stances of the place and time and to the people in the congregation.”61
Applicatory preaching faithfully connects a sermon with people who
listen to it. It tells them, “God has a Word for you.” We must con-
tinually show people that the living and active Word speaks to every
struggle, circumstance, and situation (Heb. 4:12).
Many books on preaching make the process of application so
difficult that many preachers give up on trying to apply the Word.
However, if God gives us scriptural warrant for our methods of appli-
cation, it really does not matter what academics and professors say
in opposition. Let the Word of God free you to apply Scripture with
life-changing power to your listeners.
Every Sunday as people file out of church, they go back to a world
of danger, temptation, and sin. Lectures that merely inform the mind
of God’s truths are not sufficient to help people stand in the day of
trial. Let us be faithful to our calling in applying God’s Word to every
person’s conscience, feeding them even as our Chief Shepherd feeds
us with the nourishment of His Word.
61. Perkins, The Art of Prophesying, 54.

PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 264–278
Authentic Ministry:
Servanthood, Tears, and Temptations
Joel R. Beeke and paul m. smalley
q
Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner
I have been with you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humility
of mind, and with many tears, and temptations.
— Acts 20:18b–19a1
In 1688 conflict erupted between the city authorities of Rotterdam

in the Netherlands and the Reformed minister Wilhelmus á Brakel
(1635–1711). The government paid the salary of ministers and had a
role in confirming their calls.2 When the civil magistrate refused to
approve an otherwise duly called pastor, Brakel preached a sermon
entitled, “The Lord Jesus Declared to be the Only Sovereign King of
His Church.”
The government responded by prohibiting Brakel from preach-
ing and suspending his salary. Brakel believed the government had
no right to exercise such control over the ministers of Christ, so he
ignored his suspension and kept on preaching. For some weeks he
lived outside the city, commuting to Rotterdam to fulfill his ministe-
rial duties. He said he would rather face exile, even death, rather than
stop preaching the Word of Christ. However, when Brakel’s consis-
tory asked his permission to let another minister preach until the
controversy cooled, Brakel submitted to the authority of the elders. In
so doing he demonstrated that he was not a revolutionary. Yet it took
1. I thank Paul Smalley for his assistance in writing this article, which is a slightly
expanded version of an address I gave at the URC Ministers’ Conference, at Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan on May 12, 2011.
2. “Church Order of Dort,” in Doctrinal Standards, Liturgy, and Church Order,
ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999), 179 (Art. 4).
Authentic Ministry 265
the influence of William of Orange (Willem III) to prevent Brakel

from being sent into exile. 3
Brakel later said of the ministry: “There must be self-denial,
that is, a willingness to sacrifice one’s honor, goods—yes, even one’s
life.... The servant of Christ...should let Paul be his example.”4 Today
we can learn from Paul’s description of his ministry in Acts 20:19 that
the Lord calls pastors to do His will with lowliness of mind and heart,
compassion, and faithfulness.
Just as Jesus Christ set His face toward Jerusalem to fulfill His
Father’s will (Luke 9:51), the apostle Paul knew that he, too, must
go to Jerusalem, and knew what it would cost him (Acts 20:22–23).5
He gathered the Ephesian elders, his dear friends, around him for
one last meeting (Acts 20:17, 25, 38). Luke refers to Paul’s audience
as elders and overseers, the men called to shepherd the flock of God
(Acts 20:17, 28).
Paul spoke to the elders as a veteran minister addressing fellow
servants in the Lord. He bids them to follow him as he followed the
Lord (1 Cor. 11:1). The first thing he says about his ministry in Acts
20:19a is to serve the Lord “with all humility of mind, and with many
tears, and temptations.”
The heart of this Scripture is “serving the Lord.” Literally the
Greek text says, “serving as a slave of the Lord.”6 Slave and Lord indi-
cate a relationship of authority and submission, or one man doing the
will of another. We do not serve according to our own will; rather,
the Lord calls pastors to do His will in a life of obedience to His
holy Word. We are not masters or owners, only stewards entrusted
with the revealed mysteries of God and the care of the blood-bought
church of Christ. Matthew Henry (1662–1714) said of Paul, “He had
made it his business to serve the Lord, to promote the honour of God
and the interest of Christ and his kingdom among them. He never
3. W. Fieret, “Wilhelmus á Brakel,” in Wilhelmus á Brakel, The Christian’s

Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke (repr., Grand Rapids: Ref-
ormation Heritage Books, 2010), 1:lxxi–lxxiv.
4. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 2:134.
5. “In his journey to Jerusalem and Rome, Paul mirrors Jesus’ journey to Jeru-
salem and the way he prepared his disciples for his absence in Luke 9–19.” Darrell L.
Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 623.
6. The verb “serving” (δουλευων) is cognate to “slave” (δουλος). “He literally
calls himself a slave.” Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 725.
served himself, nor made himself the servant of men, of their lusts
and humours...but he made it his business to serve the Lord.”7
Are you serving the church in an attitude of prostration before
the throne of Christ? Do you work with the heart of a servant? Are
you serving with your eye on His pleasure and His promised reward?
Does your ministry echo the first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer:
“Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done”?
What does this look like in practice?
Paul gives us three words about authentic ministry: humility, tears,
and temptations. Let us thus examine what it means to serve Christ in
these three ways, drawing from Paul’s entire speech in Acts 20:18–35.
Serving God in Humility

Humility is not an outward show of wearing old clothes or walking
around with eyes on the ground. Humility is “lowliness of mind.”8 It is
a quality of the heart, a mindset, an attitude, a perspective. Ministers in
particular need to hear Paul’s words in Romans 12:1–3, “I beseech you
therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies
a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable
service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by
the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and
acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given
unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more
highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God
hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”
True humility is giving all you are to doing the will of your Sav-
ior, having a sober and just estimate of yourself and your abilities as
a minister, while remembering that anything you have of real value
or use is a gift from God. John Dick wrote of Paul, “Elevated to the
highest rank in the Christian Church, more learned than any of his
brethren, and possessed of great natural talents, and of miraculous
powers, he was not elated with an idea of his superiority, nor haughty
and overbearing in his intercourse with others.”9 Paul is a model for
7. Matthew Henry’s Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 6:211.

8. The Greek term is ταπεινοφροσυνη, literally “low mindedness.” “It is
sometimes rendered lowliness (Eph. 4, 2) or lowliness of mind (Phi. 2, 3).” J. A. Alex-
ander, Acts (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), 241.
9. John Dick, Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles, 2nd ed. (New York: Robert
Carter, 1845), 320.
us all, for humility is the heartbeat of service in the kingdom of God

(Matt. 18:1–4). Augustine (354–430) said the first matter of impor-
tance in the Christian life is humility; the second, humility; and the
third, humility.10 The humility of Christ’s slave is evident in Acts 20
in the following ways:
1. He loves obedience more than life. Rather than being puffed up with his
own importance, the slave of Christ is satisfied to do his Master’s will.
Paul says in Acts 20:22–24, “And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit
unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds
and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither
count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course
with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to
testify the gospel of the grace of God.”
Paul did not consider his life as precious or “of great value.”11
When he understood that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusa-
lem to glorify God, he did not protest, saying, “But Lord, they want
to kill me there. I have an important ministry among the Gentiles.
The churches in Asia and Greece need my theological wisdom and
my practical guidance. Surely someone else could go.” Instead, Paul
saw himself as a servant for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor. 4:5). Nothing was
more precious to him than to submit to the will of God. Nothing was
more important than completing the work that the Lord Jesus gave
to him. Thomas Manton (1620–1677) said, “Life is only then worth
10. “In that way the first part is humility; the second, humility; the third,
humility: and this I would continue to repeat as often as you asked for direction, not
that there are not other instructions which may be given, but because, unless humil-
ity precede, accompany, and follow every good action which we perform...pride
wrests from our hand any good work on which we are congratulating ourselves....
Wherefore, as that most illustrious orator, on being asked what seemed to him the
first thing to be observed in the art of eloquence, is said to have replied, Delivery;
and when he was asked what the second thing, replied again, Delivery; and when
asked what was the third thing, still gave no other reply than this, Delivery; so if
you were to ask me, however often you might repeat the question, what are the
instructions of the Christian religion, I would be disposed to answer always and
only, ‘Humility.’” Letter CXVIII (A.D. 410), Augustin to Dioscorus, 3.22, in Con-
fessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life, A Select Library of the Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1 (repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 446.
11. Greek τιμιαν.
the having when we may honour Christ by it.... Paul loved his work
more than his life, and preferred obedience before safety.”12
In this way Paul denied himself, took up his cross and followed
Christ, who, “being found in fashion as a man,...humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil.
2:8). Christ is God; yet Christ is also God’s servant par excellence. If
He, whom we rightly call Lord and Master, washed the feet of His
disciples, how much more should we be willing to undertake lowly
and difficult tasks? Henry wrote of Paul, “He was willing to stoop
to any service, and to make himself and his labours as cheap as they
could desire.”13
Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), a leading theologian of the Dutch
Further Reformation, wrote voluminous theological disputations in
Latin, while seeking to reform the church and society of the Nether-
lands. Voetius has been compared to the English Puritan John Owen
in stature and influence, yet Voetius took time every week to teach
catechism to orphaned children.14 He did not regard that work as
something too lowly for someone of his standing, but gladly obeyed
the Bible’s call to care for widows and orphans (James 1:27).
Brothers in ministry, whose feet are you washing? How do you
exhibit the humility of a slave of the Lord who loves obedience more
than life?
2. He delights in giving more than in receiving. Paul says in Acts 20:33–34,

“I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves
know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to
them that were with me.” As apostle to the Gentiles Paul started many
churches in centers of wealth, but not with the idea of making himself
rich in the process. He gladly preached the gospel for free, earning
his own way as a tentmaker if no one was able or willing to sup-
port him. He was willing to spend his own money on these churches,
much as parents support their children (2 Cor. 12:14–15). So Paul
could say to the Ephesian elders, “I have shewed you all things, how
12. Sermon I on Philippians 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is

gain,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (London: James Nisbet, 1870–1875),
20:184.
13. Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 6:211.
14. Joel R. Beeke, Gisbertus Voetius: Towards a Reformed Marriage of Knowledge and
Piety (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999), 15.
that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the

words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than
to receive” (Acts 20:35). How precious these words are from Christ’s
earthly ministry, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Proud people are like black holes in outer space. They think they
deserve glory, honor, and power for what they do, but whatever they
manage to get simply disappears into their darkness, for they are never
satisfied. They are like Haman who was a great prince in the Persian
empire but was “full of wrath” when one man refused to bow to him
(Esther 3:1–5). By contrast, people of humility are like the sun. They
constantly shine forth light and warmth, blessing those around them.
They do not covet glory and honor for themselves; they give freely,
willing to “spend and be spent” for Christ’s sake. In doing so, they
attract people as the sun does with its gravitational pull, and create
beautiful, ordered families, churches, and societies.
Are you the man in Jesus’ parable who tries to get the best seat at a
banquet? Or do you try to honor others rather than to seek it for your-
self? Do you preach against this world while still coveting what’s in it?
Does your heart lust after praise and recognition, wealth and riches,
or any other form of glory or praise from men? Beware, for the love of
the world will leave you groveling at the feet of the devil. Rather, “let
this mind be in, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5), that is, the
true humility, or lowliness of mind, of one who is the slave of God.
The Tears of the Slave of the Lord

It may seem strange to hear Paul talking about tears in ministry as an
essential component of serving the Lord. Aren’t we supposed to be
serving the Lord in the strength of His might? God calls us to be men
of valor, not cry-babies, right? First Corinthians 16:13 commands us
to “stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.” So what does
biblical masculinity look like?
There are times when life’s pain wrenches tears from our eyes
and groans from our souls. Christ Himself “offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to
save him from death” (Heb. 5:7). What’s more, the Holy Spirit groans
within us as we await our redemption from all evil (Rom. 8:23, 26).
However, the Bible does not condone pity parties or self-centered
whining for sympathy. Paul was far from saying, “Poor me. I’m going
to Jerusalem. Isn’t it horrible?” In Acts 20:24, Paul says, “But none of
these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so
that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have
received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”
Paul ran his race in life with the elevated joy of a runner headed for the
finish line and the victor’s crown (1 Cor. 9:24–25). Like Eric Liddell
(1902–1945), the missionary to China and Olympic champion, Paul
ran with his head back, feeling God’s pleasure in sacrificial obedience.
So then, why should we run with tears? Acts 20:31 tells us, “There-
fore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased
not to warn every one night and day with tears.” Paul did not shed
tears for himself; he wept for the precious souls whom he called to
repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.15 Charles Simeon (1759–
1836) said, “With this humility of mind he had blended compassion
for their souls; so that...he had wept much on their account, both in
his addresses to them, and in his supplications in their behalf.”16
In this, Paul was an authentic representative of his Lord. When
Jesus carried His cross to Calvary in weariness, pain, and misery, and
shed His blood, He did not pity Himself, nor did He ask it of others.
He said to the women around Him, “Weep not for me, but weep for
yourselves,” knowing that God’s severe judgment would fall on Jeru-
salem (Luke 23:28). Yet when His friend Lazarus died, “Jesus wept”
(John 11:35). Christ was not a stoic; He was ruled by love.
When Paul speaks about tears in ministry, we see that ministers of
Christ must be people of heart-felt compassion for God’s people and
for those not yet saved. Let us look at how that works in more detail.
1. We weep for God’s people. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:4, “For out
of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many
tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love
which I have more abundantly unto you.” Paul had to confront some
difficult problems in the Corinthian church. He did so boldly, but not
15. “His tears were expressive of his tender concern, for the souls of men, of the
compassion with which he regarded those who were perishing in their sins, and as
well as of his sympathy with the disciples, in their common afflictions, and in their
sufferings for religion. He was not a man of stern unfeeling temper; but in him a
tender heart was conjoined with a vigorous understanding.” Dick, Lectures on the Acts
of the Apostles, 320.
16. Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible (1847; repr., Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1988), 14:506.
coldly. Many of his epistles were stained with tears. Do you weep for
your people as you write your sermons? Are you moved with compas-
sion as you preach and pray for your people? We are not talking about
a mere rhetorical device here; we are talking about a heartfelt love
for the flock of God. We are one body in Christ. When one mem-
ber suffers all suffer, says 1 Corinthians 12:12, 26. Are you attached
or detached in your ministry to the people of God? The Holy Spirit
commands us in Romans 12:15, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice,
and weep with them that weep.” He does not say, “Have a measure of
sympathy.” He says, “Weep.”
We may feel that such emotion is not appropriate for a minister,
but Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:11, “O ye Corinthians, our mouth
is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.” A minister’s heart must be
open so the church may see the affections of Christ moving us to
action. We are not making a display of ourselves; we are displaying the
humanity and compassion of Christ to His people, His sense of our
great need and His sorrow for our sins. Because of our union with
Christ, Christ’s sufferings and death abound in us, so that His life is
manifested in us, and brings comfort to others in their sufferings (2
Cor. 1:3–6; 4:8–12). The display of Christ’s suffering in us as minis-
ters is a profound mystery, but it is also powerfully real. Is it possible
that what hinders us from weeping is not our dignity as men but our
lack of conformity to Christ?
A man once visited the church of Robert Murray M‘Cheyne
(1813–1843) when M‘Cheyne was not there. The visitor asked a
member of the church what the secret of M‘Cheyne’s power in min-
istry was. The church member walked the visitor to the pastor’s study.
He then said to the visitor, “Kneel down by the pastor’s chair. Bow
your head. Fold your hands. Now weep.” Then he took the man to
the pulpit and said, “Now stretch out your hands and weep.” May
God grant us tears in our secret prayer and in public preaching.
2. We are broken-hearted for the lost. In Philippians 3:18–19, Paul says,

“For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even
weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end
is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their
shame, who mind earthly things.” It is horrible to hear men speak of
sin and judgment and hell with utter detachment. Paul grieved and
wept over the lost, even the enemies of Christ.
In Romans 9:1–3 Paul says, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,
my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have
great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish
that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kins-
men according to the flesh.” The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to teach
the truths of divine election and reprobation, but not without “great
heaviness and continual sorrow” for his unsaved Jewish relatives and
countrymen. Likewise, our Lord Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke
19:41). The Savior willingly traveled the way of suffering and death
to fulfill God’s eternal plan. He did all according to “the determi-
nate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” so that, as the church later
prayed to God, the people would “do whatsoever thy hand and thy
counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 2:23; 4:28). The Savior
wept over Jerusalem! How can we be like Him?
George Whitefield (1714–1770), one of the greatest evangelists of
all time, was immersed in the writings of the Puritans. God used
Whitefield’s preaching to revive the church and to save thousands
of sinners. Tears were a significant aspect of his preaching. He said,
“You blame me for weeping, but how can I help it, when you will not
weep for yourselves, although your immortal souls are on the verge
of destruction.”17 Francis Schaeffer (1912–1984) said, “We must pro-
claim the message with tears and give it with love.”18
The Christian life is not just marked by tears. We are asked to be
“sorrowful yet always rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10). If your heart is cold
and your eyes too dry, pray for God to fill you with the Spirit of Jesus,
who both fills us with the compassionate love of God (Rom. 5:5),
and imparts that joy in the Lord that makes us strong in His service
(Rom. 14:17).
The Temptations of a Slave of the Lord

Ministers are mortal, so they must daily battle temptation and trial,
in the form of attacks from the world, the flesh, and the devil. Daily
17. Joseph Belcher, George Whitefield: A Biography (New York: American Tract
Society, [1857]), 507.
18. Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity,
1972), 71. Interestingly, Schaeffer wrote this as an act of public repentance for the
kind of militant, angry fundamentalism he had earlier embraced in the 1930s. He
had learned that the Lord’s work must be done in a different way.
devotions, self-denial, and personal discipline, and the love and

prayers of a supportive family and the elders of the church, are the
best resources for fighting temptation, but so is the wisdom of the
Puritans, who offer a full armory of weapons with which to fight the
three-headed enemy.
Paul seemingly had a specific temptation in mind in Acts 20:19–
20, speaking about “temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait
of the Jews: and how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you,
but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house
to house.” J. A. Alexander said Paul speaks of “temptations, not in the
restricted sense of allurements or inducements to commit sin, but in
the broader sense of trials that include troubles or afflictions that are
a test of character.”19 In other words, Paul is referring to temptations
that rise out of opposition to the Word of God. The apostle could say
that he had held back nothing profitable to his hearers, rather than
modify his message to appease such opposition. John Chrysostom
(d. 407) said that in so doing, Paul is a model of “love and bravery...
both generosity and resoluteness.”20
Experienced ministers of the gospel understand the weight of
the words of Proverbs 29:25, “The fear of man bringeth a snare: but
whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe.” The fear of man,
and a correspondingly weak faith in the Lord, is a snare that has
caught the foot of too many preachers. Paul writes in Galatians 1:10,
“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for
if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” People-
pleasing has ruined many slaves of the Lord (Eph. 6:6), for it strikes at
the heart of our allegiance. We must ask, are we the slaves of the Lord
or slaves of men? We cannot serve two masters.
Acts 20 describes three things that tempt God’s servant: opposi-
tion from the world, from the church, and from our own souls.
1. Opposition from the world. In Acts 20:19, Paul speaks of “temptations,

which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews.” The Holy Spirit told
Paul that “bonds and afflictions” waited for him in Jerusalem (Acts
19. Alexander, Acts, 242.

20. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 44, quoted in Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume 5, Acts, ed. Francis Martin
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006), 250.
20:23). Likewise, throughout the world today, preachers face persecu-

tion from militant Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Buddhists, and
Communists. Indeed, we also face hostility from nominal Christians.
Just as Judaism and early Christianity seemed to be branches of the
same religion, so Christian ministers today face opposition from groups
claiming to be Christian while holding to a fundamentally different
gospel. These include Roman Catholics as well as liberal Protestants,
not to mention sects and cults, such as Mormonism and the like.
The temptation here is for gospel ministers to soft-pedal or be
silent about offensive elements of biblical truth, to curry favor with
one’s hearers. But Paul says in Acts 20:26–27, “Wherefore I take you
to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have
not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Some parts
of God’s revelation will offend your listeners. Knowing that, will you
preach the whole counsel of God? Will you speak out against the sins
of our time and place? Satan will tempt you to pass quietly over the
controversial points or to reshape them so they do not offend rebels
against God. The devil wraps this temptation in fine words such as
sensitivity and tolerance. Those are fine words, but not excuses for fail-
ing to preach the whole counsel of God. In the end the question is
whether we preach everything God has revealed for the good of our
hearers’ souls, or only what seems to promote our prosperity.21
It should also be said that ministers should avoid the opposite
temptation, which is to substitute controversial axe-grinding and
hobby-horse riding for the preaching of the gospel. Paul’s concern was
to preach what was profitable for his hearers. Is a steady diet of “what’s
wrong with our country today,” or “this week in American politics,”
truly profitable for our people? Paul’s aim was to preach Christ and
Him crucified as the very heart and soul of the whole counsel of God.
We should be willing to brook any amount of criticism or opposition
if we are truly preaching Christ.
2. The temptation of opposition in the church. Paul says in Acts 20:28–29,

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
21. “Those who are influenced by selfish considerations are in constant danger
of forsaking the path of rectitude. Instead of preaching those doctrines which would
be profitable to others, they are tempted to preach such only as are profitable to
themselves.” Dick, Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles, 322.
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church
of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know
this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock.” This echoes what Jesus says in Matthew 7:15,
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Ravening wolves are out to destroy
the flock of God, not to build it up, maintain it, and protect it from
harm (John 10:11–15). Many false prophets are guilty of making insig-
nificant items to be as important as the true fundamentals of the faith.
The devil, who embeds these wolves in the flock, whispers in
your ear, “These men are part of the church. Look at the good they
are doing and the souls they are winning. They love the Lord Jesus.
Look how orthodox they are in other doctrines. So do not destroy
the peace of Christ’s church by opposing what they say.” The love of
peace and unity in the gospel has caused many good men to brush
heresy under the rug.
Alexander Whyte (1836–1921) was a godly Scots Presbyterian,
a preacher of vibrant orthodoxy. But when so-called Higher Criti-
cism of the Bible began to undermine biblical authority in the Free
Church of Scotland, Whyte actually defended the right of those who
held such views to teach at Presbyterian schools. Though it is true
that these men cloaked their new ideas in a dress of piety, speaking
of “Believing Criticism,” Whyte was strangely blind to the devastat-
ing effects this doctrine would have on the faith and saw it merely as
“a new theological method” that should be permitted in the spirit of
progress.22 The churches reacted by no longer requiring men to sub-
scribe to their confessions except in the most general way.23
Thomas M’Crie (1772–1835) had warned against such liberalism
as early as 1820, saying, “A vague and indefinite evangelism...[will]
degenerate into an unsubstantial and incoherent pietism, which after
effervescing [or bubbling up] in enthusiasm will finally settle into
indifference; in which case, the spirit of infidelity and unbelief...will
22. Michael A. G. Haykin, “The Piety of Alexander Whyte (1836–1921),” in

A Consuming Fire: The Piety of Alexander Whyte, Profiles in Reformed Spirituality
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 8–10.
23. K. R. Ross, “Declaratory Acts,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and
Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993),
237–38.
achieve an easy conquest.”24 Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881), though not

really evangelical or orthodox himself, offered his own assessment,
saying, “Have my countrymen’s heads become turnips when they
think they can hold the premises of...unbelief and draw the conclu-
sions of Scottish evangelical orthodoxy?”25 So stand firm, brothers,
against the temptation to overlook heresy in the church. Preserving
peace at the cost of truth will only destroy the real unity in the gospel,
which is “the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13). Perhaps one of the great-
est heresies we face today is that many think that careful definition
and exposition of Christian doctrine is not relevant to the needs of
the times in which we live.
3. The temptation of opposition from our own soul. The most sobering
temptation is implied in Acts 20:30, “Also of your own selves shall
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them.” Imagine the horror that the Ephesian elders must have felt
when Paul said that. It was the same when Jesus said to His disciples,
“One of you shall betray me” (Matt. 26:21). It would be like standing
in a meeting of pastors and saying, “Some of you will fall away from
the faith and draw others away from Christ.” Brothers, the greatest
opposition to the Word of God that we must fight is opposition aris-
ing from our own souls. Therefore, Paul’s exhortation to the elders in
verse 28 begins, “Take heed to yourselves.”
Let us be honest. Within us all remains what Paul called “flesh” in
Romans 7 and Galatians 5. The essence of flesh, according to Romans
8:7, is “enmity [or hatred] against God.” John Owen (1616–1683) said
long ago, “As every drop of poison is poison, and will infect, and
every spark of fire is fire, and will burn; so is every thing of the law of
sin, the last, the least of it—it is enmity, it will poison, it will burn....
‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8). He is so in himself, eternally excellent, and
desirable above all.... Against this God we carry about us an enmity
all our days.”26
24. John Macleod, Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History (repr., Edin-
burgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 314–15.
25. N. M. de S. Cameron, “Believing Criticism,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church
History and Theology, 69. The omitted words are “German” and “Scottish”! His con-
trast may not be racial so much as Lutheran versus Reformed.
26. “The Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalency of the Remainders of
Part of us will always recoil at sound doctrine, for biblical truth

glorifies God and humbles man. John Calvin (1509–1564) said of
Paul, “knowing his own infirmity, he did mistrust himself.”27 The
temptation is to assume that we will always be faithful to the Word,
which is only another form of trusting in ourselves that we are righ-
teous. Over a long ministry, we shall often be tempted, even inclined,
to compromise, to sell out, to betray the gospel for the sake of personal
advantage. O brothers, how necessary it is to obey Paul’s instruction
in 1 Timothy 4:16, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine;
continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and
them that hear thee.”
We must serve the Lord with humility, for we are only sinners
saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus. We also have good reason to serve
with tears of compassion, for we ourselves are brands plucked from
the burning by the pierced hands of our Savior. The frailty of our own
human nature compels us to be watchful, to examine ourselves, and
by grace, to keep ourselves in the faith of Christ and the love of God.
Conclusion
The Lord calls pastors to do His will with lowliness of mind, compas-
sion, and faithfulness. He calls us to serve Him in humility, tears, and
temptations. That is what we learn from Paul’s words in Acts 20:19.
We have this calling from a glorious Lord, who is worthy of our faith
and of such faithful service.
Let us conclude with the encouraging words of Paul in Acts 20:32,
“And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his
grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance
among all them which are sanctified.” Cling to the Word, brothers.
The Bible will be light in your darkness and a well of salvation in your
dryness. You have a high calling, but it is attainable because God gives
us what we need to do what He commands. Do you need to grow in
humility, or compassion, or the determination to fight against temp-
tation? Meet with God daily in prayer and in meditation upon His
Word. Look constantly to Christ as the author and finisher of our
Indwelling Sin in Believers,” in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold
(New York: Robert Carter & Bros., 1851), 6:177.
27. John Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, Volume 2 (repr., Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1996), 241.
faith. Seek ever to be filled with the Spirit, and to walk in the Spirit.
“God our heavenly Father, who hath called thee to His holy ministry,
enlighten thee with His Holy Spirit, strengthen thee with His hand,
and so govern thee in thy ministry that thou mayest decently and
fruitfully walk therein to the glory of His Name and the propagation
of the kingdom of His Son Jesus Christ.... Bear patiently all suffer-
ings and oppressions as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, for in doing
this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee. And when
the chief Shepherd shall appear, thou shalt receive a crown of glory
that fadeth not away.”28
28. “Form of Ordination of the Mnisters of God’s Word,” Doctrinal Standards,

Liturgy, and Church Order, 143.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 279–306
Twenty-Five Unbelievable Years:

The Foreign Missions Policy of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of North America, 1945–1970
Gordon J. Keddie
q
“Twenty-five unbelievable years” is how missiologist Ralph Winter

describes the years from 1945 to 1970. This was the period when the
“retreat of the West” took place, the so-called “Third World” emerged,
and, consequently, the face of missions was forced to take on an entirely
new complexion.1
In her 212 years of existence as an American denomination, the
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America—often called for
short the RPCNA or the Covenanters—has never been a large church.
Her peak membership, in 1891, was a mere 11,272 communicants. By
1971, that number had declined to 4,315.2 Yet, in 1940, at what may
be judged in years to come to be the height of her overseas mission-
ary endeavors, she maintained some four missions in Asia—in Syria,
Cyprus, China, and Manchuria—with twenty-three missionaries
and 1,320 communicants in thirty congregations and mission sta-
tions (a number with native pastors), several hospitals, and numerous
schools. The Second World War and the rising tide of Communism
which succeeded it would have major repercussions for RP missions.
Communism would close Manchuria and China, and Arab national-
ism would drive the missionaries from Syria. Only one of the existing
fields would remain—British-ruled Cyprus—and it too would see
great changes as the colonial era died. A new field would open in 1950
in Japan. Both were still active RP commitments in 2010.
1. Ralph D. Winter, The 25 Unbelievable Years, 1945–69 (South Pasadena, Calif.:

William Carey Library, 1970) 13.
2. In the nearly 40 years since 1971, the RPCNA has grown slightly to a com-
municant membership of 4,785 (12/31/09).
It is to the post-war period that we will confine our attention. The

focus will be upon the development of policy and practice within the
missions of the RPCNA in that quarter-century after the end of the
Second World War. The approach taken is principally historical, but
also doctrinal, since it is impossible to understand the present course
of RP missions apart from their origin and development, which is in
the context of the witness of a small and very distinctive denomina-
tion—the Reformed Presbyterianism of the “old school” Covenanter
variety. Section I will survey the back-story of RP missions prior to
1945. Section II will cover the missions from 1945 to 1970, noting
how policies are adjusted to meet the changing requirements in the
fields. In Section III, both problems and policy will be examined in a
comprehensive fashion.3
Setting the Scene: RP Missions Prior to 1945

First Attempts at RP Missions: 1818–1849
The early days of the RP church were almost exclusively absorbed in
the concerns of maintaining a separate existence as an organized body.
She lost all of her ministers and all but a remnant of her people in the
union of 1782, which formed the Associate Reformed Church.4 In
1798 in Philadelphia, however, the RP Church was re-organized. She
grew steadily over the next three decades to a membership of around
ten thousand. Division that had simmered over a number of years
issued in a split in 1833 which all but halved her numerical strength.5
This profoundly impacted the mission effort of the church. It meant
that the consideration given to the idea of starting an overseas mis-
3. The author gratefully acknowledges that the Foreign Mission Board of the
RPCNA granted him free access to the minutes and other documents of the Board
pertaining to the period.
4. The Associate Reformed Church later formed the United Presbyterian
Church in 1858, and this, in 1958, united with the Presbyterian Church in the USA
to form the UPUSA. The modern ARP Church is the section of the AR church in
the Southern states which did not go into the union.
5. W. Melancthon Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America
(Baltimore: Hill & Harvey, 1888; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books,
2007), 95f. The so-called “New Light” side of the split went on as the RP Church
(General Synod). In the twentieth century, this became part of the RP Church
(Evangelical Synod), which in turn became part of the present PCA. Cedarville
University, Ohio, now a Baptist institution, was originally founded as an RPC (GS)
school.
Twenty-Five Unbelievable Years 281
sion at the Synod of 1818 vanished beneath the waves of controversy

which sundered the Covenanter cause in 1833. It was not until 1841
that the matter of missions came up again, and it was only in 1846
that the Rev. Joseph Morton was commissioned to start work in Port-
au-Prince, Haiti. Three years later, Morton joined the Seventh Day
Baptists and the mission to Haiti was abandoned.6
The Establishment of RP Missions in the Levant: 1856–1945

It was not until 1856 that another attempt was made to found a mis-
sion overseas. Reverends R. J. Dodds and J. Beattie sailed to Syria,
then part of the Ottoman Empire, and started work in Zahleh in
what is now Lebanon. In 1859, having been ejected from Zahleh
at the insistence of the Greek Uniate Metropolitan,7 they settled in
Latakia in Syria and began a work which was to engage the atten-
tion of the Covenanter Church for a century.8 In accordance with
contemporary mission theory, a three-pronged effort was put forth:
preaching, educational, and medical work were considered essential
to a balanced mission.9 In cooperation with the Scottish-Irish RP
Mission, which operated out of Alexandretta (modern Iskenderun),
Covenanter workers penetrated the hinterland.10 By 1886, there were
twenty-seven schools in different towns and villages. Attempts to
erect a Presbytery, most notably in 1895, were not successful and the
congregations were governed by a Commission of Synod until the
ejection of missionaries in 1958 necessitated the organization of a Syr-
ian Presbytery.11
In 1883, a branch mission was started in Tarsus and Mersine, in
Turkey proper. This too had a threefold thrust and flourished for a
time before being engulfed in the chaos following the break-up of the
Ottoman Empire after World War I. In 1922, during the Greco-Turk-
ish War which followed, the mission was withdrawn. The Levant
mission as a whole was seriously affected by the upheavals of the time.
6. Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, 640.

7. Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, 760.
8. The last Americans, Mr. and Mrs. W. K. Sanderson, were ordered to leave
the country in August 1958.
9. A. J. McFarland, Eight Decades in Syria, (Topeka, Kan.: Board of Foreign Mis-
sions, RPCNA, 1937), 14.
10. McFarland, Eight Decades in Syria, 19.
In Latakia, the last ordained American remaining, Rev. J. S. Stewart,

was deported, as were many of the people, so that the congregation
in 1918 had lost 30 percent of its pre-war membership.12 By 1922,
following the Turkish rout of the French forces in Cilicia and the
Armenian massacres, there was a loss of over 80 percent of the mem-
bership in Mersine.13
The mission was reorganized after the War under the umbrella of
the French mandate in Syria. Three national Christians were ordained
to the gospel ministry on March 12, 1920, and, by 1941, there were
three regular congregations and three mission stations with a total of
287 members.14 The “Depression” in the United States, however, cut
the mission budget and led to reductions in personnel and the closing
of the hospital.15 The mission was relatively unaffected by World War
II, as the control of Syria remained in Allied hands after the British
ejected the Vichy-French administration in 1941.
Cyprus had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries until
the British wrested it from the Turks in 1878. When the Turks closed
some of the schools in Syria in 1891, the personnel made redundant
were sent to Cyprus. Thus began an RP interest in Cyprus that has
continued into the twenty-first century. The accent was on educational
work from the beginning. This emphasis was maintained thereafter,
often against severe criticism. American Academies (Larnaca, 1908,
and Nicosia, 1922) grew from modest beginnings to almost five hun-
dred pupils in 1944.16 These were self-consciously “mission” schools,
aimed at reaching young people for Christ, rather than “Christian
schools” aimed at the covenant children of believers. These went on
to become prestigious academies and continue under independent
governance to this day. As in Syria, medical work was conducted until
cutbacks during the Depression.17 The “R.P. Mission Church” was
started in Larnaca in 1898 and grew slowly until 1932, when control
passed to a national Session. Greek and Armenian congregations were

14. Owen F. Thompson, Sketches of the Ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of North America from 1888 to 1930, RP Synod, no date, 32, 37, and 170.
16. W. W. Weir, C. E. Caskey, and Barnabas Constantopoulis, A Brief History of
the Work of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the Island of Cyprus, RP Synod, 1939, 12.
17. Weir et al, A Brief History..., 30.
organized in Nicosia and Larnaca under national pastors. It was only

in 1932, with the organizing of the Cyprus Commission by the RP
Synod, that the field was regarded as separate from Syria.18
The Establishment of Missions in the Far East: 1895–1945

The South China mission began in 1895, when Covenanter mission-
aries opened work at Tak Hing in Kwangtung, some 150 miles west
of Canton.19 The RPCNA had come late to China and the field was
chosen in consultation with other mission agencies because it was
unevangelized. Rev. Sam Boyle described the area as “backwoods
counties” in one of his letters. The field was temporarily abandoned
in 1899–1901, during the Boxer Rebellion. When peace and the mis-
sionaries returned, the work started to “mushroom” in Tak Hing,
particularly in the establishment of ancillary institutions. In rapid
succession, a hospital was built (1905), then a Girls School (1905),
a Seminary (1906), a Boys School (1907), and a Woman’s School
(1908).20 Preaching stations and schools sprang up throughout the
thirty-six-hundred square mile field, congregations were organized in
Tak Hing (1909) and Lo Ting (1914), and Chinese elders were elected.
Lo Ting was a field taken over from the Christian and Missionary
Alliance in 1913. The work, through embryonic, was self-supporting,
because the Alliance had adopted a strictly self-support policy from the
outset. Significantly, self-support was almost a decade later in com-
ing to the original RP Field around Tak Hing, and only after serious
opposition and a decline in membership.21 By 1926, however, China
Presbytery was organized with two Chinese and two American min-
isters. Meanwhile, the church advanced toward the “three-self ” goal,
the idea being that they were already self-supporting, had now become
self-governing, and hopefully would be self-propagating in the future.22
In spite of the upheavals occasioned by the fall of the Chinese Empire

19. Orlena Marie Lynn, Fifty Years of Covenanter Evangelism in South China,
(unpublished M.R.E. thesis, Biblical Seminary, New York, 1948), 2. In 2010, Orlena,
now the widow of China missionary Rev. Sam Boyle, was the last living American
RP missionary to have served in the South China mission. She subsequently served
in Japan for many years.
20. Lynn, Fifty Years of Covenanter Evangelism in South China, 15.
in 1911, the banditry and communist rebellion in the early days of the
Republic in the 1920s and the constant threat of Japanese incursions
after war broke out in 1937, the mission went forward and, in fact,
reached peak membership—816 communicants—by 1945.23 Even
when the Japanese occupied Tak Hing, the work of the Presbytery
continued elsewhere. Rev. Jesse C. Mitchel was the only American
missionary remaining on the field at that time. With his regular
duties, he worked with a British Army unit behind Japanese lines to
help return shot-down fliers to Allied territory.24
The mission in Manchuria, in the north of China, was short-
lived. Led by Rev. Johannes G. Vos,25 the work opened in Tsitsihar
in August 1931, just before Japan occupied Manchuria and set up
the puppet Empire of Manchukuo, under the titular rule of the last
Ching Emperor, Pu Yi. By 1935, the two principal groups, in Tsitsi-
har and Mingshui, were self supporting, and chapels had been started
elsewhere.26 After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December
7, 1941, the remaining missionaries were interned.27 They were repa-
triated to the USA but never returned, and contact was lost with
the 164 communicant members and their families and friends left
behind in 1942.
A Summary of RP Mission Policy Prior to 1945

Early Covenanter efforts were along the three lines of preaching, teach-
ing, and healing—in that order. A. J. McFarland described it this way:
As both the officially appointed missionaries were ordained
ministers it is not surprising to find them putting preaching the
gospel in the first line of their attack on the powers of darkness....
And being Protestant preachers it is also no surprise to find them

24. Minutes of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, 1946,
Winona Lake, Indiana, 31.
25. Johannes G. Vos was the son of Geerhardus Vos of Princeton Theological
Seminary and Biblical Theology fame. After Manchuria, he served in the pastorate
of the Hebron RPC, Idana, Kansas, and as Chairman of the Bible Dept. of Geneva
College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. His magazine Blue Banner Faith and Life
gained a loyal and appreciative audience worldwide.
26. RP Board of Foreign Missions, Our Mission in Manchuria, RP Synod, 1936, 8–9.
27. Alvin W. Smith, Covenanter Ministers, 1930–1963, Pittsburgh, RP Synod, no
date, 302.
adding at the very beginning teaching as the second line. For the
Commission read: ‘Preach the Gospel – teaching them’ … And
being human and remembering the example of their Master it is
very natural to find them in a few months urging the Board to
send them a physician to make healing their third line.28
This approach held true of South China and the two Levant fields. A
number of features stand out most prominently.
Foreign Control of Church Polity

In accord with the strong Presbyterianism of the RPCNA and her
strong self-awareness of her distinctive principles, the control of the
mission rested with the American missionaries until local groups
were organized. Only then would a Synod commission, includ-
ing national pastors and elders, take over control. When a sufficient
number of congregations were organized under national pastors
subscribing to the Standards of the RPCNA, presbyteries could be
formed. Although autonomy for the national church thereafter was
in view, it is an historical fact that full autonomy has been granted by
the RPCNA only when it became clear that the American mission
would no longer be able to function. In these fields, “following the
general theory of missions that took definite form during the decade,
1920–30,” Councils with national representation were formed.29 The
Chinese Council, operating from 1922 to 1933, eventually dissolved
itself and handed its responsibilities—such as village evangelism and
literature work—over to China Presbytery, which had already been
functioning since 1926. 30 Similar Councils in the Levant proved unsat-
isfactory—although no explanations were advanced for this—and
were dissolved, the Commissions assuming their responsibilities.31
Foreign Funding of National Personnel

Financial subsidies were applied to local congregations and national
personnel from the funds of Synod. As early as 1900, this had
been called the “Old Method,” which gave rise to the epithet “rice

30. Lynn, Fifty Years of Covenanter Evangelism in South China, 28 (cf., 58).
Christians.”32 The unhealthy results of this method significantly

affected the Covenanter mission when self-support was introduced.
Foreign Funding of Capital Projects

The policy of buying buildings for the mission with foreign funds was
to be productive of problems in the mission. By 1923, “it was felt that
if the work had been started without a subsidy it would have made
things simpler.”33 On the basis of this experience, the policy of rent-
ing only was adopted in Manchuria, with a self-support-as-we-go plan
for emerging churches. Subsidy was restricted to one year or until ten
adult communicants were gathered.34 Until a group could support a
full-time pastor, it could only receive temporary ministrations from
missionaries interspersed by periods when local Christians would
conduct the meetings. In Manchuria, the methods of John L. Nevius
had come to RP missions. Their success in this as in other cases can-
not be gainsaid. The pity is that the work in Manchuria was “nipped
in the bud” by war and revolution before becoming solidly established.
Developments in RP Missions 1945–1970

The Church at Home
It is probably no exaggeration to say that the RPCNA saw greater
changes in the post-war period than in any other in her long history,
excepting the split of 1833. Numerical decline at the rate of approxi-
mately 1% per annum had chased the denomination down the years
since a division of the church in 1892. Between 1945 and 1970, the
home church lost 24.5 percent of its membership; this translated on
average into losing one congregation every year. The effect of this
apparently chronic trend, checked only temporarily by union with the
Associate Presbyterian Church in 1969, 35 was to stimulate fresh and
energetic efforts in evangelism and home missions. Moved perhaps
by the thought that lack of church growth could be attributed to the
distinctive principles and practices of the church, the denominational
32. John L. Nevius, The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches (Nutley,
N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed , no date [repr. of the 1886 edition]), 16.
33. Our Mission in Manchuria, 3.
34. Our Mission in Manchuria, 10.
35. Minutes of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Bea-
ver Falls, Pa., June 1969 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: RPCNA, 1969), 2, cf. 229. The AP Church
had two ministers and 212 members in four congregations at the union.
“distinctives” were subjected to close and critical scrutiny. The “anti-

voting” position—the popular understanding of what is properly
called the doctrine of “political dissent”—was modified in such a way
as to permit voting in most circumstances.36 The practices of “close
communion,” “public covenanting,” and even “total abstinence” from
alcohol and tobacco came under scrutiny and were all subsequently
either modified or rejected. The trend was clearly toward bringing the
RPCNA into line with a more main-line Reformed and Presbyterian
orthodoxy, such as that represented by the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church. Central to this was a readiness to let the Scriptures inform
and correct some of the cherished positions of the church.
These upheavals at home naturally caused reverberations on the
mission fields. Indeed, as the church became increasingly concerned
to remove certain putatively traditionalistic accretions, the mission
policy was subjected to continuous re-evaluation. The missions
themselves became arenas for the contesting of the new ideas emerg-
ing in the home church. Some missionaries felt compelled to leave the
field—and even the denomination—as a result of this controversy.37
Perhaps the basic motif underlying church-mission controversy after
1960 is set forth in the report of a special committee to the Foreign
Mission Board on September 21, 1961, which expressed the opin-
ion, with reference to the Cyprus mission, that a tradition had been
built up there on “a general evangelical basis” with the development
of goals differing from the distinctively Reformed objectives of the
Board.38 One set of distinctives, peculiar to the denomination, was
being replaced by a new set of distinctives more basically and explicitly
belonging to all who hold to the historic Reformed faith. One might
say that the church was beginning to become a little less particularly
“Covenanter” and a little more generically “Covenantal.” The confes-
sional Reformed doctrine had never been lost in the RPCNA, but a
new wind, as yet only a zephyr, was kindling a refreshed appreciation
36. The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Declara-
tion and Testimony, Chapter XXX, 8, (Pittsburgh: RPCNA), 209b. Compare with
the appropriate sections in the current edition of the Constitution (revised in 1980).
37. Minutes of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
North America, December 6, 1955: a letter of Rev. Bassam Madany. These (unpub-
lished) Minutes are hereafter referred to as “Minutes of the Foreign Board.”
38. Minutes of the Foreign Board, September 21, 1961 (Report of the Committee
to Study the Report of the Deputation).
for it and a refining focus upon the priorities it implied for the life and
mission of a denomination in crisis.
Phases in the Post-War Mission Effort

After World War II, the mission work curtailed by the hostilities was
re-organized. Three phases may be identified in this post-war devel-
opment. They overlap and vary from field to field, but approximate
dates may be given without violating the essential facts of the situation.
Phase 1—Reorganization, 1945–1950
Phase 2—Re-evaluation of policies, 1951–1961
Phase 3—Revision and redirection of policies, 1962–1970
1. Reorganization: 1945–1950
In what we have called Phase 1, the missionaries re-entered the fields
in some strength and attempted to take up where they had left off.
Late in 1944, however, some intimation of the shape of things to
come was given to the Foreign Board, when Rev. Julius Kempf, a
veteran missionary to China, called for policy changes which would
put administrative and institution-related matters in the hands of
the national churches.39 After reorganization, relief work, and some
expansion in South China,40 the missionaries were forced out by the
Communists and, in 1950, moved to Japan.
In Japan, the work was undertaken with a new approach. There
were no schools, no dispensaries, no hospitals, and not even purchases
of property. Evangelism, with property rented as required, was the
adopted policy. In the Levant fields, Syria, and Cyprus, the traditional
policy was followed, with a continuing strong emphasis on the schools.
2. Re-evaluation: 1951–1961
In the second phase, there was increasing pressure to re-evaluate
methodology. If the missions were to be forced out—as was to hap-
pen in Syria in 1958 —what kind of church would be left behind?
Would the national Christians be ready? Could they manage the
property? The missions, having labored for a century with the same
more or less paternalistic regime, were now faced with an about-face
imposed by the realities of a post-colonial world.
39. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 19, 1944.

40. Minutes of Synod, Session CXIX, 1948 (Pittsburgh, 1948), 46.
Astoundingly, even after a hundred years in the Levant and fifty

years in China, there were no copies of RP doctrinal standards in
the vernacular of these fields. Furthermore, there were some serious
differences over doctrine and practice between the home and mission
churches.41 In Syria and Cyprus, it was complained that the schools
took precedence over evangelism in the allocation of resources.42
This, then, was a period of discovery and struggle—discovery of
deep-seated problems in both doctrine and practice exposed by the
rapidly changing social and political conditions, and struggle to clear
the way for corrective treatment.43
3. Revision and Redirection of policies: 1962–1970

Entrance to the third period was perhaps signalized by the affiliation,
in 1962, of the RPCNA with the Evangelical Foreign Missions Asso-
ciation (EFMA).44 Although the latter draws its ethos from American
fundamentalism rather than the Reformed tradition, and this may
seem to involve the RPCNA in some compromise, it is certain that
the vigorous revival of mission studies associated with the EFMA and
her sister, the IFMA, proved a stimulus to the RPCNA to re-think
her mission strategy. After 1962, policy was elaborated and carefully
implemented. The decision, for instance, to give up control of the
Cyprus schools, perhaps the greatest emotional wrench for older
Covenanters, was a symbolic break with the missiology which gov-
erned a century of RP missions.
The three-pronged approach of the nineteenth century (through
preaching, teaching, and healing) was supplanted by a single thrust:
church-planting through integral evangelism. It is to the specific
problems and attempted solutions that our attention must now turn.
41. Minutes of the Foreign Board, March 18, 1952 (cf. Minutes of May 20, 1952, Paper
from Greek Evangelical [RP] Church, Nicosia). In 2010, the one independent but RP-
related congregation in Cyprus (Trinity Community Christian Fellowship) held as its
confessional standard a version of the Westminster Confession in which the section
on the procession of the Holy Spirit is modified to exclude the filioque and so identify
with the Greek Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
42. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 20, 1955 (Report of Rev. Herbert Hays).
43. Minutes of the Foreign Board, September 21, 1961 (note 39 above).
44. Minutes of Synod, Northfield, Minnesota, 1962, 88 (Report of Foreign Mis-
sion Board).
Evaluating the Trends, 1945–1970

Tensions within the Home Church
Tensions at home are not always easy to gauge, especially at a time
when the re-thinking process is still at Board or Synod level. Most
RP members of the postwar years would probably have agreed with
R. J. George when he declared confidently in 1910 that the RPCNA
had been “baptized with the spirit of missions.”45 Perhaps they were
as satisfied with the mission work of their day as Professor George
evidently was with that of his. This may have been particularly true
of the women, who through Women’s Missionary Societies provided
as much as 20 percent of the Foreign Mission budget. Increasingly,
however, questions were being raised about the wisdom of certain
long-established policies. In this is a reflection, one supposes, of the
frustrations of some missionaries and Board members with the actual
progress of the work. Three particular tension areas attract attention:
Lack of Growth in Membership

This was particularly obvious in Cyprus, where, after ninety years,
there were two large academies but only one congregation with
thirty-four communicants.46 Behind this was the painful reality that
the RPCNA was not growing at all at home. The nagging question
for many was, “What were we doing wrong?”
Escalating Expense for Such Low “Yield”

Can such a small church support two missions, or any at all? Should our
“modality” structured missions with their “vertical” Covenanterism
at all levels seeking to clone ourselves abroad be discontinued, and our
effort be channeled into the horizontal “sodality” type of structure,
where we operate on some agreed “lowest common denominator”
doctrinal platform with other denominations and mission agencies?47
This, of course, will be answered according to our stated aim: do we
seek to make Covenanters overseas, or simply evangelical Christians?
45. R. J. George, The Covenanter Pastor, Series I, Lectures in Pastoral Theology

(New York: Christian Nation, 1910), 28.
46. Minutes of Synod, 1972, 26, 212.
47. R. D. Winter, The Warp and the Woof (S. Pasadena: William Carey Library,
1970), 55.
Renewed Emphasis on Evangelism

This led some to question the value of the mission schools, particularly
when they were not staffed entirely by Christians. Some considered
these schools to be not only ineffectual as evangelistic tools, but posi-
tively harmful.48
It will be noticed that the above tension areas relate particularly
to the Cyprus mission. While the Japan work had escaped the prob-
lems associated with schools and had grown steadily if modestly
since its inception, it has not entirely avoided criticism. The policy
of renting property adopted from the beginning49 was criticized as a
waste of money.50
The Relationship of the Mission to the Emerging Church

Strictly speaking, the above heading would not include the relation
of the “sending” church to the mission. Under Presbyterian polity,
however, the sending church and the mission are so close, at least
in principle, as to be one and the same. This would not be so under
independent polity, where some mission society was the link with the
field. Here, then, we shall be examining the relations of the RPCNA
and her Mission to the emerging churches abroad, and we shall do so
in terms of three areas: doctrinal, logistical, and personnel.
Doctrinal concerns
(a) Replicating Reformed Presbyterianism. It has always been the
declared aim of the RPCNA to establish Reformed Presbyterian
churches overseas. This was explicitly stated in the 1970 edition of
the Missionary Manual: “...in pioneer foreign mission work the line of
authority is from Synod through the Board to the Mission Associa-
tion and the missionary. As the work develops and congregations are
organized, the ecclesiastical line of authority is from Synod through
48. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 6, 1955 (Letter from Rev. Bassam
Madany referred to the Board by Pittsburgh RP Presbytery. This gave Mr. Mada-
ny’s reasons for leaving the mission.). For a scathing critique of the Cyprus mission
schools and the policy of the Foreign Mission Board regarding staffing the schools,
see F. M. Foster’s controversial tract, Would the Apostle Paul be Head Master of the Cyprus
Academies? Yes! or No! (New York: Third Reformed Presbyterian Church, 1933), 24.
49. Minutes of the Board, May 22, 1951. Re-affirmed October 9, 1962.
50. S. E. Boyle, Covenanter Property Investments in Asia, no date, (probably 1952).
Included loose with the Minutes of the F.M. Board, 1951–56.
the Commission to the session and the local congregation. The ulti-
mate goal of foreign mission work is to establish a national church
with its own congregations, presbyteries and synod.”51
When mission churches were sufficiently developed, however,
and the effort was made to organize them into presbyteries, these at
first became constitutive elements of the American Synod. This pol-
ity was quite properly seen as trans-cultural because it expressed the
catholicity of the church in the teaching of the unchanging Word of
God. The difference between erecting a presbytery at home and one
overseas is seen as largely a circumstance of geography. But the goal
of establishing national churches has proved elusive. In 2010, after
sixty years of mission work, the Japan Presbytery is still an overseas
Presbytery of the North American RP church rather than a national
RP church of Japan.
Behind this was a strong sense of confessional denominational
commitment. In the 1951 edition of the Manual, it is confidently
stated, “We believe that to be a Calvinist and a Covenanter is no
more than to be a consistently Biblical Christian and we regard it
as our duty to seek to win men to this position, whether at home
or abroad.”52 The 1970 Manual is slightly more muted in its confes-
sionalism: “This Board...in common with the Church to which it is
responsible, accepts the interpretation of the Scriptures commonly
called Calvinism, or the Reformed Faith, as the purest and most con-
sistent form of the Christian religion....”53 This necessarily implied
that the aim of RP missions was to go beyond “soul-winning”—
the principal concern of many evangelicals—and build daughter
churches in the Covenanting tradition. This, of course, begs the ques-
tion. “Should the task of RP missions be to make RPs?” In January
1973, Rev. Sam Boyle, Kobe, Japan, in an “open letter” to the Foreign
Board of the RPCNA, noted that Covenanters came from a “rather
isolated and narrow cultural pocket” in America and asked whether
in view of this fact the missionaries should teach the nationals “all or
but a part of the Covenanter heritage from Scotland.”54 He goes on to
argue for the former. The heritage of the covenants of King Jesus with
51. RPCNA, Missionary Manual, 1970 ed., 13.

52. RPCNA, Manual of the Board of Foreign Missions, 1951, Pittsburgh, RP Synod,
1951, 3.
53. RPCNA, Missionary Manual, Pittsburgh, RP Synod, 1970, 2.
54. S. E. Boyle, An Open Letter to the Board of Foreign Missions, January 19, 1973, 1.
seventeenth-century Scotland was not to be discarded as irrelevant to

the Empire of Japan!
(b) Distinctive principles. Most evangelical missiologists would see the

strict attitude exemplified by the RPCNA as a manifestation of what
C. Peter Wagner calls “cultural overhang.”55 This may be “the hidden
cause of retarded church growth,” says Wagner.56 But are the “distinc-
tive principles” to be dismissed as cultural accretions from American
life or from the distant cultures of the Scotland and Ireland of the
Covenanter forefathers? Such a question must surely send us back to
Scripture for answers, because we certainly have no warrant from the
Lord to teach “as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7).
(i) The question still remains: even assuming the RP distinctives
are true to God’s Word, can it be shown that they have a deleterious
effect on church growth? The evidence seems, on the face of it, to
answer in the affirmative. A couple of examples may illumine the point:
a. Close communion—the practice of permitting only RP
members to partake of the Lord’s Supper—was rejected against
the votes of the American missionaries by China Presbytery in
1941.57 The practice was openly flouted in Cyprus.58 In neither
case was discipline exercised, presumably in consideration of the
untaught state of the people and to allow time for instruction.
b. Purity of worship—the exclusive use of the Psalms in worship
without instrumental accompaniment—was a focus of unrest
in Cyprus, especially among the Armenians, who had been
absorbed from Congregationalism en bloc into the RP mission.
They wanted hymns and organs. After a decade of debate, they
were granted autonomy and stricken from the roll of Synod.59
(ii) In the face of such opposition, the Foreign Board went on
record to confessing that it must bear “its share of the blame” for the
55. C. Peter Wagner, Frontiers in Missionary Strategy (Chicago: Moody Press,

1971), 104.
56. Wagner, Frontiers in Missionary Strategy, 99.
57. S. E. Boyle, An Open Letter..., January 19, 1973, 2.
58. Minutes of the Foreign Board, March 18, 1952.
59. Minutes of the Foreign Board, May 20, 1952. See also, Minutes of Synod, 1962,
88. In 1973, Rev. Sam Boyle saw indications that a similar controversy might arise
in Japan in the mid ’70s, but this in fact never came to pass. (S.E. Boyle, An Open
Letter..., January 19, 1973, 6).
lack of growth in the mission.60 It should be noted that whereas the

Board never laid this lack of growth at the door of the distinctive
principles, it did attribute it to a lack of proper teaching and indoc-
trination. After seventy years, the RP standards had not yet been
translated into Greek and there was no adequate confessional means
“by which the life of new converts might be sustained.”61 The Cyprus
deputation of 1960 and the subsequent report suggested that the root
of the problem was a general evangelical tradition, which had been
handed down from the early days of the mission. This was corrobo-
rated by the testimony of Rev. Sam Boyle in reference to the South
China mission. He lists three factors:
a. Total lack of basic theological knowledge among early converts.
b. Interdenominational involvement, such as the Student Vol-
unteer Movement and Christian Endeavor, bound Americans
of different mission groups more closely to one another. Bonds
with the Chinese within the same denomination were weaker,
and to that extent denominational loyalty was weakened.
c. There was a “tacit understanding with the Board” that the
message would be kept simple, “with no mention of the Cove-
nanter system of theology and political idealism in its American
and British form.”62
The conclusion seems inescapable that the renewal of Calvinism
and Reformed evangelism in the post-war RPCNA exposed serious
deficiencies in earlier mission theory and practice. The rigorous con-
fessionalism of the 1951 and 1970 Manuals required overseas, as much
as at home, the consistent and thorough instruction of new converts.
It also required extreme care in ordaining officers and organizing
church courts. The older missions did not appear to carry out this
kind of program—at least, not until it had become too late. Then,
when the congregations formed earlier under a “general evangeli-
cal” regime were confronted with the full-blown confessionalism of
the RPCNA, it was found that the nationals rejected much of it as
“strange doctrine.” It goes without saying that a confessional church is
bound to the establishing of new confessional churches overseas. The
60. Minutes of the Foreign Board, May 20, 1952.

62. S.E. Boyle, An Open Letter..., 2.
pre-requisite for doing so is to have purged the confession of unbibli-

cal and/or cultural elements. Only then may it be presented as a model
for the making of a confession for the mission church. This is par-
ticularly true of a document like the RP Testimony, which is primarily
a polemical document speaking to the American religious-political
context. This should not have been difficult for American RPs to
discern, since they themselves soon retreated from the fiercely mon-
archist Scottish Covenants when the Colonies became a Republic!63
2. Logistical concerns
(a) Ecclesiastical autonomy was always the declared goal of RP foreign
missions. The standard operating principles in this area were formu-
lated in a Synod Report of 1945. This recognized that
(i) the only “permanent bonds” are “spiritual,”
(ii) autonomy is the ideal to be granted,
(iii) when the mission is persuaded the time is ripe.
(iv) This may be granted before economic independence.
(v) During the transition, the missionaries should assume a
non-supervisory role and
(vi) advise on the Standards to be adopted, so that
(vii) “sister covenanting bodies” come into being.64
These principles were never fully implemented in China. The 1945
proposal for autonomy was re-introduced in 1946 65 but was appar-
ently tabled, never again to see the light of day. In 1949, the Board
was “relieved of further responsibility” in the matter.66 No more is
heard beyond a reference to the de facto turning over of the work to
the Chinese by 1951.67 This was no more than “bolting the door after
the horse has gone,” for the missionaries had already left China and
63. J. H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions (Philadelphia: Presbyte-

rian & Reformed, 1960), 262. Bavinck advises, “if at all possible the denominational
differences that have grown up in the course of our own history ought not to be
transplanted on the mission field.” A clear example of cultural “overhang” occurred
in 1952 in connection with a converted polygamist in Syria. This case was eventu-
ally dealt with soundly, but only after considerable controversy in the RP Synod (see
Appendix 1).
64. Minutes of Synod, 1945, 44–45.
65. Minutes of Synod, 1946, 34.
the China Presbytery had ceased to function effectively due to com-

munist pressure.68
Until very recently,69 the only case of an RP mission church being
granted full autonomy is that of the Syrian RPC, which was consti-
tuted by action of the American Synod on June 13, 1961.70 Although
undoubtedly precipitated by the expulsion of the American mission
three years earlier, it stands as a model of Presbyterian procedure.71
In other cases, autonomy has only been accomplished when local cir-
cumstances imposed it as a fait accompli. In Cyprus, it was doctrinal
defection that forced the issue;72 in China, it was political pressure.73
The Japan churches are still not autonomous after sixty years, largely
by their own choice.
Some might argue that the imposition of an apparently inflexible
ecclesiastical procedure could only serve to highlight the paternal-
ism so ingrained in the western mind, missionary or otherwise, and
so retard growth. It becomes, in Ralph Winter’s phrase, “the master
rather than the servant” of church development.74 Similar structures
did not hamper the expansion of the Korean Presbyterian Church,75
so one must look elsewhere for the reasons for RP stagnation. Per-
haps a clue to this is to be found in the very fact that moves toward
autonomy were initiated largely by the changing political environ-
ments in the various fields. There is evidence to suggest that there was
some unwillingness on the part of national Christians, particularly
in the Levant, to face up to the responsibilities that autonomy would
involve. Attempts by the Mission to work toward autonomy failed in
Syria as early as 1895.76 Six decades later, the Board was informed that
68. Minutes of Synod, 1950, 109; cf. Minutes of Synod, 1954, 79.
69. In 2010, the Sudan Commission formally established a fully autonomous
Reformed Presbyterian Church of South Sudan, after three years of working in the
field. This raised questions in the Synod of 2010 and is under review.
71. Compare Minutes of Synod, 1957, 57 (original proposal); 1958, 45 (Commis-
sion appointed); 1959, 130–33 (initial steps); 1960, 88–90 (Presbytery formed); and
1961, 136 (full autonomy).
74. Winter, The Warp and the Woof, 77.
75. P. Beyerhaus and H. Lefever, The Responsible Church and the Foreign Mission
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 96.
76. McFarland, Eight Decades in Syria, 44 (cf. note 11 above).
“the Mission has been trying for 20 years to transfer [the] work...
into the hands of the native Covenanters.” The tone of the discus-
sion may be accurately, if rather acidly, represented in the observation
that “Mr. Hays...sees no future in...[translation]...work if we intend
to turn the work over to the natives. If we want the Syrian to read a
book, we must give it to him free of charge.”77 At the same time, there
was considerable agitation in the field over finance and property. Not
only had the church buildings been heavily subsidized, but there were
RP schools at that time receiving American funds of not insignificant
proportions. Were the overheads of long-term American subsidies too
great for the nationals to contemplate assuming for themselves?
(b) Property and finance were always in the picture. It seems altogether
probable that either fear of insolvency or lack of future assistance con-
tributed to the apparent unwillingness to “go it alone”—a situation not
uncommon in the history of missions.78 While the mission congrega-
tions did not want to lose what assistance they could get, it appears that
they were eager nevertheless to gain control of the church properties,
which were, of course, vested with Synod’s Trustees in the United
States.79 The missionaries felt that handing the schools over would lead
to their being closed for lack of support from the nationals.80
(c) Personnel unrest on the field. This arose largely with particular
reference to the role of the schools. Rev. Bassam Madany, who went
on to become a highly respected Arabic broadcaster with the “Back-
to-God Hour” of the Christian Reformed Church, charged the Syrian
mission with placing undue emphasis upon the educational work. He
contrasted RP methodology with the Nevius/Korean experience: the
schools had become, he alleged, “an end in themselves.”81
Leaving aside for the moment the nature of the schools, two
things at least are clear. First of all, they consumed the major part
of the resources of the mission, in money, material, and missionary
personnel and had ipso facto become the major thrust of the mission.
77. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 20, 1955 (Report of Rev. Herbert Hays).
78. Beyerhaus and Lefever, The Responsible Church and the Foreign Mission, 68.
80. Marjorie Sanderson, Letter to the Board, July 16, 1956. (Latakia, Syria—where
Mrs. Sanderson taught in the mission school).
81. Letter from Rev. Bassam Madany (see note 49 above).
Secondly, for a national church which had declined from 479 commu-
nicant members in 1896 to 329 in 1956, the prospect of maintaining
schools must have appeared daunting indeed.82
The Levant schools—and their relation to the mission policy
and goals—were a source of continuing unrest.83 A number of young
workers felt constrained to leave the field, and others to register
protests.84 The charge is invariably the same; the schools constitute
the major work of the mission, the church is the projected home
of those largely reached through the schools, and since the church,
not the school, is God’s appointed means of evangelizing the lost,
the educational emphasis weakens the church witness.85 That this is
substantially the true picture is corroborated by the proceedings of
the Foreign Board, which took steps to dispose of the schools and
establish the priority of the church and evangelism in Cyprus.86 J. H.
Bavinck perceptively observes that “such services as schools...are pos-
sible only if a Christian congregation has grown up on the mission
field.”87 There is an interesting twist in the way this controversy came
to a head in Cyprus. The Cyprus deputation of 1960 had pointed out
the need for Christian staff in the schools. In response, Synod started
the “Christian Corps for Cyprus” project, under which young Chris-
tian teachers would go out from the USA and serve for short terms.
It was ironic indeed that these should be the very people who were to
voice objection to the state of the mission and so stimulate further the
process of re-evaluation already under way.
3. The evolution of policy

A survey of post-war policy statements reveals a shift from the tradi-
tional highly institutionalized mission with its schools, hospitals, and
82. McFarland, Eight Decades in Syria, 38, cf. Minutes of Synod, 1956, 165.
83. After 1958, when Syria ceased to be a mission field, the Cyprus Academies
were the focus of controversy.
84. Ron and Kathy Stegall, Analysis of the Reformed Presbyterian Mission in Cyprus
(mimeo, c. 1969).
85. This was also under discussion in the OPC. See Harvie M. Conn, Reactions
to the Sub-Committee Report on the Biblical Principles Involved in the Establishment of Mis-
sion Schools (drawn up for the Korea Mission of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
1967), 10, point six.
86. Minutes of the Foreign Board, February 9, 1971, 3; cf. Minutes of November 14,
1972 and May 25, 1973.
87. J. H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, 115.
other services to a more overtly evangelistic focus. Many of the prob-

lems already mentioned arose in the Levant missions in the twentieth
century because it was there that the nineteenth-century pattern
remained largely intact.88
(a) The new policies in the Far East. In the Far East, the older mis-
siology passed away with the South China mission. When the work
in Kobe, Japan, was established in 1950, it was for the purpose of
evangelism and church planting, with a literature work on the side.89
Property was purchased sparingly in a conscious attempt to avoid later
wrangling over its control. Subsidies were also shunned, although
funds from the sale of a church building in Ohio were applied to
the Higashi Suma church in Kobe.90 A 1966 Report stressed that all
funds sent to Japan were for evangelism.91 The Board’s 1967 policy
statement, “Aid to Overseas Churches and National Church Work,”
emphasized that such giving should only go to churches where there
was regular, consistent giving by national Christians.92
(b) “Lines of Responsibility on the Mission Field”—a report issued

in 1967—sought to clarify the application of ecclesiastical polity to
overseas situations.93 The Mission and missionaries are responsible
to the Board and are in terms of authority separate from the national
churches, which until a Presbytery is formed, are under a Commis-
sion of Synod. Thus, for instance, Mission property was solely the
province of the Board—this included the Kobe Bookroom and the
Cyprus Academies—whereas church properties were vested with the
Commission and congregations.94 The Mission and the local church
accordingly function “as separate groups within the one body of
88. This is still echoed to some degree in 2010 in the relationship between the
RPCNA-related Trinity Community Christian Fellowship and the now indepen-
dent American Academy in Larnaca. The church is tiny, consists in the main of
Cypriots married to foreign nationals, holds all its services in English, and reaches
out to refugees. The school continues to command the energies of leaders in the
church and has sought and employed teachers from the RPCNA.
89. Minutes of the Foreign Board, July 11, 1951.
90. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 18, 1951, cf. March 8, 1960.
91. Minutes of the Foreign Board, September 1966.
92. Minutes of the Foreign Board, September 12, 1967.
93. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 12, 1967.
94. Minutes of the Foreign Board, September 1966.
Christ,”95 corresponding to George W. Peters’s category of “Organi-

zational Dichotomy and Functional Co-operation.”96
(c) Dealing with the older fields—the “mission school” question. In

May 1953, a review was made of the Levant mission program. This
posed the questions that were answered some twenty years later. It
enjoined a “complete re-examination of our Church’s entire foreign
mission policy,” and particularly questioned the place and effectiveness
of the schools as a method of church-building.97 In 1953, however, eco-
nomic factors appeared to weigh heaviest in the minds of the Board.
There was no questioning of the leading role of mission schools in
the work of the church or any assessment of their staffing and per-
formance in terms of the nature of intentionally Christian schools. In
1954, the problem was thrown back to the home church. The Board
did not want to curtail its activities and so asked for growth at home
to provide the necessary finance.98 A 1958 report on long-range goals
says little, but indicates the desire that all work be subservient to the
goal of church planting.99 The real “bombshell” came in 1960, when
the Cyprus deputation noted that the schools lacked Christian staff
and were just not good mission schools. Withdrawal from Cyprus was
seriously mooted.100 After a decade of attempts to “Christianize” the
schools, the Board instituted procedures to phase out the Academies
by 1978. The Synod was asked to “agree that we should break with
the historic focus of evangelizing mainly through the Academies” at
its meeting in 1973.101
Concluding Observations
RPCNA missiology unquestionably advanced in a self-consciously
Reformed direction in the quarter century after World War II. Major
95. Missionary Manual, 1970 ed., 13.

96. George W. Peters, “Mission-Church Relations Overseas”, in V. Gerber,
(ed.), Missions in Creative Tension (S. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1971), 200.
99. Minutes of the Foreign Board, December 1958.
100. Minutes of the Foreign Board, September 21, 1961.
101. Minutes of the Foreign Board, June 11, 1973. It is perhaps worth pointing out
that the same tensions over the mission schools abroad had a parallel in the strides
made at home during the same period to make Geneva College a more Christian
and covenantal institution than it had been.
items, such as the overestimation of the schools, were confronted,

as were a multitude of minor matters related to the everyday life of
the missions. It is also true that certain issues remained relatively
untouched and substantially unresolved during this period.
The first major issue concerns the relationship of Presbyterian
polity to the transcultural extension of the church. The RPCNA is
convinced of the jus divinum of Presbyterian polity; she holds, as in
her vows for ordination, that “the permanent form of government is
presbyterian.” Does this imply that all the details of her American gov-
ernmental structure, with its accretions of practice and procedure, be
imposed on newly planted churches in a foreign field? In practical fact,
this cannot be done in every detail in any case. For example, in North
America, a “new work” is opened under the auspices of a Presbytery, of
which it becomes a constituent part upon being formally organized as
a congregation. Overseas, however, because the work is starting from
scratch and it is impracticable for a Presbytery in the home base to
open the work itself, the “new work” is conducted at the Synod level,
through a Board—in 2010, RP Global Missions. In order to introduce
Presbyterian structure to the field itself, a Commission composed of
the missionaries and such nationals as can be seconded to it, is set up.
It is in effect a quasi-presbytery. This governs the national church,
but not the mission, which is directly responsible to the Board. And
it is only dissolved when a Presbytery is formed. The new Presbytery
becomes thereby an overseas presbytery of the RPCNA.102
Two principles bear on this situation. The first is that Scripture
knows no distinction between churches at “home” and “abroad”—
the one body under the one King and Head, the Lord Jesus Christ,
compasses the globe. The second is that each portion of Christ’s body
must however confess Him as He is revealed in Scripture and as He
speaks specifically and polemically to the pagan or apostate culture in
which it is placed. This sets up a certain tension between the global
and the national contexts for the church. For an overseas presbytery
to be bound to an American set of confessional standards developed
after a long struggle to address the specific North American cultural
102. The Japan Presbytery is still in 2010 a constituent court of the North
American RP Church. One result of this has been the submission of requests from
Japan for adjustments to particular positions and actions of Synod which apply to a
North American context but do not take account of the different circumstances and
challenges facing the churches in Japan.
milieu—and barely keeping pace with that!—is arguably to deny

these principles their proper weight and balance. This happens at least
to some degree when a doctrinal confession is imposed when it is not
necessarily trans-cultural. This would apply more to the Testimony
and The Covenant of 1871 than to the Westminster Confession. Even
in the latter case, care should be exercised. After all, the Presbyterian
churches of North America modified the Confession’s position on
church and state both because they believed it was in error from a
biblical point of view, but also with an eye to the particular conditions
obtaining in the new Republic.
The second principle leads us to ask whether it is inconsistent
with our biblical (Presbyterian) polity to nurture an overseas work
which recognizes in the most practical way the unity of the body of
Christ (in that it fulfills the functions of evangelism, indoctrination,
ordination of officers and organization of congregations) without the
application of the full-blown procedural system of the home church.
Can the session or presbytery that God has raised up, albeit under the
ministry and guidance of the ministry of a mission from beyond the
seas, not just constitute itself after the first elders have been ordained
by the missionaries? Cases could certainly be cited of a man being
ordained in one denomination of Presbyterians, then going on to
serve in another of which he had become a member. In fact, this was
the case with the RPCNA when it re-organized in 1798. Although
the ministers from the British Isles who had come to help the people
here were commissioned by the Scottish RP church, the Presbytery
was not constituted as a part of the church in the old country, but as an
autonomous American church. Why should the present RP churches
of Japan or the Sudan be treated differently in this fundamental aspect
of polity from those of eighteenth-century America? The answer has
been given in 2010 in the organization of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of South Sudan as a national church—and after three years
of mission work. Japan has still to leave the nest after sixty years and
become a truly national church.
A second issue has to do with the very concept of the “foreign
mission” and the “foreign missionary.” One looks in vain in Scripture
for the foreign-home distinction that is so ingrained, if not indeed
romanticized, in the Western Christian psyche. The RPCNA, in
spite of her traditional commitment to Calvinism, has not escaped
the leaven of fundamentalism in her understanding of missions.
The history of her missions proves this to be true. In spite of the

clear teaching of Scripture on the unity of the body of Christ and
the nature of the biblical offices, the foreign mission is often thought
of as a biblical sub-division of the church and the role called “mis-
sionary” regarded almost as a distinct biblical office. Professor R. J.
George, writing a century ago in The Covenanter Pastor, even devotes
separate chapters to the “Home” and “Foreign” calls.103 While there
certainly are differences between ministering at home and abroad,
these are of a circumstantial rather than essential nature. These dif-
ferences have unfortunately served to sustain the myth of the “great
divide” between the two in the minds of many evangelicals. This too
easily tied in with the unedifying paternalist attitudes associated with
the colonial period.
The quarter-century after 1945 was a watershed period for RP
missions and missiology. The paternalism of the nineteenth century
was progressively eroded and reformed. But the work is not yet done,
for we are called to be ever reforming according to the Word of God.
Semper reformanda! Soli Deo Gloria!
APPENDIX 1
A Case of Polygamy
The Syrian Commission sent a paper to the RP Synod in 1952, asking
whether or not an Alouite convert, who had two wives, could receive
the sacrament of baptism. Synod ruled according to the Standards of
the church— Confession of Faith, XXIV, I; Decl. & Testimony, XXVIII,
I—that since a man may only have one wife, this Alouite must “put
away” one of his. A precedent from the Indian Mission in Oklahoma
was adduced in support. There a man had been obliged to divorce
one of his wives prior to being received into church membership. He
103. R. J. George, Lectures in Pastoral Theology: First Series, The Covenanter Pastor
(New York: Christian Nation, 1911), 32–55. Interestingly, George is reserved in his
endorsement of volunteering for mission work, and doubtless had in mind the role
of the church in calling those who exhibited the gifts for the work. This is another
major issue of particular moment in the twenty-first century, namely, the role of the
subjective and individual, as opposed to the collective and ecclesiastical, in determin-
ing and validating a call to the ministry and missions, whether at “home” or “abroad.”
was obliged, of course, to continue to support her (Minutes of Synod,

CXXII, Beaver Falls, 1951, p. 140).
The following year, the Foreign Mission Board sent a Report up
to Synod asking that the decision of the previous year be rescinded.
In support of this request, evidence was presented along three lines:
1. The “Alouite” decision (Minutes, 1951, p. 140) was compared with

the decision concerning a case in Kansas of a man who had contracted
an unbiblical second marriage, prior to coming to a profession of faith
(Minutes, p. 32). The Report went on to say, “To declare as valid the
supposed unscriptural marriage of a Kansan member on account of
his ignorance of the law of Scripture, and then to require annulment
of an unscriptural marriage of a benighted Syrian applicant for mem-
bership, is surely inconsistent. If the decision on the Kansas case is
right, and we believe it is, then the decision on the Syrian case must
be wrong” (Minutes of the Foreign Board, May 20, 1952).
2. Polygamy problems in the apostolic church were not solved by

annulment (1 Corinthians 7:12f; cf. 1 Timothy 3:2).
3. Synod’s decision did not take cognizance of the fact that Syrian
law sanctions polygamy. “The Alouite stands in the same position as
they (polygamous converts in the early church): married in ignorance
of the law of God concerning family relations, he has an obligation
towards all for whom he became responsible before he heard the good
news of the Gospel.… As a Christian he has a double responsibility
for them—for their material needs and their need of salvation. Who is
to say which of the two wives he should keep if he is to give up one?
What will the one discriminated against by the Christian Church
think of the morality of the Christian faith? What chance will there
be to lead her and her children to faith in the Lord?” The writer sup-
ported the move to rescind the 1951 decision.
In June, 1952, Synod rescinded the action of the previous year. It
was recognized that to require the man to put away one wife would
be asking him to sin “in repudiating a contract willingly entered into
in ignorance of divine revelation.” He could be baptized and be a
member, but not become an office bearer (Minutes of Synod, CXXIII,
1952, p. 130).
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following bibliography is restricted to material directly related to

the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and her mis-
sion work, and used in the preparation of this paper.
I. Documents in the possession of the R.P. Foreign Missions

Board (all unpublished)
Minutes of the Foreign Mission Board of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
North America, 1940–1973.
Boyle, S. E., “Covenanter Property Investment in Asia.” 9pp, (c. 1952–1953).
Boyle, S. E., An Open Letter to the Board of Foreign Mission, 8pp, January,
1973.
II. Published material

A. On the RPCNA in general:
The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Pitts-
burgh: RP Synod, 1970, 350 pp.
The Minutes of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North Amer-
ica, Pittsburgh, RP Synod, (published annually).
Glasgow, W. Melancthon, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America, Baltimore, 1888; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heri-
tage Books, 2007.
Thompson, Owen F., Sketches of the Ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church in America from 1888 to 1930, Pittsburgh, R.P. Synod, no date.
Smith, Alvin W., Covenanter Ministers, 1930–1963, Pittsburgh: R.P. Synod,
no date.
B. On RP Missions in particular:
Huston, Rose (translator), Jeanette Li, the autobiography of a Chinese Chris-
tian, London: Banner of Truth, 1971.
McFarland, A. J., Eight Decades in Syria, Topeka, Kansas, R.P. Synod, 1937.
Missionary Manual of the Board of Foreign Missions, Greeley, Colorado, R.P.
Synod, 1970. (cf. Manual of the Board of Foreign Missions, Pittsburgh,
R.P. Synod, 1951).
Our Mission in Manchuria, Topeka (n.d.), RP Synod, 1936.
Robb, Alice E., Hoi Moon (Open Door), Fifty-five years of Reformed Presbyterian
Mission work in South China, Pittsburgh (n.d.), RP FM Board, no date.
Weir, W. W., C. E. Caskey, and Barnabas Constantinopoulos, A Brief

History of the Work of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the Island of
Cyprus, Topeka, RPFM Board, 1939.
III. Unpublished material on RP Missions

Lynn, Orlena Marie, “Fifty Years of Covenanter Evangelism in South
China.” Unpublished M.R.E. thesis, Biblical Seminary, New York,
1948. Copy in R.P. Seminary Library, 7418 Penn Ave., Pittsburgh.
Stegall, R, and K. Stegall, An Analysis of the Reformed Presbyterian Mission
in Cyprus, mimeo, probably 1969.
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 307–322
Continuing Education for Ministers:

A Guide for Ministers and Congregations1
Ryan M. McGraw
q
The church needs pastors who are godly. However, the church needs
pastors who are learned as well. Better still, the church needs min-
isters whose education and piety grow in harmony until the end of
their lives. The ministers of the past whom we often admire most are
those men who were most diligent and prayerful in their studies.2 In
the latter half of the nineteenth century, the southern Presbyterian
R. L. Dabney illustrated the need for a thoroughly educated ministry
with a useful analogy. A woodsman who is naturally strong in body
may chop twice as much wood in a day as another man, even though
he has a dull axe. Yet, if he desires to maximize his effectiveness, he
will take time that he otherwise would have used to chop more wood
in order to sharpen his axe. At the expense of an hour of his time, he
will be twice as productive and useful in his labors. 3 In a similar man-
ner, ministers of the gospel should pursue warm-hearted personal
piety through intense study. For many, continuing education will be
a good means to secure this end.
Many churches do not understand why their ministers should
continue to pursue education, and ministers can sometimes neglect
their churches at the expense of further education. Both of these
positions reflect a defective view of ministerial education. This article
demonstrates the need for lifelong ministerial education, whether
1. My friends, pastors Bill Schweitzer and Ryan Speck, deserve thanks for their
useful feedback on this article.
2. For instance, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Thomas Boston, among
others, produced most of their works in the context of the pastorate.
3. R. L. Dabney, “A Thoroughly Educated Ministry,” in Discussions (Harris-
burg, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 1982), II, 659–60. I slightly modified Dabney’s
original illustration.
formal or informal. This assertion requires us to consider what is in

view, why ministers should grow in their theological education, how
they should do so, and how and why congregations should support
them in these endeavors.
What Is in View?
Asserting that ministers should pursue continuing education implies a
preliminary question: what kind of education? Even though not every
ministry must follow the same path, this article is tailored toward driv-
ing men and churches to a higher view of formal ministerial education
beyond the Master of Divinity level. However, how men and their con-
gregations view continuing education often indicates how they regard
the minister’s study in general.4 Study and learning are not the only
things that must occupy a minister, but without the continual, prayer-
ful, and devout study of Scripture and the theology of the church, his
flock will be subjected to ravenous wolves more easily, his soul will be
emaciated, and his entire ministry will suffer. The greatest tragedy is
that men who do not see the need for continuing education follow-
ing their divinity studies rarely see that their ministries have suffered
already by virtue of their attitude. A few observations are necessary in
order to define the parameters of this discussion.
Three Observations
First, post graduate degree programs beyond the Master of Divinity
level are in view immediately (though not exclusively). Such pro-
grams could include a Masters in Theology (ThM), a doctorate of
ministry (DMin), a doctorate of theology (ThD), DPhil, or PhD pro-
gram. Each program differs in emphasis. It is important to understand
the differences between them in order to set personal goals. A ThM
is ordinarily a research degree that may or may not include course
work and which may focus on a wide range of subjects. A DMin is a
ministerial degree that requires several courses as well as a ministry-
oriented research project. ThDs, DPhils, and PhDs are intensive
research degrees that are more scholarly in nature. The American
model for these degrees includes about two years of course work, a
thesis, language requirements, and comprehensive exams in the cho-
sen subject. The European model often does not require course work,
4. See sources below.

Continuing Education for Ministers 309
specified language requirements, or comprehensive exams; instead, it

focuses attention on a more intense research project. A ThD is usu-
ally offered at a theological seminary, whereas a PhD or DPhil can be
pursued with a seminary or a university.
When I graduated from seminary, I was not aware of these distinc-
tions. Knowing them helps determine what kind of further education
you might consider. For instance, a ThM is less intense than a PhD. It
is a good end in itself as well as a profitable stepping stone to the great
rigors of a doctoral program. A DMin expands upon areas of practical
theology that were introduced in an MDiv course. A ThD, PhD, or
DPhil aims to develop expertise in a specific area with a precise ques-
tion or thesis in view. Even these latter programs can vary dramatically
depending upon where you pursue the degree. Some programs ful-
fill the popular stereotype of providing expertise in one narrow topic
without gaining broader knowledge of the time period or subject in
general. Others require comprehensive knowledge in a general area of
study that is mediated through your particular subject. For example,
a student doing research on John Owen may find one of two results
depending upon where he studies. He may become an expert in what
Owen has said with limited additional knowledge about Puritanism or
Reformed orthodoxy. Or he may become an expert in why Owen said
what he said, what its consequences are, and gain proficiency in the
field of Puritanism and Reformed orthodoxy in general. In my opin-
ion, the latter is much more difficult yet far more useful for ministry
in the long run. It is important to know your options and to become
familiar with various schools and the character of the programs offered.
In addition, find out who your supervisors would be and study under
men who you believe will help you attain your ministerial goals.
Second, several seminaries offer certificate programs in various
areas of study. This approach provides a form of external prodding
that will provoke you to study more broadly than you would in your
week-to-week pulpit ministry alone. I often describe two levels of ser-
mon preparation.5 The first is that which ministers do week to week in
studying commentaries and related materials in order to preach their
sermons each Lord’s Day. The other level is to study theology and
5. For instance, see the brief treatment in my article, “A Pastor’s Analysis of

Emphases in Preaching: Two False Dichotomies and Three Conclusions,” in Puritan
Reformed Journal, 2:1, (Jan. 2010):275–76.
history on a larger scale in order to accumulate useful material and

shape who we are as men. The latter is just as valuable as the former,
but few pursue it adequately while they are caught up in the rigorous
week-to-week labors of the ministry. We should have long-term as well
as short-term goals for our ministry and preaching. So, for instance,
a certificate in Systematic Theology will prompt you to become more
familiar with the broader system of doctrine and practice in the Bible
that will inform every aspect of your ministerial life. You will read
your commentaries more profitably, craft your sermons more fully,
and gain much material for prayerful application of the Scriptures.
Third, every minister must engage in self-education. In many
respects, this statement is the foundation of everything that I will say
below. As mentioned above, most of the great theologians in the his-
tory of the church spent most of their lives in the pastorate and wrote
most of their works in that context. Today we have largely lost the
idea of the pastor-scholar who serves the church with his learning.
Ministers should be learned men and ministers should produce most
of our theological literature. Study, ministry, preaching, teaching,
writing, and prayer should all build upon each other in a pastor’s life.6
Continuing education will likely help you aim for the kind of pasto-
ral excellence that characterized our Reformed forefathers. Pursuing
higher education while serving in the pastorate is a sink or swim
endeavor: it forces you to manage your time well, to learn your limits,
and to expand your gifts and graces. Ministerial education follows the
rule of the parable of the talents: the more faithful you are with what
you have and the more you gradually push yourself to accomplish
more, the more the Lord enables you to do. For most of us, this kind
of study teaches us how to be more self-disciplined and enables us to
be more effective in our self-education.
Why Ministers Should Continue Their Education

An Educated Ministry Is Biblical
Most of the tasks of the ministry cannot be accomplished without
sound knowledge and the ability to make clear distinctions. One
6. See my articles, “On Theological Writing,” and, “William Plumer on Pasto-

ral Writing,” both in Puritan Reformed Journal, 2:2, (July 2010):303–15 and 316–20,
respectively. This current article is partly an outworking of my earlier article on
preaching mentioned above and the two articles on pastoral writing mentioned here.
friend of mine describes the definition of maturity as the ability to

make finer and finer distinctions. This is particularly true with regard
to identifying false doctrine. Error rarely comes into the church by
false teachers coming in with neon signs on their foreheads that say,
“I deny the divinity of Christ, etc.” Peter says that such men “privily
bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Heresies creep in secretly
because they creep in subtly, often employing the same language as
sound orthodox theology.7 Moreover, Paul charged Timothy to make
his progress in the ministry evident to all (1 Tim. 4:15). This included
a charge to give attention to doctrine (vv. 13, 16). Even late in his
ministry Paul was careful to ask Timothy to bring scrolls and parch-
ments to aid his studies (2 Tim. 4:13). If even the divinely inspired
apostle progressed in his studies to his dying day, we ought to imitate
him by aspiring to promote and to become a learned ministry. As a
friend wrote, “Christ is the Word. The mission of the church is the
verbal proclamation of the gospel. The essence of our effectiveness
is to communicate the deposit of faith, to interpret rightly both the
smallest detail and to explain the macroscopic contours of the great
work of redemption. These things deserve, and demand, intentional
cultivation, bathed in earnest prayer.”8
Ministers Need Practice in Wedding Knowledge and Piety

I have often heard other ministers ask why ministerial examinations
focus so much upon doctrine when being “apt to teach” is merely one
qualification among many for the eldership (1 Tim. 2:24). The answer
in part is that it is virtually impossible to examine a man’s personal
piety apart from his views of theology. The doctrine that we preach is
the doctrine that is according to godliness (1 Tim. 6:13). In preaching,
ministers must confess with their mouths what they believe in their
hearts (Rom. 10:9). We believe, and therefore we speak (2 Cor. 4:13).
I have also heard church members argue that when we emphasize
doctrine, then we lose the warmth of Christian living and experi-
ence. While this can occur, this ought not to be the case. This kind
of thinking is foreign to the Bible. In the book of Proverbs, wisdom
7. The best illustration that I have found of this is J. Gresham Machen, Chris-
tianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946). Ironically, if you fall into the
rut of treading water in order to prepare your weekly sermons, then you will never
find time to read a valuable book like this one.
8. From an email communication from William M. Schweitzer.
and understanding are connected to walking in the fear of the Lord

(Prov. 1:7). The fear of the Lord is a biblical phrase that describes
reverent godly living that is produced through faith in Christ by the
powerful work of the Spirit in us and that is rooted in the truths of
Scripture.9 There is no true knowledge without piety and there is no
true piety without knowledge of sound doctrine. In an ideal world,
our experimental knowledge of the truth would always grow in step
with our theoretical knowledge of the truth.10 The fact that it does not
always do so should not lead us to place the blame upon learning and
doctrine; instead we should place the blame upon ourselves. Minis-
ters must cultivate the skill of learning how to wed their growth in
knowledge to their growth in piety so that they can serve as examples
to the flock. For this reason, both Paul and Peter connected growing
in the knowledge of God’s will and of the Lord Jesus Christ with wis-
dom, spiritual understanding, and being fruitful in every good work
(Col. 1:9–10; 2 Pet. 3:18). This is a powerful motive for ministers to
increase in their learning through education.
Education while in the Pastorate Promotes

Self-discipline and Time Management
I have often told candidates for the ministry that the pastorate can be
either the laziest calling in the world or the hardest, depending upon
what we do with it. Even under denominational structures that pro-
vide the highest levels of ministerial accountability, the fact remains
that in the day-to-day work of the pastorate, we must be largely self-
disciplined. Most of the time, no one is looking over our shoulders
to ensure that we are good stewards with our time. The only one
who takes note of our time management is the Lord. Most men do
not learn to use their time well until they are forced to plan ahead
and to keep track of what they are doing each day. Pursuing a higher
degree in the pastorate will force you to take stock, make plans, and
set priorities in your weekly schedule. Of course, this is not the only
means by which to learn good time management. Yet meeting the
demands of the pastorate as well as deadlines in a course of study may
9. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1991), 229–42.
10. John Owen noted that this was precisely what characterized the life of our
Lord Jesus Christ. See Owen, Pneumatologia, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William
Goold (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), III, 170.
cause you to realize how much time you can waste with emails, the
internet, and minor tasks that should not distract you from what is
more important. You can fit more into your schedule than you realize.
Learning to co-ordinate tasks for the sake of pursuing further studies
will have the beneficial side-effect of teaching you the life-long skill
of efficiency.11
You Will Be Surprised by What You Will Learn

Each day in the Christian life is simultaneously a new discovery of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6) and a new dis-
covery of our ignorance. We must attempt to diminish our ignorance
by growing in the knowledge of the Lord. As the church father John
Chrysostom wrote, “Ignorance makes the soul timid and unmanly,
just as instruction in heavenly doctrine makes it great and sublime.”12
Two examples illustrate how education often reveals our ignorance in
unexpected ways. In my own doctoral studies, studying John Owen’s
work on Communion with God in depth has given me fresh appreciation
for and devotion to the triune God. While I have always confessed that
the Trinity is an “essential” doctrine, now I cannot think of any aspect
of the Christian gospel, truth, and piety without thinking about them
in terms of communion with all three persons of the Godhead. The
repetition of writing and revising, coupled with secondary reading, has
only reinforced this profound treasury of knowledge, enabling me to
incorporate it into my regular pulpit ministry.
The second surprising thing that I have discovered in my studies
is a vast body of Reformed authors that I never knew existed. Names
such as Junius, Musculus, Polanus, Alsted, Hoornbeeck, Piscator,
Hyperius, Voetius, and others have been virtually forgotten in the
Reformed world. Yet in these authors I have discovered some of the
best doctrinal and experimental piety that has ever been written in
the history of the church. Without pursuing higher education in a
formal degree program, I likely would have remained ignorant of this
vast wealth of material for the rest of my life, in spite of diligence in
11. For more on guarding our time in the ministry, see William S. Plumer,
Hints and Helps in Pastoral Theology (Harrisburg, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 2002),
69–79 under the heading, “A Minister’s Studies.”
12. John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. John, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. C. Marriott,
in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers: First Series (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publish-
ers, Inc., 2004), XIV, 278.
my study. Education will help you to gather materials that will enrich
your ministry and that you never knew to look for.
How Ministers Should Continue Their Education

How to integrate your studies into your pastoral labors involves the
questions of internal motivation and external implementation. In
connection with these two questions is the practical subject of temp-
tations and pitfalls that result from higher education.
Proper Motivation
Two motives subsume all others. These are the glory of the triune
God and the good of the church. These twin motives will shape if,
why, and how you will pursue education in the ministry, regardless
of what form it takes.
The glory of the triune God must be the first and primary motive
for continuing education in the ministry. We must do all things in the
name of Christ (Col. 3:17) and whether we eat or drink we must do
all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). When we do not seek to glorify
the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit, everything that we do
in the ministry is in vain.
The good of the church must be the second motive in all we do.
This motive must flow from the first. The church must be dear to you
because the church is dear to the Father who gave His Son for her, to
the Son who bought her with His blood, and to the Spirit who unites
her to Christ and who makes His home with her.13 Concerning spiri-
tual gifts, the Apostle Paul wrote, “let it be for the edification of the
church that you seek to excel” (1 Cor. 14:26 NKJV). Laboring for the
good of the church and laboring for the salvation of lost souls are not
mutually exclusive. Whenever you pray that God’s kingdom would
come in the Lord’s Prayer, you pray that “Satan’s kingdom would
be destroyed, and that the kingdom of grace would be advanced,
ourselves and others brought into it and kept in” (WSC 102). Paul
endured all things for the sake of the elect that they might be saved
13. See J. Van Genderen and W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics (Phillips
burg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2008), 695–705. Francis Turretin once wrote, “The
church is the primary work of the holy Trinity, the object of Christ’s mediation and
the subject of the application of his benefits.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg,
N.J.: P&R Publishing, 1992), 3:1.
(2 Tim. 2:10). Your proficiency in the knowledge and piety of the

Scriptures bears direct proportion to your usefulness to the church.
The best ministers in the history of the church have varied in their
educational backgrounds and theological education, but none of them
was ignorant. Without true piety all knowledge would be useless
(1 Cor. 13:2). Yet, without knowledge of the truth, true piety lacks the
necessary soil in which it thrives and grows best.
One last point is worthy of notice with respect to motivation. Far
too many seminary students today desire to teach seminary before
they have even completed their Master of Divinity course. This is a
noble goal that potentially provides a necessary service to the church,
but I am alarmed at how many men graduate seminary desiring to
bypass the pastorate in the local church in order to teach at a “profes-
sional” level. This is not what it means to be a pastor-scholar. Carl
Trueman noted that when seminary students inevitably ask him
whether or not they should pursue doctoral studies he tells them, “Do
not do it if you think you are going to find a job at the end of it; do it
for the sake of doing it. There are almost no jobs going in academia
these days, and humanly speaking, time and chance are what make
the difference between the one who gets the big break and the one
who never even makes a shortlist. For every student who finds an
academic job, there are countless others who do not. I studied with
people much more talented than I am who ended up selling insur-
ance or working in a bank.”14 If we begin as ministerial students and
then desire higher education instead of desiring to preach the gospel
and to pastor the church, something perverse has happened in our
hearts during the course of our studies. The purpose of theological
seminaries should not be to produce first-rate scholars, but first-rate
pastor-scholars. People can serve the Lord through teaching and aca-
demia if that is their calling from the Lord in life. Yet seminaries exist
in order to plant the necessary seeds in men that will enable them to
serve the church.15 If the Lord granted the desires of men who do not
desire to be shepherds of His sheep to serve in our seminaries, then
the result will be a paradigm shift in our seminaries themselves. In the
14. Carl R. Trueman, “Minority Report: A Question of Accountability,” Themelios,

34, 2 (July 2009):158.
15. See Joseph A. Pipa, “Seminary Education,” in The Confessional Presbyterian
Journal, 3 (2007):223–31.
old Scottish Second Book of Discipline, the “doctors” of the church

had two primary responsibilities: to provide ministerial education in
the schools and to catechize the church, including the children.16 It
is a good test of motivation to ask yourself whether you see a great
discrepancy between these tasks. You may or may not teach in a theo-
logical seminary; the best rule is to pray, “Lord, place me where I may
be most useful to Christ’s church.” We must always make the glory of
our God and the care of His flock our chief concerns.
The Practical Details

It is important to consider briefly how to implement practically your
studies alongside of your regular ministerial duties. Two points are
worthy of special note.
First, pray that every part of your studies would be useful to your
own soul and to the souls of God’s people. In any worthy endeavor,
prayer always comes first. Pray over every book that you open to read
and over every page that you sit down to write. This will constantly
realign your motives as well. Prayer for fruitfulness in ministry and
for personal piety will never return void. Prayer will yield surprising
results, aid your memory, and teach you to take the triune God with
you in all of your studies. This will train you to “pray without ceas-
ing” (1 Thess. 5:17) in your sermon preparation as well.
Second, learn to combine your tasks. I can illustrate this through
personal example. The first way to combine your tasks is in the choice
of your topic. My doctoral studies relate to John Owen’s views on
communion with all three persons in the Trinity in public worship.
This topic inherently helps me lead the people of God into worship
every Lord’s day. In general, it has led me to teach self-consciously
the congregation how to have communion with all three persons in
the Godhead both jointly and distinctly. People have commented that
they now see all three persons of the Godhead everywhere in the
Bible and that they notice how I intentionally weave all three persons
into my sermon application. Another way in which I have combined
16. Second Book of Discipline, cited in Stuart Robinson, The Church of God as an
Essential Element of the Gospel, and the Idea, Structure, and Functions Thereof: A Discourse
in Four Parts (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1858), Appendix, xxviii, cxxxi. Note
that the page numbers in the appendix begin with roman numerals. In 2010, the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church prepared a new edition of this work with an intro-
duction by Craig Troxell as well as a biographical sketch by Thomas Peck.
my studies with my pulpit labors comes in the form of what I read

and when. For instance, reading Owen’s work on the Holy Spirit has
helped me preach John 14–17 more effectively. In this case, I have
combined my PhD reading with my sermon preparation in a careful
and fruitful manner. This allows me to incorporate other works such
as Manton on John 17 into both tasks as well. This has the added ben-
efit of preventing hundreds of pages of potentially valuable literature
from collecting dust on my bookshelves with the unrealistic intention
to get to it someday. As a byproduct, I have learned to combine tasks
elsewhere as well. When I preached an eight-part sermon series on the
Glory of Christ, I drew upon Owen’s Trinitarianism from my PhD
work, I turned the series into a small book, a few articles developed as
a byproduct, and I strengthened my ability to integrate systematic and
practical theology into my preaching permanently.
Pitfalls and Remedies

Having proper motives and an organized approach to your studies
does not mean that all will go well automatically. Our adversary the
Devil roams about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour
(1 Pet. 5:8). He prepares peculiar snares for ministers who pursue
higher education. Let us not be ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11).
Three educational pitfalls have stood out in my own experience.
The first pitfall is pride. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies
(1 Cor. 8:1–2). Paul did not encourage naiveté among pastors or lay
people; ignorance is not bliss. Instead, he knew that perverse human
nature tends to increase learning at the expense of love for God and
for His people.17 The primary danger is that in our preaching, teach-
ing, and conversation with others, we begin to trust subtly in our
learning rather than in the Holy Spirit. There are several remedies
to this pitfall. If we are astute in our progress in learning, we will
notice two things immediately: how little we knew before and how
little we actually know now. A wise man observed that of increase
in learning and of many books there is no end (Eccl. 12:12). Have
not our studies given us a new window into how true this is? If we
had a millennium to do nothing but research, then we would gain
a glimpse of how small a portion of the sum of human learning we
have obtained, let alone divine knowledge, to which we cannot attain
17. See pp. 315–16 above.

(Job 11:7). Does this not make our pride ironic? Education increases
our learning while revealing our ignorance. Let this humble us as we
put on the meekness and gentleness of Christ towards others (2 Cor.
10:1). In addition, the true remedy to our pride is constant meditation
upon Scripture and fervent prayer.18 This will foster our sense of des-
peration for the operation of the Holy Spirit in all of our work.
The second pitfall involves the inherent dangers of academia.
Many dangers in this regard could be mentioned, but one that comes
to the forefront is the tendency to divorce personal piety from aca-
demic endeavors. Citing the autobiography of Bible commentator F. F.
Bruce, John Piper notes that Bruce intentionally said very little about
his religious experiences even in his autobiography. Piper responded,
“My first reaction when I read this was to say, ‘No wonder I have
found his commentaries so dry’—helpful in significant ways, but per-
sonally and theologically anemic.”19 John Owen addressed students
at Oxford in the seventeenth century with the following admonition
that we would do well to take to heart:
What am I the better if I can dispute that Christ is God, but have
no sense or sweetness in my heart from hence that he is a God in
covenant with my soul? What will it avail me to evince...that he
hath made satisfaction for sin, if, through my unbelief the wrath
of God abideth on me, and I have no experience of my own being
made the righteousness of God in him?... Will it be any advan-
tage to me, in the issue, to profess and dispute that God works
the conversion of a sinner by the irresistible grace of his Spirit,
if I was never acquainted experimentally with the deadness and
utter impotency to good, that opposition to the law of God, that
is in my own soul by nature, with the efficacy of the exceeding
greatness of the power of God in quickening, enlightening, and
bringing forth the fruits of obedience in me.... Let us, then, not
think that we are any thing the better for our conviction of the
truths of the great doctrines of the gospel, for which we con-
tend with these men, unless we found the power of the truths
18. See John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, in Works, XII, 51. I have written more
about the connection between meditation on Scripture and prayer in “Retaining
Scripture in our Minds and Hearts,” in Puritan Reformed Journal, 3:2 (July 2011):
351–60.
19. John Piper and D. A. Carson, The Pastor as Scholar and the Scholar as Pastor:
Reflections on Life and Ministry (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011), 22.
abiding in our own hearts, and have a continual experience of

their necessity and excellency in our Standing before God and
our communion with him.20
We must learn from academia, but we must avoid becoming detached
academics instead of warm-hearted pastors.
The third and most dangerous pitfall is to neglect your pastoral
responsibilities for your educational pursuits. The primary remedy
is to plan ahead carefully and to integrate as much of your work as
possible. If you find that you cannot integrate your work very well,
then you either need to cut back and work at a much slower pace or
you need to reconsider the choice of your subject. One way to inte-
grate your studies into your ministerial work is to give preference
to historical theology. If you do a ThD or a PhD, then I recom-
mend that you consider giving preference to seventeenth- and early
eighteenth-century Reformed orthodoxy.21 This field will prove to
be formative for all that you do, teach, and say. As Richard Muller
has observed, this time period is the necessary starting point even for
discussions of contemporary Reformed theology and practice.22 This
recommendation is a concrete example of what is in view rather than
an invariable rule for all.
How and Why Congregations Should

Support Ministerial Education
Due largely to the perverse mentality that churches and students have
developed with respect to ministerial education, congregations tend
to become suspicious of ministers who pursue an advanced degree.
Particularly in small congregations, when a pastor pursues doctoral
work, people begin to make comments such as, “You won’t stay here
for long.” Others may think that the minister wants a salary increase.
This problem is not limited to men who pursue formal education.
If many ministers do not see the need to be diligent in their stud-
ies, those who have not trained for the ministry and who have little
20. Vindiciae Evangelicae, Works, XII, 52.

21. If you are interested in looking into this field, then the best place to start is
Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reforma-
tion Heritage Books, 2011).
22. Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Devel-
opment of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2003), 1:85ff.
knowledge of the day-to-day work of the ministry will likely see even
less need. Yet as we have seen, a learned and pious ministry is precisely
what a congregation needs. For these reasons, this section addresses
elders and congregations.
An elder in a local church once told me that I already had all
of the education that was necessary in order to qualify me to be a
pastor. This reflects a faulty view of theological education. D. Mar-
tyn Lloyd-Jones contended that the purpose of theological education
was not to learn everything necessary to know in order to minis-
ter in the church, but to lay a foundation for a lifetime of study.23
The reason why America recommends seminary education for can-
didates for the gospel ministry is not so that every minister has the
proper suffixes after his name, but so that he gains a competent level
of knowledge to fulfill his office. He must possess much more than
knowledge and some aspects of the ministry can only be learned by
experience. Moreover, without personal holiness and sufficient gifts
that are attested to by the church, even the most learned men are
disqualified from the office. However, the PCA recognizes that there
are extraordinary cases in which men may be ready for the ministry
even without seminary training. They must pass all of the same tests
for ordination as educated men.24 Being a pastor does not negate the
need for further education any more than being educated provides
the qualifications for being a pastor.
A faulty attitude towards ministerial education on the part of
churches will be devastating to the quality of our ministry. If the
Lord raises up men for the ministry out of the membership of His
church, then it is imperative that our churches have proper views of
preparation for the ministry. Ordinarily, defective views of ministe-
rial education reflect defective views of the ministry itself. When men
go into the ministry with such views, they stop pushing themselves
to make progress in their work. Following English Bible knowledge
exams on the floor of Presbytery, it has become common for fellow
ministers to note that they used to know their English Bibles as well
as the new candidates, but after ten or twenty years in the ministry
23. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, “A Protestant Evangelical College,” in Knowing the

Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions 1942–1977 (Edinburgh: The Banner
of Truth Trust, 1989), 359.
24. Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, 21–4.
they probably could not pass this exam any longer. Every year sub-
sequent to their ordination, ministers should increasingly surpass
the knowledge of those men who are fresh out of seminary. Many
have implicitly accepted the idea that men should study diligently in
the seminary in order to get their degree; then they study even more
intensely to pass their ordination exams. Yet once these tasks are over,
men act as though all of their studies are irrelevant for the pastor-
ate. If this is your attitude to theological education, then neither your
ministers nor your congregations will make much progress in holi-
ness and in the knowledge of Christ. If men truly have no use for the
knowledge that they gain in seminary once they enter the pastorate,
then there are two possibilities: either their ministerial education was
severely deficient, or they have adopted an improper view of the call-
ing that their office entails.
Let these examples challenge our congregations. Churches that
do not expect a learned ministry will not likely obtain either learned
or pious ministers. Allowing our ministers to pursue higher educa-
tion is not an automatic cure for laziness in the pastorate. Rejoice if
your minister desires to make progress. Do not assume that he wants
another degree in order to move on to “better things.” I have several
close friends in the ministry who obtained their PhDs prior to enter-
ing the pastorate and whose desire is to serve the local church their
entire lives. Ask your pastor why he wants to further his education,
listen to what he tells you, and lay aside your preconceived notions
of higher education. Pray alongside your minister that he would be
able to rightly divide the word of truth, that he would be diligent in
serving the Lord, and that he would be a worker that does not need
to be ashamed. A special bond of trust is created between a pastor
and a congregation when they elect him to his office. He has vowed
before God and to you that he would make as much progress as pos-
sible in his personal holiness and knowledge of the truth so that he
can preach what he learns, from his heart to yours. Pray that the Holy
Spirit would enable Him to do so, and praise the triune God if He has
given to you a learned and learning pastor.
One last point of advice to congregations is this: do not allow
your minister to go into debt while pursuing higher education. A
minister should pursue a program that he can afford or that his con-
gregation or Presbytery is willing to help him get through. This is
a worthy endeavor that is well worth the prayers and money of the
church. Make sure as well that your church leadership is willing to

support him in his work and remember that it is for the edification of
the church that he seeks to excel (1 Cor. 14:12, 26).
Conclusion
In seventeenth-century England, ministers were subjected to rig-
orous education. Anywhere from age thirteen to sixteen,25 Oxford
and Cambridge students began a four-year BA, which shifted into an
MA. Those who pursued ministry next began a seven-year course in
divinity for a BDiv. In addition, students were forbidden from speak-
ing any language on campus other than Latin or Greek. Because John
Owen cut his divinity studies short after two years, he viewed himself
as inadequately prepared to teach at Oxford in the 1650s.26 We cannot
press our modern world into any particular historical mold, but the
need for an educated ministry continues today. Let us labor diligently
in the ministry, but let us take the time to sharpen the tools that are
necessary for our work as well.
25. Thomas Goodwin started earlier than most at the age of thirteen. See Mark
Jones, Why Heaven Kissed Earth: The Christology of the Reformed Orthodox and Puritan
Theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680) (Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht,
2010), chap. 2.
26. Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), 4–9.
Book Reviews
q
PRJ 4, 1 (2012): 325–345
Book Reviews
q
Joel R. Beeke and Anthony T. Selvaggio, eds. Sing a New Song:

Recovering Psalm Singing for the Twenty-First Century. Grand Rapids:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. 196 pp.
The heart of the Protestant Reformation was not merely the
recovery of the biblical doctrine of salvation (in the doctrine of jus-
tification by faith) but also the recovery of the biblical doctrine of
worship. In our day, we have witnessed a renewed interest in Cal-
vinistic soteriology; will a renewed interest in Reformed worship
follow? If so, the recovery of canonical psalm singing will be an essen-
tial aspect of this Reformed resurgence. Sing a New Song is an effort
to encourage the reclamation of psalm singing, addressing the topic
through eleven chapters under three headings: (1) Psalm Singing in
History; (2) Psalm Singing in Scripture; and (3) Psalm Singing and
the Twenty-First-Century Church.
In the first section, the authors track the historical use of psalms
in the church’s worship. It was during the Reformation that the evan-
gelical church reclaimed a partiality for the congregational singing of
canonical psalms in worship. The Puritans even became advocates for
“exclusive psalmody” (the singing only of inspired psalms in public
worship) which held sway for several hundred years.
Joel Beeke examines “Psalm Singing in Calvin and the Puritans”
(16–40). He notes, in particular, the development and influence of the
Genevan Psalter. “No wonder, then, that in many parts of Europe,
the term psalm singer became nearly synonymous with the title Prot-
estant” (25). Beeke particularly notes the influence of John Cotton’s
important treatise Singing of Psalms: a Gospel Ordinance (1647). In this
book, Cotton made the case for exclusive psalmody in public wor-
ship based on his interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians
3:16. Beeke adds, however, that Cotton “was not a strict advocate of
exclusive psalmody” (33). He allowed for the singing of other inspired
texts from the Bible in public worship and for singing uninspired
hymns in “private houses” and “newly composed religious songs, but
only in special gatherings” (33–34). Beeke adds that Benjamin Keach
(1640–1707) proved “a ‘Puritan’ Baptist exception” to the rule in that
he “introduced hymns, in addition to psalms and paraphrases, into
English Nonconformist churches” (37).
Terry Johnson contributes a helpful chapter on “The History of
Psalm Singing in the Christian Church” (41–60). He observes that “[t]he
singing of psalms became one of the most obvious marks of Reformed
Protestantism” (50). Johnson reminds readers that exclusive psalmody
was the dominant practice of Protestant churches in early America:
The Reformed and Presbyterian churches in America were
exclusively psalm singing for nearly two hundred years, from
the Pilgrim fathers to the Jacksonian Era, as were the Congrega-
tionalists and Baptists (54).
The Anglicans had a three-hundred-year tradition of exclusive
psalmody: “From 1620 to 1800, metrical psalmody dominated the
American church scene” (55). The rise of hymns and hymnals led to
the decline of psalm singing.
In “Psalters, Hymnals, Worship Wars, and American Presbyterian
Piety” (61–77), D. G. Hart traces the decline of psalm singing. Hart
notes, in particular, the influence of Isaac Watts’s psalm paraphrases
and hymns as a major contributor to this decline. Presbyterians soon
moved from the songs of Watts to the more “sentimental” songs of
Methodists like Charles Wesley, so “Watts prepared the ground that
Wesley tilled” (73).
In the second section, Psalm Singing in Scripture, the authors
address the place of the canonical book of Psalms in the Bible and
its significance for biblical worship. Michael LeFebvre’s chapter “The
Hymns of Christ: The Old Testament Formation of the New Tes-
tament Hymnal” (92–110) provides a lucid discussion of the place
of the Psalms within the canon of Scripture. He also examines the
intentional shape and order of the psalms within the book of Psalms.
The compiler “was not simply slapping together songs at random;
serious and involved planning—and theological reflection—went
into the compilation of the final Zion praise book. And it is a praise
Book Reviews 327
book conscientiously formed in expectation of the coming son of

David” (107). The book of Psalms then is the perfect hymn book for
the church, since Jesus is “‘the singing king’ for whom the Psalter was
prepared” (109). After concluding that the “the Psalter is designed for
the Israel of Christ and the church should sing it,” LeFebvre adds:
But there is an orientation toward worship called for in the Psal-
ter that is very different from what is common in the modern
church. Often, congregations in the church today see them-
selves as the choir (the “performers”) singing praise to God (“the
audience”). The Psalter calls us to refine this outlook: it teaches
us to view ourselves as “a backup ensemble” singing with a great
Soloist who is the primary “Performer.” It is the Son of David
who stands as “the sweet psalmist” beloved by the Father. We,
who enter into the Father’s delight in Christ, are privileged to
join with Jesus in His songs as we sing the Psalms.... We need to
learn, again, to sing the Psalms with Christ (109–110).
David P. Murray’s “Christ Cursing?” (111–21) provides a win-
some defense of the propriety of the imprecatory psalms for Christian
worship. Following Murray is Malcolm Watts’s “The Case for Psalm-
ody, with Some Reference to the Psalter’s Sufficiency for Christian
Worship” (122–44), which lays out the biblical case for exclusive
psalmody. Of note is his argument that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs” (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) all refer to canonical psalms.
The articles in the third section, Psalm Singing and the
Twenty-First-Century Church, address the use of the psalms in
the contemporary pastoral ministry of the church. Derek Thomas’s
“Psalm Singing and Pastoral Theology” (162–72) addresses the ways
in which the psalms address the full range of the human spiritual
experience. J. V. Fesko’s “Psalmody and Prayer” (173–83) notes how
singing in worship is “congregational prayer” and how the use of
psalmody deepens the church’s prayer life.
The collection of articles found in Sing a New Song is an excel-
lent resource on the use of the canonical psalms in the sung praise
of the church. In the past generation, we have seen the rise of “third-
wave” inspired contemporary praise and worship music in evangelical
churches; the result has been the so-called “worship wars” waged
between those who prefer “traditional” music and those who pre-
fer “contemporary” music. This book reminds us that what many
consider to be “traditional” church music (hymns), in fact, represents

a relative innovation dating from the 1800s. In advocating the revival
of psalm singing in the church, this book provides an impasse to the
“worship wars.” Rather than “traditional” or “contemporary” wor-
ship, we can pursue “biblical” worship through the singing of psalms.
— Jeffrey T. Riddle
q
Paul Brewster, Andrew Fuller: Model Pastor-Theologian. Nashville: B & H

Academic, 2010. 208 pp.
In the preface to this addition to the “Studies in Baptist Thought
and Life” series, editor Michael Haykin notes that there is “a small
renaissance” underway in the study of Andrew Fuller (1754–1815)
(xv). Timothy George has called Fuller “the most influential Bap-
tist theologian between John Bunyan and the present day” (cf. 65).
Paul Brewster, a Southern Baptist pastor in Madison, Indiana, and
a church historian who holds a doctoral degree from Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary, contributes significantly to this revival
of interest in Fuller with this book, presenting Fuller as “a model
pastor-theologian” (6).
Brewster begins his study by offering a helpful biographical sketch
of Fuller, covering his early years, his conversion and call to ministry,
and his productive years in pastoral ministry at Kettering, including
his pioneer and longtime service as Secretary to the Baptist Missionary
Society (8–35). Here and throughout the book, Brewster demonstrates
a seemingly exhaustive familiarity with Fuller’s biographical material,
from both primary and secondary sources, past and present.
He then proceeds to examine the theological method of Fuller
(37–64), noting particularly his systematic evangelical Calvinism, in
distinction from the “high Calvinism” of John Gill and John Brine.
Like many of the new Calvinists in our own generation, Fuller was
deeply influenced by the writings of Jonathan Edwards. Living dur-
ing an age of Enlightenment and skepticism, Fuller upheld a high
view of Scripture. He was willing to modify his theological system
according to his interpretation of Scripture.
Brewster sees the doctrine of soteriology as the hub of Fuller’s
theology (65–108). He emphasizes Fuller’s departure from the high
Book Reviews 329
Calvinism of his day in his commitment “to extend the offer of salva-
tion to all who would hear, regardless of their spiritual state” (77). Of
note is his discussion of a shift in Fuller’s views on the atonement,
under the influence of the “New Divinity” governmental view of the
atonement, between the first and second editions of his noted work
The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (87–89). This shift, in turn, had an
influence of Fuller’s views on imputation and substitution (see 89–85).
In assessing Fuller’s influence, Brewster both notes the conclusion
that “Fullerism became the new orthodoxy” among Particular Bap-
tists (99), while also acknowledging that some, like David Benedict,
believed that “Fullerism had led Baptists too far toward Arminian-
ism” (103). Brewster notes that “it is appropriate to recognize that by
relaxing the Calvinistic standards of the Particular Baptists, Fuller
may have helped open the door to methodological changes that have
sometimes had a less than beneficial impact on Baptist churches”
(106). In other words, did The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation lead
to the “four spiritual laws” and easy-believism? Brewster adds: “The
degree to which the rise and spread of Fullerism is responsible for the
acceptance of Arminianism in Baptist life is a hotly disputed ques-
tion” (107). For those in the Strict and Particular Baptist camp, Fuller
was “the chief instigator of this event, and hence a great enemy of the
gospel” (107). Brewster concludes, however, that “it is probably best
not to blame Fuller too heavily for what came into the denomination
for quite some time after he lived and wrote” (108).
Brewster next transitions from Fuller’s doctrine to his practice
of ministry (109–157). He begins by noting, “The doctrinal conclu-
sions Fuller reached became the mainspring that powered the many
facets of his active ministry” (109). Again, soteriology exerted the
greatest influence on his practical ministry. It led Fuller to place a
priority on preaching and upon evangelistic preaching in particular.
Though his contemporaries agreed he was not the most eloquent and
well-spoken of preachers, he was deeply influential among his fellow
ministers. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that Fuller was often
called upon to preach at ordination and pastoral installation services.
Fuller also pressed those under his pastoral care to come to faith
in Christ. His evangelistic concern also fueled his tireless labors in
founding the Baptist Missionary Society and “holding the rope” for
William Carey and others who were willing to go down into the mis-
sion mine. Finally, Brewster sketches Fuller’s ministry as a polemicist
and apologist, defending the faith against everything from Deism, to

Socinianism, Universalism, Sandemanianism, and Antinomianism.
After the book’s summarizing conclusion (159–79), Brewster also
includes two appendices (181–92). The first is a Confession of Faith
composed by Fuller upon his candidacy to become the pastor at Ket-
tering. The second is Fuller’s entry on “Calvinism” in a theological
dictionary. Both appendices make plain Fuller’s general commitment
to the doctrines of grace. In his conclusion, Brewster suggests weak-
nesses in Fuller’s practical ministry (e.g., lack of balance in neglecting
local church ministry in favor of work for the missionary society and
reluctance to delegate responsibilities to others) and in his theology
(e.g., his adaptation of the governmental view of atonement). He also
identifies several of Fuller’s strengths. Most notable among these was
Fuller’s ability to serve as both an able pastor and able theologian.
Brewster acknowledges his own sympathies with Fuller’s evangelical
Calvinism; he even suggests that with the rise of Calvinism in Baptist
life, “No Baptist theologian can be read to greater profit on the dan-
gers of hyper-Calvinism than Fuller” (175). One wonders, however,
if there is really a significant threat of hyper-Calvinism looming in
the “Young, Restless, Reformed” movement. A more obvious danger
appears to be recidivism to Arminianism.
In his conclusion, Brewster anticipates and acknowledges a criti-
cism that might be lodged against his study of Fuller: does his focus on
soteriology, as the hub of Fuller’s theology, neglect other salient angles
of Fuller’s thinking? This reviewer, for example, wondered how Full-
er’s post-millennialism radically affected his doctrine and ministry,
including his wholesale commitment to the missionary movement.
Brewster acknowledges that further work is needed on Fuller’s doc-
trine of God, revelation, the ordinances, eschatology, and his impact
on American Baptists (159–61). One might add to this that an assess-
ment is needed of Fuller not merely by the standards of Calvinism’s
so-called “five points,” but also according to a full-orbed Reformed
theology (confessionalism, Regulative Principle, etc.). These quibbles
aside, Brewster’s work is to be heartily commended for providing an
admirable and stimulating introduction to the life, theology, and min-
istry of Andrew Fuller that will profit both pastors and theologians.
q
Book Reviews 331
John Coffey. John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intel-
lectual Change in Seventeenth-Century England. Suffolk, England: The
Boydell Press, 2006, 337 pp., hardcover.
John Coffey, professor of early modern history at University of
Leicester, has done it again. His book on Samuel Rutherford (Politics,
Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford) estab-
lished Coffey as a leading authority on Puritanism and the English
revolution, and John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution has solidified
that standing. This latter book is a sequel of sorts, giving another
look into the Puritan Revolution from the other end of the spectrum.
While Rutherford and Goodwin touched on many of the same con-
troversial issues, their drastically different approaches reveal a certain
breadth that emerged within the Puritan cause. Coffey presents a
welcome intellectual biography that seeks “to chronicle Goodwin’s
career” and “to understand and interpret his many publications.”
Goodwin (1594–1665) was trained at Queens’ College, Cam-
bridge, where he came under the influence of prominent theologians
like John Davenant and John Preston. Though Goodwin was not a
pupil of either of them, Coffey demonstrates that these men were
acquainted with and made quite an influence on Goodwin. Good-
win’s years at Cambridge also opened up a social network with other
men who would eventually play key roles in the Puritan Revolution
of the mid-1600s.
In 1633, Goodwin became the vicar of the London parish of St.
Stephen’s, Coleman Street, a flagship Puritan parish in the city. Cof-
fey not only shows the influence that Goodwin and his church had in
London, but also the intriguing position Goodwin came to simultane-
ously hold as the vicar of St. Stephen’s and as pastor of an Independent
gathered congregation that even met in the parish church building.
Goodwin’s labors at St. Stephen’s earned him the reputation of a capa-
ble preacher, propagandist, and controversialist.
Coffey does an excellent job of pointing out how Goodwin
played a part in most of the major controversies among the Puritans.
In the early 1630s, Goodwin was critical of the preparationism of men
like Thomas Hooker. He took the minority position on justification,
denying the imputation of Christ’s active obedience as the grounds
of the Christian’s righteousness. He argued two different sides of the
church polity debate over the course of his career, starting off as a
staunch Presbyterian and in time becoming a leading advocate of the
Congregational way. Goodwin started off as a “Calvinist,” follow-

ing the hypothetical universalist line of Davenant and Preston, and
ended up as a leader of a small “Arminian” contingency among the
Puritans. He also chimed in on political issues facing the Puritans
during an age of revolution, being a strong advocate of a republican
government and a vocal apologist of the regicide of Charles I. Good-
win furthermore took critical stands against Antinomians, Baptists,
Quakers, and Socinians. The point is that, regardless of the popular-
ity of his stances, he was very active in the key debates that faced the
Puritan cause.
It is true that Goodwin did not gain the distinguished reputation of
Puritans such as Richard Baxter, John Owen, and Thomas Goodwin.
Nevertheless, each of these men was well acquainted with Goodwin,
held a certain measure of respect for him, and recognized the signifi-
cant degree of influence that he had. Coffey’s treatment of Goodwin
in this case is excellent, emphasizing the important role Goodwin
played without unduly promoting him to a status he did not attain.
One of the greatest benefits gained from Coffey’s study of Good-
win’s life and thought is the valuable window it provides for viewing
the Puritan Revolution. It reminds us that Puritanism was not a cohe-
sive movement without its fair share of internal disagreement; rather,
the movement found itself, much like we do today, surrounded by
compromise and conflict. And it should be remembered that even
among the Puritans, there was not unanimous consent on how to
resolve matters. Coffey helps us see that a spectrum of competing
views existed during the Puritan revolution. Theology and politics
were not so easily separable, especially when ecclesiological differ-
ences were considered. It is important to recognize the Puritan era for
what it was: it was certainly not a golden age! In fact, these unsettling
situations the Puritans found themselves in likely served as an impe-
tus to produce the sort of legacy that so many of us look up to today.
Yet, for all of the appreciation that one may have for the Puritans, it is
not helpful for us to understand the larger movement by our selective
favorites. Things were not clear cut and pretty, no matter how much
the Puritans strove for this.
Coffey’s research also corrects two misleading ideas in the sec-
ondary literature on Goodwin: that he was a theological loner, and
that he was a forerunner of the Enlightenment. First, Coffey revises
our understanding of Goodwin as an isolated maverick by exploring
Book Reviews 333
the extensive social connections and influence that Goodwin had

within London. Though Goodwin represented a minority among the
Puritans, he certainly was not a lone ranger. Second, while account-
ing for Goodwin’s appeal to human reason, advocacy of civil and
religious liberty, and favor for what we would now call an eviden-
tialist apologetics, Coffey tempers the prevalent “Whiggish” picture
of Goodwin. While Goodwin may have pushed for toleration and
intellectual liberty, he would have felt extremely out of place with the
liberal rationalists of the Enlightenment.
Also of note is the breadth of Coffey’s bibliographic research on
this project. He has done the painstaking task of reading and eval-
uating everything written by and on Goodwin. He includes a very
helpful appendix that evaluates eighteen anonymously published
works, deciphering which ones were and were not from Goodwin’s
pen. Also of great value is a complete Goodwin bibliography, which
lists unpublished manuscript sources, published works of Goodwin,
works published against Goodwin and his congregation, works by
Goodwin’s followers, Goodwin’s works republished after his death,
secondary sources on Goodwin, and unpublished theses on Goodwin.
Students of church history will benefit greatly from this biography.
It not only paints a clearer picture of John Goodwin, but it also helps
us understand the various concerns and influences within seventeenth-
century Puritanism. In this reviewer’s opinion, the book is a success.
— Jay T. Collier
q
John Flavel. Triumphing Over Sinful Fear. Grand Rapids: Reformation

Heritage Books, 2011. 124 pp., paperback.
This is easily the most important book that I have read out of the
last one hundred. It is deeply convicting, full of Christ, and loaded
with sound pastoral wisdom on a vital yet neglected topic. This work
distinguishes between “the fear of the Lord” and sinful fear that
results from unbelief, the fear of the Lord being the single and great
remedy to all forms of sinful fear.
It is noteworthy that Flavel begins by introducing a third category
of “natural” fear. Some people are more fearful by disposition, and
there are forms of “natural” fear that are not inherently sinful. Even
Christ was subject to “natural” fear as He contemplated the cross (8).

“Natural” fear of punishment is also necessary in order to uphold civil
order (21). After establishing the parameters of the question, Flavel
sets forth the causes of sinful fear (ch. 4), its effects (ch. 5), its rem-
edies (ch. 6), followed by answers to some objections (ch. 7).
Flavel argues that ignorance of the provisions of the covenant of
grace is the primary cause of sinful fear (31). The corollary to this is
unbelief in God’s promises (35). As a result, “carnal fear is the very
root of apostasy” (56). From this point on, Flavel turns his primary
attention to sinful fear that results from persecution. Even good peo-
ple may be overwhelmed and fall in such circumstances (68). Flavel
counters this temptation through a series of useful meditations such
as the following: “To trust in God in part and the creature in part is
to put one foot upon the rock and the other on quicksand” (83); “No
death is more honorable to God or comfortable to you as a violent
death for Christ” (89); “An assured Christian is never a coward in suf-
fering” (94); “Although a natural death has less horror, a violent death
for Christ has more honor” (96); “A natural death in Christ is safe for
us, but a violent death for Christ is beneficial for others” (97); “It is a
great mistake to think that the strength of a natural constitution can
carry anyone through suffering for Christ” (114); “In extraordinary
trials we can expect extraordinary assistance” (117).
Ministers often attest to the fact of a peculiar blessing of the
Holy Spirit upon their preaching. When this happens, both the con-
tent and the form of delivery are blessed beyond the natural gifts of
the pastor. I cannot help but think that this work represented one of
those moments in Flavel’s ministry. This volume presents a clarion
call to our present generation in which persecution is subtle and not
easily recognized. It was edited and prepared for the average person
in the pew and it fulfills its purpose abundantly.
— Ryan M. McGraw
q
John D. Harvey. Anointed with the Spirit and Power: The Holy Spirit’s
Empowering Presence. Explorations in Biblical Theology. Phillipsburg: P&R
Publishing, 2008. 219 pp., paperback.
Book Reviews 335
The Holy Spirit has often been called the forgotten member of
the Trinity. In this work, John Harvey seeks to remedy the wide-
spread neglect in Reformed circles of the person and work of the Holy
Spirit by drawing attention to how He empowers the people of God
for obedience and service. His primary assertion is: “The Holy Spirit
alone has been, is today, and always will be the source of empower-
ment God uses to accomplish his purposes through his people” (4,
176). This book is a part of a series on Biblical Theology that aims to
reach a broad audience by producing books that are simple in style,
contain few footnotes, and seek to lead readers through the entire
Bible in relation to particular doctrines or books of Scripture (ix–x).
Harvey’s contribution to this series is well written, clear, and practi-
cal. It is suitable both for pastors and for discussion groups among
church members. His work fills a need that is particularly important
in Reformed circles by demonstrating our utter dependence upon the
Holy Spirit for every aspect of Christian living and service.
The author has divided his material into eight chapters. The first
two address the work of the Spirit in the Old Testament in empowering
Israel’s leaders and prophets. The next four chapters connect the work
of the Spirit to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ: Christ
is both the foundation for and the prototype of the work of the Holy
Spirit in believers. These four chapters are particularly important, since
the connection between the work of the Spirit upon the human nature
of Christ and His work in the lives of believers is often neglected.
The last two chapters consider the manner in which the Holy Spirit
empowered the early church to fulfill its mission in the Book of Acts
as well as the manner in which the New Testament epistles set forth
the continued work of the Spirit in the church today. These chapters
are followed by a very useful conclusion that ties together the data of
the entire book and directs it to rich pastoral application.
The primary value of this work lies in how Harvey directs the
reader to listen to the text of Scripture. Moreover, by walking through
the work of the Spirit in empowering the people of God from Genesis
through Revelation, readers will begin to draw remarkable parallels.
For instance, the Spirit’s work in Moses, Samson, Samuel, and Ezekiel
all foreshadow elements of the manner in which the Spirit equipped
both John the Baptist and Jesus for their earthly ministries. The
advantage of treating the work of Spirit-empowerment in a biblical
theological progression is that readers will better appreciate the unity

of the Spirit’s work in the entire Bible.
While this work is very useful and this reviewer recommends it
highly, it contains one theological problem. After the author unam-
biguously asserts that Jesus is fully divine and fully human in one
person, he states that Jesus “voluntarily limited his own omniscience”
as well as His “omnipotence” (69). This important question moves
from biblical theology to systematic theology. We must assert that in
one person, Jesus Christ was both fully omniscient and limited in His
knowledge, according to His deity and humanity respectively. This
may defy our understanding, but it does better justice to the evidence
of Scripture concerning the person of Christ. Harvey does not intend
in the least to derogate either nature of Christ, but his choice of lan-
guage is not an adequate solution to an admittedly complex question.
This book is an excellent piece of biblical theology on one aspect
of the work of the Holy Spirit. May Dr. Harvey’s book help produce
a generation of pastors and lay people who recognize that they cannot
be useful in godliness or service unless they are “anointed with the
Spirit and power.”
— Ryan M. McGraw
q
Albert N. Martin. Preaching in the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Reforma-

tion Heritage Books, 2011. 67 pp.
This valuable booklet originated in two sermons preached by
Albert Martin at a pastors’ conference in 2002 on the subject of
“Preaching in the Spirit.” Martin is one of the deans of Reformed
Baptist preachers, having served for forty-six years as the influential
pastor of the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. This
little work holds the distilled reflections of a mature pastor on the role
of the Holy Spirit in the act of preaching.
Many books on preaching teach ministers how to prepare a ser-
mon or how to sharpen their rhetorical skills, but I do not know of
any that have the particular appeal and focus of this work. Martin’s
goal is to demonstrate that the Spirit’s “agency (His active power) and
His operations (the effect of that power) are direct and immediate in
and on the preacher in the act of preaching” (3).
Book Reviews 337
In the first half of the book Martin traces four specific manifesta-
tions of the Spirit in preaching: 1) “a heightened sense of the spiritual
realities in which we are trafficking when we preach” (17); 2) “the
blessed experience of an unfettered liberty and heightened facil-
ity of utterance” (23); 3) “an enlarged heart, presently suffused with
increased measures of selfless love that yearns to do our hearers good
by means of our preaching” (29); 4) “a heightened sense of the absolute
authority, sufficiency, and trustworthiness of the Scriptures” (35).
The preacher who reads this first half will find himself often nod-
ding in agreement and identifying with the author’s insights. Here are
some examples:
When preparing the message, the preacher thinks to himself,
“If only I had one more Saturday, how much better I would
preach!” (18).
“As you begin to preach, your mind begins to experience the
warmth that comes from the friction of the truth on your own
spirit” (19).
In the act of preaching “there is a sense in which you would not
care if everyone got up and walked out of the building!” (20).
The preacher might take on “an involuntary glow” which “no
actor can [re]produce” (20).
When given real liberty “we are tempted to ask the congregation
to excuse us while we write down the very things that come out
of our mouths!” (25). Martin later qualifies, however, “we do
not claim an experience that rises to the utterly unique opera-
tions of the Spirit given to the prophets or to the penmen of the
Holy Scriptures...” (26).
“The Holy Spirit at times even gives us an ability to draw words
out of the storeroom of our vocabularies—words we may not
have used for many months and years—yet suddenly they flash
into our consciousness when we are preaching” (25).
“If you are a preacher, surely you have felt as I have many times
while preaching the Word of God that you stood forty feet tall
with a sword ten feet long and six inches wide” (36).
In the second half of the book, Martin examines what results
from a restrained or diminished measure of the Spirit. First, this
includes disregarding the Spirit’s necessity. It might come about by the

“lack of specific and focused prayer for such a ministry of the Spirit”
(44). Second, this restraining or diminishing of the Spirit might come
about “if the Holy Spirit is being grieved in the life or ministry of the
preacher” (46). Third, it might occur “because the Spirit is quenched
by the preacher himself” (52).
Of special note on this final point is Martin’s stress that the Spirit
might be quenched “by a carnal and slavish attachment to the labors
of the study” (54). Martin urges the minister not to be enslaved by
sermonic aids, whether manuscript, notes, or memory. Here he cites
Pierre Marcel: “If the preacher is and remains dependent upon his
manuscript or upon his memory, there is not just one prisoner—there
are two: the preacher and the Spirit, and through the Spirit Christ” (57).
He concludes, “It is better to preach a ragged and less than neat sermon
in the power of the Holy Spirit, than to preach a neat and polished
sermon without His unction” (60). The minister must avoid “pulpit
unbelief” and rely on the Holy Spirit (62). “Forget your reputation as a
neat homiletician.... By all means, be Christ’s free man. It is much bet-
ter to preach a sermon that has the touch of the immediacy of the Spirit
of God, even with its lack of neatness, than to preach an impeccably
neat sermon without the peculiar unction of God on it” (64).
Martin has given the church and her preachers a special gift and
challenge in this little book—and it is the perfect size to tuck away in
the pocket for convenient reading! Reformed believers are sometimes
accused of overlooking the person and work of the Holy Spirit, even
though Calvin has been called “the theologian of the Holy Spirit.”
Martin has helped offset this perceived imbalance. Martin calls for
passionate, Spirit-driven, and Spirit-dependent preaching. He also
demonstrates that this might be done without pulpit fanaticism or
mysticism. Steven Lawson’s comment on the back cover is right on
target: “Every preacher should periodically read this book on Satur-
day night before entering the pulpit on Sunday morning.”
q
Book Reviews 339
Andrew D. Naselli. Let Go and Let God? A Survey & Analysis of Keswick
Theology. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010. 459 pp.
Reading this book reminded me of my early Christian pilgrim-
age when preachers would regularly end their sermons with an altar
call, which included a challenge to believers to surrender their lives to
the Lord. Such believers were those who have already received Jesus
as their Savior, but not yet as their Lord. These preachers, perhaps
unconsciously, indicate that there are two kinds of Christians: 1)
saved but not dedicated (carnal Christians), and 2) saved and dedi-
cated (spiritual Christians). Until I read this volume, I did not realize
that carnal-spiritual classification has its roots in Keswick theology,
the subject of Naselli’s book.
Throughout his book, Naselli uses the term Keswick theology—
sometimes called second-blessing theology—to refer to the view
of sanctification advocated by the early Keswick movement (1875–
1920). Keswick is a name of a market town in Cumbria, England,
where the movement became well known. In chapter 2, the author
provides approximately a 100-page historical survey of the prede-
cessors, proponents, and successors of this theology. Among the
well-known predecessors are John Wesley (Wesleyan perfection-
ism) and Charles Finney (the holiness movement), and among the
well-known successors are D. L. Moody, Lewis S. Chafer, John F.
Walvoord, and Charles C. Ryrie.
At the heart of the movement’s teaching was a belief that there
are two distinct classes of Christians—carnal and spiritual (ch. 3).
According to Naselli, this belief is a result of a chronological separation
of justification and “progressive” sanctification. This allows someone
to have Christ as a justifier without having Him as a sanctifier. After a
thorough examination of this teaching in chapter 4, Naselli concludes
that this unscriptural dichotomy of Christians is the fundamental
mistake of Keswick theology. He concludes, “Although it is not her-
esy in the sense of extreme theological error, its errors are serious,
extending across the disciplines of historical, exegetical, biblical, sys-
tematic, and practical theology” (295).
Exegetically, Keswick theology misinterprets Romans 6, which is
“indisputably the key text on sanctification for Keswick proponents”
(187). Naselli argues that this passage clearly shows that God does
not only deliver believers from sin’s penalty (justification), but from
sin’s power as well (sanctification). He continues, “‘A major flaw’ with
Keswick theology’s interpretation of Romans 6 is that ‘Paul is not tell-

ing believers how a justified person can lead a holy life, but why he must
lead a holy life’” (230). While I agree with Naselli’s understanding of
Romans 6, had he devoted more pages to analyzing this passage, his
argument would have been significantly strengthened.
Near the end of the book, Naselli gives a list of recommended
works on sanctification from the Reformed viewpoint. Despite minor
areas where this book could be improved, Let Go and Let God? remains
a definitive defense of the Reformed view of sanctification against
second-blessing theology. I especially commend the book for its fair
critique of Keswick theology as it exposes both its negative and posi-
tive features. It is written by a careful scholar who has a shepherd’s
heart and a special ability to write with clarity and simplicity.
— Brian G. Najapfour
q
Jon D. Payne. In the Splendor of Holiness: Rediscovering the Beauty of

Reformed Worship for the 21st Century. Whitehall, W.V.: Tolle Lege Press,
2008. 122 pp., hardcover.
This book fulfills a great need that many people are unaware of
possessing. Are you looking for a short book on Reformed worship
that you can give to visitors and to lay-people that leads them through
the entire service? Jon Payne’s work, In the Splendor of Holiness, is one
of the few works available that does this well.
Many people in Reformed churches do not know what we are
doing or why during elements such as the call to worship, the pub-
lic reading of Scripture, confession of sin and assurance of pardon,
reciting creeds and confessions, collecting the tithes and offerings,
and receiving the benediction. This is one of the greatest oversights
in books on Reformed worship. While we claim that we are not per-
mitted to include any element of worship that is not prescribed in
Holy Scripture, many churches include elements that are truly bibli-
cal with little understanding of why they are such, and even less how
to participate in them. How many, for instance, treat the benediction
as a prayer that closes the service rather than as a proclamation from
God Himself that we must receive by faith? In this climate of confu-
sion over Reformed worship, is it any surprise that we have begun
Book Reviews 341
to see the introduction of extra-biblical elements such as drama and

dance? If we do not know what we are doing in our worship, then
our people will sense that worship is largely non-participatory. The
result is that they seek out new elements in which they believe they
can participate better.
Payne’s book corrects such misconceptions by providing a bibli-
cal description of what each element is and how to participate in it.
This book is short, but it is precise; Payne has not sacrificed clar-
ity for brevity and simplicity. The two appendices on the Lord’s Day
and the sufficiency of Scripture are valuable in their own right as
well. This work does not remedy every gap in our understanding;
for instance, the divine mandates for including baptism, the offering,
and the benediction in public worship require further development.
Yet this reviewer cannot recommend this book too highly. This book
will help you become a participant in every element of a Reformed
worship service instead of simply remaining a spectator.
— Ryan M. McGraw
q
David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament

Commentary. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: IVP Nottingham and
Eerdmans, 2009. 790 pp., hardcover.
In comparison with most other New Testament books, not many
commentaries have been written on Acts, although this lacuna has
been remedied somewhat in recent years. The author of this Pillar
New Testament Commentary, David G. Peterson, senior research
fellow for the New Testament at Moore Theological College, Sydney,
is certainly qualified to write on Acts. He participated in the project
“The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting,” which resulted in
the publication of several volumes.
Peterson has a good style of writing. Knowledge of Greek is not
necessary to read this commentary with profit; the translation is given
in italics first, and only then the Greek word or Greek expression
between brackets.
The book of Acts is the sequel of the Gospel of Luke. In both his
Gospel and the book of Acts, Luke writes as many serious Greek writ-
ers of history would write, emphasizing that he consulted his sources
carefully. He was an eyewitness to much of it himself, and he inter-

viewed other eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Luke has the character of
antique biography and the book of Acts of antique historiography.
Peterson defends the reliability of Luke as a writer of history; he
rejects the view that the speeches in Acts are just creations of Luke.
Certainly we have summaries of what was actually said, but in the
reported speeches we not only detect the typical style of Luke but also
the style of the reported speaker.
The book of Acts shows us that the gospel was first preached to
the Jews and then to the Gentiles. The second half of the book tells
us about the mission of Paul to the Gentiles. At the same time, the
Jewish people remain the primary recipients of the gospel as the end
of the Gospel of Luke shows. When he invited the leaders of the Jew-
ish community of Rome, Paul was doing what the church must do
as long as she exists, namely, to persuade the Jews concerning Jesus,
both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets (Acts 28:23).
When outlining the Christology of Acts, we must not restrict
ourselves to the titles given to Him in Acts, but also focus on the nar-
rative presentations. The book shows us that the exalted Jesus behaves
and acts as Yahweh acted in the Old Testament. Acts 2:36 (God made
him Lord and Christ) cannot be explained in an adoptionist way.
After having finished His work on earth, Christ entered a new stage
of His work; from then on, He must be openly proclaimed as Lord
and Christ, but He always shared in the identity of God Himself.
After the resurrection of Jesus, His trial is in a certain sense reopened,
and the apostolic witnesses present His case to Jews and Gentiles,
refuting all counter arguments.
Jesus’ triumph over Satan and the powers of evil is an important
theme in both Luke’s Gospel and Acts. A significant fact is that the
terminology of signs and wonders used in Acts resembles the termi-
nology used for the miraculous activity of God in the Old Testament,
especially with Moses and the exodus. This points strongly in the
direction that these signs and wonders cannot be expected in every
time. Just as in the Old Testament, the new generations have the his-
torical report about these signs and wonders done in the past. The
signs and wonders reported in Acts mark the transition from the old
to the new dispensation.
Peterson denies that the question of the apostles about whether
Christ would restore the kingdom of Israel during their lifetime was
Book Reviews 343
misguided. That kingdom will be restored in a way surpassing all

expectations when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven, but
the end time restoration begins with the outpouring of the Spirit and
the formation of the congregation of Israel in a New Testament form.
The apostles and the church in general have to fulfill their duty of
proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit
and not make any attempt to compute the times.
The three stages of the progress of the gospel, namely, the dawn
of salvation in Jerusalem, the reconstitution of Israel, and the inclu-
sion of the Gentiles, are all foretold by Isaiah. Acts shows how the
Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the New Testament church
consisting both of Jews and Gentiles. The Apostle Paul is portrayed
by Luke as a prophetic figure whose divinely given role is to complete
the task of the Servant of the Lord to bring Israel back to the Lord and
to take the messianic salvation to the Gentiles.
Peterson’s commentary on Acts is a valuable tool for providing
insight into this important and unique book of Scripture —the only
one that gives information about the first stage of the New Testa-
ment church.
— Pieter de Vries
q
Willem J. van Asselt with contributions by T. Theo J. Pleizier, Pieter L.

Rouwendal, and Maarten Wisse. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism.
Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. 263 pp., paperback.
The Reformed pastor or seminarian interested in studying mid-
sixteenth to late-seventeenth-century Reformed doctrinal florescence
faces a daunting journey into an area that is largely terra incognita in the
standard seminary curriculum—Reformed scholasticism. For start-
ers, the historical scope is huge: from eleventh-century Scholasticism
to eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Additionally, the field is not
Anglophone-friendly: the primary sources (very few of which have
been translated into English) are in Latin, and, until recently, many
of the most important secondary sources are in Dutch, French, Ger-
man, or Italian. What is more, engagement with the sources requires,
at a minimum, familiarity with Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.
The preliminary path appears almost impassable.
Yet, all hope is not lost, for, as the ancient Chinese proverb
teaches, the journey of a million miles begins with a small step. But,
to continue the metaphor, if one is to begin the million-mile journey
into the field of Reformed scholasticism, one certainly needs a good
map. The new English translation of Willem J. van Asselt’s Inleiding
in de gereformeerde scholastiek (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1998)
(Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism) is therefore most welcome;
by mapping the field of study and providing a guidebook for further
research, this book both fills a void in Anglophone scholarship and
gives hope to newcomers that the path, despite its daunting appear-
ance, is not altogether impassable.
The authors describe their purpose as follows: “This textbook
reveals the roots, developments, and main topics of this theology
[Reformed scholasticism] in their historical context and is meant
as a stimulus for further study” (xiv). Specifically, readers will find
clear definitions of “orthodoxy,” “scholasticism,” and “Reformed
scholasticism”; a historical survey of the entire era of scholasticism;
introductions to the most important figures and schools of thought
throughout the three periods of Reformed orthodoxy; a state of the
question on key issues along with significant bibliographies appended
to each chapter; and a reader’s guide that details how to approach a
scholastic text and applies the method to Gisbertus Voetius’s dispu-
tation on “The Use of Reason in Matters of Faith.” To quote from
Richard A. Muller’s foreword, this book “is not merely an introduc-
tory survey. It is a significant guide for the further study of the era” (x).
Compared to the Dutch original, chapters 4, 5, and 9 have been
updated (with mostly formal changes), and an entirely new chapter
on the implications of Reformed scholasticism for today has been
added (ch. 11).
The book is arranged into two parts, the first of which treats the
scholastic method in post-Reformation Reformed theology. Notably,
in chapter 1, van Asselt and Pieter L. Rouwendal explicitly locate the
book in what might be termed a revisionist line of historiography on
Reformed scholasticism. This means that they disagree with the tra-
ditional answer given to the key question that undergirds the entire
field of study: what is the nature of the historical relation between
medieval scholasticism, Reformation theology, and post-Reformation
scholasticism? At the risk of generalization, the traditional answer is
that, after the Reformation (which supposedly was a time of warm,
Book Reviews 345
simple, biblical theology), Protestant theology reverted to the cold,

dry, rationalistic scholasticism that the Reformers sought to leave
behind. This answer is largely based upon the assumption that the
new scholastic form of post-Reformation theology (which, according
to both sides, is an indisputable development) entails a change in con-
tent of that theology. The revisionists dispute the latter. They counter
that Reformed scholasticism is primarily a change in method rather
than content: “The most important thesis we will defend in this
work is that the term scholastic refers above all to method, without
direct implications for content. It pertains to methods of disputation
and reasoning which characterize scholasticism in contrast to other
ways of doing theology” (8). Accordingly, they point out that, during
this period, the scholastic method was used not only for theologi-
cal content but also for jurisprudence and medicine. Also, they note
that scholasticism was the universal method employed by Reformed,
Roman Catholic, and Lutheran theologians alike. Since the scholastic
method was employed to propagate a wide variety of content in mul-
tiple academic fields and a wide array of conflicting theologies, the
revisionists view the older assessment to be untenable.
Starting with Schleiermacher and Hegel, in chapter 2, van Asselt
and Rouwendal survey nineteenth-century approaches to the underly-
ing historical question along with twentieth- and twenty-first-century
reactions and developments. Against this backdrop they present their
revisionist case for seeing a much larger measure of positive continuity
between the theological content of medieval scholasticism, Reforma-
tion theology, and Reformed scholasticism.
In chapter 3, T. Theo J. Pleizier and Maarten Wisse introduce
Aristotle’s signal methodological role in Reformed scholasticism.
Contrary to the common caricature of Reformed scholastics as naïve
synthesizers of Aristotle’s pagan philosophy and the Holy Bible, the
authors argue that the Reformed scholastics did not appropriate from
Aristotle uncritically. Rather, they gave many terms new meanings
and they rejected several aspects of Aristotelian philosophy outright.
The authors also present a basic survey of Aristotle’s corpus and intro-
duce key concepts from his metaphysical formulations that appear in
Reformed polemics with Socinians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
In chapter 4, Wisse presents Augustine’s significant material role in
Reformed scholasticism. He avers that, just as Aristotle is the method-
ological fount of Reformed scholasticism, so Augustine is its didactic
and polemical fount, especially regarding prolegomena, the doctrines

of God and the Holy Trinity, and the doctrine of predestination.
Rouwendal surveys medieval scholasticism in chapter 5. He
explains how specific features of the scholastic method work, such
as the several steps of the quaestio method. He also introduces the
most important medieval theologians and texts. Thus he illuminates
the medieval methodological tools and theological sources that the
Reformed scholastics critically appropriated in order to formulate
their theological positions.
In chapter 6, van Asselt introduces a significant historical ques-
tion that underlies the study of Reformed scholasticism, namely, how
the Renaissance relates to the Reformation and hence how human-
ism relates to scholasticism. Building on the work of Paul Kristeller,
he suggests that scholars of Reformed scholasticism need to broaden
their horizon in order to take humanism into account insofar as a
humanist line and a scholastic line coexist both in the Renaissance
and the Reformation periods.
Van Asselt and Rouwendal trace the development of Reformed
theological method in chapter 7. Beginning with early Reformation-
era guides to Bible reading such as are found in Erasmus, Melanchthon,
and Calvin, the authors illuminate the origins and growth of the loci
method, the rise of Ramism, the distinction between the analytic and
synthetic methods, and the discussions on whether theology is a the-
oretical or practical science.
Part 2, authored by van Asselt, is comprised of three chapter-
length surveys of the periods of early, high, and late Reformed
orthodoxy (chs. 8–10). Van Asselt explicates each period’s historical
context, main theological debates, and eminent centers of Reformed
theology (mostly Reformed academies and universities along with
their attending theologians). He also provides theological samplings
from representative theologians of each era: Franciscus Junius’s for-
mulation of the theologia archetypa-ectypa distinction, Francis Turretin’s
quaestio on the freedom of the will, and Benedict Pictet’s view of the
relation between reason and revelation respectively.
In chapter 11, van Asselt rehearses several historical correc-
tives from the revisionist line of Reformed scholasticism studies
and suggests several ways in which the field can be further devel-
oped. He also returns to the question with which the book began:
does Reformed scholasticism have any relevance for theology today?
Book Reviews 347
He answers in the affirmative for three reasons: (1) ignorance of

Reformed scholasticism leads to superficiality and vagueness in theo-
logical formulations; (2) the all-encompassing breadth with which
the Reformed scholastics sought to bring to bear in their explana-
tions of God’s agency in the world is worth emulating; (3) the intent
of the quaestio method—to attain clarity through critical analysis of
one’s own and another’s ideas and to theologize in light of the great
stream of catholic orthodoxy—is a pressing need in contemporary
Protestant theology.
To these benefits, three more can be added specifically for those
of us within the American Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. First,
this book challenges the overtly negative attitude toward Reformed
scholasticism that arose in early twentieth-century Reformed philoso-
phy at the Free University in Amsterdam under Herman Dooyeweerd,
which attitude was then imported to American Reformed theology via
Cornelius Van Til. It is time to reassess this attitude based upon actual
interaction with the primary sources of Reformed scholasticism, a fea-
ture that is lacking in this earlier scholarship. Second, for those of us
who are not expert Latinists, this book still provides an invaluable ori-
entation to the Reformed scholastic texts that are available in English
such as Edward Leigh’s Body of Divinity, John Owen’s Works, Francis
Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, and even Herman Bavinck’s
Reformed Dogmatics. Third, insofar as this book highlights the interna-
tional scope and vast breadth and depth of Reformed theology in its
period of florescence, it challenges contemporary Reformed theolo-
gians to avoid reductionistic tendencies such as thinking that one’s pet
theologian is the sole paragon of Reformed theology.
This first-class guidebook is highly recommended to anyone
interested in a basic orientation to the study of Reformed scholasticism.
— Laurence R. O’Donnell III
Contributors
q
Joel R. Beeke is president and professor of Systematic Theology and

Homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and a pastor of the
Heritage Netherlands Reformed congregation of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Gerald M. Bilkes is professor of Old and New Testament at Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary, and an ordained pastor in the Free Re-
formed Churches of North America.
Brian Cosby is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in
America currently serving as Associate Pastor of Youth and Families at
Carriage Lane Presbyterian church in Peachtree City, Georgia.
Daniel R. Hyde is pastor of the Oceanside United Reformed Church
in Carlsbad, California.
Gordon J. Keddie is pastor at Southside Reformed Presbyterian Church
in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Nam Joon Kim is pastor of the Yullin Presbyterian Church in Seoul,
South Korea.
Mark Larson is pastor of Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Fair
Lawn, New Jersey.
Andrew McGinnis is an elder at Harvest Orthodox Presbyterian
Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Ryan McGraw is pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Conway,
South Carolina.
David Murray is professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
Brian G. Najapfour, is a Th.M. graduate of Puritan Reformed Theo-

logical Seminary and is pursuing a Ph.D. degree at Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary.
Laurence R. O’Donnell III is a licentiate in the Orthodox Presby-
terian Church and a Ph.D. student at Calvin Theological Seminary in
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
David Saxton is pastor of Falls Berean Bible Church in Cuyahoga Falls,
Ohio.
Paul M. Smalley is completing a Th.M. degree at Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary and is a Teacher’s Assistant for Joel Beeke.
William VanDoodewaard is associate professor of Church History at
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
REFORMATION HERITAGE BOOKS
2965 Leonard Street NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525
The Marrow Controversy

and Seceder Tradition
Atonement, Saving Faith, and
the Gospel Offer in Scotland
(1718–1799)
William VanDoodewaard
ISBN 978-1-60178-149-9
After the Reformation, the Marrow controversy of the eighteenth century

is noted as one of the most significant and defining events in the Scottish
church. However, until now, there has not been a serious analysis of the
theology of the Marrow men as it relates to churches in Scotland during the
aftermath of the controversy. In this important study, William VanDoode-
waard identifies characteristic understandings of Marrow theology on the
atonement, saving faith, and the free offer of the gospel and traces them out
in the theology of the Seceder tradition. In doing so, he presents substantial
evidence for the continuity of Marrow theology in the Associate Presbytery
and Associate Synod in Scotland during the eighteenth century. He ably
demonstrates that while Marrow theology was not the primary cause of the
Secession churches, the Seceders were aware of the significance of Marrow
theology and consciously made it an integral part of their churches.
William VanDoodewaard has satisfied a scholarly need by care-
fully demonstrating the substantial theological continuity between
Thomas Boston and the rest of Scotland’s early eighteenth-century
Marrow men and the later churches of the Associate Presbytery and
Associate Synod. While this connection has long been assumed, it
is now thoroughly demonstrated. The trilogy of doctrines at the
heart of VanDoodewaard’s argument—the substitutionary atone-
ment, saving faith, and the free offer of the gospel—are not of
merely historical interest, but of perennial necessity for the truth of
the gospel and the vitality of the Christian church.
— Philip G. Ryken, President, Wheaton College
Paperback, 336 pages Retail Price: $25.00
Page size: 5.5” × 8.5” RHB Price: $19.00
616-977-0889 • Fax: 616-285-3246
e-mail: orders@heritagebooks.org • website: www.heritagebooks.org
Glory Veiled
and Unveiled:
A Heart-Searching Look
at Christ’s Parables
Gerald M. Bilkes
ISBN 978-1-60178-165-9
“You have likely read the parables of Christ before, perhaps many times.
But have they read you?” With this thought-provoking question, au-
thor Gerald Bilkes introduces readers to the concept of interpreting the
Scriptures experimentally as he takes a heart-searching look at Christ’s
parables. In this spiritually rewarding Bible study, the author shows
students of Scripture how to read the parables in a way that takes into
account the truth that Scripture searches us as we subject ourselves to
it. When we recognize this, we can expect Scripture to transform us.
An ideal tool for personal or group Bible study, with questions follow-
ing each lesson, Glory Veiled and Unveiled considers the contexts and
main messages of twenty-five parables and puts our hearts under the
“searchlight” of Scripture, guiding us into the knowledge of Christ, our
gracious and glorious king.
We have come to expect good things from Dr. Bilkes, and in Glory
Veiled and Unveiled we are not disappointed. He has given us a mar-
velous exposition of the parables, revealing astute awareness of the
subtleties of the genre and a keen eye for their current applica-
tion. With pointed questions, each chapter is designed for use in
personal and corporate Bible study. Individuals and churches will
profit enormously from this book.
— Derek W. H. Thomas, Minister of Preaching and Teaching,
First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC
Paperback, 240 pages Retail Price: $12.00

Page size: 5” × 7.5” RHB Price: $9.00

Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2012.1

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

Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2012.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puritan Reformed Journal

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Joel R. Beeke, Editor

Please address all PRJ communication as follows:

POSTMASTER: SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: Puritan Reformed Journal,

SYSTEMATIC AND Historical Theology

Pastoral theology and missions

century. Larson discusses du Moulin’s thought on knowing God, a

The Necessity, Nature, and Benefits

Shakespeare said that history is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound

The Necessity of Old Testament History

message. The issue is, Is the Bible histori­cally reliable or is it not? Do we

2. Greidanus, Modern Preacher, 24.

kingdom history: “A key hermeneutical principle holds that a part can

5. Greidanus, The Modern Preacher, 100.

within Scripture, and also between Scripture and extra-biblical sources

The Nature of Biblical History

Biblical History Is True History

8. G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press,

expect from archaeology either an independent verification of biblical

to admit that the kind of skepticism that is a necessary part of con-

Biblical History Is Selective History

13. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 16.

This selectivity is eminently discernible in the Old Testament

Biblical History Is Purposeful History

16. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 16.

Israel. These texts are a wonderful integration of history, literature,

dealings with humans in the historical narratives reveal to us much

Biblical History Is Relevant History

Biblical History Is Redemptive History

21. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Electronic Edition.

Summary of the Benefits of Old Testament History

23. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 11.

• The unique nature of biblical history requires a unique

“Translation...Openeth the Window”:

The original 1611 edition of the King James or Authorized Version

1. This is different from “The Epistle Dedicatory,” which is more regularly

After his work on the King James Version, Smith would be

4. Alexander M’Clure and R. E. Rhoades, The Translators Revived: A Biographical

The Challenge of Translation

The translators of the AV showed such courage against many odds,

Humility Required of Translators

is not attainable, we might as well not even attempt it. He gives an

The Proper Regard for Scripture

8. “For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables?”

so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oyle vessels; whereby

The Indispensability of the Spirit of God

Ye are brought unto fountaines of living water which yee digged

9. Smith quotes the church fathers to provide further warning: “Remember

John 18 introduces us to the greatest day in the history of the world:

The King’s Threefold Sovereignty

The King’s Sovereign Question

The King’s Sovereign Self-identification

Jesus’ proclamation has such profound effects on the multitude

Gethsemane’s King lets the confused and frightened band of sol-

The King’s Sovereign Substitution

physical safety of His disciples offers us an “illustration” of His work

The Lamb’s Threefold Submission

5. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),

7. Spurgeon, “The Captive Savior Freeing His People,” 650.

responsibility for what is happening and abandoning you to the evil

The Lamb’s Willingness to be Bound

Jesus’ bound hands are symbolic of much more. Let me mention

message. The issue is, Is the Bible historically reliable or is it not? Do we