Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2010.1

Puritan Reformed Journal
JANUARY 2010
q
Volume 2 • Number 1
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

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

Jerry Bilkes, Associate Editor
David Murray, Associate Editor
Michael Haykin, 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: 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: Dr. Michael Haykin, 34 Thornton Trail, Dundas, Ont. L9H
6Y2, Canada; mhaykin@sbts.edu
© 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@puritan-
seminary.org; web: www.puritanseminary.org
ISSN #: 1946-8652
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
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Biblical Studies
The Jews’ View of the Old Testament — David Murray . . . . . . . . . . 5
An Everlasting House: An Exegesis of 2 Samuel 7
— M aarten Kuivenhoven. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Applying Christ’s Supremacy: Learning from Hebrews
Gerald M. Bilkes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
SYSTEMATIC AND Historical Theology

“Hot Protestants”: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism
Ian Hugh Clary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
John Bunyan and His Relevance for Today — Pieter DeVries. . . . . 67
Samuel Petto (c. 1624 –1711): A Portrait of a Puritan Pastor
Theologian — Michael G. Brown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
James Durham (1622 –1658) and the Free Offer of the Gospel
Donald John M acLean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
The Ceremonial or Moral Law: Jonathan Edwards’s
Old Perspective on an Old Error — Craig Biehl. . . . . . . . . . 120
EXPERIENTIAL THEOLOGY
The Theological Foundation and Goal of Piety in
Calvin and Erasmus — Timothy J. Gwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Thomas Watson: The Necessity of Meditation
Jennifer C. Neimeyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Was Samuel Rutherford a Mystic? — Robert A rnold . . . . . . . . . . . 182
The “Sense of the Heart”: Edwards’s Public Expression of
His Pietistic Understanding of Religious Experience
K arin Spiecker Stetina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Pastoral theology and missions

John Owen and the Third Mark of the Church — Stephen Yuille. 215
Jeremiah Burroughs on Worship — James Davison . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Samuel Davies: One of America’s Greatest Revival Preachers
John E. Skidmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
iv Puritan Reformed Theological Journal
A Pastor’s Analysis of Emphases in preaching: Two False Dichotomies

and Three Conclusions — Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . . 266
“For God’s Glory (and) for the Good of Precious Souls”: Calvinism
and Missions in the Piety of Samuel Pearce (1766 –1799)
Michael A. G. Haykin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
CONTEMPORARY AND CULTURAL ISSUES

Handling Error in the Church: Martin Downes Interviewing
Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Interview with Geoff Thomas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Practical Lessons from the Life of Idelette Calvin — Joel R. Beeke. 329
The “Little Church”: Raising a Spiritual Family with
Jonathan Edwards — Peter Beck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
Book Reviews
Mary Elizabeth Anderson, Gustaf Wingren and the Swedish
Luther Renaissance — David Roach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
David Berkley, Travel Through Cambridge: City of Beauty, Reformation
and Pioneering Research — K enneth M agnuson. . . . . . . . . . . 358
Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life
A llen R. Mickle, Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
Jonathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
Michael A. G. Haykin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Antony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious
Atheist Changed His Mind — R andall J. Pederson. . . . . . . . . 363
Barry G. Hankins, Francis Schaeffer: Fundamentalist Warrior,
Evangelical Prophet — K eith Goad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Daniel R. Hyde, God With Us: Knowing the Mystery
of Who Jesus Is — David Roach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Jeffery K. Jue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586 –1638)
and the Legacy of Millenarianism — M ark Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Living Water — Ryan M. McGraw. . . . . . . . . . . 370
R. Albert Mohler Jr., He is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern
World — A llen R. Mickle, Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Stephen J. Nichols, For Us and For Our Salvation: The Doctrine of
Christ in the Early Church — A llen R. Mickle, Jr.. . . . . . . . . 374
Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology — Ryan McGraw . . . . . . . . . 377
L. J. Van Valen, Constrained By His Love — Clint Humfrey . . . . . . . 379
BOOK ENDORSEMENTS — Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

CONTRIBUTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
From the Editors
q
Christian theology and piety is a Word-centered theology and piety, fo-
cused on the revelation of the Scriptures. But that revelation has been
progressive and is divisible into two general periods, designated by the
terms the Old and New Testaments or the old and new covenants. Criti-
cal for understanding these two blocks of revelation is the interpretation
of the relationship between the two. In his article David Murray helpfully
looks at the vital subject of this relationship and offers guidelines on how
this relationship is best interpreted. Maarten Kuivenhoven then helps us
think through the significance of one aspect of the old covenant, namely,
David’s resolve to build the Temple in 2 Samuel 7. The story of David’s
determination in this regard and God’s response displays something that
is also central to the new covenant experience, namely God’s covenant
faithfulness, His hesed. A key book in the New Testament for understand-
ing this relationship between the covenants is the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Gerald Bilkes explores why Hebrews is such a powerful aspect of the New
Testament corpus, and in doing so, ably opens up the Christocentric riches
of this book.
In the area of historical theology, Ian Clary seeks to answer a question
that has been much discussed in the past seventy or so years, namely, “What
is Puritanism?” He offers his own helpful definition and concludes that a
wide chronological scope is the best that would see Puritanism as broader
than an intra-Anglican movement. Three studies of individual Puritans
follow—Pieter de Vries on John Bunyan, Michael Brown on Samuel Petto,
Donald MacLean on James Durham—keeping up a fine tradition, already
established in the first two issues of this journal, of exploring in rich detail
our Puritan heritage. The final essay in the section on historical theology
returns to the theme of the earlier biblical essays, that is, the relationship
between the covenants. In this case, Craig Biehl helpfully discusses the
view of Jonathan Edwards on the moral and ceremonial law.
The subject of experiential theology, or Christian piety, is one that
is flourishing today, and in this issue we have a number of fine essays in
this area. They range over a fairly wide spectrum: from Timothy Gwin’s
comparison of Calvin and Erasmus on the theological foundations for
the goal of piety to Jennifer Neimeyer’s treatment of the Puritan spiritual
discipline of meditation—an area in which the Puritans excelled and have
Puritan Reformed Theological Journal
much to teach this generation of Christians—in the thought of Thomas

Watson; and from Robert Arnold’s investigation as to whether the term
“mystic” is appropriate for the Scottish author Samuel Rutherford to
Karin Stetina’s discussion of Jonathan Edwards’s public delineation of his
understanding of religious experience.
A Puritan author is the subject of the first essay in the section dealing
with pastoral ministry, namely, Stephen Yuille’s study of John Owen’s
treatment of biblical discipline—yet another area where we can learn
much from the Puritans. James Davison then looks at Jeremiah Bur-
roughs, whose life and thought was the subject of his excellent Queen’s
University Belfast doctoral dissertation. John Skidmore looks at Samuel
Davies, whom D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once said was the greatest preacher
in eighteenth-century America. This is a welcome study, for, despite this
remark by Lloyd-Jones, there is really very little by way of secondary
sources on Davies. Preaching has ever been central to the Reformed and
Puritan traditions—given their Word-centeredness mentioned above. Of
late, though, various dichotomies foreign to these traditions of preaching
have been introduced and urged, and Ryan McGraw helps us to think
through why these dichotomies are not at all helpful ones. This sec-
tion concludes with Michael Haykin’s helpful essay on Samuel Pearce, a
Brainerd-like figure who, as a close friend of William Carey, stands at the
head of the modern missionary movement.
The final section of this issue deals with contemporary issues. Here
we have two illuminating interviews, the first with Joel Beeke on how
best to deal with theological error, and the second, more general, with
Geoffrey Thomas, dealing with his ministry, growth as a Christian, and
his reflections on the state of Wales and Europe today, and what is needed
by way of ministry in the light of this state of affairs. Interviews like this
are always helpful, for they remind us of that indispensable personal side
to Christian ministry and theological reflection. Joel Beeke’s study of the
practical lessons that John and Idelette Calvin’s marriage offer for the con-
temporary scene and Peter Beck’s study of Jonathan Edwards’s nurture of
his family are vital subjects for today, given the widespread ideological
attack on both marriage and family by Western culture.
A new entry in this issue are the book endorsements following the
book reviews. These are meant to be helpful pointers of good books that
should be read, but, which, for one reason or another, are not the subject
of a more extensive review. As always, we hope that this issue of our
journal will not only instruct but also edify and give rise to adoration of
our good God!
Biblical Studies
q
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 5 –14
The Jews’ View of the

Old Testament
david murray
q
In previous articles we have examined Christ’s view of the Old Testa-

ment, and then the prophets’ view. Now let us look at the Jews’ view
of the Old Testament. Why is this relevant, you might say? Well, we
learn not only by looking at what is right but also by looking at what is
wrong. For example, we can learn about water by describing what it is
not as well as by describing what it is. We can likewise learn about the
Old Testament message not only by looking at what it is (Christ’s view
and the prophets’ view) but also by looking at what it is not (the Jews’
view). One great benefit of the heresies and misunderstandings in the
early New Testament church was that they helped the church clarify
the truth. Indeed, throughout her history, the church has made most
advances in understanding the truth when confronting falsehood.
In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul contends against a wrong Jewish view of
the Old Testament by setting out the true view of it. He does so by
contrasting the new covenant with the old covenant, a contrast which
is not absolute but relative, a contrast which is not between opposites
(law versus works) but between a smaller and larger degree of grace.
Let me illustrate this. Some years ago, Office Administration, an of-
fice supplies business, was prospering through selling high quality
paper, envelopes, and pens to various local companies. However, with
the advent of the personal computer and e-mail, demand for these
products began to diminish. The management, however, were unfa-
miliar with new technology. Moreover, they felt that they had good
products which had been much appreciated for many years. So, in-
stead of adapting to the new situation, they decided just to keep selling
paper, envelopes, and pens. Sales continued to plummet. Eventually,
their warehouses were full but their order books were empty. At this
point, the managing director’s son, who had been trying for some time
to change the company’s product range, offered to buy out the older
management. A deal was soon concluded and the son took over. The
warehouses were emptied of old stock, and in came personal com-
puters, printers, and business software. The well-respected company
name, Office Administration, was retained, but below the signs and the
letterheads was written “Under New Management.” The company
soon began to prosper again. The company name and business was the
same— Office Administration—but the product range was now suited to
a new age and to the new ways that offices were administered.
In a sense, the story of the whole Bible is about Grace Adminis-
tration. However, what Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 3:7–16 is that
the coming of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, has changed the way grace is
administered. The Old Testament administered grace in a way that
suited the times and the people then—through prophecies, types, and
symbols. It was glorious—for its time. But now, the same grace is to
be administered directly and only through Jesus Christ. Grace Admin-
istration is “Under New Management.” And, as such, it is even more
glorious. “For if that which is done away was glorious, much more
that which remaineth is glorious” (2 Cor. 3:11).
Second Corinthians 3:7–16 teaches us that the New Testament is
not a new “business” but a new way of administering the same “busi-
ness” of grace. It is Grace Administration “Under New Management.”
Paul, then, is not contrasting old Law-works Administration with new
Grace Administration. He is contrasting the old management of Grace
Administration with the new management of Grace Administration. It
is not then a contrast of absolutes—inglorious law versus glorious
grace—but a contrast of relatives—glorious grace versus more glori-
ous grace. The old management of Grace Administration was glorious
(the old covenant), but the new management is more glorious (the
new covenant). We shall investigate these five ways in which the new
management is more glorious than the old:
1. The Spirit is more glorious than the letter
2. Life is more glorious than death
3. Righteousness is more glorious than condemnation
4. Plainness is more glorious than obscurity
5. Permanence is more glorious than transience
1. The Spirit is more glorious than the letter

Grace Administration “Under New Management” results in more spiri-
The Jews’ View of the Old Testament
tual power to obey God. “[God] also hath made us able ministers of
the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (v. 6). There are two possible inter-
pretations of “the letter.” It may represent the whole Old Testament
era, and especially the Mosaic law. Or, it may mean “the mere letter.”
In other words, it may stand for the Mosaic law without any power
to obey it from without or within. This latter sense is how Calvin
understands it. He says, “Christ is the Spirit, who quickens the letter
that of itself is death-dealing.”
If we take “the spirit” to mean the Holy Spirit, then Paul is teach-
ing that the Old Testament era was marked more by letters, words,
and sentences, whereas the New Testament era is marked more by the
power of the Holy Spirit. There are letters, words, and sentences in
the New Testament, just as there were influences of the Holy Spirit
on the heart in the Old Testament (Ezek. 11:19). However, there were
more letters in the Old than the New, and there is more Holy Spirit
in the New than the Old. The Old Testament multiplied commands
but supplied comparatively little of the Holy Spirit to enable and em-
power obedience. The New Testament simplified the commands and
supplied much of the obedience-empowering Holy Spirit. In this
sense, “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.”
The glory of the Mosaic dispensation was derived in large
measure from its pompous ritual, its temple, its priesthood, its
sacrifice, and, above all, its Shekinah, or visible symbol of the
divine presence. But what was all this to the glory of the Gospel?
What was a bright cloud overhanging the cherubim, to the light
of God’s presence filling the soul?
2. Life is more glorious than death

Grace Administration “Under New Management” results in more life
for dying sinners. “For if the ministration of death, written and en-
graven in stones, was glorious…how shall not the ministration of the
spirit be rather glorious?” (vv. 7–8). There is obvious overlap here with
. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1960), 351.
. Charles Hodge, Commentary on 2 Corinthians (London: J Nisbet & Co,
1872), 60.
the previous letter-killeth/spirit-gives-life contrast—so much so, that

“spirit” stands for “life” in the phrase “ministration of the spirit.”
The key phrase here though is “the ministration of death.” What
does this mean? Many say that it means the Old Testament only re-
sulted in death. No one was saved. It said, “Do this and live!” But
no one “did this,” and so no one lived. For example, Warren Wiersbe
writes: “The glory of the Law is really the glory of a ministry of
death…. The Law was never given to impart life; it was definitely a
ministry of death.... The old covenant was a covenant of works and
bondage (Acts 15:10). But the new covenant is a ministry of glorious
liberty in Christ.”
There are two objections to this interpretation. First, if this is the
meaning, then in what possible sense can the Old Testament be called
“glorious”? What is glorious about ensuring death for all? Why did
Moses’ face shine so brightly when he was given the “ministration of
death” if it only secured his death? Secondly, Moses, and many Old
Testament sinners who followed him, were saved (Heb. 11). How
were they saved, if all they had was the “ministration of death”? So,
if “the ministration of death” did not ensure only death for all, what
does it mean? There are four possible interpretations. And, again, the
key is to see relative rather than absolute contrasts.
First, “ministration of death” may refer to the amount of death
in the Old Testament ceremonies. There was death in the New Tes-
tament—the death of Christ. However, there were thousands upon
thousands of animal deaths in the Old Testament ceremonial sys-
tem. Also, none of these animals was restored to life, whereas Christ’s
death was followed by a resurrection to life. In this sense, we can say
that, relatively speaking, the Old Testament was a “ministration of
death,” whereas the New Testament was a “ministration of life.”
Second, “ministration of death” may refer to the relative emphases
in the Old and New Testaments. The old covenant had a greater em-
phasis on the knowledge of sin, guilt, and the deserved judgment of
death. The new covenant revealed this too, but there was a greater em-
phasis on the way to be saved from sin, guilt, and death (John 3:17).
Third, “ministration of death” may refer to the fewness of peo-
ple saved in the Old Testament. There were unsaved people in the
. W. W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Logos Library System,

Electronic Edition).
The Jews’ View of the Old Testament
New Testament, but there were proportionately far more who died
in trespasses and sins in the Old Testament. The contrast, then, is
again relative, and underlines the effectiveness of the New Testament
administration compared to the Old. This would fit in with the pre-
vious contrast between letter and spirit, and also might explain why,
instead of the expected “ministration of life,” we have the equivalent
phrase used, “ministration of the spirit.”
Fourth, “ministration of death” may refer to the effect of the law
without the Spirit. Paul describes this in Romans where he says that
the law increased sin and condemnation (Rom. 5:20). The more the
conscience is struck with the awareness of sin, the more the sin grows.
As Augustine put it, “If the Spirit of grace is absent, the law is present
only to accuse and kill us.” Any one of these four relative contrasts is
an acceptable interpretation in the context.
3. Righteousness is more glorious than condemnation

Grace Administration “Under New Management” results in more
sinners made righteous than previously. “For if the ministration of
condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righ-
teousness exceed in glory” (v. 9).
By now you should be starting to view the contrasts in these
verses in a relative rather than an absolute way. It is not a contrast
between bad and good. It is a contrast between good and better; or,
more accurately, between the good and the best. It is not the differ-
ence between total darkness and white light. It is the contrast between
candlelight and sunlight: the candle brightens the darkness, but so
bright is that sun that it makes the candlelight disappear. The old cov-
enant administration of grace, by the Mosaic law, only lost its glory
when the all-surpassing glory of the new covenant administration
was begun.
So, when we come to the third contrast between the “ministra-
tion of condemnation” and the “ministration of righteousness,” we
are looking at relatives, not absolutes. We know this because what
looks and seems like an absolute condemnation is again described as
“glorious.”
Some might say that the “ministration of condemnation” was glo-
rious in the sense that it showed the awesomeness of God’s holy justice
and pure wrath. In other words, it is a contrast between two kinds of
glory—the glory of justice and the glory of grace. However, the next
10 Puritan Reformed Journal
verse dashes this interpretation by confirming that it is a contrast be-

tween two levels of one kind of glory, rather than a contrast of two
different kinds of glory. It talks about the same glory, but at two differ-
ent levels of display. “For even that which was made glorious had no
glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth” (v. 10).
Righteousness was provided and given to sinners in the Old Tes-
tament as well as the New (Gen. 15:6), just as condemnation was
announced in the New Testament as well as the Old. However, in
terms of effects, there was more condemnation in the Old than the
New, and more righteousness in the New than the Old. There were
more brought to know and feel they were condemned in the Old, and
more to whom righteousness was revealed in the New. As such, the
Old looks dull compared with the New.
4. Plainness is more glorious than obscurity

Grace Administration “Under New Management” results in a clearer
and brighter message of grace. “Seeing then that we have such hope,
we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses which put a veil
over his face…which veil is done away in Christ” (vv. 12–14).
As we have seen, grace was gloriously displayed in the old cov-
enant. However, it was displayed through relatively complex means
such as sacrifices and ceremonies. This is underlined by the need for
Moses to cover the glory that shone in his face when he received the
old covenant revelation of grace. He “put a veil over his face, that the
children of Israel could not steadfastly look...” (v. 13). This summa-
rized the old management of the covenant of grace. Grace shone, but
it shone through a veil of obscurity and shadows—the types and the
ceremonial system. Charles Hodge says, “As the brightness of Moses’
face was covered, so spiritual or evangelical truth was of old covered
under the types and shadows of the Mosaic economy…. The people
saw the light but only occasionally and imperfectly.”
In contrast, the new management used “great plainness of speech”
(v. 12). It was the same message of grace but the veil was “done away
in Christ.” Christ fulfilled the law—the types, the symbols, the shad-
ows—and so removed the need for these interim measures which,
though revealing grace, at times also obscured it through people’s at-
tachment to the symbols themselves.
. Hodge, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, 64 – 65.

The Jews’ View of the Old Testament 11
5. Permanence is more glorious than transience

Grace Administration “Under New Management” will never fade or
diminish in its glorious message or its glorious effects, while this
earth remains: “…which glory was to be done away” (v. 7). “For if that
which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth
is glorious” (v. 11). The glory that shone through Moses’ face was to
be “done away” (vv. 7, 11). The gradual fading of the shining from
Moses’ face reflected the temporary and transient nature of the Mo-
saic administration of grace. Charles Hodge remarked: “It was in its
own nature a mere transient brightness, analogous to the temporary
splendor of the service committed to him.” The old management of
grace was “to be done away” but the new management “remaineth.”
Matthew Henry says:
The law is done away, but the gospel does and shall remain,
v. 11. Not only did the glory of Moses’ face go away, but the
glory of Moses’ law is done away also.… That dispensation was
only to continue for a time, and then to vanish away; whereas
the gospel shall remain to the end of the world, and is always
fresh and flourishing and remains glorious.
The fading nature of Moses’ glory is referred to again in verse
13. There Paul tells us that Moses “put a veil over his face, that the
children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is
abolished.” “That which is abolished” is the brightness of Moses’ face,
and the “end” is the termination of that brightness. In other words,
in addition to shielding the people’s eyes from the initial dazzling
brightness of his face (Ex. 34:30), Moses also used the veil to prevent
the Israelites seeing how soon its brightness faded. As Wiersbe notes:
Moses knew that this glory would fade, so he wore a veil over
his face whenever talking to the people, lest they see the glory
fade and lose confidence in his ministry. “And not as Moses did,
who put a veil over his face so no one could see the glory fade
away” (TLB).
. Ibid., 60.
. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Iowa: Word Bible Pub
lishers).
. W. W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Logos Library System,
Electronic Edition).
This is contrasted not only with the permanence of the New Tes-
tament administration of grace but also the effect of it upon those
who see it. They are changed “from glory to glory” (v. 18).
6. Conclusions
• There is a veil on the Old Testament (v. 14)
The Jews’ over-attachment to the “Old Management” of Grace Admin-
istration—the types and symbols of the ceremonial system—in effect
threw a veil over the Old Testament. Hodge concludes: “The Israel-
ites of Paul’s day understood their Scriptures as little as their fathers
did. They remained satisfied with the external, ritual, and ceremonial
without penetrating to what was beneath, or asking the real import of
the types and shadows of the old economy.”
• The veil on the Old Testament is taken away in Christ (v. 14)
This veil is only removed by seeing Christ as the meaning of the Old
Testament (v. 14). Hodge writes: “The Old Testament Scriptures
are intelligible only when understood as predicting and prefiguring
Christ…. The knowledge of Christ, as a matter of fact and as a matter
of course, removes the veil from the Old Testament.”
• There is a veil on the Jews’ hearts (v. 15)

Paul adds that not only is a veil upon the Old Testament but a veil is
also over the Jews’ hearts (v. 15). In essence these are two sides of the
one veil. The darkness of the Scriptures was because of the darkness
of their hearts. The revelation of Christ in the Old Testament, though
partly obscured, was clear enough if they had been in the right state
of mind.
• The veil on the heart is taken away by turning to Christ (v. 16)
In verse 16, reference is made to Moses turning away from the people
to the Lord. When he did so, he removed the veil from his face. So,
Paul says, as long as the people were turned from the Lord, the veil
of misunderstanding was on their heart. But as soon as they would
turn to the Lord, the veil would be removed and all would be bright
and intelligible.
. Hodge, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, 69.

. Ibid., 70–71.
The Jews’ View of the Old Testament 13
• Turning to Christ opens everything up (v. 17)

Paul goes on to teach that turning to the Lord removes the veil be-
cause the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is, there is liberty,
freedom from the law and its bondage and obscurities. As Hodge
puts it:
The main idea of the whole context is, that the recognition of Je-
sus Christ as Lord, or Jehovah, is the key to the Old Testament.
It opens all its mysteries, or, to use the figure of the apostle, it
removes the veil which hid from the Jews the true meaning of
their own Scriptures. As soon as they turn to the Lord, i.e. as
soon as they recognize Jesus Christ as their Jehovah, then every-
thing becomes bright and clear.10
• Christ transforms us from glory into glory (v. 18)

In contrast to only Moses seeing the Lord’s glory, Paul says “we all”
behold His glory in Christ. In contrast to the fading glory of Mo-
ses, those who behold Christ now are permanently and increasingly
changed into His own image. “From glory to glory” means either
our apprehension of Christ’s glory results in ours, or else we progress
from one stage of glory to another. The word here for changed is
“transfigured,” meaning a change on the outside that comes from the
inside.
10. Ibid., 73.

Principle of Interpretation
Paul contrasted the Old and New Covenant in two different ways.
1. An Absolute Contrast
Let us take the number 1,000. Compared with zero, 1,000 is a large even
number.
Sometimes Paul compares the Old Covenant and the New Cove-
nant using such an absolute contrast. The Old Covenant, as warped and
perverted by Judaistic legalists, represented zero. In contrast, the New
Covenant represented 1,000 (see Gal. 4:21ff).
2. A Relative Contrast
Let us take the number 1,000 again. However, compare it with 1,000,000
this time. Both are large even numbers compared to zero. However, com-
pared with each other, 1,000 is a small even number and 1,000,000 is a
large even number.
Sometimes Paul compares the Old Covenant and the New Covenant
using such a relative contrast. The Old Covenant, as properly understood
as a revelation of grace through the types and symbols of the law, rep-
resents 1,000. In contrast, the New Covenant with its much fuller and
clearer revelation of grace, represents 1,000,000. Just as both 1,000 and
1,000,000 are large even numbers, so both Old and New Covenants re-
veal grace. However, just as 1,000,000 greatly exceeds 1,000, so the New
Covenant greatly exceeds the Old in its clarity, fullness, and efficacy. Just
as 1,000,000 makes 1,000 look relatively small, so the New Covenant
makes the Old Covenant look relatively ineffectual.
In this latter sense are we to understand 2 Corinthians 3:6ff. and
also, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ” (John 1:17).
Great care must be taken to establish the difference between a

relative or an absolute contrast when the Old Covenant is being
compared with the New.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 15 –26
An Everlasting House:
An Exegesis of 2 Samuel 7
Maarten kuivenhoven
q
Second Samuel 7 offers a view of the covenant of grace being expanded

and amplified. David purposes to build a house for Yahweh, but in
turn Yahweh prohibits David from doing this and instead promises
to build David’s house. The promise has ramifications for the succes-
sion of Solomon to the throne, but it also has profound implications
for the Messiah to come from the Davidic line and to reign forever
upon the throne of David, bringing salvation and rest to His people of
every age. While the word “covenant” is not mentioned explicitly in
the context of this chapter, other Scripture references do bear out the
fact that this Davidic covenant was a heightening and amplification of
the covenant of grace. This article is simply a brief outline and exposi-
tion of this chapter and how it unfolds the covenant of grace to David
to enrich the understanding of God’s dealings with David, Israel, and
subsequent generations of God’s people.
Outline
An Everlasting House
David’s Purpose (vv. 1–3)

David’s rest from enemies (1)
David’s resolve for a house of the Lord (2)
David’s ratification by Nathan the prophet (3)
Yahweh’s Promise (vv. 4–17)

Yahweh’s pattern (4 –7)
Yahweh’s provision (8 –17)
David’s Prayer (vv. 18–29)

David’s abasement before Yahweh (18–21)
David’s adoration of Yahweh (22–24)
David’s appeal to Yahweh (25–29)
Exposition
This chapter opens up God’s heart and His ways with His servant
David. While the argument could be made, based on the absence of
the word “covenant,” that God is not making a covenant with David,
the internal evidence of this chapter and the use of other passages
of Scripture make it very clear that this is the establishment of the
Davidic covenant. Other passages of Scripture such as Psalm 89 and
2 Samuel 23:5 demonstrate clearly that Yahweh made a covenant with
David amplifying the Abrahamic covenant, as the seed is revealed to a
greater degree; the seed of Abraham and now of David is to be a king,
but no ordinary king, because His throne will last forever.
The chapter introduces David sitting in the kingly palace at Je-
rusalem, having received rest from all his enemies round about him.
Frequently throughout the history of Israel the idea of receiving rest
from enemies is highlighted. The books of Joshua and Judges, for
example, give prominence to this theme. Upon conquest of the land
of Canaan, Joshua brought rest to the Israelites from their enemies.
The judges in the book of Judges brought the people to enjoy rest
from their enemies, albeit these were strictly defined locales within
the Promised Land. Now David has received rest from all his en-
emies. Through military conquest, he has consolidated the nation of
Israel and routed his enemies with the help of Yahweh. His kingdom
was being prepared for Solomon, whose reign was characterized by
peace. Furthermore, this also strengthens the Christ-centeredness of
. Paul William Tigchelaar Verhoef, “The compositional structure, canonical

place, and theological significance of 2 Samuel 7” (Th.M. Thesis, Calvin Theologi-
cal Seminary, 2004), 37. For a more detailed study of the structure of 2 Samuel 7,
see Verhoef. He makes the main structural divisions at vv. 1–3; 4–17; 18-29. Most
commentators follow the same structure for the main divisions.
. Ronald F. Youngblood, 2 Samuel: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. by
Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 881.
. Michael Grisanti, “The Davidic Covenant,” The Master’s Seminary Journal
10.2 (Fall 1999): 234–235.
. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 116.
. Ibid.
An Everlasting House — 2 Samuel 7 17
the passage, because Christ would also receive rest from all His en-
emies through His finished work on the cross.
While sitting upon his throne in his palace in Jerusalem, David
ponders the events that have taken place. The ark of God had been
brought to Jerusalem by David and his men to rest in the Tabernacle.
David lived in a permanent dwelling, but God’s presence still dwelt in
a tent of curtains. David ponders this problem of God dwelling in a
temporary structure. Nathan the prophet counsels David to go ahead
and build a permanent dwelling for the Lord. Nathan gives David the
reassurance he needs by saying, “Yahweh is with thee.”
In his sermons on 2 Samuel 7, John Calvin points the reader to
the negative aspect of David’s desire to build a house for Yahweh: “We
have here an act of David which was highly praiseworthy, and yet it
was utterly condemned by God.” Calvin goes on to say that David
was too hasty in not waiting upon the Lord for further commands to
build a house for the Lord. The desire of David to build a temple or
permanent dwelling can be better understood in light of the practices
of the Ancient Near East. Robert P. Gordon gives some valuable in-
sights in this regard:
David who is a fairly typical near eastern king in this regard,
wants to crown his external achievements with the erection of a
temple to Yahweh who has granted him his victories. In the an-
cient world, moreover, a god who lacked a proper temple was in
danger of being regarded as cultically inferior…. In other coun-
tries it had long been considered the responsibility of kings both
to build and to maintain the dwellings of the gods.
Within this cultural backdrop, David saw the need to build a per-
manent dwelling place for the Lord. He makes the clear distinction
between his permanent dwelling and the dwelling of the Lord liter-
ally in the midst of curtains, a reminder of Israel’s previous nomadic
existence. In the end, the conclusion is that while David’s intent is
upright and moral, there is no word from Yahweh to proceed with
. Jean Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel: Chapters 1–13 (Edinburgh: Banner of

Truth, 1992), 295.
. Ibid., 296.
. Robert P. Gordon, I & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1988), 236–237.
such an important endeavor, since Nathan operates based on “his own

feelings and not by divine revelation.”
Although Nathan initially tells David to build the house to Yah-
weh, that very same night the Lord appeared to Nathan and gave him
different words to speak to David, words that prohibit David from
building a permanent dwelling place for the Lord. The Lord begins
with a question to David in verse 5, “Are you to build me a house to
dwell in?” It is as if God is saying to David, “Who gave you permis-
sion to build Me a house?” God raises His objection. David is going
outside the scope of God’s Word and promises. It is primarily through
the word of the Lord that David receives the promises, but he has not
received a word from the Lord to proceed with building the Temple.
God’s word would come, but the content of that word would be to
establish an everlasting house for David. God will turn the tables on
David. David wanted to build a permanent structure for God to dwell
in, but God would build an eternal house or dynasty for David, end-
ing in Christ the Davidic King.
In the following verses, God gives David several reasons for His
previous pattern of existence within the Israelite camp and nation.
Bill Arnold notes that “Yahweh’s objection to David’s plan has his-
torical reasons.”10 The first such reason is that the Lord has never
dwelt in a permanent residence. The Tabernacle was God’s appointed
place of presence from Egypt to the very day that God was speaking
with David. Yahweh is free to dwell where He pleases; He Himself
commissioned the building of the Tabernacle to Moses and He will
remain there. Arnold states that “Yahweh has not requested such a
house. Temples were for deities who were tied down. Israel’s God
cannot be manipulated or contained in a temple.”11
The second historical precedent in verse 7 that Yahweh uses to
prevent David from building a temple is that God never commis-
sioned any of the leaders of Israel to build Him a house of cedar. In
the long history of Israel up to this point, there was never a word from
the Lord to that effect. The tent of meeting that Israel used to this
point symbolizes “Yahweh’s sovereign freedom.… Verses 6–7 stress
. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 341.
10. Bill T. Arnold, 1 and 2 Samuel: The NIV Application Commentary from Biblical
Text—to Contemporary Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 474.
11. Ibid.
the motif of the unlimited divine freedom, and this is depicted by the
very obvious contrast between the movable tent-dwelling or shrine
and the sumptuous localized temple.”12
Although Yahweh had never commissioned anyone to build Him
a permanent dwelling place, He uses this opportunity to reveal His
alternate plans for David. Yahweh shows His power in David’s life (vv.
8 –9a). The Lord has exalted David from shepherd to king; wherever
David went and whatever he did, the Lord was with him. Midway
through verse 9, the author switches to the future tense and shows
how that the Lord is promising to David things which must yet be
fulfilled.13 First of all, David is promised a great name like the name of
the great men of all the earth. It is only through Yahweh’s strength and
presence in David’s life that his name will be made great. When God
makes the names of men great, He is making His own name great,
though men are base and greedy and seek to take the honor to them-
selves. Here Yahweh reminds David where he has come from and who
it is that has brought him thus far. David will be counted among the
elite men of the earth, and the Bible certainly fulfills this promise, as
David is mentioned nearly sixty times in the New Testament alone.
Israel is also promised a place of rest where Yahweh will plant
them and establish them. Gordon draws the parallel here with He-
brews 4:9: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”14
This is particularly important considering that future Israelites would
read this in exile while awaiting a new exodus back to Canaan, the
Promised Land. This rest can then be taken in the near-future sense
as well as the eschatological sense, referring to the rest that awaits the
people of God which will be ushered in by the Messiah who would
sit upon the throne of David forever. Under the reign of David’s son,
Solomon, Israel would enjoy unprecedented rest, and their enemies
would no longer humble them. Under the reign of the Messiah, the
people of God enjoy undisturbed rest; they will no longer tremble,
and the sons of unrighteousness will not humble them. Satan, the
enemy, will be forever silenced and they will not be humbled again as
in the beginning. In reflecting on the phrase, “as in the beginning,”
thoughts were sparked going back to Genesis where Adam and Eve
12. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 120.

13. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 238.
14. Ibid.
were humbled by Satan, though it likely refers to the Israelites enter-

ing the Promised Land in the beginning of the conquest. It is only
under the Son of David, the Prince of Peace, that the people of God
enjoy true peace.
In verse 11, the Lord promises David rest from his enemies and
He promises to build a house for David. David wanted to build a
house for the Lord, but “God must first of all build a man’s house, be-
fore the man can build God’s house.”15 A period of rest was required
to build the house of God and God needed to first build the house of
David. The right to build God’s house was reserved for David’s son,
not David, as is shown in verses 12–13.
Verse 12 begins with the temporal marker “when,” indicating that
the promise is made to David in the present but will be fulfilled in
the future. David will not see the fruition of his plans though he has
the promise in hand. He will die before he sees his house built and
kingdom established and perpetuated. It is here that the heart of the
Davidic covenant is revealed in such key terms as name, land, house,
seed, descendants, son-ship, and relationship (vv. 9–14).16 God is
faithful to David in raising up a seed to sit upon his throne. The seed
of David is not only Solomon, but all those who would follow on his
throne, “but above all he [God] had in mind our Lord Jesus Christ.”17
Gordon also hooks into Paul’s interpretation of the word “seed” in
this verse, saying that it has both the corporate and, more importantly,
the individual aspect of the seed, taking it to mean Christ, the Son of
David.18
The kingdom of this throne will be established forever. This is
a kingdom that cannot be shaken (Heb. 12:28) and a kingdom that
is forever and ever (Ps. 45:6). The kingdom of David is not merely a
physical kingdom but a spiritual one in which Christ, the Anointed
One, greater than David, is forever seated. The son who succeeds
15. Keil & Delitzsch, 1 and 2 Samuel, 344.

16. Grisanti, “The Davidic Covenant,” 246; Grisanti has a useful chart com-
paring the promises of the Davidic covenant made in 2 Samuel 7 and the promises
of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and various other references. The two
covenants are remarkably parallel in terms of the basic components that typify the
covenant. For a more detailed explanation of the basic components see Willem Van
Gemeren, The Progress of Redemption (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 104.
17. Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel, 326.
David will build the Temple, as verse 13 indicates. Yahweh will make
David’s name great but his seed will make a house for the Name
of Yahweh. Again, this seed, if taken in the singular sense, refers to
Christ who is the Temple of God and is building a living temple, not
made with hands; but it also refers to Solomon within the context of
David’s purpose in verses 1–3.
The relationship between the seed of David and Yahweh will be
one of great intimacy. It will be a father-son relationship with the fa-
ther chastising the son if he goes astray.19 Yahweh and Solomon share
such a close relationship but, even more than that, Christ the Son of
David and God the Father enjoy this relationship to a far greater de-
gree. David’s hopes for his throne lay in his son Solomon, but he looks
beyond this as 2 Samuel 23:5 demonstrates, “Although my house be
not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant,
ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my
desire, although he make it not to grow.” His hope in the promised
seed was not only for physical procreation, but for salvation. When
Yahweh spoke these promises, David believed and understood them
in the spiritual and eschatological sense, though perhaps in a limited
manner.
The underlying theme of this whole chapter can be found in the
word hesed or covenant loyalty, covenant faithfulness, or “mercy,” as
the Authorized Version translates it. Throughout this chapter, Yah-
weh’s covenant faithfulness is on full display towards David and his
house. This mercy will not be turned away as it was turned away from
Saul and his house. The author of Samuel sets up the comparison be-
tween the house of David and the house of Saul. Christ would come
from the house of David, and therefore God’s mercy would not be
removed from there as it had been from Saul’s. The Davidic dynasty
would be preserved through the Lord’s covenant faithfulness; “the
Davidic king may be disciplined, but he will not be set aside.”20 This
covenant faithfulness to David and his seed is most apparent in the
case of King Abijah or Abijam, whose heart was not with God even
though he did some things right. Despite Abijam’s sin and not being
right with God, 1 Kings 15:3–5 speaks of God’s covenant faithfulness
19. See Matthew Henry’s comment on the rod of man and the strokes of the
sons of man.
to him: “And he [Abijam] walked in all the sins of his father, which
he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD
his God, as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless for David’s
sake did the Lord his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up
his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem: because David did that
which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from
any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in
the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
Yahweh’s promises are concluded with verse 16, which repeats
the theme of the kingdom of David being established forever and his
throne being established forever as well. Yahweh wants David to have
no doubts about building David’s royal house, a house that would
last to eternity. This promise sees its fruition in the long line of kings
descending from David, but ultimately sees its fulfillment in Luke
1:32–33, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the High-
est: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father
David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
kingdom there shall be no end.” And again this promise is fulfilled
upon Christ’s session and rule at the right hand of the Father in He-
brews 1:8, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever
and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”
Verse 17 operates as a transitional verse within the narrative as it
closes out the promises of Yahweh to David. It sums up what the Lord
has spoken to Nathan and what he in turn had spoken to David. It
also shows the contrast with Nathan’s earlier involvement with David
in verse 3. There Nathan simply told David to go do all that was in
his heart because Yahweh was with him, but now Nathan acts as the
divine mouthpiece to David. Psalm 89:19 likely refers to this occa-
sion, according to Gordon, and it fits the occasion very well as it traces
the establishment of the Davidic covenant parallel with 2 Samuel 7:
“Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid
help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the
people.”21
Second Samuel 7:18–29 displays David’s heartfelt response to
the covenant that Yahweh made with him, holding before the reader
an example of worshipful prayer and praise for the faithfulness and
uniqueness of Yahweh. Verse 18 sets the background in which Da-
21. Ibid., 240.

vid likely enters the Tabernacle before the Lord to abase himself, to
worship and adore God for what He has promised and for who He
is.22 David has been steeped in the promises of the Lord for him and
his family, promises which are his salvation (cf. 2 Samuel 23:5) and
which establish his eternal throne in the Messiah. He appears before
the Lord as a man humbled and abased before the awesomeness of
Yahweh. He cries out, “Who am I and what is my house?” This ques-
tion shows the relationship that David has to Yahweh: “it is a polite
self-depreciation before a person of higher rank.”23 It shows David’s
sense of unworthiness at having received these promises, the promise
of the Messiah no less proceeding from his loins and sitting upon his
throne forever. David “sets that dust of the balance, I, a creature, and
I, a sinner, with the great God, ‘the high and lofty one that inhabiteth
eternity.’”24 David is in the house of the Lord, and he contrasts this
with his own present house, a house fraught with sin and internal
strife as later chapters reveal. He is overcome at the holiness of the
Lord and his own sinfulness, yet these words were life for David.
Calvin says beautifully of verse 19 that God deals with David in
“a human fashion…. David wanted to show here that the goodness of
God is all the more worthy of esteem because he comes down in such
a way as to make himself familiar to us.”25 The Lord speaks of David’s
house in the future, hence David uses the term “afar off.” David’s
response indicates the value and meaning he placed upon the Lord’s
promise dealing with his house in the future. It was to be literally
“the torah (instruction) of man,” which can be interpreted in several
different ways. Both Gordon and Anderson argue that it can be taken
as having ramifications for future generations and the effect would
be worldwide in terms of the Messiah being promised in the Davidic
covenant.26 Another interpretation that Gordon lists is that this phrase
can simply be translated as “Is this your usual way of dealing with
men?”27 This interpretation based on the Hebrew text is untenable
because the Hebrew contains no interrogative.

23. Ibid.
24. Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin (Grand Rapids: Reforma-
tion Heritage Books, 2006), 9:264.
26. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 241; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 127.
In the context of the covenant that Yahweh makes with David,

David sees by faith the future outworking of the covenant in terms
of the promised Messiah and he literally is saying, “And this is the in-
struction/law to man.” David looks back and sees that God has worked
this way with Abraham and every succeeding generation, promising
a spiritual seed. God deals with man according to His “torah,” or as
Walter Kaiser calls it, the “charter for humanity.”28 In translating it
this way, Kaiser sees the implications that the word “torah” has within
this amplification of the covenant of grace, from Abraham onwards.
He states that this charter “is nothing less than God’s plan for the
whole human race. All humanity can profit from what he has just
been told about his house/dynasty, kingdom, and throne.”29 This is
not a selfish statement on David’s part, but it is rather a statement that
is far-reaching in its vision of God’s grace. Kaiser concludes:
David is realizing that he is getting much more than he ever
could have imagined or even thought. The ancient promises
that he had grown up on and had counted on as foundation of
the hope of his own salvation and for the future are now be-
ing repeated to him and placed in his offspring — and there will
be no termination point in its provisions. David cannot believe
what is happening to him.30
Furthermore, Kaiser argues rightly that David is viewing this “to-
rah” or “charter” missiologically within the covenant of grace. This
promise that David receives is “to be conveyed to everyone, including
all the Gentiles and nations of the earth.”31 The gospel would indeed
proceed to the ends of the earth as a result of the Messiah being born
and inhabiting the throne of David — and indeed the gospel is still
going forth until the consummation according to God’s covenant
promises made to David upon this occasion.
David’s abasement before Yahweh is concluded in verses 20–21
before he moves into extolling Yahweh in the closing verses. David
gives a glimpse into the heart of God as He deals with sinners who
do not deserve His great mercy, yet receive it. David cannot add any-
28. Walter Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1995), 79.
29. Ibid., 81.
30. Ibid., 79–80.
31. Ibid., 80.
thing to the magnificent words he just heard from the Lord and he
simply says, “You know your servant.” Thomas Goodwin sheds light
on this, saying, “He [God] knew him indeed, and knew not only
how he served him afore this covenant, but also how he would serve
him.”32 Despite all this the covenant would be fulfilled, mercy would
be shown, and God’s purposes would override all of David’s sins.
David concludes in verse 21 by showing how it was by God’s Word
and in God’s heart to do all this and to declare it to David. David lives
a Word-centered life; he recognizes that nothing operates outside of
God’s authoritative Word and this Word is a reflection of what is in
God’s heart.
The next three verses, 22–24, show how David extols Yahweh,
magnifying His greatness and goodness. He highlights the exclusiv-
ity of Yahweh, because no one but God could give such promises
and fulfill them, too. The Lord is exalted through what He has told
David; He is exalted through His Word. The exclusivity of Yahweh
is such that it permeates His chosen people. They, too, are incompa-
rable upon the earth (v. 23), not through anything they have done,
but through the redemption of Yahweh. In his commentary, Young-
blood highlights three things that Yahweh has done for His people:
redeemed them, set His Name among them, and performed great
and wondrous things for them.33 Through these things, Yahweh es-
tablishes Israel to be His people. Covenant language is prominent
and echoes Exodus 6:7 and various other passages of Scripture which
highlight Israel’s unique covenant relationship with an absolutely
unique and awesome Yahweh.
The final verses of the chapter, verses 25–29, capture David’s
appeal to the Lord for his house. Although these promises are sure
because they have been spoken by the Lord Himself, David proceeds
to ask for a confirmation of them. David appeals to the Lord to set the
words which He has spoken to eternity. David really requests three
things here of Yahweh: to set His Word to eternity and, based on that
Word, to act, to make His Name great until eternity, and to establish
David’s house forever. The reason for these three requests is made ap-
parent in verse 27; Yahweh promised to build David a house.34 Again,
32. Goodwin, The Works, 9:268.

33. Youngblood, 1,2 Samuel, 808.
the contrast is highlighted between David’s initial purpose of building

a house for Yahweh and now Yahweh’s building a house for him. Da-
vid requests not that his own name be exalted but that God’s Name
and Word and Son would be exalted forever.
The final two verses are exaltation and the final request for bless-
ing on the part of David. He recognizes not only the faithfulness of
Yahweh, but also the faithfulness and reliability of God’s own Word.
Anderson makes the point that the good thing that David speaks of
in this verse is synonymous with the word for covenant and that Da-
vid acknowledges the covenant that the Lord makes with him here. 35
This is a firm, truthful, and faithful covenant. The final request that
David has upon this true and faithful word of the Lord is that the
Lord would show willingness and bless the house of David so that it
will remain before God forever. This request of David is not merely
a request for his throne and royal house to be blessed, but, as Calvin
says, “It refers to God’s will to bring salvation to the world from the
race of David.”36
In conclusion, David’s resolve to build a house for Yahweh is
answered by the revelation that it is the Lord’s purpose to build an
everlasting house and kingdom for David. Through this everlast-
ing kingdom and throne and from the seed of David would come
the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Blind Bartimaeus himself acknowledged
the Messiah as such: “Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me”
(Mark 10:46ff). While the promises given to David had some im-
mediate impact on his successor to the throne, these promises were
ultimately promising to David’s line the King of kings who would sit
upon David’s throne, bringing salvation and rest for all His people.
35. Ibid.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 27 –37
Applying Christ’s Supremacy:

Learning From Hebrews
GERALD M. BILKES
q
Why does the epistle to the Hebrews have the stunning force it clearly
has? Of course, God’s Word is always “quick and powerful and sharper
than any twoedged sword” (Heb. 4:12). Since it is God-breathed, ev-
ery part of Scripture is not only true but also powerful. This does not
obviate, however, the fact that there are ancillary reasons why one
or another part of Scripture has a particular or pronounced force. I
believe the following reasons explain why this is true for the epistle
to the Hebrews:
First, the abundant and focused use of the Old Testament. The author is
very concerned to bring forth out of the Scriptures, and Psalm 110
in particular, the revolutionary and sublime truth that it contains
concerning the exaltation of Messiah. The author of Hebrews quotes
Psalm 110:1 explicitly four times (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12, with Ps. 110:4)
and verse 4 seven times (5:6; 6:20; 7:3, 11, 15, 17, 21). Moreover, ev-
erything he states in the book is directly or indirectly related to these
two verses.
Second, the grand and exclusive focus on Christ. The author moves from the
person of Christ (1:5 – 4:13) to His office (4:14 –7:28), and then to the
administration of that office (8:1–10:18). The argument of the book
is compelling, coherent, and comprehensive. It is the basic outline
of what later would be developed in the locus of systematic theology
we call Christology, and Christ is the soul of the whole book. The
apostle moves from the exalted person of Christ to the exalted work
of Christ.
Third, the applicatory orientation of the book. As always in the Scriptures,
the exposition of doctrine has an applicatory bent. Here in Hebrews,
we see how basic and pervasive this applicatory bent is. The author
himself calls it “a word of exhortation” (13:22). There is not only the
frequent interspersing of application within the expositional argu-
ment, but also the tight relationship to the expository parts of the
epistle in application. Moreover, there is the lengthy application at the
end of the book (10:19–13:20). In every application, it is clear that the
complete Christ sufficiently answers the challenge and need of the
moment, whether it is trial, temptation, or false teaching.
Lastly, the radical nature and earnest tone of the apostle’s argument. The apos-
tle sets forth a salvation that is superior, more excellent, eternal, and
perfect, while, at the same time, it is an exclusive, unique, and neces-
sary salvation. The line the apostle draws is razor sharp. Salvation is
full and free; yet, because of our unbelief and dullness, it is also easily
mistaken and missed. This is the logic of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Each one of these points has import for Christian preaching.
Preaching ought (1) to adduce and proclaim God’s truth from Scrip-
ture; (2) to focus on Christ and salvation through Him alone; (3) to
drive the message home to the hearers through application; and (4) to
communicate the radical call of the gospel with earnestness. We could
expand each of these points showing how the epistle to the Hebrews
models this for us. In this article, I wish to examine only how precisely
the author of Hebrews applies the supremacy of Christ. In other words,
how does he bring the glory of Christ’s supremacy to bear specifically
and concretely upon his hearers in masterful avenues of application?
The doctrine of the supremacy of Christ over all things is the
glorious theme of the epistle to the Hebrews. It is announced in the
opening verses (1:1–3), and functions much like a mountain peak. No
matter what verse of Hebrews you read, whenever you look up, there
is this awe-inspiring sight of Christ’s supremacy. Yet, the doctrine of
Christ’s supremacy is more than an imposing and breathtaking vista.
Through exposition and application, this doctrine feeds countless
rivers, waterfalls, and streams that each conduct the glory of Christ
to the faith and life of the church. For this reason, the theme of this
epistle is more properly: The Supremacy of Christ Expounded and
Applied. It operates as follows: in exposition, doctrine is released from
the watershed of truth; in application this same truth travels the riv-
ers and streams, whereby it reaches the remote stretches of land. This
Applying Christ’s Supremacy 29
whole process lends the epistle a great force that models how preaching
should apply the supremacy of Christ to all the church in all of life.
The author to the Hebrews used three types of speech when ap-
plying his doctrines.
1. Inference: drawing a logical conclusion (e.g., “Therefore we
ought to give the more earnest heed,” 2:1; “Let us there-
fore fear,” 4:1; “Let us therefore come boldly,” 4:16)
2. Interrogation: calling into question or raising the possibility
of a certain case (e.g., “if we hold fast,” 3:6; “if we hold the
beginning of our confidence,” 3:14)
3. Identification: denoting one or other value judgment as true
(e.g., “We are persuaded better things of you,” 6:9; “ye are
dull of hearing,” 5:11)
These are the formal categories. However, there may be more help-
ful material categories. If we survey a number of these applications
to discover their inner mechanics, we will see how they model for us
how applications should operate in preaching. I believe there are es-
sentially four kinds:
1. Better Attention
2. Closer Attachment
3. Greater Assurance
4. Further Ambition
Better Attention
This is the first kind of application in the epistle to the Hebrews,
found in his initial exhortation (2:1–4). The author is amplifying on
the fact that those whom he is addressing ought to listen and heed.
Here the apostle focuses on “giving heed” to the gospel. He has
proved from Scripture that Christ is infinitely greater than the angels.
Consequently, greater attendance to the gospel of Christ is warranted, and
greater punishment is to be anticipated if we neglect this great salvation.
There are a number of ways in which this application fits the exposi-
tion thus far.
First, note how the apostle carries over into his application the
comparative form that he used in his doctrinal exposition. The “so
much better” of Christ in comparison with the angels (1:4) ought
to induce an equally “greater” heed to the things we have heard. In
fact, we may properly deduce that, since the Son is infinitely greater
than the angels, being the eternal Son of God, our attendance to Him
should be infinitely greater than the angels.
Second, it is noteworthy that his initial application focuses on the
audio aspect. The apostle emphasizes what we have “heard” and the
more earnest attendance it warrants. This, of course, fits the primary
mode of revelation he has been focused on, namely, that of the Word
and preaching. In fact, the author began his book with a reference to
divine speech: “God spake” (see 1:1–3). He compares the many and
various ways and times in which He has spoken in the past. God’s
word in these final times has been by His Son, and specifically in the
context of the letter, the word of the “session” (1:3). As during the
course of Christ’s life the Father’s voice was heard approving of the
Son at His baptism, at the Transfiguration, and during His preach-
ing (John 12:28), so now there is another Word from the Father that
exceeds all others, saying to the Son face to face in the eternal realms
of glory, “Sit.” This redemptive-historical event is a word, a message
from the Father to all the church and beyond. Behind this lies a full
and great salvation and Savior, to which and to whom the most ear-
nest attendance is warranted.
Third, it is not arbitrary that this exhortation is very much suited
to an initial exhortation. It brings the force of the central fact im-
mediately into focus and impresses it directly upon the hearers. At
this initial point in his word of exhortation, their attendance to the
gospel is both necessary and most highly warranted. It ought not to
be confined to a part of this sermon; it ought to govern it. We can
infer from this that all preaching ought to take into account all the
latest redemptive historical events, including and especially the last.
We cannot pretend that we live prior to Christ, as if this victory must
yet be attained. This would constitute neglect of “so great a salvation”
on the part of those commissioned to teach and preach. Moreover,
the session of Christ provides a powerful incentive to command the
attention of the church and all people. There is nothing in the world
as critical and weighty as the final Word of God to His Son. Angelic
beings reckon with it; should the church then let it slip? No, all the
world must come face to face with this in this gospel.
This exhortation is, fourth, suited to the particular case of the
Hebrews. We later learn that they were “dull of hearing” (5:11). Thus
the apostle gives a sort of doctrinal trumpet blast in the first chapter.
Then he pauses and — lest any would fall back into the mode of dull-
ness — sets before them the truth and shows how this truth demands
their attendance. There is no more basic act than attendance to the
gospel. There is no more critical act than an earnest attendance to the
gospel. There is no more woeful prospect than a neglect of the gospel.
This provides a model for preaching. There is no need to apologize
for requiring our hearers’ attention. Neither should preaching only
present doctrine, but explicitly urge attendance to doctrine. Preaching
must reckon with the fact that doctrine does not reach men in a neu-
tral state. Their minds are darkened and, even after grace, can be most
dull and dim. They always need to be prepared to hear and heed the
gospel, and application in preaching must reckon with that. This is the
first kind of application we meet with in the epistle of Hebrews.
Closer Attachment
In Hebrews 3:12–13 we read: “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in
any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you
be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”
These and the surrounding verses (3:7–4:13) are the second ex-
hortatory section in the epistle, and a lengthy one at that. At the end
of 3:6, the apostle, by way of a conditional clause, puts into focus
the whole question of participation in the work of Christ: “Whose
house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the
hope firm unto the end.” Having set forth the glorious supremacy of
Christ, the apostle shows the need for closer attachment. The glori-
ous supremacy of Christ raises the possibility that there may be an
evil heart of unbelief that would exclude a person from belonging to
Christ and participating in His benefits. Such an evil heart is marked
by unbelief and apostasy, departing from the living God. Thus the
apostle holds before his hearers a mirror, asking whether the portrait
they see in the mirror betrays a situation that would be most devastat-
ing in light of the doctrines set forth. The apostle even calls for “fear.”
He writes: “Let us therefore fear” (4:1) of coming short of the promise,
of being found without the faith which, by God’s grace, renders the
gospel profitable. As glorious as the doctrine of Christ’s supremacy is,
so devastating is the neglect or diminishment of it. Here the apostle
shows how the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ’s person requires
a singular allegiance to the person of Christ. If He were only one of
many, no singular devotion could be required. Now that His person is

manifest as the singularly unrivalled or unequaled One, our devotion
to Him should know no competition.
This attachment, first, then must be an enduring attachment. If
Christ is the supreme Mediator, it is impossible that we should be
devoted to Him only for a limited amount of time. We are called to
“hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end” (3:14). If
Christ were only one among many, we should alternate our devotion
halfway or at some later time; but that is now wholly unreasonable.
Second, our attachment to Him must be an attachment with an
ever-widening scope. Not only should our heart rise up in faith unto
this supreme Christ; His supremacy warrants our mutual exhorta-
tion, lest any one be hardened. His supremacy calls His kingdom to
always be extended. Our devotion to Him should spill over into a
desire that others be wholly subject to Him.
Finally, we are told to exhort one another daily. It ought to be an
attachment marked by a repetitive exhortation of each other. Christ’s su-
premacy demands our complete allegiance, our seeking the allegiance
of others, and daily engagement in the act of mutual exhortation.
This application shows how the author takes the doctrines and
meets his hearers where they are. Their existence is fraught with
many dangers and temptations, chief of which is to cherish an evil
heart of unbelief. Here the apostle gives us insight into his anthropol-
ogy. He operates with the view that even professing Christians must
examine to what extent they have an evil heart of unbelief. They are
in danger of coming up short or hardening their hearts, of grieving
the Lord, of lacking the faith that is so necessary.
It could be asked why it is the apostle brings in this negative real-
ity in the midst of a text and a doctrine that is so glorious? Does the
text of Psalm 110 and the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ warrant
this? We can certainly say that the very fact of bringing this doctrine
before his hearers in the act of proclamation demands that the apos-
tle reckon with the states and conditions of his audience. He cannot
assume that the glory of the gospel will meet with immediate un-
derstanding, embrace, and good-will. He shows himself a “priestly”
preacher in taking this glorious truth and applying it according to the
predominant situation of the hearers. He desires and endeavors that
the glory of Christ would reach the hearts of his hearers and trans-
form them and echo with an undivided attachment or allegiance to
this Christ. As a “priest,” he cannot but expose the evil of the human
heart, including this tendency in his hearers. The very glory of the
doctrine demands this.
Yet, there is something in his text and doctrine that provides an
additional warrant. Psalm 110 speaks of “enemies”: “Until thy ene-
mies be made thy footstool” (Ps. 110:1). The glory of Christ reveals
itself precisely in contrast with His enemies. The possibility of an
evil heart among the author’s audience compels him to call for self-
examination. Indeed, there is Christ’s house, and if we hold fast the
confidence unto the end, that designation applies to us. There is,
however, also an arena not comprising the house of Christ, which
Psalm 110 designates as “enemies.”
Why does he take pains to drive this point home? He tells us
the reason. The Word of God by its very nature does this. Likewise,
God’s Word declaring the session of Christ — “Sit” (Ps. 110:1; Heb.
1:1–3) — does this. It is true, this word is aimed at the Son, but it rever-
berates through the whole universe. Enemies, angels, kings, princes,
all can know it. As that word goes forth, it exposes the inmost recesses
of the heart, even in those most privileged in regard to the gospel. The
author explicitly states this: “For the word of God is quick [or vibrant],
and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even
to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all
things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have
to do” (4:12–13). This last phrase translated as “with whom we have
to do” literally reads: “with whom is the word/thing.” It can also be
translated: “before whom we must give account.” This word of God
demands an account. He arrests us, unmasks us, and exposes us. And
that is what the apostle aims to do in his application as well.
The Word of God goes forth, opens up closed hearts, and exposes
the hidden recesses and motives, laying them bare. This is one of the
main principles for the preacher in his application. Though this work
of the Word can happen separately from application by the Spirit, the
preacher desires to promote this in his preaching. The apostle is con-
vinced that application serves closer attachment to Christ. The Word
of God in Christ’s session brings us before “him with whom we have
to do,” namely, God and His Christ.
Greater Assurance
In Hebrews 6:9–12, we read: “But, beloved, we are persuaded better
things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus
speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of
love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have minis-
tered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of
you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the
end: that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith
and patience inherit the promises.”
This application is in the middle section of the argument of the
apostle concerning the supremacy of the office of Christ. The apostle
has addressed their dullness and the seriousness of the possibility of
apostasy. As he did in 3:12–13, he faces them with their comparative
deficiencies, especially in light of Christ’s perfection. Christ as Priest
had been subject to all manner of temptation, but always without sin;
the Hebrews had been tempted, and were in danger of lapsing. Christ
had been made perfect, having learned obedience by the things He
suffered (5:8–9). The Hebrews need to be told to “go on unto perfec-
tion” (6:1). Again we see how the apostle brings the doctrine of the
supremacy of Christ to bear on the Hebrews in the realm of greater
assurance. Christ’s perfection brings to light their imperfection; His
perfection spurs them on to perfection. This eminently glorious
Christ, made perfect through suffering, induces His people as well as
enables them to go on to greater assurance.
The apostle uses the image of fruitfulness. “For the earth which
drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs
meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God”
(6:7). By contrast, “that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected,
and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned” (6:8).
Notice here how the apostle uses an assuring application. He aims
for comfort. Having set forth a terrible scenario, he quickly seeks to
speak words of assurance. Lest the tender consciences and minds of
his hearers be unduly frightened and they cast aside all confidence, he
speaks consolingly. Notice how he phrases his consolation: “we are
persuaded better things of you.” Interestingly, he uses a comparative,
the grammatical form he favored in his expository section. The char-
acter of Christ being “better” (1:4) spills over into His people being
“better.” He explains what this “better” is: “things that accompany
salvation.” As salvation comes from Christ and is revealed in the gos-

pel, it makes a person who possesses it graciously “better.” Again we
see how his application builds on his doctrine.
His assuring application has a strong basis, however. He points to
the marks of grace. He mentions their work and labor of love which
they showed to God’s name: their ministry to the saints, a ministry
which has continued until now. His comforts are not baseless and
weak; neither are they generalized and oblique. They have a particular
reference. They are attached to the manifestation of the works of faith,
the obedience of faith, the ministry of love, etc. Thus he does not
comfort them simply with his own estimate of them, but by pointing
to the fruits of Christ’s work in them. Christ’s active obedience, so
celebrated in Hebrews 5, is the basis and source of their own fruits,
and this is the point the apostle makes in this consoling application.
He remarkably speaks of the attribute of God’s justice: “God is
not unrighteous to forget your work” (6:10). This is reminiscent of
John’s “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9). The
justice of God can be a wonderfully assuring attribute for the believer,
and the apostle marshals it here to that end.
Even in a letter as incisive as this letter to the Hebrews, there is
much room for assurance. The source of this assurance lies not in the
Hebrews, but in the Christ of the session, whose work is now per-
fect, and by whose perfection His servants are led step by step, and
out of whose perfection they receive assurance through the fruit seen
in them.
Further Ambition
Hebrews 10:19–25 is a very telling passage in terms of the applica-
tions of the epistle. This is the basic turning point from exposition
to application. The text divides itself into three indicatives and three
imperatives. Together, they combine to circumscribe the life of believ-
ers under Christ the High Priest as one with ambition to go further
than before. First, the apostle gives the rich privileges at the base of
this call:
1. Free access into the holiest. They have the right to enter the
sanctuary;
2. A consecrated way by blood through the veil. They have
the means to enter the sanctuary, namely, by the blood of
Jesus (see 3:6; 4:16), and by a new and living way, which
Christ has opened through the veil (His flesh) (see 9:8);
and finally,
3. A great Priest: they have the householder (3:1-6) and High
Priest (3:1; 8:1).
Second, he expatiates upon the comprehensive aspects of this call:

1. To approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith. The
manner the apostle specifies is with true heart; and full
assurance: “firm, unwavering trust”; and with the supple-
mentary motives of hearts sprinkled, and bodies washed;
2. To hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.
The supplementary motive the apostle appends is that He
is faithful who has promised;
3. To mind how to provoke one another to love and good
deeds. The supplementary motive is not to neglect to
meet together, but encourage each other in light of the ap-
proaching day.
The force of this passage is very clear in terms of the relationship
of exposition and application. In the three indicatives (the privi-
leges), the apostle summarizes his exposition, especially in chapters
8–10. He takes it altogether under the three key concepts of access,
a consecrated way, and a great Priest. These three concepts show the
great accomplishment of Christ’s work as High Priest. They mark
the highest privileges possible for anyone anywhere. Here the tor-
rent of the apostle’s argument reaches a bottleneck that makes the
water run even faster. It brings us to the pinnacle of a Christian’s
inheritance — Christ seated at the right hand in the Holy of Holies in
heaven, granting access for the believer to the throne and to the great
Priest on the throne.
The apostle is ambitious to go further. He brings these realities to
bear on his hearers by calling for an approach in faith, a steadfastness
in hope, and a mutual provocation unto love. The three privileges
together grant impetus to the three responsibilities.
Christ is at the right hand of His Father. His people are priests.
Christian believers have temple privileges as well as temple respon-
sibilities; these are far more exalted than those of any ceremonial
rituals. While the Old Testament ceremonies were restrictive, now

believers have access. The Old Testament tabernacle had a veil; now
believers have a bloody way. The Old Testament church had a priest
in the house of God; now believers have a great Priest over the house
of God. We have responsibilities of washing and sprinkling associ-
ated with faith, as well as custodial (holding fast the confession of our
hope) and diaconal duties (provoking one another to love and good
deeds). This is our temple religion, which demands a far greater ambi-
tion, namely, to go further.
The veil is rent; the access is secure; the High Priest is greater:
thus our ambition should take us further. The apostle seeks to induce
a disposition and actions that mirror the doctrine set forth. This is the
third function of application in the letter to the Hebrews.
Conclusion
The author of the letter to the Hebrews seeks to apply the doctrine of
the supremacy of Christ to Christians in their varied and real circum-
stances. The supremacy of Christ is something that calls for better
attention, closer attachment, greater assurance, and further ambition.
Notice the importance of the comparative form: “the more ear-
nest heed” (2:1) and “better things” (6:9). Notice also adverbs and
adjectives such as “daily” (3:13); “near” (10:22); and “without waver-
ing” (10:23). Each one of these accentuates the point being made.
Notice, finally, the linkage between the details of Christ’s su-
premacy expounded and applied.
Exposition: Superiority of … Application: Superiority of …
1:5 – 4:13: Christ’s Person Do not neglect / consider / take heed
4:14 –7:28: Christ’s Office Let us hold fast / go on / show diligence
Draw near / hold fast / provoke
8:1–10:18: Christ’s Ministration
each other
The first section uses terminology related to our person; the sec-
ond section uses terminology related to our calling; the third section
uses terminology related to believers as priests unto God. Through his
application, the apostle seeks to woo the whole person to the whole Christ, who
reigns supreme. Since there can be nothing lacking in the Christ, what
is lacking must be ascribed to the Christian, which he must find ever
and anew in Christ.
Register on-line now for the 2010 PRTS Conference
Systematic and
Historical Theology
q
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 41– 66
Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy

of English Puritanism
ian hugh clary
q
The terms “Puritan” and “Puritanism,” like any other socio-historical

phenomena, are notoriously hard to define. Historians of early mod-
ern Britain have long disagreed as to the nature and extent of English
Puritanism. The attempt to define it, according to Glenn Miller, “is
one of the most frustrating tasks in all of scholarship.” John Coffey
emotively explains, “Historians have agonized over its definition.”
One only has to survey introductory matters in major Puritan studies
to see this difficulty first hand.
It is the intent of this essay to evaluate the debate over how “Pu-
ritan” and “Puritanism” should be defined and offer adjudication,
seeking an adequate, if not general description of the terms — one
that concurs with a number of recent Puritan studies. Reasons for
the difficulty will first be offered, followed by a survey of various
taxonomies that Puritan historians have held and concluding with an
attempt at a general definition.
Brian H. Cosby is right when he says, “The need to define the
term is particularly urgent, given the recent interest in Puritan litera-
ture, theology and culture.” The mass of Puritan reprints has been
foundational to the reception of Reformed theology in many church
circles. However, in terms of being able to offer a clear understanding,
. Glenn Miller, “Puritanism: A Survey,” in Union Seminary Quarterly Review

27, 3 (Spring 1972), 170.
. John Coffey, “Puritanism, evangelicalism and the evangelical protestant tra-
dition,” in Michael A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart, eds., The Advent of Evan-
gelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic,
2008), 255.
. Brian H. Cosby, “Toward a Definition of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Puritanism’: A Study
in Puritan Historiography,” Churchman 122, 4 (2008), 297.
the variegated nature of Puritanism tends to be downplayed as certain

works are emphasized to the neglect of others. It is requisite for histo-
rians to recognize such popular limitations and strive to move beyond
them to seek a definition that accounts for the breadth and diversity of
Puritan thought. It is hoped that this essay will be an added encour-
agement to the list of historians who are already of this mindset.
Reasons for the Difficulty

A number of reasons can account for the challenge historians face
when defining “Puritan” and “Puritanism.” As noted, one has to do
with the unavoidable, popular notions of Puritanism driven by the
necessarily selective nature of Puritan reprints. Although Puritan
writings maintained a lasting influence through the eighteenth cen-
tury, it was in the nineteenth century that they became available on
a wider scale in British and North American evangelicalism. This
largely had to do with the Puritan reprints that made their way into
the hands of lay people. There was, in Coffey’s words, a “buoyant
demand for the classics of Puritan devotional literature.” A number
of publishers maintained this tradition in the twentieth century. In
evangelical circles today, where the Puritans are rightly revered for
their theology and piety, there is a tendency to view the Puritans as
a distinct and homogenous group of pastors and theologians. As a
result, the works of particular Puritans form a “new Puritan canon.”
Coffey lists the polemical theology of Richard Baxter, John Good-
win, and Tobias Crisp, alongside the prophecies of Anna Trapnel,
the works of John Milton and Roger Williams, and anything by the
General Baptists as examples of those who, to continue the canonical
metaphor, were left in the “Nag Hammadi” of the Puritan wasteland.
Certain nostalgia appertains to any consideration of “the Puritan era”
and those Puritans who have been marked out as giants. Books such
as Peter Lewis’s The Genius of Puritanism, although in many ways a
helpful introduction, tend to lend credence to the notion that Puritan-
. John Coffey, “Puritan legacies,” in John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, eds.,
The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008), 337. See Coffey for a list of Puritan authors whose works were reprinted in
the nineteenth century.
. Ibid., 339.
. Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (Haywards Heath, Sussex: Carey Pub-
lications, 1975).
Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism 43
ism was a monolithic movement distinguished by its piety, Calvinism,

and anti-Anglican posture.
The great Welsh preacher of the twentieth century, D. Martyn
Lloyd-Jones, is probably the fountainhead of many current notions of
Puritanism. In his influential article, “Puritanism and Its Origins,” that
was originally a paper delivered at the Puritan Conference in 1971,
Lloyd-Jones follows the scholarship of John F. H. New by defining the
Puritans against their Anglican antagonists. Lloyd-Jones compares
the controversial setting of the Puritans with the ecclesiastical conflicts
that he was involved in with British Anglicans: “[T]he most important
reason for considering this particular subject [Puritanism] now is our
situation today. We are back in a position very similar to that of the six-
teenth century.”10 While much can be learned from debates in church
history — and the parallels Lloyd-Jones highlights are apparent — he
ran the risk of seeing too much of his own context in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries and defined Puritanism accordingly. Hence the
distinction he makes between Puritanism and Anglicanism.
Lloyd-Jones approvingly summarizes New’s position: “New…
goes so far as to say that there was always a fundamental difference
between the Puritan and Anglican in matters of fundamental doc-
trine, such as the doctrine of man, the doctrine of the church, the
doctrine of the sacraments, and doctrine in respect of eschatology.”11
Lloyd-Jones comments, “He may go a little too far, but I am con-
vinced that on the whole he is essentially right.”12 The Doctor does
nuance the distinction between earlier Anglicanism that includes
Richard Greenham, Richard Rogers, and William Perkins and the
“true Anglicanism” that “as such only really emerged with Richard
Hooker.”13 But he argues that what was “crystallized” in Hooker was
inherent in those early Anglicans. Later in the chapter, Lloyd-Jones
. Ibid., 12–13. Lewis refers to Puritanism as a “cuckoo in the Anglican nest”

(ibid., 15).
. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, “Puritanism and Its Origins,” in The Puritans: Their Ori-
gins and Successors (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 238.
. John F. H. New, Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of Their Opposition, 1558–1640
(Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1964).
10. Lloyd-Jones, “Puritanism and Its Origins,” 238.
11. Ibid., 239–240.
12. Ibid., 240.
13. Ibid.
speaks of what he terms “Anglican Puritans,” an appellation desig-

nated for Puritan ministers in the established church before the Great
Ejection of 1662. However, this “Ejectment” spelled the end of An-
glican Puritanism.14 Afterwards, Lloyd-Jones casts Anglicanism in a
very negative light against Puritanism: “The Puritan always wants to
go back to the New Testament only, the Anglican is also concerned
about tradition and custom and continuity. Anglicanism has always
put an emphasis on continuity; that is why, today, she is regarded by
many as ‘the bridge Church.’ She has always claimed to be Catholic
as well as Reformed.”15
However, recent Puritan scholarship does not completely agree
with this assessment. The work of Patrick Collinson in particular has
questioned New’s concept of the stark antithesis between Anglican-
ism and Puritanism, demonstrating that it does not bear the weight
of historical evidence but rather assumes what it should have proven
by argument.16 Collinson reorients Anglicanism (an anachronism) as
part of the broader Reformed community. Both the Puritan and the
“formalist,” as Collinson would prefer to call Anglicans,17 were self-
consciously Protestant and Reformed. The early seventeenth-century
“Ecclesia Anglicana was conscious of a solidarity with the whole body
of the Reformed church in Europe which was not compromised by a
sense of national identity or the fact of institutional independence.”18
Neither Puritans nor Anglicans were ashamed of the Genevan Ref-
ormation; many of the earlier Elizabethan bishops had been Marian
exiles.19 Calvinists were found in both parties and Coffey reminds us
that the Church of England was founded upon Calvinistic principles,
as in the case of Thomas Cranmer’s Prayer Book and Thirty-Nine Arti-
14. Ibid., 254–255.

15. Ibid., 257.
16. Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1967); “A Comment: Concerning the Name Puritan” in Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 31.4 (October 1980): 483–488; “The Godly: Aspects of Popular Protestant-
ism” in Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism, History Series 23
(London: Hambledon Press, 1983), 1–17.
17. Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society
1559–1625, The Ford Lectures 1979 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003),
107–111.
18. Collinson, “A Comment: Concerning the Name Puritan,” 485.
19. A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation, 2nd ed. (University Park, Pennsyl-
vania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 369.
cles. He also points to Archbishops like Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, and

Abbott who were “firmly Reformed.”20 In the words of A. G. Dickens,
“They [Puritans] did not want to leave the Church of England but to
reform it from within; in fact until the Laudian years they represented
an elite establishment rather than a rebellious minority.”21
Rather than a contemporaneous but distinct offshoot, Puritan-
ism was an outgrowth of Anglicanism, and the so-called moderate
Puritans (to use Peter Lake’s terminology) maintained a general re-
lationship to the Church of England. The difference between the
Anglican and the Puritan was one of emphasis or degree, not of
kind.22 In the words of John Spurr, “The puritan was not necessarily
a distinct breed from the church-going ‘conformist.’”23 Or, as Col-
linson famously put it, both Anglicans and Puritans were Protestants,
but the latter were that “hotter sort of Protestant.”24 If he is correct,
and this paper will seek to argue that he is, then the relationship that
New and Lloyd-Jones set up is incorrect.
Parenthetically, it is worth mentioning that this in no way de-
values the conflict that Lloyd-Jones found himself in. Questions of
whether he was right or wrong in taking a stand against liberalism
and those evangelicals who tolerated it are irrelevant to this discus-
sion (this author thinks he was right). The point is that Lloyd-Jones
misconstrued the technical, historical definition of “Puritan” and
“Puritanism.” This has resulted in a misapprehension of these terms
in subsequent evangelicalism that rightly looks up to Lloyd-Jones as
the elder statesman of twentieth-century Reformed theology.
A second reason for the difficulty in defining Puritanism involves
the transitional nature of the Puritan period. Some historians view
the Puritans as the last survivors of the Middle Ages. They were sig-
nificantly influenced by Aristotelian cosmology, their ethics were
expressed “in the form of an almost endless, sophistic casuistry,” and
their political philosophy maintained the “classical ideal of an ordered
20. Coffey, “Puritanism, evangelicalism and the evangelical protestant tradi-

tion,” 256. Cf. Dickens, English Reformation, 368–369.
21. Ibid., 374.
22. John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603–1689 (Hampshire, England: MacMil-
lan Press, 1998), 4.
23. Ibid., 4.
24. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 27.
society.”25 Other historians, however, observe the Puritans as par-

ticipants in the contemporary world because they inhabited a society
“which had begun to assume the patterns of modernity.”26 The Puri-
tans stood between two worlds that were both similar and different.
They adopted much of what had preceded them in Patristic and Me-
dieval thinking — especially in terms of theological method — and
they adapted to the currents of change that were precipitated by the
Renaissance and Reformation.27
This makes trying to generalize select elements of their thought
unwise. It requires the historian to look at individual Puritans pri-
marily and evaluate them on their own terms, making allowance for
similarities and differences between Puritans without having to either
blend them into an artificial unity or divide them into an unnecessary
diversity — what Spurr refers to as “the ‘horizontal’ picture of puri-
tanism.”28 Or, as Collinson advises, “Puritanism…should be defined
with respect to the Puritans, and not vice versa.”29
As well, historians must be sympathetic in recognizing certain in-
fluences. For instance, they generally followed the theological method
of schoolmen like Thomas Aquinas. Such influences must be enabled
to stand unhindered instead of being refit according to the theological
bias of the historian.30 It also requires an awareness of theological dis-
continuity with the past due to the fact that the Puritans were indeed
Protestants and developed their theology along a consistently Prot-
estant trajectory, taking into account the theological formulations of
the Reformation. They were also children of the Renaissance and the
methods of humanism shaped the way they thought and wrote.
25. Miller, “Puritanism,” 169.

26. Ibid.
27. In this regard, the Puritans were in accord with the broader Reformed or-
thodox community. Cf. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Vol-
ume One: Prolegomena to Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2003),
33–37.
28. Spurr, English Puritanism, 4.
30. This is involved in the greater issue of Protestant scholasticism that has
bearing on our understanding of the Puritans. For more on scholasticism and Re-
formed orthodoxy, see Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Orthodoxy Volume One; as
well as the collection of essays in Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, Protestant
Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton
Keynes: Paternoster, 2005).
A third reason for the difficulty in determining who and what

the Puritans were is the failure of many historians to recognize the
definition the term “Puritan” itself had throughout church history. 31
It must always be kept in mind, as Professor Collinson sharply warns,
that “Puritan” was originally a slur that those we now call Puritans
would not have relished owning. For a person in Elizabethan England
to refer to a minister as a Puritan was tantamount to calling someone
today a “bigot, killjoy or extremist.”32
Initially, “Puritan” was not a term of self-identification or self-rec-
ognition; rather, its opponents were the ones who gleefully recruited
it. If one were to maintain a strict definition following this early
course, theological convictions would have little to do with how a
Puritan was marked out against other Protestants. Arminians within
the Church of England are responsible for taking the term from its
common use as a sociological pejorative and giving it theological dis-
tinction.33 They redefined the Puritan not merely as a killjoy, but as an
orthodox Calvinist, thus quickly growing the numbers of Puritans in
the Church of England. 34 For the Puritans, they preferred to think of
themselves collectively as “the godly,” “the faithful,” or “God’s elect.”35
Indeed, many wanted the term Puritan to disappear altogether be-
cause of its negative connotations.
During the English Civil War, the Royalists took to labeling as
Puritan those on the Parliamentary side. After the Revolution in the
mid-seventeenth century, the term was used of Nonconformists who
sought greater reformation in the church. In our day, to call someone
“puritanical” is tantamount to calling a person a “fundamentalist.” It
conjures up images of religious fanatics akin to those who fly airplanes
31. For a detailed survey of the uses of the term “Puritan,” see Spurr, English
Puritanism, 17–27.
tion,” 255.
33. Cf. Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–
1640 (Oxford, 1987).
35. Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason, “Who Were the Puritans?” in The
Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVar-
sity Press, 2004), 17. Of course, individual Puritans themselves would not have used
such monikers, as they often regarded themselves in a self-abasing manner in rela-
tion to the holiness and perfection of God. I owe thanks to Joel Beeke for thoughts
on this clarification.
into large buildings. This latter misunderstanding does not corre-

spond to the reality of essential Puritanism, but rather to a Victorian
misconstruction. The likely culprit for this enduring anti-Puritan bias
is Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. Of this, Leland Ryken
comments, “Hawthorne (who wrote two centuries after the original
Puritans) used the Puritans in his story for satiric purposes, and it is
a convention of satire to exaggerate the negative features of the thing
being attacked. It is a great tragedy that the only picture many people
have of the Puritans comes from works of literary satire that make no
pretense of being sources of accurate history.”36
John Shaw, a seventeenth-century man from Yorkshire, summa-
rizes the difficulty in pinning down a strict definition:
How have the people of God been scorned and nicknamed a long
time [as] Waldenses, Lollards, Lutherans, Huguenots, Precisians,
Puritans.... The word Puritan, in the mouth of an Arminian sig-
nifies an orthodox divine, in the mouth of a drunkard signifies a
sober man, in the mouth of a papist signifies a protestant. 37
All of this serves as a lesson to remember when one is reading
about the Puritans: a careful understanding must be maintained of
how the term is used in source material. It cannot be taken for granted
that the way one author uses the words “Puritan” or “Puritanism” is
the same as another. And when reading secondary sources, one must
beware of those historians who import their own faulty definitions
on earlier authors. This can lead to confusion. Thinking again of
the already discussed dichotomy between Anglican and Puritan that
some historians have posited, Collinson says, “The persistently pejo-
rative history of the term Puritan leads us to a paradox which makes
nonsense of any scheme of categorisation for which ‘Anglican’ and
‘Puritan’ are hard and fast entities.”38
A Taxonomy of Taxonomies
Keeping the difficulties mentioned above in mind, the following
summary of attempts to define Puritanism evaluates scholars chrono-
logically, beginning in the late nineteenth century with John Brown
36. Leland Ryken, The Puritans As They Really Were (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan, 1990), 189. Emphasis his. Cf. Dickens, English Reformation, 370.
37. Cited in Spurr, English Puritanism, 24.
and concluding with the recent publication of The Cambridge Com-

panion to Puritanism. Due to space limitations this list is necessarily
selective, but those key studies that have shaped the face of Puritan
studies in the last generation are included.
John Brown (1830 –1922) was an English Congregationalist, and
his The English Puritans: The Rise and Fall of the Puritan Movement is
written from his denominational concern for religious and politi-
cal freedom.39 In the preface to this work, Brown summarizes his
two-fold understanding of Puritanism: “It was first of all religious in
character. The early puritans had no political views, yet their religious
opinions worked out to political results.”40 Those political results be-
came apparent in the seventeenth century where Puritanism “became
the recognized name of that party in the State which contended for
the constitutional rights and liberties of the people as against the en-
croachments of the Crown.”41 However, Puritanism manifested itself
throughout the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. “The funda-
mental idea of Puritanism…was the supreme authority of Scripture
brought to bear upon the conscience as opposed to an unenlight-
ened reliance on the priesthood and the outward ordinances of the
Church.”42 Though he understands scriptural authority to be the
fundamental idea of Puritanism, Brown expands upon this: “Under
all its forms, reverence for Scripture, and for the sovereign majesty of
God, as severe morality, popular sympathies and a fervent attachment
to the cause of civil freedom have been the signs and tokens of the
puritan spirit.”43
Brown understands Puritanism to be a “distinct” and “definite
period in English history” and, consistent with the political tones of
his earlier definition, he sets its limits using political landmarks.44 He
understands Puritanism to have spanned the period of one hundred
years: “From the accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1558 to the death
of Oliver Cromwell in 1658.”45 He summarizes the movements to
39. John Brown, The English Puritans: The Rise and Fall of the Puritan Movement
(Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 1998).
40. Ibid., 13.
41. Ibid., 16.
42. Ibid., 17.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 18.
45. Ibid.
and from Puritanism thus: “We can trace puritanism, taking, as an

historical movement, a definite line including its rise, development,
ascendancy, and ultimate downfall.”46 It is the burden of The English
Puritans to spell out the historical details of this rise and fall. In his
conclusion, Brown says, “To this question of Puritanism, then, as to
so many others, there are two sides, one of serious estimate, and an-
other of burlesque travesty.… Puritan institutions in the seventeenth
century fell with Cromwell, but puritan ideas did not fall with the
institutions in which they had been embodied. They had done a great
and permanent work in the sacred cause of liberty.”47 Thus, for Brown,
Puritanism was a religiously motivated, political movement that stood
in stark contrast to the civil government of early modern Britain.
In his well-known work, The Rise of Puritanism,48 Columbia
University professor William Haller takes a significantly different ap-
proach to defining his subject than Brown. In fact, Haller wonders if
defining Puritanism is worth the effort. In the opening sentence of
his book, he says, “Who was the first Puritan and who may prove to
be the last are questions one need not try to answer.”49 It is Haller’s
contention that “there were Puritans before the name was invented,
and there probably will continue to be Puritans long after it has ceased
to be a common epithet.”50 Haller, writing from a literary perspective,
traces Puritan thought as far back in English history as the writings of
Geoffrey Chaucer. He says that “Puritanism, so called, was nothing
new or totally unrelated to the past but something old, deep-seated,
and English, with roots reaching far back into medieval life.”51 Puri-
tanism is a “movement for a reform of religion” that began with “the
successors of Chaucer’s parson early in the reign of Elizabeth” and
“led to the founding of New England and the revolutionizing of Eng-
lish society.”52 Haller regards this Puritan desire for church reform
as a “spiritual outlook, way of life and mode of expression”53 that be-
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 153.
48. William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (Morningside Heights, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1938).
49. Ibid., 3.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., 5.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., 9.
gan in the late sixteenth century during the Elizabethan Settlement.

The Puritans were a “spiritual brotherhood”54 whose main mode of
communicating the need for reform was found in the medium of
preaching. Haller’s work is largely not accepted by contemporary his-
torians for its Whig interpretation of history following the political
influence of S. R. Gardiner.55
One of the most significant historians of Puritanism, whose work
is still cited as authoritative, is the late Geoffrey Nuttall, one-time
professor at New College, London. Although he wrote much on the
period, his The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience56 is likely
his most important book relating to the definition of Puritanism.
In it Nuttall uses the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as an entry point
into a broader examination of the Puritan mindset as it related to key
doctrinal themes of the period, such as the authoritative relationship
between Word and Spirit, prayer, preaching, the sacraments, liberty,
politics, and soteriology. Peter Lake places this approach under the
“intrinsic school” of Puritan historiography that was “almost entirely
concerned with Puritan religion and Puritan theology.”57 Nuttall pays
little attention to Puritanism’s political or sociological context. As a
result of his influence, historians of the English Revolution have again
regarded religion as a significant factor contributing to it — something
lost in antecedent histories.
In the introduction to a recent edition of the work, Lake says,
“The book represents an attempt to recreate, to imaginatively inhabit,
and to analyse the thought world, the spiritual climate or atmosphere
of radical Puritan piety and to relate that piety backward to trends
and tendencies in prewar and contemporary moderate Puritanism
and forward to the emergence of the Quakers.”58
Nuttall understands Puritanism both in a narrow sense, ex-
54. Ibid., 49ff.

55. Peter Lake, “Introduction,” in Geoffrey Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan
Faith and Experience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), x.
56. Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (1947;
repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
57. Peter Lake, “The historiography of Puritanism” in The Cambridge Com-
panion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 349. The ex-
trinsic school was concerned primarily with social and economic concerns and left
religion to the side.
58. Lake, “Introduction,” xix.
cluding the Separatists, and in a wide sense including them.59 He

categorizes the Puritans into three parties: the middle, exemplified
by Richard Baxter and John Owen;60 the conservatives, who were
mainly Presbyterians, both Scottish and English;61 and the radicals,
who were Congregationalists.62 This third party was further subdi-
vided into the Baptists and the Quakers.63 Beyond the fringe, though
logically related to the Puritans, were the radical sects of the Levellers,
the Muggletonians, the Seekers, and the Ranters. By reading Nuttall,
one is given a wide-ranging survey of the religious perspectives of
seventeenth-century Britain.
In his arrangement, Nuttall prefers to follow a logical sequence
of categorization that he believes offers greater clarity than a chron-
ological treatment that would move from conservative to radical.64
He favors a logical handling of Puritanism based upon ideas. In his
opinion, a schema that follows chronology over-simplifies cross-
denominational agreements between Puritans. It also runs the risk of
falsifying the sequence of events due to the historian’s potential de-
sire to maintain a particular theory. Puritan influence cut theologically
across denominational lines, and thus to associate one theological view
with a particular denomination fails to apply proper nuance.65 Lake
calls Nuttall’s approach “dynamic” and “open-ended” and argues that
it is “not some syllogistic attempt to define in fixed formulas the cen-
tral beliefs or determining characteristics of Puritanism.”66 This is the
reason why Nuttall can include Quakers like George Fox as Puritans,
although Fox drew heavy criticism from Puritans like John Owen.67
Basil Hall, who taught at the University of Cambridge, wrote
an important article on Puritanism simply titled, “Puritanism: The
Problem of Definition”68 in the series, Studies in Church History,
59. Nuttall, Holy Spirit, 9.

60. Ibid., 10–11.
61. Ibid., 11–12.
62. Ibid., 12–13.
63. Ibid., 13–14.
64. Ibid., 14.
65. Ibid., 14 –15.
66. Ibid., xxi.
67. Cf. Michael A. G. Haykin, “John Owen and the Challenge of the Quakers,”
in Robert W. Oliver ed., John Owen: The Man and His Theology (Phillipsburg, N.J.:
P & R Publishing, 2002), 131–155.
68. Basil Hall, “Puritanism: The Problem of Definition,” in G. J. Cuming ed.,
published by The Ecclesiastical History Society. Hall argues that Pu-

ritanism was primarily an ecclesiastical movement. The term itself
was first used in 1563 in a more limited sense than today.69 At the
time of writing, historians emphasized the economic and political
discussion of Puritanism, but disregarded “its primarily and intensely
religious significance.”70 The term is “inflated” because it can be ap-
plied to various groups who held to mutually exclusive positions on
doctrine (especially Calvinism) and church-state relations. Hall notes,
“[W]hen the word means all these then it ceases to define. Puritan-
ism, originally a useful coin of some value, has become overminted
and ended in headlong inflation.”71 Later, building on the theme of
definitional inflation, Hall says, “Perhaps nothing can now prevent
most writers from describing Browne, Penry, Robinson, Milton,
Cromwell, Bunyan as Puritans alongside of Cartwright, Travers, Per-
kins, and Preston who were Puritans in fact.”72
While more recent historians have argued that because of the
diversity within Puritanism a more general definition should be
given, Hall argues that such diversity demands greater specificity.
The term “Puritan” should be abandoned altogether in favor of more
strict denominational categories such as Anglican, Presbyterian, In-
dependent, Baptist, Fifth-Monarchist, Quaker, Leveller, Ranter, and
others73 —“these provide more precise information than ‘Puritan.’”74
The problem with this, however, is obvious: how does one define
each of these terms? If Thomas Cranmer, William Laud, John New-
ton, J. C. Ryle, J. I. Packer, John A. T. Robinson, and Shelby Spong
are all Anglicans, what is an Anglican?
For Hall, if the term Puritan is to be maintained for conventional
use, it should be understood to refer to one who remained in the
Church of England. After 1642, the term Puritan lost all significance
because of the arrival of the aforementioned denominations.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has already been discussed in this essay
Studies in Church History Volume II (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1965),
283–296.
69. Ibid., 287.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid., 293.
73. Ibid., 294.
74. Ibid., 296.
regarding his division of Puritan and Anglican following the work of

John F. H. New. For Lloyd-Jones, this dichotomy is in the end rooted
in Puritanism’s concern for the purity of the church. Puritanism “is
ultimately a mentality, a spirit. True Puritanism, I argue, is ultimately
found in Presbyterianism…. It is found in Non-conformity, in In-
dependency and the Baptists.”75 This Puritan spirit manifests itself
across all ages and is found as early as 1524 in Tyndale76 and later in
Cartwright, Owen, Goodwin, and even Spurgeon. But whoever the
person is, if they have this spirit, they will be “primarily concerned
about a pure church, a truly Reformed church.”77
Lloyd-Jones was critical of Basil Hall’s understanding of Puri-
tanism beginning in “1567,”78 when the term was first used (Hall
actually dated it to 156379). For Lloyd-Jones, this gives Puritanism
too restricted a meaning. Because it is a spirit, Puritanism transcends
any mere label. Lloyd-Jones traces the Puritan spirit back to Tyndale
because “it is clear that two of the great characteristics of Puritanism
began to show themselves in Tyndale.”80 These two characteristics
were his efforts to produce a Bible in vernacular translation apart from
the authority of the bishops, and his leaving of England to the Con-
tinent without royal assent.81 Both of these actions were an affront
to any authority that comes not from God, which is the essence of
Puritanism. The Puritan attitude “means the putting of truth before
questions of tradition and authority, and an insistence upon liberty
to serve God in the way which you believe is the true way.”82 Cosby
summarizes Lloyd-Jones’ view well: “Puritanism was not a reaction-
ary movement against Anglicanism, but against ecclesiastical and
political authority in general.”83
James I. Packer was a colleague of Lloyd-Jones for many years
and worked with the Doctor on the Puritan Conference that was held
yearly at Westminster Chapel, London, in the twentieth century. He

76. Ibid., 240.
77. Ibid., 258.
78. Ibid., 240.
79. Hall, “Puritanism,” 287.
81. Ibid., 241.
82. Ibid.
83. Cosby, “Toward a Definition of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Puritanism,’” 304.
was also a pupil of Geoffrey Nuttall. Packer is the doyen of evan-

gelical historiography and has done much to make important Puritan
writings accessible to pastors and lay people. His book, A Quest for
Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life,84 has become a classic
of Christian devotion. The second chapter of this book is called “Pu-
ritanism as a Movement of Revival,” which was originally published
in The Evangelical Quarterly in 1980,85 hence its earlier placement in
this chronological taxonomy. This essay will follow the pagination of
the book form of this article.
The title of the article gives away Packer’s perspective on Puri-
tanism: it was a movement of revival. And while “Puritanism was,
at its heart, a movement of spiritual revival,”86 Packer does follow
the convention of historians who offer a more precise definition:
“Puritanism I define as that movement in sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century England which sought further reformation and renewal in
the Church of England than the Elizabethan Settlement allowed.”87
Packer understands the variety of Puritanism and that the term it-
self is imprecise. “Puritan” was the epithet applied to five overlapping
groups of people: clergy who chafed under the Prayer Book; advocates
of Presbyterianism; those who practiced Calvinistic piety; doctrinal
Calvinists; and gentry who showed public support for the things of
God.88 Puritanism was a clergy-led movement that spanned a century
from 1564 to 1662.
Yet, while church reform was the impetus for the Puritan move-
ment, at its root was a desire for and an experience of revival. Packer
writes:
Revival I define as a work of God by his Spirit through his word
bringing the spiritually dead to living faith in Christ and renew-
ing the inner life of Christians who have grown slack and sleepy.
In revival God makes old things new, giving new power to law
and gospel and new spiritual awareness to those whose hearts
and consciences had been blind, hard and cold. Revival thus ani-
84. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1990).
85. J. I. Packer, “Puritanism as a Movement of Revival,” in The Evangelical
Quarterly 52.1 (January 1980): 2–16.
86. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 37.
87. Ibid., 35.
88. Ibid.
mates or reanimates churches and Christian groups to make a

spiritual and moral impact on communities.89
Using the book of Acts as a paradigm, Packer understands revival
to be “an essentially corporate phenomenon in which God sovereignly
shows his hand, visits his people, extends his kingdom, and glorifies
his name.” 90
Packer’s examination of primary sources shows that the Puritans
had a preeminent concern for revival. This was something that they
had been seeking within the Church of England and in English soci-
ety as a whole. Upon examining their devotional literature, whether
sermons, evangelistic books, casuistic books, or paraenetic books, he
observes, “The literature as a whole is remarkably homogeneous, and
its purpose is constant — to induce faith, repentance, assurance, and
joyful zeal in the life of pilgrimage, conflict and good works to which
the saints are called; in other words, to create and sustain a spiritual
condition for which personal revival is the truly appropriate name.” 91
The ultimate goal in all of this was to see God glorified in the salva-
tion of sinners.
The desire that the Puritans had for revival, according to Packer,
was finally met. Revival is the only way that the spiritual blessing that
increased throughout the seventeenth century, before the Restoration,
can be understood.92 And revival was again continued in the Evangel-
ical movement of the eighteenth century, a century that was heavily
dependent upon the Puritans in terms of theology and piety.93
Cosby, in his survey of Packer’s definition, expresses confusion
over Packer’s apparent ambiguity when it comes to setting limits on
Puritanism. On one page, Packer argues that Puritanism died in 1705
with John Howe, the “last of the giants.”94 However, later in the book,
Packer refers to Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and D. Mar-
tyn Lloyd-Jones as Puritans. In light of this, Cosby asks: “On what
89. Ibid., 36.

90. Ibid.
91. Ibid., 42.
92. Ibid.
93. Packer’s insights here have bearing on the question of continuity and discon-
tinuity between the Puritan movement and evangelicalism. For more, see Michael
A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart, The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical
Continuities (B & H Academic, 2008).
94. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 60.
grounds can men who lived in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
be called ‘Puritans’ when ‘Puritanism’ ended in 1705?”95 Unfortu-
nately, Cosby fails to quote the qualifiers that Packer places on each
of these men. For instance, Packer refers to Edwards as “that pure
Puritan born out of due time”96 and Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones as “latter-
day Puritans.”97 Neither of these descriptions leaves one to believe that
Packer actually considered these men to be Puritans properly speak-
ing, but rather they imbibed the spirit of Puritanism generally.
John Spurr, of the University of Wales, Swansea, has written an
important book called English Puritanism 1603–1689 that has become
a standard reference on the subject. In it he argues that Puritanism
is hard to characterize due to the assortment of ways in which it can
be described, such as Dissenter, Separatist, or Nonconformist. Spurr
recognizes the term “Puritan” to be dynamic, that it changed “in re-
sponse to the world around it.”98 However, the term also “denotes a
cluster of ideas, attitudes and habits, all built upon the experience of
justification, election and regeneration, and this in turn differentiates
puritans from other groups such as conformists or the Quakers.”99
The differentiation, according to Spurr, was so stark that “the puritans
could recognise each other as brethren.”100 Groups that were distinct
from the “mainstream Puritans” flanked them on both sides. On the
one side were the conformists, those who remained in the Church
of England. On the other side were the sects such as the Quakers
who were related to the Puritans theologically to a certain degree, yet
who were “socially isolated, politically suspect and espousing separat-
ism.”101 Although the boundaries of both flanks are hard to define, the
general nature of both helps to distinguish the mainstream Puritans
from those of either a more conservative or radical bent.
Internally, a cluster of ideas, attitudes, and habits identified the
Puritans and distinguished them from their opponents. These con-
sisted of an observable valuation of knowledge, piety, and morality.102

96. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 46. Emphasis mine.
97. Ibid., 69. Emphasis mine.
98. Spurr, English Puritanism, 7.
99. Ibid., 7–8.
100. Ibid., 8.
101. Ibid., 7.
102. Ibid., 15.
Puritan values cut across a wide demographic of clerical, denomina-

tional, vocational, class, gender, and educational borders.103 Preaching,
sermon attendance, scriptural study, self-examination, prayer, so-
teriological concern, hatred of the papacy, Calvinism, an interest in
providence, and sabbatarianism all characterized Puritanism.104 Spurr
explains the “essence of Puritanism” that extended across the seven-
teenth century thusly:
It grows out of the individual’s conviction that they have been
personally saved by God, elected to salvation by a merciful God
for no merit of their own; and that, as a consequence of this elec-
tion, they must lead a life of visible piety, must be a member of a
church modeled on the pattern of the New Testament, and must
work to make their community and nation a model Christian
society.105
As much as the Puritans were distinct from the conformist or the
sectarian, marking out those specific distinctions beyond the gen-
eralizations noted above proves difficult. Therefore, it is important
to understand Puritanism as a fluid and dynamic movement char-
acterized by qualities that could apply to other groups. In terms of
chronological limitations, Spurr believes that Puritanism began
around the time of Elizabeth’s coronation — the word “Puritan” was
first used in 1560 — and ended with the Act of Toleration in 1689. It
was around this period that many of the influential Puritans such as
Goodwin and Owen died.
Patrick Collinson is hard to fit into the chronology of this catalog
due to the length of time that he has been writing on the subject of
Puritanism. His most influential early work is The Elizabethan Puritan
Movement, published in 1967, which is still a standard introduction.
Yet he continues to write and even recently published a chapter called
“Antipuritanism” in The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism.106 Lake
103. Ibid., 15–16.

104. Ibid., 15.
105. Ibid., 5. One wonders how an Arminian like John Goodwin would fit
into this definition, as Goodwin would have denied being “elected to salvation by a
merciful God for no merit of [his] own.”
106. Patrick Collinson, “Antipuritanism,” in John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim
eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008), 19–33.
calls Collinson’s work “a series of brilliant studies” and his book on the
Elizabethan Puritans a “brilliant analysis.”107 Coffey refers to him as
“the leading historian of Puritanism”108 who has addressed the prob-
lem of Puritan definition “with new rigour and sophistication.”109 In
the introduction to The Cambridge Companion, Coffey and Paul Lim
refer to Collinson as “the doyen of historians of Puritanism.”110 Col-
linson was Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of
Cambridge and is currently a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
As well as his work on Puritanism, Collinson has written on the
English Reformation. In fact, he sees the Puritan movement as a sec-
ond stage of the English Reformation. This second stage took the
principles of the Reformation and applied them to the life of Eng-
lish society. In many ways, Collinson is revisionist against traditional
ways of understanding Puritanism. To use Lake’s language, he is nei-
ther of the extrinsic school that emphasized the sociological, political,
and economic impact of Puritanism, nor is he of the intrinsic school
that observed Puritanism from the inside of a confessional perspec-
tive, emphasizing its religious nature.111 According to Lake, Collinson
shows that
Puritanism’s patronage links with central members of the estab-
lishment and its ideological links with mainstream Protestantism
were so abidingly strong as to call any notion of a radical Puritan
opposition, or of Puritanism as a revolutionary ideology, into
the most serious question.112
A large part of Collinson’s reorienting of Puritanism involves rethink-
ing its relationship to the established church and Protestantism as a
whole. In his view, the Puritans were not different in kind from the
conformists in the Church of England, though they were to be dis-
107. Lake, “Introduction,” xii–xiii.

108. John Coffey, “Letters by Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661),” in Kelly M.
Kapic and Randall C. Gleason, The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics
(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 94.
tion,” 255.
110. John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, “Introduction,” in John Coffey and Paul
C. H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), 10.
111. Cf. Lake, “Historiography of Puritanism,” 349–351.
112. Ibid., 351.
tinguished from them. “Evidently,” writes Collinson, “what is called

Puritanism in many of the sources cannot be readily distinguished
in the field from mere protestantism, the protestantism, that is, of
the convinced, the instructed and the zealous.”113 Collinson is famous
for calling the Puritans “those hotter sort of Protestants.”114 These
hot Protestants were differentiated by the ardour of their Protestant-
ism and their emphasis on voluntary religion and fervent Christian
devotion.
Another hallmark of Collinson’s understanding of Puritanism is
his constant reminder to historians that the name “Puritan” was dep-
recatory, like Lollard and Huguenot before it,115 and was the invention
of the Antipuritans: “‘Puritans’ were so identified by Antipuritans, out
of an intense dislike of all that those people stood for, and it was some
considerable time before this stereotypical, antithetical stigma hard-
ened into something almost tangible, a word which instantly evoked
a widely shared set of assumptions and prejudices; longer still before
it was acknowledged and accepted as an honourable badge by those to
whom it was attached.”116 Accordingly, “[i]n the first instance, ‘Puri-
tans’ were Puritans in the eye of the beholder.”117
As a result of the ambiguity of Puritanism in regard to identity
and terminology, any attempt to give a specific definition of Puri-
tanism is self-defeating. However, though Collinson has argued that
the term “Puritanism” is highly imprecise, he nonetheless maintains
its conventional usage because the Puritans could be distinguished
as hot Protestants. And, “Although the image of the ‘Puritan’ was
polemically constructed, it bore eloquent testimony to the angular
presence of the godly.”118 At their basic level, the Puritans were part of
a movement that wanted further reformation.119
Peter Lake, although highly appreciative of Collinson’s work
(note how many times he uses the word “brilliant” in his Cambridge
Companion article), does have some reservations. According to Lake,
113. Collinson, “The Godly,” 1.

115. Collinson, “The Godly,” 1.
116. Collinson, “Antipuritanism,” 19.
117. Ibid. Cf. Collinson, “A Comment: Concerning the Name Puritan,” 487.
tion,” 256.
119. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 13–15.
Collinson’s view is “inherently political, therefore contingent (and in

some ways circular).”120 It was inherently political because Collinson
preferred to think of Puritanism as a movement. “The resulting ap-
proach was arguably circular because, if ‘Puritanism’ was a (political)
movement, then, when there was no such concerted movement for
further reformation, ‘Puritanism’ would disappear until a (or the)
movement emerged again.”121 As a movement, it took on popular and
voluntary notions of religion and at its base “was a series of social and
pietistic practices and networks, the appeal of which was not restricted
to any one social group or ‘class.’”122 This moved Puritanism from a
political definition and into a “cultural or social” one, which “tended
to privilege Puritanism’s integrative and gradualist tendencies over its
polarising and radicalising potentials.”123
As much as Collinson has offered balance to the perspective that
sees Puritanism as utterly distinct from Anglicanism, he has in turn
swung to the other side of center on the spectrum and neglects the
fact that Puritanism naturally led to a severing of relations with the
established church. This is manifested in Collinson’s early dating of
the end of Puritanism at 1625 and his belief that Puritanism was “not
a prelude or a seed bed for ‘the Puritan revolution.’”124
Finally, two recent works on Puritanism have offered defini-
tions based upon the long history of Puritan scholarship, namely,
Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason’s The Devoted Life: An Invitation to
the Puritan Classics and Coffey and Lim’s The Cambridge Companion to
Puritanism. In the introductory matter to both books, Puritanism is
defined in more general terms, seemingly learning from the mistake
of being too precise as those in the past.
Kapic and Gleason’s book is a collection of essays offering bio-
graphical accounts of key Puritans and each one’s most important
work. They offer a “more inclusive definition that fits a growing schol-
arly consensus.”125 According to them, “Puritans should not be limited
strictly to radical Protestant nonconformists, but rather to a much
broader movement of individuals distinguished by a cluster of char-
120. Lake, “Historiography of Puritanism,” 352.

121. Ibid.
122. Ibid., 354.
123. Ibid., 354–355.
124. Ibid., 355.
125. Kapic and Gleason, “Who Were the Puritans?,” 17.
acteristics that transcends their political, ecclesiastical, and religious

differences.”126 Throughout their essay they offer seven subheadings
that bring together this “cluster of characteristics.” Puritanism can be
summarized as: 1) a movement of spirituality that 2) lays stress on
communion with God and 3) is united in dependence on the Bible.
The Puritans were 4) predominantly Augustinian in their anthropol-
ogy and soteriology and 5) placed great emphasis on the work of the
Holy Spirit. In terms of the church, the Puritans were 6) troubled
with the incipient Catholicism within the Church of England and,
following Packer, Puritanism was 7) a movement of revival.127
Coffey and Lim have done a great service for those seeking an in-
troduction to Puritanism. There has long been a need for a book such
as The Cambridge Companion, and though there are some omissions
(such as the theology of the Puritans), by and large it is an excellent
resource.
Like Kapic and Gleason, Coffey and Lim offer a list of sorts
that helps readers obtain a grasp of how Puritanism can be defined.
1) Puritanism was a variety of Protestantism and the Puritans were
heirs of the Reformation and emphasized the slogans sola fide, sola
gratia, and sola scriptura; 2) Puritanism was linked with the Calvinist
stream of the Reformation and thus stressed simplicity in worship
and unconditional predestination; 3) Puritanism was a distinctive and
intense variety of Reformed Protestantism that was a product of its
environment in the English church; 4) Puritanism was a fissiparous
variety of Reformed Protestantism and naturally went beyond the
Church of England and branched off into different streams, such as
Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, the Baptists, the Quakers, and
other sects; 5) Puritanism was an international brand of Protestant-
ism that spread further than England into North America as well as
Ireland, Wales, the Continent, and even the Caribbean.128
Coffey and Lim take a later date for the ending of the Puritan era.
In England, they follow scholarly consent that closes the period in
the late seventeenth century and, in North America, a little later, in
the 1730s. Although they are quick to note that Puritanism properly
126. Ibid.
127. Ibid., 24–31.
128. Coffey and Lim, “Introduction,” 2–6.
speaking is ended, it maintains an “enduring legacy”129 that fed into

Dissent and evangelicalism and that continues to leave a lasting im-
pression on the world.130
A Definitional Settlement
Considering all that has been said thus far about the problems in-
herent in defining Puritanism and the wide spectrum of academic
opinion on what constitutes a Puritan, it is wise to take a careful and
broad course when seeking to offer an opinion on the matter of iden-
tifying what Puritanism was and how long it lasted. The following
will offer arbitration, seeking to retain the best of what has been said
already.
First of all, summary observations of what has been said are in
order. There can be no doubt that Puritanism was a complex move-
ment that housed many differing views politically and theologically.
In their ranks were those who maintained conformity to the Church
of England and those who separated from it, whether of their own
will or by political force. As well, evangelical Calvinists like William
Perkins or John Owen are understood as Puritans alongside Amyr-
aldians like Richard Baxter, Arminians like John Goodwin, and the
General Baptists and Antinomians like Tobias Crisp. That such va-
riety can be housed under the one name “Puritan” indicates that a
broad definition must necessarily be given.
However, though there is such variety, a number of key ideas have
been discerned that mark Puritanism out as a distinct movement,
broad though it is. And because the godly could distinguish them-
selves, even from like-minded conformists, a distinction is possible
today. And at its base this movement is discernible by an overriding
theme that is common to all stripes of Puritan.
Finally, Patrick Collinson is right to argue that the term “Puritan”
itself was not one originally owned by those we now call Puritans;
rather, it was an invention by their opponents and was used in English
society as a smear. Nevertheless, “Puritan” and “Puritanism” have
long been used in histories of Puritanism and the fact that its origi-
nal use was negative should not necessarily pull historians away from
convention so long as distinguishing marks are apparent.
129. Cf. Coffey, “Puritan legacies.”

130. Coffey and Lim, “Introduction,” 7.
Therefore, to posit a final definition, this author will seek to aug-

ment and build upon a recent definition given by Brian Cosby in his
Churchman article “Toward a Definition of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Puritanism’:
A Study in Puritan Historiography.”
After evaluating a number of definitions of Puritan and Puritan-
ism, Cosby offers this: “A ‘Puritan’ was one who, politically, reacted
against the via media of the Elizabethan Settlement in favour of a more
thorough reformation in England; who, socially, promoted evange-
lism, catechism, and spiritual nourishment through the preaching
and teaching of the Bible; who, theologically, held the views of Lu-
ther’s doctrine of faith (sola fide), Calvin’s doctrine of grace (sola gratia),
and the Reformers’ doctrine of Scripture (sola scriptura); and who, de-
votionally, strove for personal holiness, a practical faith, communion
with God, and the glory of God in all things.”131
While much of what Cosby said is good, there are certain points
that need to be modified or abandoned. First of all, he believes
that Puritanism was a reaction against the Elizabethan via media, “a
perceived compromise between Roman Catholicism and Protestant-
ism.”132 But this does not take into account the early Puritans like
Richard Greenham, who were willing to compromise on the use of
vestments so long as they were given the freedom to preach the gospel
in their pulpits. It would be better to say that the Puritan was one who
reacted against the enforcement of the English Prayer Book as a means
of compelling conformity to a political authority. It must be taken
into account that many Puritans used the Prayer Book alongside other
forms of worship and that it was only when pressure from the top
bore down upon them that the early Puritans agitated for reform.
Cosby includes “Calvin’s doctrine of grace (sola gratia)” in his defi-
nition, but this does not take into account those Arminian Puritans
like John Goodwin who denied what Calvin taught. While a defini-
tion should not necessarily be augmented for an exception, in the case
of the General Baptists, who were numerous, the exception is signifi-
cant. It might be better to emphasize sola gratia without reference to
Calvin, because although Arminians would deny predestination and
election, they (inconsistently) affirm that salvation is by God’s grace
apart from works.

132. Ibid.
Related to the influence of the Continental Reformation on the

Puritans, Cosby neglects to include the influence of Patristic and Me-
dieval theology. The Puritans were not innovators when it came to the
doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity. They were
rooted firmly in the stream of western, Latin theology, and therefore
had much agreement with their Roman Catholic antagonists. Such in-
fluence is crucial to maintaining a balanced perspective on who the
Puritans were. It also protects against thinking that the only good church
history to be studied is that which comes after the Reformation.
Finally, Cosby intentionally excludes any notion that Puritanism
can go beyond the borders of England. Those who left England for
New England are not rightly called Puritans, but should be thought
of as “Separatists.”133 This is so, according to Cosby, for two reasons:
first, those who left England “forfeited the objective of thoroughly
reforming the Church in England;”134 second, those who did leave
were socially isolated. “Both of these things,” argues Cosby, “were
unacceptable to mainstream Puritans.”135
Cosby fails to appropriate three important points. The first, until
the American Revolution, when the United States broke away from
the English monarchy, New England was still, technically speaking, a
part of England. Believing that those who left for New England were
Puritans is simply to “locate the Puritan in England.” Second, many
Puritans who left for New England returned to fight in the Eng-
lish Civil War against the monarchy. Were these Separatists in New
England, but when they landed on English soil they were again Puri-
tans? Third, if those in New England could not be Puritans because
they “forfeited the objective of thoroughly reforming the Church in
England,” what of those Puritans who technically speaking were Sep-
aratists? Or what of the Presbyterians or Independents? Should we
think that because John Owen was not able to thoroughly reform the
church from the inside that somehow he was not a Puritan?
Cosby has much that is good in his definition and it should be ap-
propriated. Therefore, the following augmented definition is offered:
A “Puritan” was one who considered himself as “godly,” who
politically, reacted against enforced forms of medieval-style
133. Ibid.
134. Ibid. Emphasis his.
135. Ibid., 307–308.
worship during and after the Elizabethan Settlement in favor

of a more thorough reformation in the English church; who,
socially, promoted evangelism, catechizing, and spiritual nour-
ishment through the preaching and teaching of the Bible; who,
theologically, held to the best of catholic theology such as the
christological and trinitarian formulations of the early church;
and held to the Protestant doctrines of faith (sola fide), grace (sola
gratia) and Scripture (sola scriptura); and who, devotionally, strove
for personal holiness, a practical faith, communion with God,
and the glory of God in all things.
This definition keeps with Collinson’s desire to maintain a proper
historical use of the term “Puritan” and measure it against the Puri-
tans’ own self-understanding. It also acknowledges Packer’s emphasis
on revival as the essence of Puritanism in terms of its social promo-
tion of evangelism and the desire to see God glorified in all things.
The inclusiveness that Kapic and Gleason sought for is maintained
in that those of a mild Armyraldian, Arminian, or Antinomian bent,
though inconsistent with the general Reformed tone of Puritanism,
can still be included.
In terms of setting time parameters on the Puritan movement,
a broad range is wisest. Although William Tyndale is surely a direct
precursor to the Puritans, he was technically a part of Collinson’s first
stage of the English Reformation. Therefore, the best place to under-
stand Puritanism’s beginning is the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559.
Puritans such as William Perkins and Richard Greenham should be
looked to as the first Puritans.
Technically speaking, the Puritan movement ended politically with
the Act of Toleration in 1689, where religious freedom was allowed to
the ejected ministers to worship as Nonconformists. However, there
were still those alive who had spent most of their ministries fighting
for freedom and tolerance — the spirit of Puritanism — such as John
Howe. Therefore, following Packer, it is appropriate to see the end of
Puritanism with the death of Howe in 1705, “the last of the giants.”
If the longevity of debate over how to define Puritanism is any
indication, this essay will likely not be the last word on the subject.
While Cosby’s definition is good, it needed some enhancing. Hope-
fully some move towards clarity has been offered.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 67 –74
John Bunyan and His

Relevance for Today
pieter de vries
q
John Bunyan is one of the most important persons in the history of

the church. His work, The Pilgrim’s Progress, is read all over the world
in all circles: Reformed, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and so on.
Who was John Bunyan? In Dutch, we have a phrase: “He curses
like a tinker.” That goes back to John Bunyan who, after he left school,
became a tinker just as his father. As a young man, Bunyan was known
for his cursing and swearing. How he transformed from that to be-
coming the author of the most widely read Christian book after the
Bible is revealed in the title of his autobiography: Grace Abounding to the
Chief of Sinners. John Bunyan was a sinner saved by grace. In his life, he
struggled severely with the heart-burning question: How can I have
peace with God? By God’s grace, he found the answer. He became
a guide to Christ for others. He still speaks hundreds of years later
through his many writings, especially The Pilgrim’s Progress.
John Bunyan was in more than one respect a child of his time; he
was a seventeenth-century Englishman. But what he wrote crosses
the bounds of the century in which he lived. He brought a message
that is still relevant today. The most important question which we can
ever ask is: How can I find peace with God? There is only one answer,
the answer Bunyan found, by the grace of God: we are right in the
sight of God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. God imputes the righ
teousness of Jesus Christ to the sinner who puts his trust in Christ as
his Savior. Still today, the law must be preached so that sinners begin
to realize that God is angry with them every day. The gospel must
be proclaimed in all its freeness and fullness so that wounded con-
sciences might be healed.
The Spirit of God teaches sinners the same lessons in every age.
Bunyan experienced that in a very remarkable way during a time
of deep concern about his soul. While he was going through such
a spiritually dark valley, he laid hands on an old volume of Luther’s
commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. It amazed him that a
man who had lived about a century before him could so exactly share
his burden and have a similar experience. He came to appreciate Lu-
ther greatly, as he wrote in Grace Abounding:
I do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the Galatians, ex-
cepting the Holy Bible, before all the books that ever I have seen,
as most fit for a wounded conscience.... I found my condition in
his experience so largely and profoundly handled as if his book
had been written of my heart. This made me marvel; for thus
thought I, this man could not know anything of the state of
Christians now, but must needs write and speak the experience
of former days.
What Bunyan said of the commentary of Luther on the Gala-
tians can be said of his own works, too: they speak of the state of
Christians in all places and all ages. He answers the question of how
a sinner can find peace with God. God’s unchanging way of salvation
is proclaimed.
The Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory, a story in which each detail
has meaning. Reading it, the reader can identify with Christian and
his struggles, sorrows, and joys. The first part of The Pilgrim’s Progress
reflects the experiences of Bunyan as a man and a Christian; in the
second part, we see him as a pastor. Bunyan pays great attention to the
great diversity that there is in the life of faith. We see him as a pastor of
souls. Mr. Great-Heart is portrayed as a model for the pastor; Bunyan
wanted to be a Mr. Great-Heart for his own flock. He had a special
love for Christians who are weak in faith and assurance.
A Short Sketch of Bunyan’s Life

I want to pay some attention to Bunyan’s life, regardless of familiarity,
because there is a close relationship between the message of Bunyan
and his life. Much like Luther, he learned his theology through his
struggles and trials. According to Luther, one can never become a real
theologian when he has no trials and knows nothing of the assaults
of Satan. Luther said, “I have discussed my theology with the devil
[meaning the devil accusing him and pointing him to his sins] and
John Bunyan and His Relevance for Today 69
I know it holds good [meaning the righteousness of Christ is a suf-

ficient answer against all the accusations of the devil].”
Bunyan was born in 1628 in Elstow, a little village not far from
Bedford. His parents belonged to the Church of England. They did
not pay much attention to the eternal welfare of their son. Neverthe-
less, as a young boy, Bunyan had deep impressions of the coming
judgment and of everlasting punishment. In the seventeenth century,
a strong sense of eternity was common among all people, whether
they were Protestant or Roman Catholic. What divided Protestants
and Roman Catholics was not the sense of eternity, but the answer to
the question: How can a man be right in the sight of God?
When Bunyan grew older, his deep impressions disappeared. He
became a ringleader in doing evil. He especially committed the sin
of cursing and desecrating the name of the Lord. The middle of the
seventeenth century was a very exciting time for England. There was
a civil war between King Charles I and his parliament. Bunyan served
in the parliamentary army. His life was spared in a wonderful way on
several occasions. Only after his conversion did he fully realize this.
Not long after he left the army, Bunyan married. Just as he had,
his wife came from a very poor and simple family. She was an or-
phan. Among a few other things, her father left her two books, The
Plain Man’s Pathway to Heaven by Arthur Dent and The Practice of Pi-
ety by Lewis Bayly. Sometimes she read the books to her husband.
She urged him to go to church, to which he agreed. He had already
stopped his habit of swearing and cursing. Now he started going to
church two times on a Lord’s Day. He began to read the Bible. The
epistles of Paul were too difficult for him, but he enjoyed the stories
of the four gospels. In his autobiography, Grace Abounding, Bunyan
says of this period of his life: “I thought no man in England could
please God better than I.”
Bunyan was trying to please the Lord by the works of the law. He
did not realize yet that we can never please the Lord in that way. But
something brought a complete change in his life and his views. Doing
his work as a tinker in one of the streets of Bedford, he heard three or
four women speaking about the Lord’s dealings with their souls. He
immediately realized that these women possessed something he did
not have. They had peace with God. He realized that he did not have
it, although outwardly so many things had changed in his life.
The women belonged to the congregation of a certain John Gif-
ford. Gifford had been an officer in the army of the king. After his
conversion, he had become a minister of a church in Bedford. Bunyan
went to a worship service there. He told the children of the Lord there
about the struggle of his soul to find peace with God. They pointed
him to the promises of God, but he could not apply them to his soul.
He wrote in Grace Abounding, “But they had as good have told me that
I must reach the sun with my finger as have bidden me to receive and
rely upon the promise; and as soon as I should have done it, all sense
and feeling was against me, and I saw I had a heart that would sin,
and that lay under a law that would condemn.” He could not see the
relation between law and gospel. He could not understand the un-
conditional nature of the gospel. Through many struggles and trials,
he was brought to spiritual freedom. The preaching of Gifford meant
much to him. Bunyan learned the meaning of the words: “But to him
that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). In his The Doctrine of
Law and Gospel Unfolded, he wrote:
This is a legal and old covenant spirit that secretly persuades the
soul that if ever it will be saved by Christ, it must be fitted for
Christ by its getting a good heart and good intentions to do this
and that for Christ.... Friend, if thou canst fit thyself what need
hast thou of Christ? If thou canst get qualifications to carry to
Christ that thou mightest be accepted, thou dost not look to be
accepted in the Beloved.
Around 1653, Bunyan joined Gifford’s congregation. According
to an old tradition, he was baptized in the Ouse River that year. In
1655, he became a deacon. In 1660, the monarchy was restored in
England; the ecclesiastical and political situation changed. Bunyan
was one of the first who felt it. Because of lay-preaching, he was ar-
rested and imprisoned for twelve years. There he wrote several books,
including the beginning of The Pilgrim’s Progress.
In 1672, Bunyan was released from prison. That same year, Charles
II proclaimed his Declaration of Indulgence that gave more freedom
for dissenters who would not worship in the Church of England, but
in 1676, Bunyan was arrested again. Now he was in prison for only
half a year. During his second imprisonment, he finished The Pilgrim’s
Progress. He asked the great theologian John Owen, a good friend, for
advice before publishing it. Owen’s feedback was encouraging, and
The Pilgrim’s Progress immediately proved to be a great success. During

Bunyan’s lifetime, more than 100,000 copies were sold in Britain. It
was translated into Dutch in 1682. Today, it has been translated into
more than 200 languages.
Bunyan died on August 31, 1688. At the end of The Pilgrim’s Prog-
ress, Bunyan writes about the glory of heaven: “There were also of
them that had wings and they answered one another without inter-
mission saying: Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord. And after that they shut
up the gates; which when I had seen it, I wished myself among them.”
When Bunyan died, this desire was fulfilled.
Themes From the Works of Bunyan

The first thing I would mention in this connection is the strong sense
of eternity. When Christian left the City of Destruction, he put his fin-
gers in his ears and cried: “Life, life, eternal life.” Speaking of the Bible,
Bunyan writes in one of his books, “All its doctrines, counsels, encour-
agements, threatenings and judgments have a look one way or other
upon the next world.”
Bunyan spoke clearly about the reality of everlasting punishment.
He said to them that came to hear him: “Be willing to see the worst
of thy condition. It is better to see it here than in hell, for thou must
see thy misery here or there.” “For when men come to see the things
of another world, what a God, what a Christ and a heaven is to be en-
joyed, and when they see it is possible for them to have a share in it, I
tell you it will make them run through thick and thin to enjoy it.”
Second, Bunyan preached Christ and His righteousness as the
only ground of salvation and justification. To use his expression,
Christ was a public, or common, Person. As the surety and represen-
tative of His church, He bore the sins of His people. He died and rose
again for them. We receive a share in Christ and His work when we
lay hold on Him by faith. We must receive Christ on His own terms.
That means we have to receive Him freely.
Bunyan wanted to preach the free offer of Christ as powerfully
as possible. He denied that a man must be assured of the sincerity of
his faith or his intentions before coming to Christ. In his work, The
Pharisee and the Publican, he writes:
Again, I, in the first acts of my faith, when I am come to Christ,
do not accept of him, because I know I am righteous, either with
imputed righteousness, or with that which is inherent: both these,

as to my present privilege in them, may be hidden from mine
eyes, and I only put upon taking of encouragement to close with
Christ for life and righteousness, as he is set forth to be a propiti
ation before mine eyes, in the word of the truth of the gospel; to
which word I adhere as, or because I find, I want peace with God
in my soul, and because I am convinced, that the means of peace
is not to be found any where but in Jesus Christ.
His works Come and Welcome to Christ and The Jerusalem Sinner
Saved particularly show us the moving and compassionate way in
which Bunyan preached the gospel. But Bunyan did not preach the
free offer at the expense of the preaching of the law. According to
him, the preaching of the gospel has no context without the preaching
of the law. In Grace Abounding, he says:
In my preaching of the Word I took special notice of this one
thing that the Lord did lead me to begin where his Word begins
with sinners; that is to condemn all flesh and to open and allege
that the curse of God by the law doth belong to and lay hold on
all men as they come into the world because of sin.
The law must be preached because “so long as sinners can make a life
out of anything below Christ, so long they will not close with Christ.”
Third, I also want to draw attention to Bunyan’s view of the rela-
tion between faith and assurance. In The Pilgrim’s Progress, the cross is
not placed directly behind the Wicket Gate. Why not? Because com-
ing to faith in Christ is not the same as having the full assurance of
faith. In the life of most Christians, there is a distance in time between
coming to Christ and coming to full assurance. Clearly, Bunyan in-
tentionally placed the house of Interpreter between the Wicket Gate
and the cross. The Wicket Gate is a symbol for Christ; the first part of
The Pilgrim’s Progress is a symbolical expression of the Puritan view of
effectual calling. Convinced of his misery, Christian leaves the city of
Destruction and flees to the Wicket Gate.
Fourth, Bunyan did not only speak about faith and justification,
but also about sanctification. True holiness flows from justifying and
saving faith. Bunyan also stressed self-examination. He called people
to examine their own hearts when they professed that they belonged
to Christ.
We can learn from Bunyan that a Christian always remains a stu-
dent of Christ. It is not possible to fully comprehend the richness of

Christ. There are always many reasons to pray for the light and wis-
dom of the Holy Spirit. It is remarkable that, in The Pilgrim’s Progress,
Christian is confronted with the severest struggles after he has been
at the cross and has lost his burden there. Bunyan wanted to show
that the strength of a Christian does not lie in his faith or conversion
as such, but in Christ in whom he believes and in God to whom he
has dedicated his life.
Bunyan portrays all children of God as poor beggars in themselves.
Real assurance and growth in grace make a man humble. Bunyan also
makes clear to us that no matter how severe the struggles of a Chris-
tian may be, it is impossible that he would lose his faith. Real faith is
a gift of God, and the gifts of God are without repentance. When a
man goes through the Wicket Gate, he will be led onward to finally
pass through the gates of heaven into eternal glory. Even in the river of
death, Christian was severely assaulted by the devil. Hopeful tried to
encourage him and said, “Brother, I see the gate, and men standing to
receive us.” Christian answered: “It is you, it is you they wait for; you
have been Hopeful ever since I knew you.” But finally Christian broke
out with a loud voice: “O, I see him again, and he tells me, When thou
passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the riv-
ers, they shall not overflow thee (Isa. 43:2).” The Lord loosened his
bonds. In this way, Bunyan makes it clear that the children of God are
more than conquerors through Him that loved them.
Conclusion
Bunyan was a preacher with a burning compassion for souls. In Grace
Abounding, he writes:
It pleased me nothing to see people drink in opinions if they
seemed ignorant of Christ, and the worth of their own salvation.
Sound conviction of sin, especially for unbelief, and a heart set
on fire to be saved by Christ with a strong breathing after a truly
sanctified soul, that was it what delighted me.
May God give preachers the same spirit Bunyan had, and may the
preaching be blessed so that souls are saved by Christ and Christ alone.
Those who are saved are pilgrims on earth, and heaven — where we
shall see the Lamb that was slain and where God is all in all — will
be our final home. A pilgrim knows both sorrow after God and joy
in God. One day, God will wipe away all tears and the joy of God’s
people will pass all understanding. We begin to experience that here;
there we receive the fullness of joy and gladness. Let us pray that the
Lord would grant us both sorrow after Him and joy in Him in this
life, that we may enjoy the full glory in life eternal and not be eter-
nally separated from Him.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 75 –91
Samuel Petto (c. 1624–1711):

A Portrait of a Puritan Pastor Theologian
MICHAEL g. BROWN
q
There are probably few students of English Puritanism and Re-

formed orthodoxy who recognize the name of Samuel Petto. Very
little is known about this obscure Puritan. While in recent years
various historical studies have referred to him in connection with
his nonconformist ecclesiology, as well as his works on eschatol-
ogy, pneumatology, witchcraft (a subject of growing interest in
both Old and New England during the seventeenth century), and
covenant theology, secondary literature devoted to Petto is practi-
cally non-existent. Although he was not as prolific a writer as some
. See Francis J. Bremer, Congregational Communion: Clerical Friendship in the An-

glo-American Puritan Community (Northeastern University Press, 1994), 191–248; and
Richard P. Gildrie, The Profane, the Civil, and the Godly (University Park, PA: Penn
State Press, 2004), 191.
. See David Brady, The Contribution of British Writers Between 1560 and 1830 to
the Interpretation of Revelation 13:16–18 (the Number of the Beast): A Study in the History
of Exegesis (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 17, 119, 215–216; and Kenneth G.C.
Newport, Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2000), 5, 57.
. See D. Bruce Hindmarsh, The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Auto-
biography in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Craw-
ford Gribben, God’s Irishmen: Theological Debates in Cromwellian England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007); Ian Harris, The Mind of John Locke: A Study of Politi-
cal Theory in Its Intellectual Setting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998);
and G.F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1992).
. See Nathan Johnstone, The Devil and Demonism in Early Modern England
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 122–123; and Gilbert Geis, Ivan
Bunn, A Trial of Witches: A Seventeenth-century Witchcraft Prosecution (New York: Rout-
ledge, 1997), 140–141, 206–207.
. There is a brief reference to Petto’s covenant theology and understanding of
the nature of conditionality in the covenant of grace in Richard Greaves, Glimpses of
of his contemporaries, he nevertheless wrote on a vast number of

theological subjects and may have had a more substantial role in the
development of British covenant theology than his present obscurity
suggests. For example, his 1674 work, The Difference Between the Old
and New Covenant Stated and Explained, [hereafter: DBONC], was
endorsed by the preeminent Puritan John Owen (1616–1683), who
wrote the foreword to this book and called Petto a “Worthy Author”
who labored “with good success.” Moreover, in 1820, twenty-nine
Scottish ministers and theologians called for Petto’s book to be re-
published, “entirely approving and recommending it, as a judicious
and enlightened performance.” The purpose of this article is to give
a biographical sketch of Samuel Petto. It pursues the questions of who
he was and what he accomplished in his time.
Samuel Petto lived and ministered during the turbulent era of
England’s seventeenth century. Born in 1624, his upbringing and
education paralleled the controversial reign of Charles I (1600–1649),
who, from his coronation in 1625 until his Parliament-ordered execu-
tion in 1649, remained openly opposed to the Puritan plea for further
reformation in the Church of England. Though his parentage is
Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2002),
106–107.
. John Owen, preface to Samuel Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New
Covenant (London, 1674), no page number given. Owen also wrote a preface to Pat-
rick Gillespie’s work, The Ark of the Covenant Opened (1677), which was one of five
volumes Gillespie wrote on covenant theology.
. A list of the names, as provided by the publisher of the 1820 reprint, included
Dr. M’Crie of Edinburgh, Professor Paxton of Edinburgh, Rev. George Moir of
Edinburgh, Dr. Pringle of Perth, Rev. James Aird of Rattray, Rev. Matthew Fraser
of Dundee, Rev. Adam Blair of South Ferry, Rev. W. Ramage of Kirriemuir, Rev.
James Hay of Alyth, Rev. Alexander Balfour of Lethendy, Rev. David Waddell of
Shiels, Rev. Patrick Robertson of Craigdam, Rev. J. Ronaldson of Auchmacoy, Rev.
John Bunyan of Whitehall, Rev. James Millar of Huntly, Dr. Kidd of Aberdeen, Rev.
A. Gunn of Wattan, Rev. Niel Kennedy of Logie Elgin, Rev. Hector Bethune of Al-
ness, Rev. Hugh Ross of Fearn, Rev. Thos. Monro of Kiltearn, Rev. John M’Donald
of Thurso, Rev. A. Stewart of Wick, Rev. John Monro of Nigg, Rev. Isaac Kitchin of
Nairn, Rev. David Anderson of Boghole, Rev. Thomas Stark of Forres, Rev. Simon
Somerville of Elgin, Rev. Robert Crawford of Elgin. The Difference Between the Old
and New Covenant Stated and Explained (Aberdeen: Alexander Thompson, 1820).
. As Carl Trueman points out, “The literature on Puritanism is vast and con-
tains no real consensus on what exactly is the defining feature of a Puritan.” See
Trueman, John Owen, 2. According to C.V. Wedgwood, the term ‘Puritan,’ origi-
nally, “had no definite and no official meaning: it was a term of abuse merely.” See
Samuel Petto 77
unknown, Petto may have descended from the Peyto family of War-
wickshire and been related to the English Cardinal William Peyto
(d. 1558/9), who once served as confessor to Princess Mary (1516–
1558). Some have suggested that he was possibly the son of Sir
Edward Peto (d. 1658), whose family were staunch supporters of Par-
liament during Charles’s rule.10
Wedgwood, The King’s Peace (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 95. Prominent figures
in England often used the term pejoratively. See, for example, William Shakespeare’s
derogatory treatment of the term in his 1602 play, Twelfth Night (New York: Bantam,
1988), 2.3.I39–52. Likewise, King James I, in a letter to his son Charles, explicitly
called Puritans “pests of the Church” possessed by “a fanatic spirit.” See Anonymous,
A Puritane Set Forth in His Lively Colours (London: n.p., 1642), 2–3. Both of these
quotes are found in Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason [eds.], The Devoted Life:
An Invitation to the Puritan Classics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 15. For
more on the sometimes difficult task of defining the terms “Puritan” and “Puritan-
ism,” see Basil Hall, “Puritanism: The Problem of Definition,” in G.J. Cuming, ed.,
Studies in Church History, vol. 2, Papers Read at the Second Winter and Summer Meetings of
the Ecclesiastical History Society (London: Nelson, 1965), 283–296; and Michael Watts,
The Dissenters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, repr. 1985); Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
“Henry Jacob and the First Congregational Church” in Puritan Papers, 4:173–197.
For the purposes of this essay, I will use the terms “Puritan” and “Puritanism” to
refer to those Calvinistic Protestants in England (whether Episcopalian, Presbyte-
rian, or Independent) who desired further reformation in the Church of England in
the areas of liturgy, preaching, and polity. For more helpful studies on Puritanism
in general, see Champlain Burrage, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Re-
cent Research (1550–1641), 2 vols. (New York: Russell & Russell, 1967); Christopher
Hill, Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the
17th Century (New York: Shocken Books, 1964); Geoffrey Nuttall, The Beginnings
of Nonconformity (London: J. Clarke, 1964); idem, Visible Saints: The Congregational
Way, 1640–1660 (Weston Rhyn: Quinta Press, 2001); J.I. Packer [ed.], Puritan Pa-
pers, idem, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 1990); Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen
(Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971); Andrew Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Cov-
enantal Thought: A Study in Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly,”
2 vols., Ph.D. dissertation (University of Glasgow, 1988); Mark Dever, Richard
Sibbes: Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Macon,
Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000).
. Writing in 1893, W. W. Hodson points out that one Mr. George Unwin, “of
the well-known London Publishing Firm,” who was a lineal descendent of Petto,
believed that Petto “was the son of Sir Wm. Petto, or Peyto, of Cesterton, Warwick-
shire, and states that the family was an old Norman one.” See W. W. Hodson, The
Meeting House and the Manse; or, The Story of the Independents of Sudbury (London: T.
Fisher Unwin, 1893), 53.
10. See W. A. Shaw’s entry on Petto in Sidney Lee [ed.], Oxford Dictionary of Na-
tional Biography, vol. 45 (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1896). On Sir Edward Peto,
While the identity of his birthplace and parents remains uncertain

and no information is available on his childhood and adolescence,
one thing is clear about Petto’s early years: he grew up amid a series
of events that undoubtedly helped shape his nonconformist convic-
tions as a young man.11 In 1625, Charles married the Roman Catholic
Henrietta Maria. Three years later, the King appointed his advisor,
the Arminian William Laud, as bishop of London, and in 1633, to the
highest ecclesiastical position in England (save the crown itself), the
Archbishop of Canterbury.12 Showing little tolerance for those with
Puritan or Calvinistic convictions, Laud reverted, albeit more aggres-
sively, to a more anti-Puritan policy like that of Archbishops Richard
Bancroft (1604–1611) and John Whitgift (1583–1604). He banned
preaching on the doctrine of predestination, demanded that ministers
wear the surplice, required the Book of Sports to be read from every
pulpit on Sundays, and oversaw the violent treatment of nonconform-
ists such as William Prynne (1600–1669), whose ears were cut off and
face was branded with the letters “SL” (for seditious libeler).13 In 1638,
the Scottish Presbyterians adopted the National Covenant in defiance
to the King. In 1642, with its Long Parliament in resolute rejection of
Charles’s claim to rule by iure divino, England erupted into Civil War.
The following year, Parliament called the Westminster Assembly.
Petto’s Training and Sources

Those were difficult years for anyone with Puritan convictions, par-
ticularly a young Englishman entering university to prepare for the
ministry. It is unclear when Petto came to hold such convictions for
himself, but his education at Cambridge during the 1640s must have
played a role in this. Records indicate that he entered St. Catharine’s
College (or Katherine Hall) as a sizar, a term used for Cambridge
see Tim Mowl and Brian Ernshaw, Architecture Without Kings: The Rise of Puritan
Classicism under Cromwell (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 125.
11. In this study, I refer to the terms “nonconformist” and “nonconformity” as
pertaining to the act of refusing to conform to the prescribed liturgy of the Book of
Common Prayer and practices and polity of the Established Church.
12. On Laud’s life see Hugh Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, Second Edition
(London: MacMillan, 1940; reprint London: Phoenix Press, 2001).
13. Prynne himself said the letters more appropriately stood for stigmata Lau-
dis, “the marks of Laud.” Other celebrated Puritan victims of Laud’s persecution
include John Bastwick (1593–1654), Henry Burton (1578–1648), and John Lilburne
(d. 1657).
Samuel Petto 79
students who were granted a “size” or ration of food and lodging free
of charge due to financial hardship.14 His education at the bachelor’s
level would have centered on the trivium, namely, grammar, rhetoric,
and logic, as well as immersion in the Latin and Greek classics, par-
ticipation in academic debates, and thorough training in philosophy.15
To complete an MA, his schooling would have included the subjects
of the quadrivium, that is, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy,
as well as public disputing and lecturing. Petto matriculated on March
19, 1645 and graduated with his BA in 1647, although some records
indicate, albeit without a date, that he also obtained his MA.16
An advanced education that included astronomy may help explain
Petto’s interest and proficiency in this field later in life. Theology,
however, was clearly his chief focus as a student. John Twigg points
out that, since the late fifteenth century, St. Catherine’s, along with
Queens’ College and Jesus College, was intended to encourage theo-
logical studies and became a center for the subject.17 During the
Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, St. Catharine’s became associated with
Puritanism. In 1626, Richard Sibbes (1577–1635) was appointed Mas-
ter of the school, and served in that capacity until his death.18 Sibbes
was superseded by Ralph Brownrigg (1592–1659), who, though a Cal-
vinist in theology and nominated to the Westminster Assembly, was
ejected in the Parliamentary purge of Cambridge in 1645 on account
of his royalist commitments. Brownrigg was replaced by William
14. This fact raises the question about his lineage. Would a member of a promi-
nent family such as the Peytos of Warwickshire or the son of Sir Edward Peto be
admitted to Cambridge as a sizar? The circumstances are unknown.
15. For more on the typical course of studies for an undergraduate student
at Cambridge, see John Twigg, A History of Queen’s College, Cambridge 1448–1986
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 98–103.
16. See the entry on Petto in A.G. Matthews, Calamy Revised: Being a Revision
of Edmund Calamy’s Account of the Ministers and Others Ejected and Silenced, 1660–1662
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 388, in which he is listed as graduating BA in
1647. Stephen Wright, however, in his entry on Petto, states he “was admitted as
a sizar at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, on 15 June 1644, matriculated on 19
March 1645, and graduated MA.” Wright does not list a date for Petto’s BA or MA.
See Stephen Wright, “Petto, Samuel (c. 1624–1711)” in Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography (Oxford: University Press, 2004). Moreover, Hodson also referred to Pet-
to as holding an MA, but, like Wright, did not give a date. See the dedication page
in Hodson, The Meeting House.
17. Twigg, A History of Queen’s College, 104.
18. See Dever, Richard Sibbes, 34–48.
Spurstowe (c. 1606–1666), a Westminster divine and one of the five

men who wrote Puritan tracts against Episcopalian polity in 1641 un-
der the pseudonym and acronym ‘Smectymnuus.’19 It was during the
eras of Brownrigg and Spurstowe that Petto obtained his theological
education at St. Catharine’s.
Given his Protestant and Calvinistic education at Cambridge
in the 1640s, it is not surprising that in his writing he referred ap-
provingly to the works of John Calvin (1509–1564), Richard Sibbes
(1577–1635), William Bridge (1600 –1670), Samuel Bolton (1606 –
1654), John Owen, and the Heidelberg Catechism,20 and, as was common
among the Reformed orthodox, cited patristic and medieval writers
in support of his arguments.21
Pastor and Author

Petto was ordained to the ministry in 1648 and installed as rector of
Sandcroft (or St. Cross) in the deanery of South Elmham, Suffolk.
Probably shortly after his ordination, he was married to a woman
known only as Mary. Together, they had five children, whom they
supported on Petto’s salary of £36 per year.
In 1654, Petto published his first book, a work on pneumatology
titled The Voice of the Spirit, or An Essay Toward the Discoverie of the wit-
nessing of the Spirit by opening and answering these following weighty Queries.
With this was an appended piece, Roses from Sharon or Sweet Experiences
reached out by Christ to some of his beloved ones in this wilderness.22 These
19. Smectymnuus stood for the initials of five Puritans: “SM” for Stephen
Marshall (c. 1594–1655), “EC” for Edmund Calamy (1600–66), “TY” for Thomas
Young (1587–1655), “MN” for Matthew Newcomen (1610– 69), and “VVS” for Wil-
liam Spurstowe.
20. See DBONC. He referred to Calvin on pages 176 and 228, Sibbes (“Dr.
Sibs”) on 44, Bridge on 232, Bolton on 113, Cameron on 185, and Owen on 49, 177,
and 281. The references to Owen are under “Dr. O,” but this is undoubtedly Owen
given the context in each citation, especially the one on page 177, which is to Owen’s
Hebrews commentary. He also cited John Arrowsmith (1602–1659) on page 224,
and one “Dr. C” on page 92, which may be a reference to Edmund Calamy, al-
though it is not clear. For a reference to the Heidelberg Catechism, see A Large Scriptural
Catechism (London, 1672), 20.
21. See Infant Baptism of Christ’s Appointment (London, 1687), 29–30, where he
refers to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Cyprian in support of his case for infant bap-
tism, and Old and New Covenant, 223, where he cites Augustine in support of his
argument for sovereign grace, as well as the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas.
22. The title page of The Voice of the Spirit describes the author as “Samuel Petto,
Samuel Petto 81
works dealt with the doctrine of assurance as related to the Spirit’s

sealing of the believer, a topic of particular interest to many English
Puritans. Like William Perkins (1558–1602),23 Richard Sibbes (1577–
1635),24 John Preston (1587–1628),25 Thomas Goodwin (1600 –80)26
and Richard Baxter (1615–1691),27 Petto argued that the sealing of
the Spirit was an activity in addition to the Spirit’s indwelling of the
believer. It was given for the purpose of assurance, “a perswasion from
the Spirit of Adoption that God is your Father.”28 Like Owen, how-
ever, Petto subsequently seemed to have shifted in his position on the
doctrine of assurance, as evidenced by his later work.29
Preacher of the Gospell at Sandcroft in Suffolke.”

23. “When God by his spirit is said to seale the promise in the heart of every
particular believer, it signifieth that hee gives unto them evident assurance that the
promise of life belongs to them.” A Discourse of Conscience (1596) in William Perkins
1558-1602, English Puritanist, ed. T.F. Merrill (Nieukoop, 1966), 50–51.
24. Sibbes called the sealing of the Spirit God’s “superadded work” to the be-
liever’s faith. A Fountain Sealed (1637) as found in The Works of Richard Sibbes, vol. 3
(Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, repr. 1981), 455. Joel Beeke makes the point
that “Sibbes turned the doctrine of the sealing of the Spirit in a direction that would
gain prominence among the Puritans for several decades.” Beeke, Quest, 203.
25. Preston went one step further than Perkins and Sibbes by teaching that the
sealing of the Spirit was not only a second blessing given for one’s assurance, but
that it was given to those who overcome. Preston said that this sealing was so ex-
traordinary to the Christian life that it was beyond definition: “You will say, what is
the seale or witnesse of the Spirit? My beloved, it is a thing that we cannot expresse,
it is a certain divine expression of light, a certain unexpressable assurance that we
are the sonnes of God, a certain secret manifestation, that God hath received us, and
put away sinnes: I say, it is such a thing, that no man knows, but they that have it.”
John Preston, The New Covenant: or the Saints’ Portion (London, 1634), 416, as found
in Sinclair Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1987), 120.
26. Goodwin called the sealing of the Spirit a “light beyond the light of ordi-
nary faith.” Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, (Edinburgh: James
Nichol, 1855), 1:236.
27. Baxter said, “Here it is evident that it is such a gift of the spirit…that is given
to men, after they believe…there is to be an eminent gift of the Holy Spirit to be
expected after our first believing.” Richard Baxter, Practical Works (London, 1847),
4:308.
28. Samuel Petto, The Voice of the Spirit (London, 1654), A2 in the preface.
29. Owen was not in step with Perkins, Sibbes, Preston, Goodwin, and Baxter
in his doctrine of the sealing of the Spirit. This became more evident toward the end
of his life. As late as 1667, Owen made statements about the sealing that seem at least
somewhat inclined toward the second blessing view. In Of Communion with God the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost (1657), Owen said, “We are sealed to the day of redemp-
In December of 1655, Petto’s wife Mary died. A widower, Petto

continued actively in his vocation, supporting his five children as a
minister. In addition to his duties at Sandcroft, he also oversaw the
neighboring parish of Homersfield and frequently delivered sermons
there. In October 1657, Petto was selected to be an assistant to the Suf-
folk commission of Triers and Ejectors, a body appointed by Oliver
Cromwell (1599–1658) to examine ministers and their credentials. 30
On May 4, 1658, the Council of State recommended that his salary
be increased to £50 per year.
Independent Convictions
Like Owen and the “Five Dissenting Brethren” of the Westminster
Assembly, Thomas Goodwin (1600 –1679), Philip Nye (c. 1596–1672),
Sidrach Simpson (c. 1600 –1655), William Bridge (1600 –1671), and Jer-
emiah Burroughs (c. 1599–1646), Petto belonged to that ecclesiastical
tradition which emerged rapidly in the 1640s known as Indepen-
dency or, more narrowly, non-Separatist Congregationalism.31 For
tion, when, from the stamp, image, and character of the Spirit upon our souls, we
have a fresh sense of the love of God given to us, with a comfortable persuasion of
our acceptance with him.” Yet, in the same work Owen said, “I am not very clear in
the certain peculiar intendment of this metaphor.” See Owen’s Works, 2:242–243.
Some years later, however, he became very clear on the meaning of the seal. In Pneu-
matologia, published posthumously in 1693, Owen wrote a whole chapter on “The
Spirit a seal, and how,” in which he made an exegetical case from Ephesians 1:13-14
to show why he had became convinced that “the common exposition” of the sealing
among Puritans of his time was incorrect. For Owen, the sealing of the Spirit was a
salvific norm granted to every Christian at the time he or she embraced the gospel
with true faith. See Works, 4:399–405. On Petto’s apparent shift, compare The Voice
of the Spirit with DBONC, especially chapters 5, 12, 13, and 14.
30. See entry by Elliot Vernon in Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster, eds.,
Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia (Santa
Barbara: ABC–CLIO, 2006), 200–201.
31. Bryan Spinks is correct when he states, “While it is generally agreed among
historians that the English Independent, or Congregational tradition did not emerge
as a distinct ecclesiastical movement until the tumultuous years of the 1640s, it has
long been a matter of controversy as to the movement’s precise origin.” See Bry-
an D. Spinks, Freedom or Order? The Eucharistic Liturgy in English Congregationalism
1645–1980 (Allison Park: Pickwick, 1984), 1. As B.R. White and Stephen Brachlow
have shown, the separatists Robert Browne (c. 1550–1633) and Henry Barrow
(c. 1550–1593), and the semi-separatist Henry Jacob (1563–1624) were forerunners of
the English Congregationalism which emerged in the 1640s. Jacob in particular was
a major figure in this lineage, having founded in 1616 the first known Congregation
Samuel Petto 83
the Independents, the notion of a regional church, whether Episcopal

or Presbyterian, was rejected on the grounds that a true church is a
local, gathered congregation of willing believers and their children,
governed by a body of elders within that local congregation. 32 As is
evident from the Congregationalist confession The Savoy Declaration
of Faith and Order (1658), which is essentially the Westminster Confes-
sion of Faith modified to conform to Congregationalist ecclesiology,
the Independents were at one with the Reformed churches of their
day in nearly all matters of faith except church government.
Although Petto was an appointed assistant to the Suffolk com-
mission of Triers and Ejectors, and not a Separatist, his ecclesiological
convictions led him to adopt a view of preaching which allowed for
gifted laymen to preach in local congregations. In 1657, he joined with
Independent ministers John Martin of Edgfield in Norfolk and Fred-
rick Woodal of Woodbridge in Suffolk to produce a work defending
this view. Titled The Preacher Sent, or a Vindication of the Liberty of Public
of English Independents, that is, a Congregationalist church that, unlike the Separat-
ists, did not view the Church of England as a false church and desire to cut off all
communion with her. See B.R. White, The English Separatist Tradition (Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 1971) and Stephen Brachlow, The Communion of Saints: Radical
Puritan and Separatist Ecclesiology 1570–1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).
Drawing upon the study of White, Michael Watts shows that English Nonconformi-
ty springs from two different theological sources and flows in two distinct currents.
The first, which he calls “radical,” finds its roots in the Lollards of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries and the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century. The second, which
he calls “Calvinistic,” comes from the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Puritans
within the Established Church. Watts makes the case that the Independents find
their roots in the second source, not the first, having descended from Henry Jacob
and later formed into two main camps: the Non-separating Congregationalists and
the Separatist Independents. See Michael Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to
the French Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).
32. This was in distinction from the separating “Brownists,” who placed the
power of church government in the hands of the congregation rather than the min-
isters and elders. For more on Independent ecclesiology, see Henry Jacob, Reasons
Taken out of God’s Word and the Best Humane Testimonies Proving a Necessitie of Reforming
Our Churches in England (1604); idem, The Divine Beginning and Institution of Christ’s
True Visible and Ministeriall Church (1610); John Cotton, The Keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and the Power Thereof (1644); Thomas Goodwin, et al, An Apologeticall Narra-
tion (1643); idem, A Copy of a Remonstrance Lately Delivered to the Assembly (1645); John
Owen, An Inquiry into the Original, Nature, Power, Order and Communion of Evangelical
Churches (1681) in Works, vol. 15; and The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order Owned
and Practised in the Congregational Churches of England (1658).
Preaching by some men not Ordained, this work was a response to two
books, Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici by the Provincial Assembly of
London and Vindiciae Ministerii Evangelici by John Collings of Nor-
wich (1623–1690), both of which defended the practice common to
the Reformed churches of requiring ministers to receive an outward
call from a true, ecclesiastical body and limiting the pulpit to ordained
clergy. In The Preacher Sent, Petto and his coauthors challenged this
practice by arguing that, in some cases, a gifted layman in a congrega-
tion could lawfully preach without approbation from an ecclesiastical
body, since it is the duty of every gifted man to use his gifts in the
congregation (whether or not he is ordained), and that gifts for public
preaching should be used publicly.33
The Preacher Sent encountered immediate and fierce opposition
from Presbyterians, who argued for the necessity of a presbytery’s
role in ordaining qualified men and restricting the pulpit to duly or-
dained clergy. In 1658, Collings responded with Vindiciae Ministrii
Evangelici Revindicate, or the Preacher (pretendly) Sent, sent back again, and
Matthew Poole (1624 –1679), by appointment of the Provincial As-
sembly of London, wrote Quo Warranto; or, A Moderate Enquiry into the
Warrantablenesse of the Preaching of Gifted and Unordained Persons. The
following year, Petto and Woodal responded to Poole and Collings
in a subsequent work, A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, or A Warrant for
publick Preaching without Ordination (1659).
With the restoration of the English monarchy in 1660, yet some
time before the enforcement of the Clarendon Code, Petto was
ejected from Sandcroft.34 Records indicate that the manse was vacant
33. John Martin, Samuel Petto, and Frederick Woodal, The Preacher Sent: or, A
Vindication of the Liberty of Publick Preaching, By some men not Ordained (London, 1657),
20, 32, 47, etc.
34. The “Clarendon Code” was the name for a series of four legal statutes
drafted by Edward Hyde, the Earl of Clarendon, and passed by an overwhelmingly
Anglican Parliament. The first was the Corporation Act (1661), which excluded
nonconformists from holding public office by requiring all municipal officials to
be communicants in an Anglican church, subscribe a declaration that it was unlaw-
ful under any circumstances to take up arms against the king, and formally reject
the Solemn League and Covenant. The second statute was the Act of Uniformity
(1662), which required all ministers, under penalty of fines, imprisonment, and the
forfeiture of their livings, to subscribe to everything in the Book of Common Prayer,
renounce the Solemn League and Covenant, and be re-ordained if they had not
received Episcopal ordination in the first place. All ministers were to fulfill these
Samuel Petto 85
by January 1661.35 According to W. W. Hodson, Petto was replaced in

Sandcroft by one Thomas Pye later that year. 36 He moved to nearby
Wortwell-cum-Alburgh, Norfolk, and continued to labor in gospel
ministry there throughout the 1660s.
Petto appears to have had some connection with the Fifth Mon-
archy men, a group who believed that the establishment of Christ’s
kingdom, a fifth kingdom following the four great empires repre-
sented in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream from the book of Daniel (Babylon,
Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome), would be inaugurated around the
year 1666 through political measures. During the Interregnum and
especially the Cromwell years, these desired measures amounted to
“the dissolution of the Rump [Parliament], the establishment of the
rule of the saints, and the reform of the country’s institutions in ac-
cordance with the precepts of the old and New Testaments.”37 While
it is unclear how committed Petto was to the views of the Fifth Mon-
archists, it is undeniable that he ran in their circles. His co-author,
Fredrick Woodal, was a committed Fifth Monarchist, and in 1663,
probably in preparation for the year 1666, he joined with Independent
minister John Manning (d. 1694) in publishing Six Several Treatises
of John Tillinghast, one of the foremost members of the Fifth Monar-
chy Men. What is interesting, however, is that Petto’s affiliation with
this party did not seem to hinder his friendship with and support by
one of the most prominent opponents of the Fifth Monarchists and
England’s leading Independent, John Owen.38
requirements by St. Bartholomew’s Day on August 24, 1662. The result was “The
Great Ejection” with nearly two thousand ministers forced to resign their vocations
and livings. The third statute was the Conventicle Act (1664), which made it illegal
for five or more persons to gather at any religious assembly, conventicle, or meeting
conducted in any other manner than what was prescribed by the Book of Common
Prayer. The final statute was the Five-Mile Act (1665), which forbade all ministers
who had not taken the oaths in the Act of Uniformity to come within five miles of
the corporate town or parish where they had previously served. For the background
on the period of the Restoration see David Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967).
35. Quoted from State Papers, Interregnum, Council Book I, 78, 589, in W.A.
Shaw’s entry on Petto in Sidney Lee [ed.], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol.
45 (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1896), 111.
36. Hodson, The Meeting House, 53.
37. Watts, The Dissenters, 135.
38. While Owen, like most of his English Reformed contemporaries, believed
that Christ’s kingdom would be inaugurated triumphantly on earth before the con-
By 1669, Petto was preaching regularly in Norfolk and also to a

crowd in Gillingham reported to be over 300 in attendance. In 1672,
under the Act of Indulgence issued by Charles II, he was licensed
as a congregational teacher at his own house at Wortwell, as well as
the house of John Wesgate at Redenhall. His time in Norfolk must
have allowed him the opportunity to write, for in that same year he
published two catechisms: A Short Scriptural Catechism for Little Chil-
dren and A Large Scriptural Catechism. Both of these catechisms were
unique in that the answers were essentially quotes from the Bible,
encouraging the catechumen to memorize Scripture. The corre-
sponding questions, however, do not indicate any sort of biblicism,
but reveal a theology in harmony with the Westminster Shorter and
Larger Catechisms. They are Calvinistic and Reformed in doctrine,
with an emphasis upon the covenant of grace.
Preacher in the Barn

Petto’s lengthiest charge as a pastor was to a congregation in the town
of Sudbury, Suffolk, a borough long known for its staunch Puritan-
ism. Nonconformist ministers such as William Jenkyn (d. 1616), father
of the zealous Presbyterian William Jenkyn the younger (1613–1685),
and John Wilson (1588–1667), the renowned preacher and later immi-
grant to New England with John Winthrop (1587–1649), had served
Sudbury in the early seventeenth century. In 1645, Suffolk County
was constituted an Ecclesiastical Province and divided into fourteen
Precincts for Presbyteries, though the plan was never carried out. Ac-
cording to W. W. Hodson, “It was not so easy a thing to rear a new
Church Establishment on the ruins of the old one. Besides, the power
summation, a view that we might to tempted to label anachronistically “postmillen-

nial,” he believed that the kingdom would come by spiritual and not political means.
See, for example, his many Parliamentary sermons in volume 8 of the Banner of
Truth reprint edition of his Works. Watts is correct to point out that “while Owen
was content to wait on God to act in his own good time to bring in the kingdom
of Christ, the Fifth Monarchists wanted to give God and history a shove. Owen
and the conservative Independents were the Mensheviks of the English revolution;
the Fifth Monarchy men were the Bolsheviks.” Watts, The Dissenters, 135. Other
Independent opponents of the Fifth Monarchists included Westminster Assembly
divines Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, and Sidrach Simpson, who united with
Presbyterians in opposition to the radical movement. See Tai Liu, Discord in Zion:
The Puritan Divines and the Puritan Revolution 1640–1660 (The Hague: Hijhoff, 1973),
127, 100; and Barker, Puritan Profiles, 90, 232.
Samuel Petto 87
of Presbyterianism was soon crippled by the progress of War, and

other events marching on in strides.”39 Consequently, seven Congre-
gationalist churches were formed in Suffolk between 1640 and 1660,
of which Sudbury was one.
After the Restoration and upon the enforcement of the Clarendon
Code, the residents of Sudbury had for some time sought a minister.
They protested in a town corporation document dated October 5,
1669, that “there is no settled minister” in Sudbury and services de-
pended “upon the goodwill and benevolence of the people” of whom
the majority “meet in conventicles and absent themselves.”40 They
resolved to seek an act of Parliament to provide proper maintenance
for a minister. In 1672, however, when the King issued his Act of In-
dulgence, Sudbury dissenters applied for a license for Congregational
worship to be held in a barn belonging to one Robert Sewell. The
remnant of Friars’ Street Church of Sudbury met in this barn for wor-
ship. Over the years, many notable nonconformist ministers preached
in “the Barn,” including the prolific writer Giles Firmin (1615–1697)
and the ejected principal of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, John Wilkinson
(1616 –1690). The members of Friars’ Street called Petto, however, to
serve as their pastor.
Petto lived with his family in the vacant manse of All Saints’
Church in Sudbury. Sometime after Mary’s death in 1655, he re-
married, this time to a woman named Martha, who gave him seven
children in addition to his previous five. Apparently, there was no set-
tled minister at All Saints’ for a number of years prior to Petto’s call,
and the church was essentially closed.41 Since at least 1670, the manse
was used to house visiting nonconformist ministers, but later became
the permanent residence of Petto. Local Tories were not pleased with
this arrangement. In 1681 and 1682, the Grand Jury made a case
against Petto at Quarter Sessions for absenting himself from “Com-
mon Prayer” at his parish church. In 1684, Tories complained to
Parliament and accused John Catesby, the former mayor of Sudbury,
of so favoring nonconformists that “Mr. Petto the Nonconformist

40. C. Sperling [ed.], A short history of the borough of Sudbury…compiled from mate-
rials collected by W. W. Hodson (Sudbury, 1896), 152–153.
41. Town records indicate, for example, that, in 1666, the building of All Saints’
was used to confine Dutch prisoners captured in a battle in the sea port town of
Harwich. See Hodson, The Meeting House, 54–55.
preacher in the barn” had been allowed to minister there without

any punishment and “constantly lived within the said Corporation
for ten years last past, in no more private place than in the Vicarage
House belonging to All Saints Church.”42 Complaint was also made
that “meetings were held once or twice a week in a Barn, or in private
houses,” and that these gatherings were “unlawful, seditious assem-
blies, conventicles, or meetings, under colour or excuse of exercise of
religion, unto which very great numbers of His Majesty’s subjects did
resort, both inhabitants and strangers.”43 No punishment, however,
resulted from these complaints; Petto continued to preach, teach, and
write at Sudbury for the rest of his life.
Covenant Theologian
Though he became known as “the preacher in the barn,” Petto re-
mained a competent theologian. In 1674, shortly after arriving in
Sudbury, he wrote, as noted above, his sophisticated work on covenant
theology, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and
Explained. This work demonstrated Petto’s firm grasp of this complex
subject as well as the hot debates surrounding it in his day. As the Re-
formed orthodox defended, clarified, and codified the doctrines and
practices of the early Reformation and responded to challenges from
Socinianism, Arminianism, and Roman Catholicism, as well as in-
ternal disputes concerning antinomianism and neo-nomianism, they
wrestled with the question of how the old and new covenants relate
within the historia salutis. Petto contributed to the dialogue by positing
a nuanced view of the Mosaic covenant that upheld and defended the
Reformation’s doctrine of justification sola fide.
He argued that the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the
covenant of works for Christ to fulfill as the condition of the covenant
of grace. He held to a radical distinction between the covenants of
works and grace, the former made with Adam and his seed, the latter
with Christ and His seed. The Mosaic covenant, however, was not
only an historical administration of the covenant of grace, but also
the condition Christ had to fulfill to accomplish redemption for the
elect. What the original covenant of works was to the first Adam, the
Mosaic covenant was to the second Adam: it provided the temporal

43. Ibid., 55.
Samuel Petto 89
setting for the Federal Head to obtain eternal life for those whom He
represented:
The Covenant of Works being broken by us in the first Adam,
it was of great concernment to us, that satisfaction should be
given to it, for unless its righteousness were performed for
us, the Promised Life was unattainable; and unless its penalty
were undergone for us, the threatened Death (Gen. 2.17) was
unavoidable.44
In other words, Sinai gave the Son the opportunity to perform,
through His active and passive obedience, the righteousness which
the original covenant of works required.
This interpretation of the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works
for Christ and the condition He had to fulfill in the covenant of grace
safeguarded the Reformed orthodox doctrine of the active obedience
of Christ. Because Sinai commanded of Christ “Do this and live” as
a covenant condition and because Christ fulfilled that command for
justification and life on behalf of the elect, the gospel is not merely that
believers are forgiven, but that they also are reckoned as law keepers
themselves by virtue of Christ’s obedience imputed to them.
Second, Petto’s covenant theology informed how he applied jus-
tification sola fide to the believer’s assurance. It highlighted the new
covenant promise that sinners are saved by God’s grace alone through
faith alone in Christ alone. It set forth Christ as the object of faith and
the one in whom all the absolute promises of the new covenant are
“yes” and “amen.”
Later Works
In 1687, Petto published a work defending the Reformed doctrine of
infant baptism, Infant Baptism of Christ’s Appointment, or A Discovery of
Infants Interest in the Covenant with Abraham, shewing who are the Spiri-
tual Seed and who the fleshly Seed. This was an exegetical case for the
inclusion of the children of believers into the covenant of grace. He
revealed his commitment to the continuity of the Abrahamic cov-
enant with the new covenant, as well as the Reformed distinction of
the visible-invisible church. He followed this in 1691 by Infant-Baptism
44. Petto, The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant, 125.
Vindicated from the Exceptions of Mr. Thomas Grantham, a short reply to

certain objections made by the Baptist apologist Thomas Grantham.
In 1693, Petto published a book on eschatology, Fulfilling of
the Prophecies or Revelation Unveiled. This displayed a historicist
interpretation of the book of Revelation fairly typical among seven-
teenth-century English Puritans. One difference from many divines
of his day, however, was his argument that Papal Rome should not
be interpreted as Babylon.
This same year he also published a work on witchcraft, a sub-
ject of growing interest in both New and Old England during the
seventeenth century. Titled A Faithful Narrative of the Wonderful and Ex-
traordinary Fits which Mr. Tho. Spatchet (Late of Dunwich and Cookly) was
under by Witchcraft or, A Mysterious Providence in his Unparallel’d Fits, this
work described the widely believed report that one Thomas Spatchet
and a neighboring ejected Puritan minister, S. Manning, had been
bewitched by a woman in Sudbury.45
Despite the demands of his ministry at Sudbury, Petto found time
to reflect on subjects other than theology. He took a keen interest in
science and, in 1699, published an article in the Royal Society journal
Philosophical Transactions concerning parhelia, the phenomenon of mock
suns or “sundogs” visible at certain times on either side of the sun.46
Last Days
Evidence indicates that Petto remained highly esteemed by his own
and other dissenting churches.47 Even into his late years, he was fre-
quently in demand as a preacher at ordinations, funerals, and other
occasions. In 1700, he preached the funeral sermon of Squire Baker
of Wattisfield, a person of notable influence. In 1707, then over the age
of 80, Petto was assisted by his son-in-law, Josias Maultby, who was
installed as co-pastor. Maultby continued to serve the Independent
congregation until 1719, when he emigrated to Rotterdam. Petto,
45. This work of Petto’s is unquestionably his most frequently referenced work
in modern secondary literature, typically by writers commenting on witchcraft in
the seventeenth century.
46. See Philosophical Transactions, 21, 1699, 107.
47. See, for example, Edmund Calamy and Samuel Palmer, The Nonconformist’s
Memorial: Being an Account of the Ministers, who Were Ejected Or Silenced After the Resto-
ration, Particularly by the Act of Uniformity, which Took Place on Bartholomew-day, Aug. 24,
1662 (London: W. Harris, 1775), 435–436; Hodson, The Meeting House, 61–62.
Samuel Petto 91
however, died in 1711 and was buried in the churchyard of All Saints,
Sudbury, on September 21.
Conclusions
From this biographical sketch, we make two observations: First, Petto
was a Puritan. He was part of that broad ecclesiastical movement in
England, particularly during the seventeenth century, that sought
further reformation in the areas of liturgy and polity. More narrowly
defined, he was a dissenting Puritan of Independent and non-sepa-
rating Congregationalist convictions, believing that a true Christian
church is not a national or regional body (contra the Episcopalians
and Presbyterians) but a local and gathered congregation of willing
believers and their children. Yet, from his connection to the Fifth
Monarchists and his clashes with Matthew Poole over the matter of
ordination, we can conclude that Petto was an Independent of a more
radical stripe than, say, John Owen. This may help explain why he is
largely unknown today, for after the Restoration, Dissenting parties
were largely written out of the intellectual history of England.48
Second, Petto was, like so many of his Puritan contemporaries,
both a pastor and theologian. That is to say, he not only labored in the
weekly duties of preaching, teaching, and visitation as a shepherd of a
local flock, but also in the work of writing and publishing theological
material for the broader church. He was a Cambridge-trained specialist
and a sophisticated covenant theologian. As such, his works contributed
to the development of post-Westminster Assembly British Reformed
theology in the era known as high orthodoxy (c. 1640–1725).
48. See Trueman, John Owen, 1; Watts, Dissenters, 208–262; Horton Davies, The
English Free Churches (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), 91–118.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 92 –119
James Durham (1622–1658)

and the Free Offer of the Gospel1
DONALD JOHN MacLean
q
Richard Mouw has observed that the issue of the gospel offer “has
been fiercely debated in just about every context where Calvinism
has flourished. Indeed, it has probably stirred up more passions than
any other theological topic within the Calvinist camp.” Whatever the
hyperbole in this statement, it is certainly true that the gospel offer
has been a controversial subject.
The Free Offer — An Area of Debate

External critics of the Reformed faith have long argued that, given the
Reformed commitment to divine sovereignty, no genuine free offer of
salvation is possible. R. L. Dabney phrased their objection as follows:
“If God makes proposals of mercy to men, who, he foresees, will cer-
tainly reject them and perish, and whom he immutably purposes to
leave without effectual calling, how can his power and wisdom be
cleared, save at the expense of his sincerity? or his sincerity at the ex-
pense of his wisdom or power?” A similar form of objection was also
encountered in pastoral practice among Reformed churches where
parishioners could struggle to reconcile sovereign unconditional
election with the free offer. For instance, in his classic seventeenth-
. This is an amended version of a lecture given at the Inverness branch of

the Scottish Reformation Society in November 2008. My thanks are given to Rev.
Maurice Roberts and the Committee for their kind invitation to speak. Thanks are
also due to George MacLean for comments on the draft of the lecture prior to its
original presentation in Inverness and for comments on this updated version.
. Richard Mouw, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2004), 45.
. Robert L. Dabney, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as Related
to his Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity” in Discussions (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle,
1982–1999), 1:282.
James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel 93
century Scottish work of pastoral counsel, Therapeutica Sacra, David

Dickson considers the objection, “How can this Offer of Grace to all
the Hearers of the Gospel…stand with the Doctrine of Election of
some, and Reprobation of others, or, with the Doctrine of Christ’s
redeeming of the Elect only, and not of all and every Man?”
The free offer of the gospel was not only a source of dispute in
centuries past; recent literature provides plentiful evidence that the
gospel offer is currently a source of controversy within the Reformed
churches themselves. Several books have emerged which are broadly
critical of the free, or well meant, offer. Examples here include Herman
Hanko’s The History of the Free Offer, David Engelsma’s Hyper-Calvin-
ism and the Call of the Gospel, and George Ella’s The Free Offer and the
Call of the Gospel. Partly in response to these a number of works have
emerged which largely defend the free offer. Examples here are John
Murray’s The Free Offer of the Gospel, Ken Stebbins’ Christ Freely Of-
fered, David Silversides’ The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed, and David
Gay’s The Gospel Offer is Free. This debate is not confined to these
stand-alone volumes but is also found in more general works. For
instance, Robert Reymond’s recent Systematic Theology criticizes John
Murray’s position on the free offer of the gospel as potentially lead-
ing to the conclusion that Christ “did after all die savingly for those
whom…he had decreed not to save” and as “imputing irrationality
to God,” while Scott Clark’s essay in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine
argues Murray’s position is scriptural.
The key area of dispute in these works lies in the question of
. David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664), 170–171.

. Herman Hanko, The History of the Free Offer (Grandville, MI: Theologi-
cal School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989); David Engelsma, Hyper-
Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing As-
sociation, 1994); George Ella, The Free Offer and the Call of the Gospel (Eggleston: Go
Publications, 2001).
. John Murray, “The Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings of John
Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976–1982), 4:113–132; Ken Stebbins, Christ
Freely Offered (Lithgow, Australia: Covenanter Press, 1996); David Silversides, The
Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed (Kilsyth: Marpet Press, 2005); David Gay, The Gospel
Offer is Free (Biggleswade: Brachus, 2004).
. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1998), 693.
. R. Scott Clark, “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer, and Westminster Theology,”
in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries, ed.
David VanDrunen (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 149–180.
whether we can meaningfully speak of a free offer of the gospel, or

whether we ought rather to speak of a presentation of the facts of the
gospel. And if we can use the terminology of “offer,” is that offer sin-
cere or well meant? Other related issues are also raised, such as: how
is the gospel offer related to common grace and a universal love of
God to all men (if such things exist)?
It is important to note that part of this contention within the
Reformed community lies not simply within the realm of system-
atic theology, but within the sphere of historical theology. Herman
Hanko may stand as an example when he states, “The weight of his-
tory is surely behind those who deny that the free offer is the teaching
of scripture.” However, in contrast to this, Scott Clark argues that
classic Reformed theology taught a “well meant gospel offer.”10
Clearly then, given this current state of disagreement, the time is
ripe for a fresh examination of the free offer of the gospel in Reformed
thought. Rather than consider both the current Reformed theologi-
cal and historical disagreements over the free offer of the gospel, this
essay will focus on the historical question of whether Reformed theo-
logians taught a free offer of the gospel, and if so, what precisely they
meant by that term. This question will be answered by means of a
case study, examining the teaching and preaching of one of the most
respected and representative Presbyterian divines of the seventeenth
century, James Durham.11
. Hanko, History, 5. See also Raymond A. Blacketer, “The Three Points in

Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Sal-
vation,” Calvin Theological Journal, 35 (2000), 37– 65.
10. Clark, “Janus,” in VanDrunen, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, 165.
11. The main sources of information on Durham’s life are Robert Wodrow,
Analecta, or materials for a history of remarkable providences; mostly relating to Scotch Ministers
and Christians, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1842–1843); Robert Baillie, The
Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow M.DC.
XXXVII.–M.DC.LXII, ed. David Laing, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club,
1841–1842); Robert John Howie, Biographia Scoticana: Or, A Brief Historical Account
of the Lives, Characters, and Memorable Transactions of the Most Eminent Scots Worthies
(Glasgow: John Bryce, 1781); George Christie, “James Durham as a Courtier and
Preacher,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society, iv (1930), 66–80, together with
various introductions to his printed works. Brief summaries based on these more
extended biographies are found in David C. Lachman, “Durham, James,” in Nigel
M. Cameron, et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 265–266. Information from many of these sources has
been helpfully summarized in Nathan D. Holsteen, “The Popularization of Federal
Durham’s General Theology

Before considering Durham’s specific views of the free offer of the
gospel, it is worth pausing to briefly sketch out the leading features of
his theological thought. This will place his teaching on the free offer
of the gospel in its proper context.
Durham as a Theologian
Durham’s life (1622–1658) spanned some of the most eventful years
of the Scottish Church. He lived through the times when the Episco-
pacy which had been imposed on the Church of Scotland was swept
away, and he was ordained the year the Scottish Church approved
the Westminster Confession of Faith. He rapidly rose to prominence
in the Church and after an initial pastoral ministry was appointed to
be Professor of Divinity in Glasgow. However, before he took up his
post he was appointed chaplain to Charles II. His time as chaplain
ended with the success of Cromwell and the fleeing of Charles. He
spent his remaining days in pastoral ministry. Durham died at the age
of thirty-six as the Scottish Church was enduring the Protestor/Reso-
lutioner controversy.12
Durham as a theologian was profoundly respected in his day.
William Blackie observes: “It is certain that of all the outstanding
preachers and theologians of that age none was spoken of with more
respect and reverence by his contemporaries.”13 These contempo-
raries include Samuel Rutherford, David Dickson, and George and
Patrick Gillespie.14 John Carstairs, his co-pastor, wrote that he had a
“very deep reach in the profoundest and most intricate things in The-
Theology: Conscience and Covenant in the Theology of David Dickson (1583–

1663) and James Durham (1622–1658)” (Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 1996).
12. This controversy and the historical context for Durham’s life in general is
helpfully summarized in David C. Lachman, introduction to A Treatise Concerning
Scandal, by James Durham (ed. Chris Coldwell, Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990), v–ix.
13. William G. Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland From the Sixth to the Nineteenth
Century (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 129.
14. E.g., Charles Bell’s comment, “The federal theology…realised its finest
hour in the preaching and teaching of men such as Samuel Rutherford, David Dick-
son, James Durham, Patrick and George Gillespie, and through its inclusion in the
Westminster documents” (M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine
of Assurance [Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1985], 70).
ology.”15 It is therefore fair to say that Durham was a respected and

representative Reformed theologian.16
Durham’s Covenant Theology

Covenant theology was central to Durham’s thought. Indeed, if proof
were ever required for James Walker’s statement that Scottish seven-
teenth-century theology was “a covenant theology,” Durham would
certainly provide it.17 So fundamental was covenant theology that it
shaped Durham’s entire doctrine of salvation. He argued, “We have
no access to Christ but by the covenant.”18 The threefold scheme of
the covenants of works and grace combined with the intra-Trinitar-
ian covenant of redemption were a fundamental element of Durham’s
theological framework.
The covenant of works laid the foundation for Durham’s presen-
tation of the gospel. It was one of the “general truths contained in the
gospel” that “Adam was made according to God’s image; that he fell,
and broke the covenant of works.” As a result of the Fall, the curse of a
broken law now rests on all and the life that was once attainable under
this covenant is no longer for the condition of “perfect holiness and
obedience” can now never be fulfilled.19 To obtain eternal life now,
15. James Durham, A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation (repr., Willow
Street: Old Paths Publications, 2000), ix, Carstairs intro.
16. For instance, in John Owen’s opinion Durham was “one of good learning,
sound judgement, and every way ‘a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.’”
(John Owen, To the Christian Reader, The Song of Solomon, by James Durham
[Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982], 19).
17. James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560 –1750 (repr., Ed-
inburgh: Knox Press, 1982), 73.
18. James Durham, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ and of Grace and Glory In and
Through Him Diligently searched into, clearly unfolded, and comfortably held forth in fourteen
rich gospel sermons preached on several texts at communions in Glasgow (repr., Morgan:
Soli Deo Gloria, 2002), 215. It should also be noted that the centrality of covenant
thought gave Durham’s theology a Christological focus, for Durham held, “when
we speak of this covenant, it always supposes and implies Christ…because He is
given for the ground of covenanting between God and sinners. It is by Him and in
Him that God and sinners meet” (Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 256).
19. James Durham, Christ Crucified: Or, the Marrow of the Gospel in Seventy-Two
Sermons on the Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah (repr., Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2001), 572.
James Durham, Heaven Upon Earth (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1685), 359.
people must be turned from the covenant of works to the covenant of

grace “that provided a cautioner to pay the sinner’s debt.”20
An appreciation of this covenant of grace is vital according to
Durham, as “the right understanding of the Covenant of Grace, doth
conduce exceedingly to the clearing of Gospel-truths.”21 This cov-
enant, as opposed to the covenant of works, is designed for sinners:
to be righteous by the covenant of works required doing, but to be
righteous by the covenant of grace requires no works, only believing.22
In the covenant of grace there is “the offer of these sufferings [of
Christ], and the benefits of them to us.”23 In the covenant, God offers
sinners salvation in Christ and the sinner must receive and close with
Christ.24 The parties in the covenant of grace, therefore, “are God and
the sinner.”25 To enter into the covenant of grace is defined as “the
heart’s closing with Him by faith according as He offers Himself in
this gospel.”26 This closing with Christ, or, by faith resting on Him, is
often called by Durham “the very proper condition of the covenant of
grace.”27 The language of conditionality had led to Durham, among
other things, being accused of “distorting the nature of grace.”28 Aside
from ignoring Durham’s teaching on the unconditional promise and
gift of faith to the elect, this criticism betrays a lack of understanding of
Durham’s own nuancing of his position.29 For instance, he expresses
20. Ibid., 534. Bell correctly notes that what Durham has to say on the cov-
enant of works “is mostly by way of comparison with the covenant of grace. This is
because of Durham’s primary pastoral goal of convincing people of the necessity of
acting faith on Jesus Christ for salvation…” (Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 100).
21. Durham, Revelation, 688.
22. Durham, Christ Crucified, 586.
23. Ibid., 249. An important connection is made here between covenant theol-
ogy and the gospel offer.
24. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 207–208.
25. Ibid., 255.
26. Ibid., 213–214.
27. Durham, Christ Crucified, 101. See also Christ Crucified, 120, 535, 544, 589;
Revelation, 296, 300, 311, 322, etc.
28. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 9.
29. Indeed, it betrays a misunderstanding of Puritan theology in general. Von
Rohr has convincingly demonstrated that “In the terminology of the Puritans the
covenant of grace is both conditional and absolute” and that “From one perspective
the covenant is conditional, but from another it is absolute. It is not, however, as
though it were either conditional or absolute. Puritan theology rejected at this point
the “either/or” and affirmed the “both/and,” with the connecting link found in the
some dissatisfaction with the language of conditionality itself, noting:

“I had rather call it [faith] the means by which it [Christ’s righteous-
ness] is apprehended.”30 He also defines in what sense he uses the
word condition, meaning no more than faith is the “instrumental
cause of our Justification…Faith…doth receive Him…and…by this
receiving, He becometh our righteousness, upon which our Justifica-
tion is grounded.”31
The covenant of grace is the outworking in time of an intra-
Trinitarian covenant — the covenant of redemption. It is important
not to posit too great a distinction between these two covenants in
Durham’s thought as “the covenant of grace…is not quite another
thing than the covenant of redemption, but the making offer of it,
and the benefits contained in it, in the preached gospel.”32 Indeed,
the covenant of grace is only accessible to sinners because of the cov-
enant of redemption, and the covenant of grace is ultimately “nothing
else but the result of the covenant of redemption and the execution
thereof.”33 Nevertheless, the covenants of grace and redemption are
distinguished in the thought of Durham and significant attention is
given by him to outlining the leading features of the covenant of re-
demption. In considering this covenant, Durham defines the parties
as “upon the one side is God essentially considered, or all the three
Persons of the glorious Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who
are all concurring in this covenant, it being the act of the determi-
nate counsel of God,” and “upon the other side, the party engaging to
make satisfaction, is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed,
dreadful, and adorable Trinity, personally considered, now becom-
ing Head of the elect....”34 This covenant is about the salvation of the
fulfilment of the conditions themselves” (J. Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Pu-
ritan Thought [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 53, 81).
31. Ibid., 295–296.
33. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 255.
34. Durham, Christ Crucified, 254. Durham is conscious of the limitations of cov-
enantal language in speaking of this intra-Trinitarian agreement, noting “it is called a
covenant in Scripture, and we call it so, not strictly and properly, as if all things in cov-
enants among men were in it, but materially and substantially it is so, and the resem-
blance will hold for the most part” (ibid., 290). He also observes that “These things
[are] spoken after the manner of, and borrowed from the bargainings or transactions
that [are] among men” (ibid., 337).
elect 35 and so may be considered as the Father (on behalf of the three
Persons of the Godhead)36 offering to redeem the elect on condition
of the Son satisfying divine justice. Thus the covenant of redemption
is “the fountain whence our Lord’s sufferings flowed.”37
Durham the Predestinarian Theologian

Intertwined with this threefold covenant structure — a broken cove-
nant of works, a covenant of grace in which life was offered to sinners,
and the covenant of redemption which in eternity laid the basis for the
covenant of grace — was a strictly particularistic soteriology. Indeed,
Durham was a stout defender of an orthodox Reformed soteriology
against attacks from Rome, Socinians, Arminians, Antinomians, and
various other groups. His general thought may be summarized in his
own words: “Salvation is ascribed to God, as the foundation and ef-
ficient cause, in whose Counsel the work of salvation was bred, and
was concluded.”38
Flowing from his covenant theology, Durham espoused total de-
pravity. As a result of the broken covenant of works, man was under
the “curse” of that covenant.39 Man is therefore spiritually dead and
inclined to evil, even as the threatened death of that covenant has
come upon mankind.40 Because man is spiritually dead, “the preach-
ing of the gospel cannot beget faith, without the powerful work of
God’s grace.”41 Underpinning Durham’s covenant theology was a
firm belief in unconditional election: “As the potter has power over
the clay, and makes of the same lump one vessel to honour, and an-
35. And so, for Durham, the covenant of redemption is preceded by the decree
of election (ibid., 255).
36. When Durham spoke of the Father as the contracting party with the Son,
this was not to exclude the Spirit. Durham’s construction of the covenant of re-
demption does not ignore the Spirit, as the preceding quotes demonstrated. Indeed,
he states that “the covenant of redemption…holds out the love of God, Father, Son,
and Spirit, towards elect sinners” (ibid., 273).
37. Ibid., 279. It is probably because of this Durham can say that the covenant
of redemption is “deservedly called the Gospel” (ibid., 428).
38. Durham, Revelation, 499. It is therefore highly ironic that T. F. Torrance
charged Durham (among others) with giving “rise to a rather moralistic and indeed
a semi-pelagian understanding of the Gospel” (T. F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: from
John Knox to John McLeod Campbell [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996], 103).
40. Ibid., 275.
41. Ibid., 180.
other to dishonour, as he pleases; so the Lord acts most sovereignly

in the decree of election.”42 This decree of election was prior to the
covenant of redemption “in order of nature.”43 It was as a result of the
decree of election that a covenant of redemption was necessary at all.
Further, the decree of election defines the particular and discrimina-
tory nature of the covenant of redemption. Durham also clearly held
to effectual calling: “wherever the Lord applies the powerful work of
his grace, then necessarily faith and conversion follow.”44 This flowed
from the covenant of redemption which guaranteed the salvation of
those given to Christ; indeed, “it were blasphemous to imagine such a
covenant, so laid down, and for such an end, and not be most real and
effectual for reaching the end [of the elect’s salvation].”45 Particular re-
demption is a repeated theme in Durham’s writings and an extended
essay in his commentary on Revelation is devoted to its defense.46
Key to Durham’s defense of particular redemption is the covenant
of redemption, as he argues that “the people who were transacted for
in the covenant of redemption, and that were given by the Father to
the Son, to be redeemed by him; it was for their sins, even for the
sins of the elect, that our Lord Jesus was stricken.”47 Finally, Durham
also held to the perseverance of the saints: “all things relating to the
salvation of the elect, are so sicker [sure] and firm, that there is no
possibility of the misgiving or failing of whatever is here transacted
upon.”48 Again, this is related to the covenant of redemption, as, if the
promise to give a seed to Christ is to be sure, the final salvation of His
people must be guaranteed.
So, clearly, Durham affirms all of what are commonly known
today as the five points of Calvinism. It is important to note this to
demonstrate Durham’s orthodox theology and to guard against the
dismissal of his views on the free offer by claims he was somehow
deficient and less than sound in his theology.
42. Ibid., 330.

43. Ibid., 335. See also Durham, Revelation, 400 where he also adds that the
decree of reprobation was prior to the covenant of redemption.
44. Ibid., 184.
45. Durham, Heaven Upon Earth, 351.
46. “Concerning the extent of the merit of Christ’s death, or, if it may be ac-
counted a satisfaction for all men” (Durham, Revelation, 378– 412).
48. Ibid., 455.
Durham’s Teaching on the Free Offer

In his own day, James Durham was not simply known as a gifted
Reformed theologian but also, and perhaps particularly, as a preacher
of the free offer of the gospel. For instance, Durham’s co-pastor, John
Carstairs, expressed appreciation of Durham’s preaching as follows:
“[he] spoke some way as a man who had been in heaven, commend-
ing Jesus Christ, making a glorious display of the banner of free
grace.… He brought the offers thereof very low, wonderfully low,…
the offer of salvation was let down and hung so low to sinners that
those of the lowest stature among them all, though but as pygmies
might catch hold of it, who through grace had any mind to do so. He
so vehemently and urgently pressed home on so sweet and easy terms
to be embraced that I have been sometimes made to wonder how the
hearers could refuse or shift them.”49
The Term “Offer”

From Carstairs’s quotation immediately above, it is already clear that
Durham and his contemporaries were content with the terminology
of “gospel offer.” There is little room for doubt or debate as to whether
Reformed theology used the term “offer.”50 The area for examination,
then, is not simply whether the Reformed used the term “offer,” but
what they meant when they spoke of the “free offer of the gospel.”
In considering this, the first thing that needs to be defined is what
exactly is being offered in the gospel? In summary, Durham stated
that “Christ Jesus Himself, and His benefits” is what is offered.51 That
is, all the Son had done to redeem sinners is offered in the gospel:
“This good and gracious bargain that is made between the Father and
the Son, which is wholly mercy, is brought to the market and exposed
to sale on exceedingly easy and condescending terms, and that to
bankrupt sinners.” 52 To expand on this: “peace and pardon, grace and
glory, even all good things [are] offered to you freely!”53 Or to phrase
49. John Carstairs, introduction to The Unsearchable Riches of Christ, by James

Durham (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002), vii.
50. Curt Daniels observes: “It cannot be debated that the word was employed
with all regularity throughout the Puritan era.” Curt Daniels, “Hyper-Calvinism
and John Gill” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 398.
53. Ibid., 155.
it differently, “Tell me, what is it that you would have? Is it remission

of sins? ’Tis here. Would you have the covenant and promises? Here
they are: Is it Christ Himself that you would have.… Here He is. Or
would you have heaven and be eternally happy? ’Tis also here.” 54 So
Christ Jesus and all that He has done for the salvation of His people
and the fruits of His death are offered in the gospel. The position
outlined above is expressed by John Murray as follows: “It is Christ
in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished
work whom God offers in the gospel.”55
Having seen what is offered, namely Jesus Christ and His bene-
fits, it is now important to define what Durham meant by “offer.” Is it
true that, as has been claimed, we should understand “offer” simply in
the sense of “present or set forth,”56 or does “offer” mean something
more than simply a presentation of facts? Is it true that the Reformed
in the seventeenth century used offero, and its cognates, simply to
denote “present”? This is the assertion of Raymond Blacketer who
posits that oblato should not be translated as “offer” but as “present”
or “exhibit” and that this accords with sixteenth- and seventeeth-cen-
tury Reformed usage.57 This assertion has been called into question
by Scott Clark who argues that “the semantic range of ‘offero,’ as it is
used by the orthodox, is closer to ‘invitation’ than ‘demand.’”58 What
of Durham — how does he define the term? And does his definition
support the historical definitions of Blacketer or Clark? It is certainly
true that, for Durham, Christ is presented and set forth in the gospel,
but it is evident from the images he used to explain and define “offer”
that, for him, it is not simply equivalent to “present” or “set forth.”
One of the most common images Durham uses to define “offer”
is that of wooing and beseeching. He explains that “[t]he offer of the
gospel…is set down under the expression of wooing…and supposes a
marriage, and a bridegroom, that is by his friends wooing and suiting
in marriage.”59 So, in understanding what the gospel offer is, it is ap-

55. Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:132.
56. Hanko, History, 89.
57. Blacketer, “Three Points,” 44– 45.
58. Clark, “Janus,” in VanDrunen, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, 169. Curt Dan-
iels rejects arguments, similar to Blacketer’s, put forward by Herman Hoeksema in
reference to the definition of offer. See Daniels, “John Gill,” 398.
propriate to think of a man trying to persuade the woman he loves to

marry him. This image, of course, carries with it more than a simple
presentation of facts. It would be an absurdity for a man to try and
win the affections of a woman simply by presenting a few facts about
himself. No, the image carries with it the idea of an attempt to win the
girl by earnest persuasion. And so it is with the gospel where Christ
“doth beseech and entreat, etc. that thereby hearts may be induced
to submit cheerfully to Him.”60 We can “[c]onsider further how our
Lord Jesus seeks and presses for this satisfaction from you; he sends
forth his friends and ambassadors, to woo in his name, and to beseech
you to be reconciled.… He pleads so much and so often, and entreats
every one in particular when he is so very serious in beseeching and
entreating, it should, no doubt, make us more willing to grant him
what he seeks.”61 From this one image alone it is clear that to “offer”
is, for Durham, more than a presentation of facts.
Another common image in Durham to explain what he means
by “offer” is inviting. Durham comments that “[t]he offer of this gos-
pel…is set out under the expression of inviting to a feast; and hearers
of the gospel are called to come to Christ, as strangers or guests are
called to come to a wedding.”62 He also states that “the gospel comes
to invite men to the wedding.”63 Particularly significant in consider-
ing the dispute over the meaning of the word offer is Durham’s denial
that the gospel is simply a proclamation. He states that the gospel “not
only proclaims, but invites; and doubles the invitation to come. It not only
invites, but puts the invitation so home that people must either make
the price…and buy or refuse the bargain.… [It] cries, ‘Come, buy!
Come and enter the covenant freely.’ And this it does by a frank offer,
by earnest and persuasive inviting, and by the easy conditions that it
proposes the bargain on.”64 So it appears that the contention that by
“offer” Reformed theology simply meant proclamation or presenta-
tion is inadequate, for the gospel “not only proclaims but invites.”
Durham also frequently uses the image of selling to convey the
meaning of “offer.” “The offer of the gospel is…set out often under
the similitude or expression of a market where all the wares are laid

61. Durham, Christ Crucified, 475–476.
62. Ibid., 80.
63. Ibid., 213.
64. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 151 (emphasis added).
forth on the stand.”65 Another example of this is Durham stating “that

there is a good and excellent bargain to be had in the gospel, and on
very good and easy terms. ’Tis a market day, and indeed it would be a
pity that such wares should be brought to the market and that few or
none should buy; that Christ should (so to speak) open his pack and
sell no wares. Therefore let me…persuade you readily and presently
to embrace the offer of this richest bargain.”66 Again, considering this
image, it would be generally agreed that it would be a poor salesman
who simply declared facts about what he was trying to sell. Indeed,
the very image of selling contains the idea of a willingness to sell and
great effort to ensure that there is a sale.
This, then, is Durham’s understanding of “offer”— not simply a
presentation of facts, not simply a command but wooing, beseeching,
inviting, and selling.67 Clark and Daniels presented the understanding
which best accords with the theology of Durham.
Who is Offering?
Having defined what is being offered, namely Jesus Christ and all
good things in Him, and having defined what is meant by an of-
fer, the next question naturally arises — who is doing this offering?68
Whose offer is being spread abroad in the gospel? Is it simply the
preacher who is offering the gospel, or is it God Himself who offers
Christ in the gospel?
For Durham the answer is clear — God Himself makes the offer,
not simply the preacher. He states that “God in the gospel sets forth
to sinners, as in a market, rich and rare wares…at very low and easy
[rates]….”69 Durham expands on this elsewhere: “Consider the of-

67. So David Silversides is correct to note that the “term ‘offer’ did not mean
merely to ‘exhibit’ or ‘present’ in a manner bereft of the connotation of an over-
ture addressed personally to the hearers for their acceptance” (Silversides, The Free
Offer, 65).
68. This is one of the areas where Blacketer accuses Louis Berkhof of incoher-
ence, arguing he equivocated over whether the preacher or God is properly offering.
See Blacketer, “Three Points,” 40–41.
69. Durham, Christ Crucified, 98 –99 (emphasis added). This teaching is by no
means novel; e.g. John Owen states, “It is God himself who proposes these terms,
and not only proposes them, but invites, exhorts and persuades” (John Owen, The
Works of John Owen, ed. W. Goold [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991], 6:517).
fer that is made in the gospel to sinners, which is the object of our
faith…. It is God’s offer in the gospel.… He [God] warrants them to
go and make it known to all to whom they shall preach, that there is
remission of sins to be had through faith in Christ; and that there is a
ground to faith, when God makes offer of Christ’s satisfaction in the
gospel, on condition that we believe, and accept of him.”70 So in the
gospel offer “upon the one side the offerer is the Prince of the Kings
of the earth…our blessed Lord Jesus, who maketh offer of Himself
to sinners, and saith, Behold Me, Behold Me, [while] those to whom
the offer is made [are] wretched, poor, miserable etc.”71
This is an important point. Due to construing the gospel offer as
God’s offer, Durham cannot simply dismiss the question of the sincer-
ity or well-meant nature of the gospel offer (which we will consider
later) by pointing to the men who are preaching and their ignorance
of the divine decree of election, i.e., these men do not know who the
elect are among their hearers. No, in a real sense for Durham the
person offering is God. Ministers are simply ambassadors who relay
God’s offer. The voice may be theirs, but the offer is Christ’s: “Christ
takes on the place of a wooer. Ministers are his ambassadors; the word
is his instructions wherein he bids them go tell sinners that all things
are ready, and to pray them to come to the marriage, or to marry and
match with him.… In the bargain of grace, something is offered by
God, and that is Christ and his fullness.”72
This position of Durham can be summarized again by the earlier
quote from John Murray: “It is Christ in all the glory of his person
and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the
gospel.”73
The Scriptural Basis for the Offer

It is appropriate before proceeding further to consider the scriptural
basis for the free offer in Durham’s thought. What exegetical basis did
Durham use to justify his definition of the free offer of the gospel?
Some key texts are as follows:
70. Durham, Christ Crucified, 505 (emphasis added).

73. Murray, “Free Offer” in Collected Writings, 4:132 (emphasis added).
• 2 Corinthians 5:20.74 For instance, speaking of the duties of

ministers, Durham states: “it is their commission to pray
them, to whom they are sent, to be reconciled; to tell them
that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (as it is
2 Cor. 5:19–20), and in Christ’s stead request them to em-
brace the offer of reconciliation.… This is ministers’ work,
to pray people not to be idle hearers of the gospel.”75
• Matthew 22:4.76 Durham states: “The offer of this gos-
pel…is set out under the expression of inviting to a feast;
and hearers of the gospel are called to come to Christ, as
strangers or guests are called to come to a wedding feast
(Matt. 22:2–4). All things are ready, come to the wedding, and
etc. Thus the gospel calls not to an empty house that
[lacks] meat, but to a banqueting house where Christ is
made ready as the cheer.”77
• Isaiah 55:1.78 Durham expands on this verse, “The offer of
the gospel is…set out often under the similitude or expres-
sion of a market where all the wares are laid forth on the
stand (Isa. 55:1; Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the wa-
ters, etc.). And lest it should be said, or thought, that the
proclamation is only to the thirsty, and such as are so and
so qualified; you may look to what follows, and he that hath
no money come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.”79
74. “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you
by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” For ease of compari-
son with the actual quotations in Durham’s works, Scripture references are from
the KJV.
75. Durham, Christ Crucified, 79. See also ibid., 429; Durham, Unsearchable
Riches, 256 –257, 327.
76. “All things [are] ready: come unto the marriage.”
77. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80. See also a sermon on this verse entitled
“Gospel Presentations are the Strongest Invitations” in Durham, Unsearchable Riches,
43–79.
78. “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no
money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and
without price.”
79. Durham, Christ Crucified, 80. In arguing this text is not only of relevance to
“the thirsty” we see something of Durham’s anti-preparationist stance which will be
• Revelation 3:20.80 In mid-seventeenth-century Reformed

thought, Revelation 3:20 was understood almost univer-
sally as an evangelistic appeal to unconverted sinners.81
Durham is typical when he states, “The offer of this gos-
pel is…set out under the similitude of a standing and
knocking and calling hard at sinners’ doors,…which is
an earnest invitation to make way for Christ Jesus, want-
ing nothing but an entry into the heart, whereby we may
see how Christ comes in the gospel, and is laid to folks’
hands.”82 Or again, “He says from there, ‘Behold, I stand
at the door and knock; if any man will hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with
him, and he with me.’ It is as if he had said, ‘I come in my
gospel to woo, and, if any will consent to take me on the
terms on which I offer myself, I will be theirs.’”83 Lying
behind this view of Revelation 3:20 as an evangelistic text
is Durham’s ecclesiology, namely, his understanding that
the visible church comprises those who outwardly profess
the true religion and their children, rather than equating
the visible church with the regenerate. Just because Reve-
lation 3:20 is addressed to a church does not guarantee that
it is addressed to a group of saved, or elect, individuals.
Durham believed in general that of the “great multitude
of professing members of the visible Church” there were
“many that do not believe.” 84 In particular, regarding the
Church of Laodicea, he argued that they “were without
the Righteousness of Christ.” 85 It was therefore perfectly
considered in more detail later. See also ibid., 98 –99; Durham, Revelation, 544, 992;
Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60.
80. “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open
the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
81. See, for example, Obadiah Sedgwick, The Riches of God’s Grace Displayed,
in the Offer of Salvation to Poor Sinners [Seven Sermons on Rev. iii. 20] (London: n.p.,
1658); David Clarkson, The Works of David Clarkson (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1988) 2:34–100; John Flavel, The Works of John Flavel (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1968) 4:1–267.
83. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 46. See also Christ Crucified, 98; Revelation, 273;
Unsearchable Riches, 165, 261, 334.
natural for him to read Revelation 3:20 as an evangelistic

and conversionist appeal.86
• Ezekiel 18:31–32.87 Durham explains, “Faith…is well ex-
pressed in the Catechism, to be a receiving of Christ as he is
offered in the gospel. This supposes that Christ is offered
to us, and that we are naturally without him. The gos-
pel comes and says, ‘why will you die, O house of Israel?
Come and receive a Saviour.’” 88
• Matthew 23:37, Luke 19:41–2, or Christ’s lament over Je-
rusalem.89 Durham uses this verse as follows: “Sometimes
he complains (as John 5:40), Ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life; and sometimes weeps and moans, because
sinners will not be gathered (as Luke 19:41–42 and Matt.
23:37). Can there be any greater evidences of reality in any
offer?”90 Another example of Durham’s use of this verse is
his statement that “[in the gospel offer] the Father and the
Son are most heartily willing; therefore they expostulate
when this marriage is refused, ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...
how often would I have gathered thy children together,...
and ye would not!’ (Matthew 23:37). ‘O Jerusalem, Jeru-
salem, if thou, even thou, hadst known in this thy day the
things that belong to thy peace!’ (Luke 19:42). All these
sad complaints, that Israel would not hearken to His voice,
and His people would have none of Him (Psalm 81:11),
that He came to His own, and His own received Him
86. James Packer’s comment is helpful, “They [the Puritans] stressed the con-
descension of Christ.… They dwelt on the patience and forbearance expressed in
his invitations to sinners as further revealing his kindness. And when they applied
Rev. iii. 20 evangelistically…they took the words ‘Behold, I stand at the door and
knock’ as disclosing, not the impotence of his grace apart from man’s cooperation
(the too-prevalent modern interpretation), but rather the grace of his omnipotence
in freely offering himself to needy souls” (J. I. Packer, “The Puritan View of Preach-
ing the Gospel,” in How Shall they Hear [Puritan & Reformed Studies, 1959], 18).
87. “Why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of
him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.”
88. Durham, Christ Crucified, 96 –97. See also Durham, Unsearchable Riches,
330 –331.
89. “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it.”
not (John 1:11), and that they will not come to Him that
they might have life (John 5:40), make out His willingness
abundantly and undeniably.”91
• Revelation 22:17.92 Durham uses this verse as follows:

“grace says, Ho, come, and (Rev. 22:17), Whosoever will, let
him come and take of the water of life freely. It is not only, to say
with reverence, those whom he wills, but it is whosoever
will.…”93 Another typical use of this verse is: “This is our
Lord’s farewell, that He may press the offer of the Gospel
and leave that impression as it were, upon record amongst
the last words of this Scripture; and His scope is to com-
mend this Book and the offers He hath made in it, as most
free and on terms of grace, wherein Christ aimeth much
to draw souls to accept it.”94
This is a sample of the biblical basis Durham adduces for the free of-
fer of the gospel.95
To Whom is the Gospel Offered?

Having defined the free offer of the gospel in Durham’s thought and
seen some of the biblical basis he adduces for his position, it is appro-
priate to now consider who, in his thought, the gospel is offered to.
Is it offered to all men or is it only offered to a certain class of hearers
of the gospel, e.g., sensible sinners, or those who are convinced of
their sins? Durham is clear on this point. He states: “where the gospel
comes, it makes offer of Jesus Christ to all that hear it.”96 Durham
91. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 55. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 119, 410.
Durham’s use of this text is not always consistent. Here he evidently refers the text
to Christ’s divinity and even “the Father.” However, in Christ Crucified, when en-
gaged in a polemic against those within the Reformed tradition advocating a greater
universal reference to the atonement than Durham would allow, he refers the text
to the human nature of Christ only. He states that it was “when he preached as a
man, and as a minister of the circumcision” that he spoke these words (Durham,
Christ Crucified, 623).
92. “And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
93. Ibid., 125.
94. Durham, Revelation, 992. See also ibid., 544; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60.
95. It is interesting to note the occurrence of many of these texts in John Mur-
ray’s “Free Offer,” 4:113–132.
notes that gospel preaching offers Christ not simply to the generality
of hearers but to every individual hearer particularly: “The person
called to this, is expressed thus, if any man, etc. which putteth it so
to every hearer, as if it went round to every particular person, if thou,
and thou, or thou etc.…because where the Lord saith any man, without
exception, who is he that can limit the same?”97
The gospel offer is to all regardless of their current condition;
even those who do not believe in God, and those who live in sin, still
receive the gospel offer: “We make this offer to all of you, to you who
are atheists, to you who are graceless, to you who are ignorant, to you
who are hypocrites, to you who are lazy and lukewarm, to the civil
and to the profane. We pray, we beseech, we beg you all to come to
the wedding.… We will not, we dare not say, that all of you will get
Christ for a Husband; but we do most really offer Him to you all, and
it shall be your own fault if you lack Him and go without Him.”98
He also explicitly rejects any idea of preparationism: “Grace does
not stand precisely on forepreparations…such as saying that you have
not been so and so humbled, and have not such and such previous
qualifications.… Nay, in some way it excludes these, as offering to
bring money and some price, which would quite spoil the market of
free grace; nay yet, I say further, if it were possible that a soul could
come without sense of sin, grace would embrace it.”99 Durham further
argues that the gospel is for the whole world: “The marriage must be
proclaimed through the world by the preached gospel; the contract
must be opened up and read, and sinners’ consent called for.”100
97. Durham, Revelation, 274. This is in contrast to the assertion in David Lach-
man’s magisterial work on the Marrow Controversy that while “earlier Reformed
divines held this gospel offer to be a particular offer of Christ to each individual,
the offer could therefore be apprehended with an assurance that Christ would be
gracious. Later theologians [i.e. post Dort], extending the doctrine of particular re-
demption to the gospel offer, spoke of the offer as general and indefinite” (David
C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718–1723 [Edinburgh: Rutherford House,
1988], 11).
98. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 60. Lachman observes that Durham sums up
the general orthodox stance on preparationism “as succinctly as anyone” (Lachman,
Marrow Controversy, 60).
99. Ibid., 156–157.
100. Ibid., 52. Thus when Lachman notes “Durham is careful to restrict the
offer to members of the visible church” (Lachman, Marrow Controversy, 35), this
should only be understood as a practical limitation rather than a principled point,
In rejecting preparationism, Durham is not undermining the im-

portance of the law or of conviction of sin, but he is arguing that
conviction of sin does not somehow qualify someone to come to
Christ.
What Warrant do Men Have to Accept the Offer?

Given that all hearers of the gospel are offered Christ, what warrant
do they have to accept the offer of Christ, especially since conviction
of sin is not that warrant? Durham argues that all men have a warrant
to accept Christ freely offered to them for, among others, the follow-
ing three reasons.
• “The first whereof is God’s hearty invitation, holden forth,
Isa. 55:1.”101 Because God invites sinners to come to Him,
there is an abundant warrant to do just that: to come to
Him for salvation.
• “The second Warrant and special Motive to embrace
Christ, and believe in him, is the earnest request that God
maketh to us to be reconciled to him in Christ; holden
forth, 2 Cor. 5:19, 20, 21.”102 As if an invitation were not
enough warrant to come to Christ, there is God’s earnest
request that sinners receive Christ freely offered to them.
Can any doubt that they have a right to come to Christ
when God is earnestly beseeching them to do just that?
• “The third Warrant and special Motive to believe in
Christ, is the strait and awful command of God, charging all
the hearers of the gospel to approach to Christ in the or-
der set down by him, and to believe in him; holden forth,
i.e., the gospel is only in practice offered where there are preachers but it should still
in theory be offered to all.
101. “The Sum of Saving Knowledge or a Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine,
Contained in the Holy Scriptures, and Holden Forth in the Foresaid Confession of
Faith and Catechisms; Together with the Practical Use Thereof,” in The Westminster
Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 332. The at-
tribution of the Sum of Saving Knowledge to James Durham and David Dickson is
largely due to Robert Wodrow: “Mr David Dickson. He and Mr James Durham
drew up The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in some afternoons when they went out to
the Craigs of Glasgow to take the air…” (Robert Wodrow, Analecta, 1:166).
102. “The Sum of Saving Knowledge,” in The Westminster Confession, 334.
1 John 3:23.”103 Sinners can also be sure that they have a

warrant to come to Christ because God commands us to
come to Him for salvation. Durham comments that “if any
man shall not be taken with the sweet invitation of God,
nor with the humble and loving request of God, made to
him to be reconciled, he shall find he hath to do with the
sovereign authority of the highest Majesty; for ‘this is his
commandment, that we believe in him.’”104
These are the three main warrants to which Durham refers most fre-
quently. In arguing that all hearers of the gospel have warrant to come
to Christ, Durham lays the foundation for his strong and uncompro-
mising upholding of “duty faith.” He clearly asserts that “The…great
duty…required of the hearers of the gospel is believing in Christ sav-
ingly, or saving faith.”105
Is the Gospel Offer Sincere?

Having considered so far that God earnestly invites all the hearers of
the gospel to come to Christ, the question naturally arises as to the
sincerity of the gospel offer. That is, does God want all hearers of the
gospel offer to accept Christ, or to express it differently and starkly,
does God desire the salvation of all hearers of the gospel? This is an
important theological question and Professor John Murray states: “It
would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free
offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires
the salvation of all men.”106
What does Durham make of this question? Does he teach that
God desires the salvation of all men? It is impossible to avoid the
conclusion that Durham would answer this question in the affirma-
tive107 given his comments: “God the Father, and the King’s Son the
Bridegroom, are not only content and willing, but very desirous to
have sinners come to the marriage. They would fain (to speak with
reverence) have poor souls espoused to Christ.”108 This teaching is not
103. Ibid., 336.

104. Ibid.
106. Murray, “Free Offer,” in Collected Writings, 4:113.
107. For the sense in which this is the case, see the further discussion below.
simply one isolated slip of the tongue in preaching, as Durham else-

where notes, “As our Lord Jesus Christ has purchased this redemption
and remission, so he is most willingly desirous, and pressing that sin-
ners to whom it is offered should make use of his righteousness and
of the purchase made thereby, to the end that they may have remission
of sins and eternal life.… He is (to speak with reverence) passionately
desirous that sinners should endeavour on ground to be sure of it in
themselves. Therefore he…makes offer of it, and strongly confirms it
to all who embrace it.”109 Again commenting on the verse, “Him that
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37), Durham states:
“The word is doubled in the original: ‘I will not, not [cast him out]’”;
to show the holy passion of our Lord’s desire and His exceeding great
willingness to have sinners close with Him. In Isaiah 45, salvation is
promised even to a look: “Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and
be saved.”110 Indeed, he can go so far as to say that “I do not know a
truth of the gospel that has more confirmations than this has, that
Christ the Mediator is very willing and desirous that sinners close
with him, and get the good of his purchase.”111
Durham is clear that to deny the serious and sincere nature of the
gospel is not appropriate: “To have a gracious offer from God, and to
fear at it, as if He were not in earnest, is very unbecoming the gospel.
Whenever He pipes, it becomes us well to dance, and to believe and
credit Him when He speaks fair and comfortably.”112
Allied to this, Durham speaks of the willingness of God to save
sinners, as the following extract demonstrates:
Christ the Bridegroom and His Father are very willing to have
the match made up and the marriage completed.… The evi-
dences of His willingness are many…as, that He has made the
feast…and prepared so for it, and given Himself to bring it about,
and keeps up the offer and proclamation of marriage even after
it is slighted…the Father and the Son are most heartily willing;
therefore they expostulate when this marriage is refused, “O Je-
109. Ibid., 313–314.

110. Ibid., 329.
111. Ibid., 325. So Durham would confirm Ken Stebbins’ belief that the lan-
guage of God’s desire for the salvation of all hearers of the gospel has been “used
by nearly all reformed theologians from Calvin down to the present day” (Stebbins,
Christ Freely Offered, 20).
112. Ibid., 96.
rusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered you, but

ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37). “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou,
even thou, hadst known in this thy day the things that belong
to thy peace!” (Luke 19:42). All these sad complaints, that Israel
would not hearken to His voice, and His people would have
none of Him (Ps. 81:11), that He came to His own, and His
own received Him not (John 1:11), and that they will not come
to Him that they might have life (John 5:40), make out His will-
ingness abundantly and undeniably.113
In noting Durham’s teaching on the desire of God that hear-
ers would accept the gospel offer, it is not appropriate to understand
him as simply using indefinite terms (such as “sinners”) and by these
terms meaning “the elect.” Aside from the strange inconsistency this
would create with Durham’s own definition of the gospel offer as
a particular invitation to every individual hearer (how could a par-
ticular invitation be indefinite in its object?), Durham clearly affirms
the willingness of God to save everyone who hears the gospel: “This
word we now preach, nay, these stones shall bear witness against you
that our Lord Jesus was willing to save you and every one of you.”114
To quote Professor John Murray again: “In other words, the
gospel is not simply an offer or invitation but also implies that God
delights that those to whom the offer comes would enjoy what is of-
fered in all its fullness.”115
Connected to this is Durham’s teaching that the gospel offer is
an expression of God’s common grace: “(2 Cor. 6:1) We beseech you (he
says) that ye receive not this grace in vain; which is not meant of saving
grace, but of the gracious offer of grace and reconciliation through
him.”116 And again, “Why will God have Christ in the offer of the
gospel brought so near the hearers of it?… Because it serves to com-
mend the grace and love of God in Christ Jesus. When the invitation
is so broad, that it is to all, it speaks of the royalty of the feast, upon
which ground (2 Cor. 6:1) it is called grace, the offer is so large and
wide.”117
113. Ibid., 55. Again, the similarity of the textual basis here with those used by
John Murray in The Free Offer of the Gospel is evident.
114. Ibid., 333 [emphasis added].
115. Murray, “Free Offer” in Collected Writings, 4:114.
117. Ibid., 83.
However, having noted all this, it is important to clarify in what

sense Durham spoke of God’s desire for the salvation of the hearers
of the gospel and of His willingness to save all. Central to this is Dur-
ham’s distinction between the secret will and the revealed will of God.118
Basing his thoughts on John 6:39– 40, he states that here we “have
two wills to say so.”119 Verse 39 (“This is the Father’s will that sent me
that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing”) refers to “the
secret paction [contract] of redemption” while verse 40 (“And this is
the will of him that sent me, that everyone that seeth the Son, and be-
lieveth on him, may have everlasting life”), refers to “the revealed will,
pointing to our duty.”120 The secret will is not to be “searched into at
the firsthand” but rather “his revealed will belongs to you, and that is
to see that you believe.”121 This revealed will shows what is “pleasing
and delightsome” to God — indeed, what God “commands, calls for
and approves” cannot be conceived of, but as “pleasing to God.”122 It is
only in the sense of this revealed will that we can speak of God’s will
to save all gospel hearers. As Durham argues, “if the Lord’s willing of
men (at least men that are under His ordinances) to be saved be thus
understood, as including only the duty that God layeth upon men,
and the connection that He hath made between it and Salvation in
His word, it may be admitted: but if it be extended to any antecedent
will in God Himself, distinct from that which is called His revealed
will, this place and such like will give no ground for such an asser-
tion [a universal saving will].”123 Durham rejected any “assertion of
118. Von Rohr called this distinction a “fundamental factor in Puritan theol-
ogy itself” and described the difference as follows, “On the one hand there is God’s
commanding and forbidding will.… It is the will of God as known in God’s word,
the will that prescribes and promises.… It is thus the known will, the will of the
conditional covenant, the revealed will of God.… On the other hand there is the
will of God’s good pleasure.… This is the predestinating will, the will of God’s pri-
vate purpose. It is the will of the absolute covenant.… It is the secret or the hidden
will of God” (Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace, 130).
119. Durham, Christ Crucified, 233. Durham also uses these verses to make the
same point in Unsearchable Riches, 78.
120. Ibid., 233.
121. Ibid., 233–234.
122. Ibid., 427.
123. Durham, Revelation, 214. In the context here, Durham states he would
rather speak of God’s revealed will that all men repent, rather than that all men
be saved. However, this statement, occurring again in a polemic against those in
the Reformed tradition who were positing universal aspects to Christ’s atonement
the Lord’s having a will and desire of the salvation of all men, besides
His signifying of what is acceptable to Him as considered in itself
by His Word.”124 This also shows that when Durham spoke of God’s
desire to save all, he was relating this to the revealed will.125 Similarly,
in discussing common grace, Durham draws a sharp distinction be-
tween saving and common grace, arguing that while common grace
is indeed wrought by the Spirit, the difference between the two is “in
kind” and not simply “in degree.”126
Objections to the Free Offer

Durham dealt with various objections to the free offer of the gospel in
the course of his preaching. While his answers to these objections are
largely pastoral in aim, they also shed light on how Durham would
have responded to more theological critiques of the free offer.
One objection considered was that the free offer was futile because
of election or because of particular redemption. Durham phrases the
objection as follows: “It may be some will say, that the covenant is not
broad enough, because all are not elected.”127 “It stands in the way of
some to hinder their believing, as they suppose, that Christ has died
for some, and not for all; and they know not if they be of that small
number.”128 He argues in response that “whoever perish, it is not be-
cause they were not elected, but because they believed not.… I would
ask, would you overturn the whole course of God’s administration,
and God’s saving will, does not seem to have been borne out in Durham’s own
sermons.
124. Ibid., 268.
125. R.A. Finlayson’s words, although originally reflecting on the position of
Calvin, capture this well: “It would seem clear that God wills with genuine desire
what He does not will by executive purpose. This has led theologians to make use
of the two terms, the decretive will and the preceptive will of God, or His secret and
revealed will.… The position could thus be more clearly put as meaning that God
desires all men to be righteous in character and life and to use the means He has
appointed to that end. It is in harmony with the revealed will of God that without
the use of means appointed by Him the end shall not be attained. As a holy God, the
Creator commands all His moral creatures to be holy, and He cannot be conceived
as in any way obstructing their pursuit of holiness by His decree” (R. A. Finlayson,
“Calvin’s Doctrine of God” in Able Ministers of the New Testament [Papers read at the
Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1964], 16).
128. Ibid., 350–351.
and of the covenant of his grace? Did he ever…at the first hand, tell
folks that they were elected? Who ever got their election at the very
first revealed to them?… God’s eternal purpose or decree is not the
rule of our duty, nor the warrant of our faith, but his revealed will in
his Word.”129 And again: “We are invited by his command and prom-
ise, and we are not first called to believe that Christ died for us, but
we are called first to believe in him that is offered to us in the gospel.
That is our duty; and folks are not condemned because Christ died
not for them, but because, when he offered the benefit of his death
and sufferings to them, they slighted and rejected it.… The Word
bids all believe, that they may be saved; and such as neglect this com-
mand, will be found disobedient.”130 So he points sinners away from
the hidden decree to the revealed will of God in the gospel offer.
Another objection was that the free offer was futile because of to-
tal depravity and the consequent inability to believe. Durham phrased
the objection as follows: “What use is the offer as ‘we cannot receive
the offer?’” To which he responds: “Whose fault is this that you [lack]
ability? It is not God’s fault. You have a sure ground to believe. His
word is a warrant good enough. The promises are free enough; the
motives sweet enough.” Durham proceeds: “The gospel brings Christ
so near them, that they must either say, yea or nay; it is not so much,
‘I cannot,’ as ‘I will not believe’; and that will be found a wilful and
malicious refusal.”131 So he points sinners to the root of their inability
which is their own sinful and willful rejection of Christ’s offer. He
further argues: “This is a most unreasonable and absurd way of rea-
soning; for if it be given way to, what duty shall we do? We are not
of ourselves able to pray, praise, keep the Lord’s Day, nor to do any
other commanded duty; shall we therefore abstain from all duties?
129. Ibid., 127.

130. Ibid., 350 –351. Packer’s comments are helpful: “The question of the ex-
tent of the atonement does not therefore arise in evangelism, for what the gospel
commands the unconverted man to believe is not that Christ died with the specific
intention of securing his individual salvation, but that here and now the Christ who
died for sinners offers Himself to this individual sinner, saying to him personally,
‘Come unto me…and I will give you rest’ (Matt. xi. 28). The whole warrant of
faith — the ground, that is, on which believing becomes permissible and obligatory
— is found in this invitation and command of the Father and the Son” (Packer, “The
Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” in How Shall they Hear, 19).
131. Ibid., 83.
Our ability or fitness for duty, is not the rule of our duty, but God’s
command.”132
The Free Offer and Preaching
Having summarized Durham’s teaching on the free offer, the ques-
tion remains — how significant was this doctrine in the theological
framework of James Durham? In particular, how was this doctrine
reflected in his practical theology?
First, what was the relationship between the free offer of the gos-
pel and the work of the ministry in the opinion of Durham? Well,
for him, preaching the free offer was the great work of the ministry:
“When the Master sends out His servants in His name their great
work is to invite to the wedding and to close the marriage.”133 He
further states, “The great work of the ministers of the gospel is to
invite unto, and to endeavour to bring this marriage between Christ
and souls to a close.”134 For Durham, this preaching of the free offer
is the proper work of the ministry: “Jesus Christ and what concerns
him (the glad and good news of a Saviour, and the reporting of them),
is the very proper work of a minister, and the great subject of a min-
ister’s preaching. His proper work is to make him [Christ] known…
and [to] make him known, in the way by which sinners…may come
to have him to themselves.”135 Durham would have been in perfect
harmony with the aim of Robert Bolton: “[The Lord Jesus Christ] is
offered most freely, and without exception of any person, every Sab-
bath, every Sermon, either in plain, and direct terms, or impliedly, at
the least.”136
Now this is not to suggest that, for Durham, teaching and in-
structing the people of God was unimportant; rather, he clearly
teaches that ministers have to instruct and edify God’s people. But
the point here is to emphasize Durham’s insistence on the necessity of
132. Ibid., 127–128.

133. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 44– 45.
134. Ibid., 55.
135. Durham, Christ Crucified, 74. So we see the corroboration of Caiger’s state-
ment regarding the Puritans, “They burned with zeal for the salvation of souls, and
they gave themselves to a ministry which promised healing for the broken heart-
ed, and which could set at liberty those that were bruised” (J.A. Caiger, “Preach-
ing — Puritan and Reformed,” in Press Towards the Mark [Puritan & Reformed Stud-
ies, 1961], 55).
136. Robert Bolton, Instructions for a Right Comforting Afflicted Consciences (n.p.,
1640), 185.
a soul-winning ministry, a ministry where the free offer of the gospel

was central.
Second, Durham’s practice shows his belief in the urgency of the
free offer. He emphasizes the importance of closing with Christ im-
mediately: “You must not delay to come and close the bargain; you
must not put it off till tomorrow, nay, not an hour. All things are
ready. Just now, now is the accepted time: here stands the blessed
Bridegroom.… We dare not be answerable to our Master, nor can we
be answerable to our trust and commission, if we shuffle by or thrust
out any of you if ye do not thrust out yourselves…. Let me beseech
and beg you to come to the wedding.”137 Or again: “We cannot allow
you an hour’s time to advise…close with Him presently, or you may
never have the like opportunity.… The King is on His throne…His
servants invite in His name. Come, therefore; come without further
lingering.”138
Conclusion
This consideration of the teaching of James Durham on the free offer
of the gospel has demonstrated that those who maintain that Reformed
theology has denied the sincere gospel offer are mistaken. Instead,
this case study of a well-regarded seventeenth-century Scottish theo-
logian and preacher at a high point for Scottish Presbyterianism and
Puritanism has provided evidence to support the historical claims that
the term “offer” meant far more to orthodox Calvinists than simply to
exhibit or present. Indeed, the term was historically understood as a
heartfelt divine plea to sinners everywhere and in whatever condition
to repent and receive Christ by faith.
137. Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 66 – 67.

138. Ibid., 68.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 120 –140
The Ceremonial or Moral Law:

Jonathan Edwards’s Old Perspective on an Old Error
craig biehl
q
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
—Romans 4:5
The thesis of Edwards’s masterful discourse, Justification by Faith Alone,

is that “we are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner
of virtue or goodness of our own.” Introducing his thesis by a brief
exposition of Romans 4:5, he writes:
1. “justification respects a man as ungodly…that God in the
act of justification, has no regard to anything in the person
justified…so that godliness in the person to be justified is
not so antecedent to his justification as to be the ground
of it,”
2. “by ‘him that worketh not’ in this verse, is not meant only
one that don’t conform to the ceremonial law, because ‘he
that worketh not,’ and ‘the ungodly’ are evidently syn-
onymous expressions,” therefore “the grace of the gospel
appears in that God in justification has no regard to any
godliness of ours…that gospel grace consists in the re-
wards being given without works,”
3. the faith that justifies “the ungodly” does not refer to “a
course of obedience, or righteousness;” and,
. “Justification by Faith Alone,” in Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses,

1734–1738, ed. M. X. Lesser, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 2001), 19:147. Hereafter “JFA,” WJE 19:147.
. “JFA,” WJE 19:148.
The Ceremonial or Moral Law 121
4. “the subject of justification is looked upon as destitute of

any righteousness in himself ” and is counted as righteous
apart from moral works, which works are not to be inter-
preted as “works of the ceremonial law” only.
My limited purpose in this article is to present Edwards’s argu-
ment that Paul’s use of the terms “works of the law” had reference to
moral works as well as ceremonial works. In light of the narrow intent,
discussion of the historical context and Edwards’s overall understand-
ing of justification will be minimal. The content and approach will
be an exposition of the brief section within Justification by Faith Alone,
where Edwards answers this question: are “works of the law” in the
Pauline epistles limited to the ceremonial works of the “Mosaic dis-
pensation,” or do they refer to moral obedience to the “whole law of
God,” including the Ten Commandments?
The Importance of the Debate to Edwards

Edwards’s arguments in Justification by Faith Alone are part of a greater,
international, and historical debate between Reformed and Arminian
theologians concerning the nature of justification. Edwards’s particu-
. “JFA,” WJE 19:148–149.

. Edwards has much to say in all of his writings concerning the nature of jus-
tification, of which Justification by Faith Alone (“JFA”) is but a part, albeit an essential
part. For Edwards, the doctrine of justification is not only at the heart of the gospel,
but is fundamental to God’s ultimate purpose in creation and redemption through
Christ, and must be understood within this greater context. For those desiring a
more systematic and in-depth treatment of this central aspect of Edwards’s theol-
ogy, see Craig Biehl, The Infinite Merit of Christ: The Glory of Christ’s Obedience in the
Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Jackson, MS: Reformed Academic Press, 2009); and,
Carl W. Bogue, Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack
Publishing Company, 1975; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009). For an
excellent and in-depth treatment of the historical context and nature of Edwards’s
arguments in JFA, see Michael McClenahan, “Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of Jus-
tification in the Period up to the First Great Awakening” (D. Phil. Diss., Oxford
University, 2006). For a brief but helpful description of the basic historical context
of the Arminian controversy in New England, see George M. Marsden, Jonathan
Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 137–141, 175–182. For
a short discussion of contemporary interpretations of Edwards’s understanding of
justification, see Biehl, Infinite Merit, 14–22.
. McClenahan, Justification, 9. McClenahan writes, “Edwards’ discourse Justi-
fication by Faith Alone was written with the specific intent of refuting the Arminian
theology of justification that flourished in England after the Restoration of Charles II
lar interest in interpreting Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the law”
concerns his opposition to the Arminian contention that believers are
justified conditionally at the point of faith, while justification in a final
sense is only achieved by persisting in “sincere” and “persevering obe-
dience.” Having exercised faith, a believer may continue “in a justified
state” and be “finally justified” if he or she persists in obedience. To
support justification by sincere obedience, proponents interpret Paul’s
statements that no one is justified by “works of the law” as referring to
works of the ceremonial law only, maintaining the occasion of Paul’s
expositions of justification to be that certain “Judaizing Christians”
were “so fond of circumcision and other ceremonies of the law” that
they trusted in them for their justification. For Edwards, if “works
of the law” could be shown to include all moral works, the Arminian
belief in justification by persevering obedience would be repudiated.
For Edwards, this “contrary doctrine” and “adverse scheme of
and which was represented and propagated in New England in the published sermons
of Archbishop John Tillotson.” While the term “Arminian” was originally used to
identify those holding to the theology of the Dutch Remonstrant, Jacobus Armin-
ius, it subsequently came to be used by many as a more general description of those
not holding to the five points of Calvinism. Edwards uses it here to refer to those
advocating salvation by sincere obedience, given the strict requirements of the law
having been abrogated or weakened to accommodate the inability of sinners to meet
its requirements.
. McClenahan notes that “obedience, for Tillotson, is not the fruit of a true
and lively faith, as the Reformed argued, but is an essential constituent part of faith.”
McClenahan, Justification, 141. Tillotson writes that the definition of faith includes
“obedience to all his Laws and Commands; because believing them to be from God,
we cannot but assent to them as good, and as laying an Obligation upon us to yeild
(sic) Obedience to them: and if we do not obey them, we are presumed to disbelieve
them; for if we did truly and heartily believe them to be the Commands of God,
we would obey them.” Thus, “we cannot be said to be justified by Faith alone, unless
that Faith include in it Obedience.” Tillotson, Works (1728), III, Of the Christian Faith
which Sanctifies, Justifies, and Saves, Sermon CLXXII, 453, 454, respectively; quoted
in McClenahan, Justification, 141–142.
. “JFA,” WJE 19:167. Tillotson writes, “If we consider the easy and reasonable
conditions upon which we may be made partakers of this unspeakable benefit, and
that is by a constant and sincere and universal obedience to the laws of God, which
supposeth repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Tillotson,
Works (1728) II, The Possibility and Necessity of Gospel-Obedience, and consistence with free
Grace, Sermon LXIX, 450; quoted in McClenahan, Justification, 219.
. Ibid., 19:169.
. Ibid., 19:167.
justification” made “nothing at all of the Apostle’s great doctrine of

justification by faith alone.”10 Edwards writes:
The Apostle under the infallible conduct of the Spirit of God,
thought it worth his most strenuous and zealous disputing about
and defending. He speaks of the contrary doctrine as fatal and
ruinous to the souls of men, in the latter end of the ninth chap-
ter of Romans, and beginning of the tenth. He speaks of it as
subversive of the gospel of Christ, and calls it another gospel,
and says concerning it, if anyone, ‘though an angel from heaven
preach it, let him be accursed’ (Gal. 1:6–9, compared with the
following part of the epistle). Certainly we must allow the
Apostles to be good judges of the importance and tendency of
doctrines; at least the Holy Ghost in them.11
Accordingly, one must be faithful in defense of the doctrine and be
held blameless for teaching it.
And doubtless we are safe, and in no danger of harshness and
censoriousness, if we only follow him, and keep close to his ex-
press teachings, in what we believe and say of the hurtful and
pernicious tendency of any error. Why are we to blame or to be
cried out of, for saying what the Bible has taught us to say, or for
believing what the Holy Ghost has taught us to that end that we
might believe it?12
Moreover, any “scheme” that affirms justification as founded upon
anything other than the “worthiness and righteousness” of Christ
is to place “men’s own virtue” at the foundation of salvation. In the
Arminian scheme, it would be man’s virtue, “imperfect as it is, that
recommends men to God, by which good men come to have a saving
interest in Christ, and God’s favor, rather than others; and these things
are bestowed in testimony of God’s respect to their goodness.”13 For
Edwards, justification is in no way founded on any worthiness of the
believer. Rather, justification is the judicial declaration of God that
the believer is in conformity with the demands of God’s law, both in
the satisfaction of the law’s penalty for sin, and in the fulfillment of
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 19:237.
12. Ibid., 19:237–238.
13. Ibid., 19:238–239.
its requirement of perfect obedience for eternal life.14 Christ, as the

“second Adam,” voluntarily acted as the mediator between God and
man in standing in the place of mankind and fulfilling the require-
ments of God’s law for the obtaining of eternal life.15 Prior to the fall,
Adam’s perfect obedience would have obtained eternal life for him
and his posterity, as he stood for all mankind.16 After the fall, the
requirement for obedience in honor to God’s authority was not ab-
rogated, but remained for all mankind as the requirement for eternal
life, in addition to satisfaction by death of the penalty of God’s law.17
Christ, standing in the place of the elect, satisfied both requirements
of God’s justice and accomplished their redemption. The merits of
His work are applied to the elect at the moment of saving faith.18 Faith
unites the believer with Christ, but is not meritorious as that which
14. “A person is said to be justified when he is approved of God as free from the
guilt of sin, and its deserved punishment, and as having that righteousness belong-
ing to him that entitles to the reward of life…. To justify a person in a particular
case, is to approve of him as standing right, as subject to the law or rule in that case;
and to justify in general, is to pass him in judgment, as standing right, in a state
correspondent to the law or rule in general.” “JFA,” WJE, 19:150. See Biehl, Infinite
Merit, 125–140.
15. See “The Threefold Work of the Holy Ghost,” in Jonathan Edwards, Ser-
mons and Discourses, 1723–1729, ed. Kenneth P. Minkema, WJE (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997), 14:397–399; “The Peace Which Christ Gives His True
Followers” in Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses, 1743–1758, ed. Wilson H.
Kimnach, WJE (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), 25:544;
“Miscellanies 496” in WJE 13:539. Regarding Christ’s work as voluntary, see Biehl,
Infinite Merit, 61–64, 203–207.
16. “If Adam had finished his course of perfect obedience, he would have been
justified; and certainly his justification would have implied something more than
what is merely negative; he would have been approved of, as having fulfilled the
righteousness of the law, and accordingly would have been adjudged to the reward
of it.” “JFA,” WJE, 150. See Biehl, Infinite Merit, 89–90.
17. “God never made but one with man, to wit, the covenant of works; which
never yet was abrogated, but is a covenant stands in full force to all eternity without
the failing of one tittle. The covenant of grace is not another covenant made with
man upon the abrogation of this, but a covenant made with Christ to fulfill it.”
“Miscellanies 30” in Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies,” a–500, ed. Thomas A.
Schafer, 2002 corrected ed., WJE (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 13:217.
See also Biehl, Infinite Merit, 119–124.
18. “’Tis absolutely necessary that in order to a sinner’s being justified, the
righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for ’tis declared that
the person justified is looked upon as (in himself) ungodly; but God neither will nor
can justify a person without a righteousness.” “JFA,” WJE 19:188.
earns God’s favor, for Christ’s merits alone give the believer favor
with God.19 Edwards writes:
Neither salvation itself, nor Christ the Savior, are given as a re-
ward of anything in man: they are not given as a reward of faith,
nor anything else of ours: we are not united to Christ as a re-
ward of our faith, but have union with him by faith, only as faith
is the very act of uniting, or closing on our part.20
Christ alone satisfied the demands of God’s law, the merits of which
are imputed (credited) to the believer united to Christ by faith.21
Justification is the heart of the gospel of Christ as it is “the main
thing” for which sinners need “divine revelation…to teach us how we
that have sinned, may come to be again accepted of God; or which is
the same thing, how the sinner may be justified.”22
This seems to be the great drift of that revelation that God has
given, and of all those mysteries it reveals, all those great doc-
trines that are peculiarly doctrines of revelation, and above the
light of nature. It seems to have been very much on this ac-
count that it was requisite that the doctrine of the Trinity itself
should be revealed to us; that by a discovery of the concern of
the several divine persons, in the great affair of our salvation,
we might the better understand and see how all our dependence
in this affair is on God, and our sufficiency all in him, and not
in ourselves; that he is all in all in this business, agreeable to
1 Cor. 1:29–31, “That no flesh should glory in his presence: but
of him, are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God, is made unto us,
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.
That, according as it is written, he that glorieth let him glory
in the Lord.” What is the gospel, but only the glad tidings of a
19. “JFA,” WJE 19:160. For a helpful discussion of Edwards’s understanding

of the nature of faith and justification, see Bogue, Covenant of Grace, 253–278; and
Conrad Cherry, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards: A Reappraisal, 1990 ed. (Bloom-
ington: Indiana University Press, 1966), 90–106.
20. “JFA,” WJE 19:200–201.
21. For an in-depth exposition of Edwards’s understanding of faith and union
with Christ, see Robert W. Caldwell, Communion in the Spirit: The Holy Spirit as the
Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards, in Studies in Evangelical History
and Thought (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007). For a more brief discussion on
faith and union, see McClenahan, Justification, 182–193.
22. “JFA,” WJE 19:239.
new way of acceptance with God, unto life, a way wherein sin-
ners may come to be free from the guilt of sin, and obtain a title
to eternal life? And if when this way is revealed, it is rejected,
and another of man’s devising be put in the room of it, without
doubt, it must be an error of great importance, and the Apostle
might well say it was another gospel.23
Edwards goes on to say: “The contrary scheme of justification dero-
gates much from the honor of God, and the Mediator” and “tend[s] to
lead men to trust in their own righteousness for justification, which is
a thing fatal to the soul.”24
For Edwards, therefore, the proper interpretation of the “works
of the law” is vital to a proper understanding of justification and the
true gospel, having profound implications concerning God’s purpose
in revealing His triune nature and the ultimate destiny of the human
soul. To limit “works of the law” to the ceremonial law while positing
a justification contingent upon persevering obedience is to proclaim
“another gospel.”25
It is not suitable that God should give fallen man an interest in
Christ and his merits, as a testimony of his respect to anything
whatsoever as a loveliness in him; and that because ’tis not meet
till a sinner is actually justified, that anything in him should be
accepted of God, as any excellency or amiableness of his person;
23. Ibid., 19:239–240.

24. Ibid., 19:240–241.
25. Ibid., 19:237, 239, 240. Note how Edwards carefully qualifies his assess-
ment of the hearts of those advocating these “contrary schemes.” He allows that
in the “mysterious agency of God’s Spirit,” many professing “error” and “contrary
schemes” may do so “contrary to their own principles…contrary to the prevailing
disposition of their hearts.” Or, “how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine
contrary to this gospel doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express
themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunder-
standing of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are
the same in the main; or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that
are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning; or to be wide in their senti-
ments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts
at the same time entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their
understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it: how far these
things may be I won’t determine, but am fully persuaded that great allowances are
to be made, on these, and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is
manifest from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating contrary doc-
trines and schemes is of a pernicious and fatal tendency.” “JFA,” WJE 19:242.
or that God by any act, should in any manner or degree testify

any pleasedness with him, or favor towards him, on the account
of anything inherent in him.26
Edwards’s Eleven Arguments

Edwards gives eleven reasons why “works of the law” cannot refer
exclusively to the ceremonial works of the law, but refers to “all works
of obedience, virtue, and righteousness whatsoever,”27 including obe-
dience to the ceremonial law insofar as all obedience is a moral issue
before God. Edwards counters the argument that Paul’s use of the
phrase “works of the law” refers to ceremonial works performed un-
der the Mosaic economy and does not include moral works performed
under the present gospel dispensation.28
The eleven reasons are given in the second of five sections of the
discourse where he presents evidence for the doctrine that “we are
justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue or
goodness of our own.”29
In making his case, Edwards does not deny that ceremonial works
may be included in Paul’s references to “works of the law.”30 And,
even if the occasion of Paul’s writing was the error of trusting in a
particular ceremonial work,
how does it follow that therefore the Apostle did not upon that
occasion write against trusting in all works of righteousness
whatsoever? Where is the absurdity of supposing that the Apos-
tle might take occasion from his observing some to trust in a
certain work as a work of righteousness, to write to them against
26. Ibid., 19:161.

27. Ibid., 19:170.
28. Tillotson writes, “In the Romans and the Galatians, St. Paul doth plainly
oppose Faith to the Law; and it will clearly appear to anyone that will carefully read
over these discourses of St. Paul’s, that by faith is meant the Dispensation of the Gos-
pel, and by Law the Mosaical Administration; and the result of all those Discourses
is, that Men are not justified by performing the Works which the legal Dispensa-
tion required; but by assenting and submitting to the Revelation of the Gospel.”
Tillotson, Works (1728), III, Of Justifying Faith, Sermon CLXXIII, 459; quoted in
McClenahan, Justification, 139.
29. “JFA,” WJE 19:149.
30. Ibid., 19:168.
persons trusting in any works of righteousness at all, and that it

was a very proper occasion too?31
Edwards readily admits that ceremonial works are included in Paul’s
references, as justification is by faith exclusive of all works, includ-
ing circumcision and other ceremonial works. The burden of proof,
therefore, is on those limiting Paul’s references of “works of the law”
to ceremonial works to prove that the words necessarily exclude works
of the moral law in all cases.32 Edwards’s arguments that “works of the
law” refers primarily to works of the moral law are as follows.
First, Paul uses the term works with respect to justification by works in
a general sense, without a specific reference to works “of the law,” as
in the following verses: Romans 4:5, “unto him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth”; Romans 4:6, “God imputeth righ-
teousness without works”; Romans 11:6, “and if by grace, then is it no
more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works,
then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work”; and Ephe-
sians 2:8–9, “for by grace are ye saved, through faith,…not of works.”
In these passages “there is no reason in the world to understand the
Apostle of any other than works in general, as correlates of a reward,
or good works, or works of virtue and righteousness.”33 As “works” is
not in these verses restricted by the phrase “of the law,” it cannot be
more narrowly restricted to a particular aspect of the law, such as the
ceremonial law. And while some will grant that “works” without the
specific limiting language “of the law” refers to “our own good works
in general” (though not meritorious works), they nonetheless limit
“works of the law” to the ceremonial law, even though both expres-
sions “works” and “works of the law” are intermingled in the same
discourse and used in the “same argument.” This is not only “very
unreasonable, it is to dodge, and fly from Scripture, rather than to
open and yield ourselves to its teachings.”34
Second, Romans 3:9 and following proves from the Old Testament
31. Ibid., 19:169.

32. Ibid., 19:168.
33. Ibid., 19:170.
34. Ibid., 19:170–171.
that all are guilty of breaking the moral law and therefore cannot be
justified by works of the law.35
“There is none righteous, no, not one…their throat is an open
sepulcher…with their tongues have they used deceit…their mouth
is full of cursing and bitterness…their feet swift to shed blood.”
Paul continues in mentioning only those things that are violations
of the moral law, with no mention of the ceremonial law, concluding
in Romans 3:19–20, “now we know that whatsoever things the law
saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore
by the deeds of the law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” The
argument is clearly that no one is justified by works of the moral law,
as emphasized again in Romans 3:23. 36 How, then, can it be that
‘their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift
to shed blood,’ therefore, they can’t be justified by the deeds of
the Mosaic administration? They are guilty of the breaches of
the moral law, and therefore they can’t be justified by the deeds
of the ceremonial law?37
It cannot. Rather, “the very same law they have broken and sinned
against, can never justify…but necessarily condemns its violators.”
The point is, “out of Christ,” nothing of our “virtue or obedience”
can be accepted or be the basis or catalyst of our acceptance.38
Third, in all of the passages of Romans preceding 3:20, “the law” pri-
marily refers to the moral law. When 2:12 says, “for as many as have
sinned without law, shall also perish without law,” the moral law is
intended, for 2:13 speaks of the Gentiles, who not having the law,
“do by nature the things contained in the law” and thereby “show the
work of the law written in their hearts.”39 Gentiles, by nature, perform
35. For Edwards’s argument that Romans 3:9–24 and its context prove that
moral disobedience and corruption are universal to all Jews and Gentiles, see Jona-
than Edwards, Original Sin, ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, WJE (New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1970), 3:283–291.
36. “JFA,” WJE 19:171.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 19:171. For an in-depth discussion of Edwards’s understanding that
the best works of sinners and saints are worthy of condemnation when considered of
themselves apart from the righteousness of Christ, see Biehl, Infinite Merit, 113–142.
39. Ibid., 19:171–172.
works of the moral law, not the ceremonial law. Also, in 2:18: “thou
approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of
the law,” the moral law is that which “shows us the nature of things,
and teaches us what is excellent.”40 The moral law is intended in 2:20,
“thou hast a form of knowledge, and truth in the law,” for in 2:22–23
the reference to “adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege” refers to the moral
law: “thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou
commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacri-
lege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law
dishonorest thou God?” So also in 2:27, where the “uncircumcised”
Gentiles who keep the moral aspects of the law will judge those who,
keeping circumcision, break the law nonetheless. Given that all dis-
cussion of the law prior to 3:20 is primarily with respect to the moral
law, and is preparatory to its assertion that no one, Gentile of Jew, can
be justified by works of the law, how then can the reference in 3:20 be
interpreted as referring exclusively to the ceremonial law? It cannot.
Fourth, the purpose of the law in Romans 3:20 is the knowledge of

sin: “by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for
by the law is the knowledge of sin,” and the moral law is that which
“chiefly and primarily” brings us to the knowledge of sin. Edwards
writes:
’Tis a miserable shift, and a violent force put upon the words,
to say that the meaning is, that by the law of circumcision is the
knowledge of sin, because circumcision signifying the taking
way of sin, puts men in mind of sin. The plain meaning of the
Apostle is that as the law most strictly forbids sin, it tends to
convince us of sin, and bring our own consciences to condemn
us, instead of justifying of us; that the use of it is to declare to us
our own guilt and unworthiness, which is the reverse of justify-
ing and approving of us as virtuous or worthy.41
The moral law produces knowledge of sin by forbidding sin, as also
taught in Romans 7:7: “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had
not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Cov-
40. Ibid., 19:172.

41. Ibid., 19:172–173.
eting is forbidden by the moral, not the ceremonial law.42 Edwards

asserts:
When the Apostle argues that by the deeds of the law no flesh
living shall be justified, because the law is the knowledge of
sin, his argument proves (unless he was mistaken as to the force
of his argument), that we can’t be justified by the deeds of the
moral law.43
Fifth, the fact that believers “have righteousness” and “a title to the
privilege of God’s children” by faith and not by law is further evi-
dence Paul’s argument is primarily against justification by works of
the moral law. Romans 4:13–16 states:
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not
to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs,
faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because
the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no trans-
gression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.44
The wrath of God is produced by the moral law prohibiting sin and
“aggravating the guilt of the transgression,” consistent with Romans
7:13, “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
The law that “worketh wrath” is the law contrasted with faith, the law
that forbids sin, and the very same law by which sinners cannot be
justified.45
Sixth, the purpose of Paul’s argument for justification by faith alone

is to exclude boasting, making clear that no one is justified by their
“own virtue, goodness, or excellency.” Romans 3:26–28 says:
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is
boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but
by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the law.
42. Ibid., 19:173.

43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
Ephesians 2:8–9 reads, “for by grace are ye saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man
should boast.”46 Of what do people boast if not “what they esteem
their own goodness, or excellency?”47
Edwards does not deny that Jews boasted in circumcision and
other rituals of the ceremonial law as elevating them over the Gentile
nations. Nonetheless, such boasting “was under a notion of its being
a part of their own goodness or excellency, or what made them holier
and more lovely in the sight of God than other people.”48 In other
words, even boasting in the ceremonial aspects of the law is a moral
issue related to one’s own goodness and moral uprightness, by which
no one is justified.
In addition, as admirers and followers of the Pharisees, “the Jews
of those days”49 were “notorious for boasting of their moral righteous-
ness.” In Luke 18, Christ speaks of the Pharisee that thanked God
he was not “an extortioner…unjust…an adulterer” like other men,
relying on his moral works of the law for his justification, while the
tax collector disavowing his own worthiness and righteousness went
home justified. Matthew 6:2 speaks of Pharisees ostentatiously vaunt-
ing their moral works. Romans 2:22–23 speaks of the Jews boasting in
the moral law, though the same law condemns them for their break-
ing the law by their adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege.50
In light of these things, how then “was their boasting excluded,
unless all goodness or excellency of their own was excluded?” Indeed,
“when they boasted of the rites of the ceremonial law, it was under
a notion of its being a part of their own goodness or excellency, or
what made them holier and more lovely in the sight of God than
other people.”51 So, even if works of the law includes works of the
ceremonial law, they are nonetheless performed as moral works, the
goodness or righteousness of which is presumed to justify. Obedience
to the ceremonial law is a moral issue, and no one is justified by their
46. Ibid., 19:174.

47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 19:174–175.
49. During the latter period of Second-Temple Judaism, at or about the time of
Christ’s ministry.
50. “JFA,” WJE 19:174.
51. Ibid., 19:174–175.
own moral works of obedience, be they obedience to the moral or

ceremonial aspect of the law.
Seventh, in stating that no one is justified by works of the law in Gala-

tians 3, the moral and not the ceremonial law is primarily in view as
evidenced by Paul’s citation of Deuteronomy 27:26 in Galatians 3:10:
“for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it
is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which
are written in the book of the law to do them.”52 In the context of
Deuteronomy 27, the reference is
not only with regard to the ceremonial law, but the whole law of
God to mankind, and chiefly the moral law; and that all man-
kind are therefore as they are in themselves under that curse,
not only while the ceremonial law lasted, but now since that has
ceased: and therefore all that are justified, are redeemed from
that curse, by Christ’s bearing it for them.53
As Abraham was justified by faith and not by works of the law, so also
are all justified who are of the same faith of Abraham. And, though the
ceremonial aspect of the law has “ceased,” all remain under the law’s
curse until they are delivered by faith in Christ, who “redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written,
cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”54 Thus, Paul here speaks of
the moral law by which people cannot be justified, for it remains that
he who “continueth not in all things which are written in the book of
the law to do them” is cursed. Therefore, Edwards writes,
we can’t be justified by the works of the moral law, and of the
whole rule which God has given mankind to walk by; for the
words are spoken of the moral as well as the ceremonial law,
and reach every command, or precept which God has given to
mankind, and chiefly the moral precepts, which are most strictly
enjoined, and the violations of which in both New Testament
and Old, and in the books of Moses themselves, are threatened
with the most dreadful curse.55
52. Ibid., 19:175.

53. Ibid.
54. Galatians 3:13; “JFA,” WJE 19:175.
55. “JFA,” WJE 19:175.
Thus, while works of the ceremonial law are not excluded, the ref-
erence of “works of the law” by which no one can be justified is
primarily to works of the moral law.
Eighth, Paul uses the terms our “own righteousness” and “works of
the law” synonymously, each referring to that by which one cannot be
justified.56 In Romans 10:3, we read, “for they being ignorant of God’s
righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” a clear
parallel with the immediately preceding passage of Romans 9:31, “but
Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained
to the law of righteousness: Wherefore? Because they sought it not by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” Edwards says:
’Tis very unreasonable, upon several accounts, to suppose that
the Apostle by “their own righteousness,” intends only their cer-
emonial righteousness. For when the Apostle warns us against
trusting in our own righteousness for justification, doubtless it is
fair to interpret the expression in an agreement with other Scrip-
tures where we are warned not to think that ’tis for the sake of our
own righteousness, that we obtain God’s favor and blessing.57
Edwards cites Deuteronomy 9:4–6, wherein Israel is told they will not
possess the Promised Land on account of [their] righteousness, and
that their enemies will be driven out on account of their wickedness.
None will pretend that here the expression “thy righteousness,”
signifies only a ceremonial righteousness, but all virtue or good-
ness of their own; yea and the inward goodness of the heart as
well as the outward goodness of life.58
That righteousness refers to moral righteousness is consistent with
Deuteronomy 9:5, “not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness
of thine heart,” and 9:6, “not for thy righteousness, for thou art a
stiff-necked people.” As contrasted with “their moral wickedness,
obstinacy, and perverseness of heart,” righteousness expresses “their
moral virtue, and rectitude of heart, and life.” Similarly, when “our
own righteousness” is used “with relation to the favor of God, and
56. Ibid., 19:175–176.

57. Ibid., 19:176.
58. Ibid.
when we are warned against looking upon it as that by which that

favor, or the fruits of it are obtained,” our personal goodness is in view
and not only “a ceremonial righteousness.”59
Similarly, those who “trusted in themselves that they were righ-
teous” were condemned in the New Testament, as in Christ’s parable
of the Pharisee and tax collector in Luke 18:9ff. The Pharisee’s prayer
indicates a trust in his “moral qualifications” and works as compared
to the tax collector, “that he was not an extortioner, unjust, nor an
adulterer, etc.”60 Nonetheless, the epistles of Paul are sufficient to
settle the matter “if we will allow the apostle Paul to be his own inter-
preter…when he speaks of our own righteousness as that which we are
not justified or saved by,” as in Titus 3:5: “not by works of righteous-
ness which we have done.” “Let it be an obedience to the ceremonial
law, or a gospel obedience, or what it will, if it be a righteousness of
our own doing, it is excluded by the Apostle in this affair.”61
Ninth, Titus 3:3–7 denies justification by works of the moral law. Ed-
wards notes:
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, de-
ceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and
envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kind-
ness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renew-
ing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through
Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we
should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.62
First, justification is in view here, as justification by grace is con-
trasted with “works of righteousness” that cannot save. Second, “works
of righteousness which we have done” does not refer exclusively to
works of the ceremonial law, given that 3:3 speaks of violations of the
moral law prior to justification: “for we ourselves also were sometimes
foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, liv-
ing in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” This is the
59. Ibid., 19:176–177.

60. Ibid., 19:177.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
impetus for the observation in 3:5 that they were not “saved or justi-
fied” by “works of righteousness which they had done.” Moreover,
the phrase “works of righteousness” is equivalent to saying “righteous
works” or “good works,” while the universal sense of “works” is ac-
centuated by the phrase “which we have done.”63 Limiting “works”
here to ceremonial works contradicts the plain sense of the statement.
Such a limitation is analogous to explicitly stating something cannot
be purchased with money, while strengthening the common mean-
ing of money by adding “that men possess,” but really only meaning
brass money, though never stating the narrower reference to brass
money.64 No one would reasonably interpret money as brass money
alone in such a case, nor should they interpret “works which we have
done” as ceremonial works only.
An even more unreasonable argument for interpreting works of
righteousness in this text as ceremonial is to view the works as only
falsely supposed as righteous by the Jews, given the ceremonial law
has been abrogated. Edwards views this interpretation as “ridiculous”
and analogous to interpreting a statement that something cannot be
bought with money as referring only to counterfeit money, because
counterfeit money is not money. In a bit of apparent exasperation,
Edwards writes, “[W]hat Scripture will stand before men if they will
take liberty to manage Scripture thus? Or what one text is there in
the Bible that mayn’t at this rate be explained all away, and perverted
to any sense men please?”65
Also, even if justification and ceremonial works are opposed in
Titus 3:3–7, they are opposed “under that notion, or in that quality,
of their being works of righteousness of our own doing.” It follows,
then, that Paul’s argument “is strong against” ceremonial and moral
works of the law as justifying, as he includes all works “that are of our
own doing,” in “works of righteousness which we have done.”66
Further, even if this were the only scriptural text on justification,
it “would clearly and invincibly prove that we are not justified by any
of our own goodness, virtue, or righteousness or for the excellency or
righteousness of anything that we have done in religion.”67 Nonethe-
63. Ibid., 19:178.

64. Ibid.,
65. Ibid., 19:178–179.
66. Ibid., 19:179.
67. Ibid.
less, in opposing salvation by works and asserting salvation by grace,

Paul speaks of the same works where he makes the same argument
opposing works to grace, as in the following passages: Romans 11:6,
“and if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no
more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise
work is no more work”; Romans 4:4, “now to him that worketh is the
reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt”; Romans 3:24, where works
of the law is contrasted with “being justified freely by his grace”; and
again in Romans 4:16, where justification is of faith “that it might be
by grace,” where “the righteousness of faith, is opposed to the righ-
teousness of the law.”68 Therefore, in Titus 3:3–7, “God’s saving us
according to his mercy, and justifying us by grace, is opposed to sav-
ing us by works of righteousness that we have done, in the same manner
as in those places justifying us by his grace, is opposed to justifying us
by works of the law.” 69
Tenth, according to the opposing view, even if people are no longer

justified by obedience to the ceremonial law because it has been ab-
rogated under the New Testament, it follows they would be justified
by sincere obedience to whatever commands of God are in force, un-
der the New or Old Testament. Thus, sincere obedience to both the
moral and ceremonial laws would be required for justification in the
Old Testament, as the ceremonial law was then still in force.
But, if “works of the law” in the New Testament refers to the
ceremonial law only, then according to Paul’s citation of Psalm 32
in Romans 4:6–8, Old Testament saints “were not justified in any
measure, by the works of the ceremonial law,” because David was
not justified by works.70 This, however, contradicts the view that jus-
tification is by sincere obedience, because sincere obedience in the
Old Testament would have included obedience to the ceremonial law.
David was justified by faith and not works, including works of the
ceremonial law. If David was justified by sincere obedience to what-
ever commands of God he was under, he would have been justified by
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., 19:180. Paul writes, “even as David also describeth the blessedness of
the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed
are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the
man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”
works of the moral and ceremonial law. Thus, according to the very
tenets of those advocating justification by sincere obedience, “works”
could not here refer to ceremonial works, contradicting the interpre-
tation of works necessary for their view.
The context, and in particular verse 5, speaks of justification, in-
cluding “forgiving iniquities and covering sins,” the very thing those
advocating justification by sincere obedience “suppose to be justi-
fication, and even the whole of justification.”71 David was justified
by the imputation of “righteousness without works,” in the context
of Romans 4:6–8, and speaks of the forgiveness of his iniquities in
Psalm 32:
When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring
all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me:
my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowl-
edged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said,
I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgav-
est the iniquity of my sin.72
Thus, whether one interprets “works” in Romans 4:6–8 as all works
or only ceremonial works, David was justified by neither. But, if peo-
ple were justified in the Old Testament by their sincere obedience,
they would have been justified, in part, by obedience to the ceremo-
nial law. Edwards summarizes this argument as follows:
If our own obedience be that by which men are justified, then
under the Old Testament, men were justified partly by obedi-
ence to the ceremonial law (as has been proved); but the saints
under the Old Testament were not justified partly by the works
of the ceremonial law; therefore men’s own obedience is not that
by which they are justified.73
Eleventh, “works of the law” cannot be restricted to ceremonial works

alone in Romans 10:5–6, “for Moses describeth the righteousness
which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by
them; but the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise.”
First, the context indicates a continuation of the earlier arguments
in Romans concerning “two opposite ways of justification, one by
71. Ibid., 19:180.

72. Ibid., 19:181.
73. Ibid.
the righteousness which is of the law, the other by faith,” including

the immediately preceding argument of Romans 9, as will be seen
below.
Second, Paul’s citation of Moses, “the man which doeth those
things shall live in them,” does not refer exclusively or even primarily
to the ceremonial law. Consistent with the Romans 4 discussion of
David’s justification noted above, “none will pretend that God ever
made such a covenant with man, that he that kept the ceremonial law
should live in it, or that there ever was a time that it was chiefly by
the works of the ceremonial law, that men lived and were justified.”74
Such refers to the moral law, consistent with the ending verses of
Romans 9, “but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness,
hath not attained to the law of righteousness: Wherefore? Because
they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law”; and
Romans 10:3, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and
going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves to the righteousness of God.”
Further, in the Arminian “way of justification by the virtue of
a sincere obedience,” justification by faith is only contrasted with a
particular kind of works (ceremonial works), exclusive of moral works.
According to this view, when Paul contrasts that by which Christians
are justified with the works that do not justify, those by which “he
that doeth those things shall live in them,” the reference is to ceremo-
nial works alone. Yet, Paul’s description of the righteousness of the
law, described as that by which “the man which doeth them shall live
in them,” describes equally well both moral and ceremonial works,
and is plainly contrasted with its opposite, the righteousness of faith.
Edwards concludes:
If these words cited from Moses, are actually said by him of the
moral law as well as ceremonial as ’tis most evident they are, it
renders it still more absurd to suppose them mentioned by the
Apostle, as the very note of distinction between justification by
a ceremonial obedience, and a moral sincere obedience, as the
Arminians must suppose.75
74. Ibid., 19:181–182.

75. Ibid., 19:182–183.
Conclusion
Edwards’s argument rests on showing that works of the law includes
moral works of the law, with or without ceremonial works. That
works of the law includes ceremonial works is no argument for the
opposing view, as ceremonial works are a subset of works in general.
What must be proven by those advocating the “opposing scheme” is
that “works of the law,” as used by Paul in contrast to justification
by faith, refers exclusively to ceremonial works and entirely excludes
works of the moral law. According to Edwards, such an interpretation
is contrary to both the obvious meaning of “works” in the context of
Paul’s arguments and is contrary to the entire meaning of the gospel.
Justification is by faith in the person and saving work of Christ alone,
and in no way according to our works, be they in obedience to the
moral and or ceremonial law. Justification, for Edwards, is by the im-
putation of the righteousness of Christ through faith in Christ alone.
Experiential Theology
q
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 143 –165
The Theological Foundation and Goal

of Piety in Calvin and Erasmus
timothy j. gwin
q
Two of the most important men involved in the sixteenth-century

Continental Reformation were Erasmus of Rotterdam and the French-
man, John Calvin. Both men sought to live pious lives as well as to
influence other Christians for piety. Calvin concisely defines piety, or
pietas, in his Institutes as “reverence joined with love of God which the
knowledge of his benefits induces.” Erasmus provides his definition
of piety in his prefatory letter to Volz concerning his famous work,
the Enchiridion. “Theology is piety, joined with skill in speaking on
sacred subjects.” Both Reformers understood piety as being indistin-
guishable from theology and necessary for reforming the church. In
order to bring about change in the church, they employed their re-
fined rhetorical writings to engage and inspire Christians to live lives
of godliness or piety. While Calvin’s rhetorical nuance appears to be
heavenward, focused upon the sovereign God he beheld in the Scrip-
tures, Erasmus’s focus appears to be earthbound towards the church
that cost the God of Scripture His Son. In light of such theological
nuances, both Reformers’ use of rhetoric was cast in decidedly dif-
ferent molds. Erasmus’s piety was cast horizontally in such a way as
to evoke the love and service of neighbor in all things so as to bring
. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (hereafter, Inst.), ed. John T.
McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.2.1
. B. Corrigan, et al., eds., The Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1976) (hereafter CWE) vol. 66, Enchiridion, XI.
. The influence of classical rhetoric upon Christian theology has a long his-
tory. Since the birth of the New Testament church, Christian apologists have relied
heavily upon Roman and Greek orators for rhetorical guidance in an effort to pre
sent persuasive arguments for Christian beliefs. For a recent study, see Serene Jones,
Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995).
about the glory of God. Calvin’s piety was principally cast vertically
with a singular focus of motivating the faithful to extol the sovereign
God of Scripture in all aspects of life, especially in worship.
Problems in Comparison Addressed

Many scholars might oppose the comparison of Calvin’s Institutes and
Erasmus’s Enchiridion, citing the apparent differences of the works as
well as those of the authors themselves. Historically, interpreters of
Erasmus have not depicted him as a theologian but as a humanist
scholar; however, very few would dispute the title for Calvin. In his
own day, Erasmus was alleged to be simply a grammarian and rhetori-
cian, not a theologian as Calvin. This view, however, has substantially
changed due in large part to the University of Toronto’s Erasmus
project, which began in 1968. The first volume was published in 1974,
with a total of eighty-six volumes planned for publication. As more
and more of Erasmus’s works have been published in English, schol-
ars have been challenged to rethink Erasmus in the light of his own
work. The result of this has been the scholarly community’s acquies-
cence to Erasmus as a theologian, even if not in the same category as
the scholastics. Some have sought to advance the view of Erasmus as
an artful theologian, claiming that the great rhetorician used rhetoric
in the service of his theological pursuits. Manfred Hoffman is a major
proponent of this view. He writes:
What is beginning to emerge is the profile of a humanist who
in fact taught a distinct theology that constituted the bedrock of
. See John B. Payne, “Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutic of Erasmus”

(book reviews). Renaissance Quarterly, Dec 1996.
. Information about the history of Erasmus interpretation (with further bib-
liographical references) can be found in G. Ritter, Die gechichtliche Bedeutung des
deutschen Humanismus (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963); A.
Flitner, Erasmus im Urteil seiner. Nachwelt (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1952); W. Kaegi,
“Erasmus im achtzehnten Jahrhundert,” Historische Meditationen (Zurich: Fretz &
Wasmuth, 1942), 185 ff.; B.E. Mansfield, “Erasmus in the Nineteenth Century, the
Liberal Tradition,” Studies in the Renaissance 15 (1968): 139 ff.; L.W. Spitz, The Re-
ligious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1963), 234; M. Hoffmann, Erkenntnis und Verwirklichung der wahren Theologie
nach Erasmus von Rotterdam (Tübingen: Mohr, 1972), 10 ff.; B.E. Mansfield, Phoenix
of His Age: Interpretations of Erasmus c. 1550–1750 (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1979); C. Reedijk, Tandem bona causa triumphat: zur Geschichte des Gesamtwerkes
des Erasmus von Rotterdam (Basel-Stuttgart: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1980).
Piety in Calvin and Erasmus 145
his thought as a whole. Moreover, his theological insights were

not simply bunched in haphazard juxtapositions with disparate
parts pieced together for ad hoc arguments. Rather, his theo-
logical thought constituted a system of coordinates, a matrix
of comprehensive understanding informing his entire work.
Certainly, this hermeneutical blueprint of the biblical humanist
represents a system quite unlike that of a medieval summa since
it replaces the rigid structure of cogently argued syllogistic con-
clusions with a looser framework of thought. But this framework
is cohesive, nonetheless, for it outlines coordinates intersecting
in a scopus, identifies topoi in their proper places of convenience,
and draws connections in a generally coherent way.
In order to understand Erasmus’s theological system, one must rely
heavily upon his hermeneutical and exegetical biases in which lan-
guage and rhetoric maintain a critical position in identifying the
scopus (scope) and topoi (topics), as Hoffman suggests. It is apparent
that Erasmus’s theological approach differs substantially from Calvin’s
more systematic approach, which one poignantly sees in the Institutes
and his Genevan Catechism. Irrespective of differing approaches, many
points of comparison exist. John W. O’Malley ties these two great
works together as both claiming to instruct Christians in living lives
of piety. He writes:
The Enchiridion…or, as Erasmus called it, ‘compendiariam
. See Manfred Hoffmann’s Erkenntnis und Verwirklichung, 59 ff.; F. Kruger,

Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 29 ff.
. Manfred Hoffmann, “Faith and Piety in Erasmus’s Thought,” Sixteenth Cen-
tury Journal 20, 2 (1989): 242–243.
. On Erasmus’s hermeneutic see J.B. Payne, “Toward the Hermeneutic of
Erasmus,” in Scrinium Erasniinnum 2: 13 ff.; A. Rabil, Erasmus and the New Testament,
99 ff.; G. Chantraine, Erasme et Luther (Paris: Lethielleux; Namur: Presses Universi-
taires de Namur, 1981), 275 ff.; J. Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Erasme, 509
ff.; B. Hall, “Erasmus, Biblical Scholar and Reformer,” in T.A. Dorey, ed., Erasmus
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970), 81 ff.; C.A.L. Jarrott, “Erasmus’s Biblical
Humanism,” Studies in the Renaissance 17 (1970): 119 ff.; J.B. Payne, “Erasmus, Inter-
preter of Romans,” Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 2 (1971): 1 ff.; C. Augustijn,
“Hyperaspistes I: La doctrine d’Erasme et de Luther sur la ‘Claritas Scripturae,’”
Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia 2 (1972): 737 ff.; M. Hoffmann, “Erasmus im Streit
mit Luther,” Humanismus und Reformation: Martin Luther und Erasmus von Rotterdam in
den Konflikten ihrer Zeit (Munchen-Zurich: Schnell & Steiner, 1985), 93 ff.; F. Kru-
ger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 80 ff.
. Ford Lewis Battles, The Piety of John Calvin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 7.
quamdam Vivendi rationem’—‘a kind of summary guide to liv-

ing.’ It professed to equip its readers with all that was essential to
Christian piety, much as Calvin would later claim for his Insti-
tutes, which he in fact terms in the language of his original title a
summa pietatis. Like that work, the Enchiridion prided itself on the
simplicity, yet sufficiency, of what it enjoined. The popularity of
both books suggests that they responded even in this claim to a
need felt by contemporaries.10
Recent interpreters of Erasmus who have finally embraced the
view that the Enchiridion is a theological work have simply affirmed
what Erasmus himself believed. A reader might describe this work
as being about “the Christian life” but not about theology. Erasmus
spent a great deal of time disputing such a dichotomy. O’Malley
writes, “While it is true that the Enchiridion is filled with ascetical
and moralistic recommendations, Erasmus consistently relates them
to a theological understructure.”11 The most acute point of analysis is
in the comparison of the “theological understructure” of Erasmus’s
work with that of Calvin’s. Enlightened by the affirmation of both
Erasmus and a growing segment of modern scholars, the theological
comparison of these great works and their author’s nuanced rhetoric
to influence piety is justified.
Erasmus and Pietas

If word usage is an indicator of an essential aspect of the Enchiridion,
then pietas or pius is a central theme in this literary work simply on the
basis that Erasmus cites them over a hundred times.12 Erasmus dis-
liked the scholastic approach to theology and understood theologians,
such as Aquinas, to bifurcate piety from theology.13 In order to move
away from what he viewed as primarily a “contemplative” discipline,
Erasmus sought to maintain a fundamental link between pietas and
theology in the practical ministry of the church. O’Malley writes:
Nothing is perhaps more characteristic of Erasmus in this regard
than his striving to integrate pietas, theology, and the practice
of ministry. This is where we discover in profound fashion the
10. CWE, vol. 66, Enchiridion, XLII.

11. Ibid., XLII.
12. Ibid., XI.
13. Ibid., XII.
seamless robe of his pietas, and this is why in his catalogue for
Boece he could group together under that heading his Enchirid-
ion, his work on the sacrament of confession, and his Ratio verae
theologiae. Piety, theology, and ministry were for him but differ-
ent aspects of one reality.14
With such an integration of pietas, theology, and ministry, one can
see the fundamental place of pietas in Erasmus’s writing. The astute
reader should be able to draw foundational conclusions regarding the
nature of pietas from his theology. This “seamless robe of his pietas” is
carefully nuanced to bring about the “one reality” of a morally pure
church obedient to the commands of God in the daily lives of Chris-
tians. The integration of piety, theology, and practice was the result of
many cultural influences of the day. The church’s teaching about the
nature of humanity coupled with the rising humanist movement had
a profound influence on the European scholars. Such a combination
found expression in Erasmus’s unique perspective of what the Chris-
tian life should be and how it should be modeled in the world.
Erasmus acquired a vast amount of knowledge pertaining to the
religious traditions of the church. Reared in Holland, the illegitimate
son of a monk, and subsequently educated by the Brethren of the
Common Life, he developed a profound sense of what it meant to be
a “son of the Church.”15 His pietas flowed naturally from such expe-
riences and, as such, was inherently traditional. Erasmus’s intimate
knowledge of the Christian culture which produced him, coupled
with his vast knowledge of Scripture and the church fathers left
him uniquely equipped to speak to the sixteenth-century European
culture so colored by the church.16 Being experientially and intellec-
tually informed as to the nature and tradition of the church, Erasmus
proposed through his Enchiridion an alternative pietas to correct the
many abuses that he had both experienced and witnessed within the
church. Humans, whom Christ loved and for whom He died, were
being abused by the very system that was to be the embodiment of
love as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. Love and service for
one’s neighbor were to be central for true piety.
14. Ibid.
15. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation (New York: Phoenix
Press, 1924), 5–9.
16. CWE, vol. 66, Enchiridion, XVI.
Erasmus wrote to liberate the faithful throughout Roman Catho-

lic society so they could pursue pietas in whatever state they found
themselves placed by God. He asserted that monks and clergy were
not the only ones created by God to pursue a life of piety or godli-
ness, but that lay people, whether married, single, or widowed, were
to pursue pietas. In his De Vidua Christiana, Erasmus emphasizes this
position by stating that God accommodates Himself to His people
in their particular life-calling, which includes the married woman as
well as the widow. Both states are complementary rather than com-
peting, just as singleness and the married life are complementary as
God-given vocations within the community of the saints.17
In addition to encouraging laypeople to pursue piety, Erasmus also
sought to correct the abuses he saw within the religious orders done
in the name of piety, including “pilgrimages, ‘rash’ vows, superstitious
invocation of the saints, and the veneration of relics.”18 He labels them
as abusive, leading people away from the love of neighbor, and he goes
so far as to assert that the monastic life is not a pious life.19
The Latin title of his work “enchiridion,” can be translated one of
two ways, as either “the handbook” or “the sword” of the Christian
soldier. Erasmus desired to set forth what it means to be a Christian
in this life of spiritual warfare. Within the pages of Enchiridion, he de-
velops the foundational structure necessary for a pious life, which he
calls the “philosophy of Christ.” He re-casts the moralistic teaching
of the church using the nuanced language of warfare in order to move
Christians towards a holistic piety. The church’s teaching had become
heavily individualistic in nature as she motivated the faithful to come
to the church and labor under a system of penance for salvation. Eras-
mus, however, sought to re-cast the moralistic teaching of the church
in light of Christian community which included love for neighbor
and warring against the sinful tendencies of flesh. This horizontal
piety took shape in Erasmus’s “philosophy of Christ.”
Erasmus’s Understanding of the Philosophy of Christ

as the Foundation of Pietas
Because of his humanistic training, Erasmus toiled to produce a
17. CWE, vol. 66, De Vidua Christiana, 201–205.

18. CWE, vol. 66, Enchiridion, XVII.
19. ‘Monachatus non est pietas,’ ASD 1–5, 367–381.
specified effect upon those who read Enchiridion. By taking the essen-
tial teachings of the Master Teacher, Jesus, and applying to them the
skilled art of rhetoric, Erasmus was able to bridge the intellectual gap
between the simple yet mysterious biblical text and the correct ap-
plication of the text. Since Erasmus held the allegorical hermeneutic
as necessary for the truest and deepest interpretation of the Scripture,
he viewed correct application as not simply a matter of literacy. He
even goes so far as to suggest that, without the allegorical method,
Scripture is no more useful than pagan myth. He writes:
If you read unallegorically of the infants struggling within the

womb…David’s slaying of Goliath with a sling, and the shav-
ing off of Samson’s locks, then it is of no more importance than
if you were to read the fiction of the poets. What difference is
there whether you read the Book of Kings or the Book of Judges
or Livy’s history, if in none of them you perceive the allegory?...
Therefore you must reject the carnal aspect of the Scriptures,
especially the Old Testament, and ferret out the spiritual sense.
Without the spiritual, Manna will taste to you like that which
you already have on your palate.20
With such a conviction, Erasmus could not simply produce a criti-

cal Greek New Testament and allow the text to speak for itself as a
philologist would. While he did believe the essence of Scripture was
the Philosophia Christi, he also felt that most Christians could not fully
comprehend it.21 The Enchiridion and other works became for Erasmus
a theological paradigm through which the Philosophia Christi could be
understood and attained. In the Enchiridion, he suggests the solution
for the laity, a “simple but scholarly exposition.”22 With these convic-
tions, he brought to bear on the church his own commentary of the
Christian life—Enchiridion. It is almost as if Erasmus was seeking to
do for the church via Enchiridion what Thomas Moore was seeking
to do for the State via Utopia. At this point, Erasmus moves from hu-
manist scholar to that of theologian, and his theological foundation
20. CWE, vol. 66, Enchiridion, 68.

21. Erasmus, Ratio Verae Theologiae, Holborn 295.1–5, quoted in Rummel, The
Humanist-Scholastic Debate, 136.
and framework necessary for the pious life rested in the Philosophia
Christi, which was heavily nuanced with moralistic overtones.23
Erasmus’s theological foundation directly opposed what he saw as
abuses in the church. Pure Christianity could not be attained by the
faithful through rituals, laws, and dogma that had come out of the
medieval church to represent pious living. Erasmus sought a trans-
formation of the faithful not only by looking to the life of Jesus as
model, but more importantly through a heart “innerly changed and
transformed into that which [a Christian] learn[s] from Scripture.”24
The child of God looks in the wrong direction for pious instruction if
he relies solely upon Jesus or the church and her dogmatic and ritual-
istic focus on Christ. Erasmus writes:
And yet after the performance of so many miracles, after they had
been exposed for so many years to the teaching that proceeded
from the mouth of God, after so many proofs of his resurrec-
tion, did he not upbraid them for their incredulity at the very last
hour as he was about to be received into heaven? What reason
can be adduced for this? It was the flesh of Christ that stood in
the way.... If the physical presence of Christ is of no profit for
salvation, shall we dare to place our hopes for the attainment of
perfect piety in any material thing? Paul had seen Christ in the
flesh. What greater thing can be imagined? But he makes little
of that, saying: “Even if we knew Christ in human terms, we
no longer know him in that way.” Why did he not know him?
Because he had advanced to a higher state of grace.25
This “higher state of grace,” which Erasmus claims for Paul came
through the apostles’ Philosophia Christi, is a saving grace that must
be sought beyond the physical life of Christ and His moral exam-
ple. This “higher state of grace” may be found in His teaching or
“philosophy” in the Scripture. Eramsus maintained that through the
Philosophia Christi, the Christian is transformed and led to crucify the
flesh and live a life of conformity to Christ. This tranformation stem-
23. Joi Christians, “Erasmus and the New Testament: Humanist Scholarship
or Theological Convictions?” Trinity Journal 19, 1 (1998): 70.
24. Erasmus, Ratio Verae Theologiae, quoted in C.J. De Vogel, “Erasmus and
Church Doctrine,” in Scrinium Erasmianum, ed. J. Coppens (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1969), 106.
ing from the “philosophy” is in itself salvific26 and manifests itself in

a life of service and love for neighbor, as it did in the life of Christ.
McConica captures the essence of Erasmus’s Philosophia Christi as that
“conviction intended to move Christians to an interior apprehension
of the Gospel, an apprehension which will bring them to live it.”27
For Christians to live a life of pietas, they must learn the ways of pietas
from the teaching that permeates pietas—Philosophia Christi.
Erasmus’s Call to Pietas through

Unity (Ecclesiological) and Law
The Enchiridion clearly draws out the institutional underpinnings
of baptism, which hold all Christians together in the federal bonds
of church unity. Even though Erasmus wrote separate treatises for
marriage and penance, he wrote much more frequently about the sac-
rament of baptism than all the other sacraments. He unreservedly
recognized the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic church as in-
struments of grace when properly administered. The faithful needed
the assistance of the church, charged with dispensing the necessary
sacraments, for grace to be worked in the heart of the Christian.28 This
grace is necessary for a life of piety that merits the merit of Christ.
Through his friendship with John Colet, Erasmus was influenced
by St. Augustine’s ecclesiology while not holding to his anthropol-
ogy.29 Like Augustine, his traditionalism manifested itself in his
acknowledgment of the necessity of baptism for entrance into the
body of Christ through the cleansing of original sin. 30 The baptismal
vows a Christian takes played a significant role in Erasmian spiritual-
ity as a life lived out in love and service within the communion of the
saints. O’Malley writes, “The Enchiridion proposes a pietas that rests in
a general way on the doctrine of the baptismal vows, on incorporation
into the body of Christ.”31 Erasmus proposed such a pietas that does
26. CWE, vol. 66, Enchiridion, XXIII.

27. J. K. McConica, “Erasmus and the Grammar of Consent,” in Scrinium Eras-
mianum, 2:98.
28. CWE, vol. 66, Enchiridion, XXIII.
29. Peter Iver Kaufman, Augustinian Piety and Catholic Reform (Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1982), 121–125.
31. Ibid., XLII.
not simply rest with baptism into church unity alone, but finds its
fullest expression in the Imitatio Christi. He writes:
To die to sin, to die to carnal desires, to die to the world is an
arduous goal, and there are very few, even among monks, who
attain to it. Yet this is the common profession of all Christians.
You swore to this long ago at baptism. What vow could be more
holy or religious than that? We must either perish or advance
resolutely along this path to salvation, ‘be we kings or poorest
peasants.’ But if it is not granted to all to arrive at the perfect
imitation of the Head, all must none the less strive with all their
strength to reach it. He who has earnestly resolved to become a
Christian has already acquired a good share of Christianity. 32
The Christian soldier struggling to live a pious life, with the aid of
baptismal grace, needed, however, something more to subdue “the
old malady” remaining within.
Given Erasmus’s historical context and his theological commit-
ments, it is not surprising that he never tired of heralding the law,
with its moral obligations, as necessary for a life of pietas. In an effort
to move men onto the path of pious living and to keep them on the
path, Erasmus spent a great deal of time writing about the “sins of
the flesh,” such as fornication, adultery, lying, and avarice. The pious
person, informed as to the true nature of pietas through the Philosophia
Christi, conquers his or her lusts and sins, moving from one battle to
the next. Erasmus writes, “Can you not control your passions even for
a few months so that you may spend your whole life in peace, as God
your creator commands?”33 This transforming philosophy, which en-
compasses moralism, is essential for the spirit to subdue the brutish
and sinful flesh of the Christian and will necessarily flow from a life
of piety.
Erasmus’s focus upon horizontal piety caused him to make much
of the sins that had a visible impact upon the church. He tirelessly
corrected the wayward morals of both the laity and clergy who en-
gaged in such practices as gluttony, drunkenness, lasciviousness,
laziness, and self-indulgence.34 His correction of wayward morals by
the law became a fundamental aspect for developing and maintain-
32. Ibid., 58.

33. Ibid., 47.
34. Ibid., XVIII.
ing Christian piety. The faithful Christian soldier was commanded

to live within the moral boundaries systematically established by the
church. Erasmus viewed a moral life as a life of purity and piety and
devised a corrective for the wayward Catholic pattern. He reflects,
“In the Enchiridion I laid down quite simply the pattern of a Christian
life.”35 This pattern for Erasmus took shape in his moralistic teaching,
which adorns nearly every page of the Enchiridion. His exaggerated
emphasis upon the necessity of morality in guiding the faithful in the
way of piety could lead one to reduce Erasmus’s teaching to simply
legalism. This conclusion is not valid if one takes into consideration
the purpose for Erasmian law-keeping as foundational for the church
to function as God intended.36
Erasmus’s trichotomist anthropology may explain his heav-
ily moralistic teaching. It would appear that Erasmus’s ontology
was substantially influenced by Platonic and Neo-Platonic tenets.
Many scholars have noted a fundamental prevalence of platonic ideas
in Erasmus that go beyond a shared intellectual method to that of
metaphysics.37 The Enchiridion is replete with rhetorical nuance that
embody some platonic and neo-platonic themes. The metaphysical
complexity of humanity becomes the focal point for the Christian
battle that takes place within the fallen world. Just as the many temp-
tations that confront humanity present themselves in both spiritual
and physical forms, so, too, the Christian soldier, as a microcosm of
the world in which he or she lives, battles for piety in both a spiritual
and physical dimension. Erasmus illustrates:
Therefore the spirit makes us gods, the flesh makes us brute ani-
mals. The soul constitutes us as human beings; the spirit makes
us religious, the flesh irreligious, the soul neither the one nor
the other. The spirit seeks heavenly things, the flesh seeks plea-
sure, the soul what is necessary. The spirit elevates us to heaven,
the flesh drags us down to hell, the soul has no charge imputed
to it. Whatever is carnal is base, whatever is spiritual is perfect,
whatever belongs to the soul as life-giving element is in between
and indifferent. 38
35. Ep 337:94–95 in his letter to Dorp in defense of the Moria.

36. Brendan Bradshaw, “The Christian Humanism of Erasmus,” Journal of
Theological Studies 33 (1982): 446.
37. Bradshaw, 441.
The Christian’s soul is caught in the middle of a heated battle be-

tween the flesh and the spirit. In order to live the victorious Christian
life, a life of virtue and piety acceptable to God, the Christian must
fight against the flesh.39 Thus, the moralistic imperative must main-
tain a central place in the Christian life to spur on the Christian in the
conquering of lust from one battle to the next. For Erasmus, living
in the spirit does not simply mean warring against sinful urges but
conquering the vice of flesh. He grants the law as necessary for pietas
insofar as the law motivates the Christian to pious living.
Finally, a life lived in harmony with the law will appease God.
Erasmus maintains that the nature of a truly pious life is found within
a soul that has been transformed by the Philosophia Christi and then
seeks to imitate Christ using the law as guide. Such a person tran-
scends the flesh, as is evident in his or her horizontal piety through
spiritual sacrifices done in love and service to neighbor, and is pleas-
ing to God. While humanity witnesses the external fruit of such
piety, Erasmus asseverates, “God is appeased only by invisible piety,”
because, “God is spirit, and he is moved by spiritual sacrifices.”40
Calvin and Pietas

Calvin’s cardinal commitment to sola scriptura, which he uniquely
nuances as having both objective and subjective elements, has been
widely acknowledged by scholars.41 It is the Scripture that informs
Calvin’s concept of piety, because the Scripture provides a person
with true knowledge of God and self. Calvin asserts that no one can
truly love and serve God who has not been educated in His school of
the Scripture.42 This knowledge is necessary for true piety.43 Calvin’s
writings on the subject of piety are framed by the three uses of the law
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., 81.
41. For a study that emphasizes this, see Randall C. Zachman, “John Calvin,”
in Christian Theologies of Scripture, ed. Justin S. Holcomb (New York: New York Uni-
versity Press, 2006), 114 –133.
42. John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Wilhelm Baum,
Edward Cunitz, and Edward Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 29–87 (Brunswick:
C. A. Schwetschke and Son, 1863–1900), 32:249. In all footnotes below this one
references to Corpus Reformatorum, Calvini Opera, volume and page will be indicated
like this: CO, 32:249. Commentary on the Psalms (on Ps. 119:78f.), in CO 32:249.
43. Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Spirituality (Darlington: Evangelical Press,
2006), 1.
and supported by the loving God he beheld in the covenant of grace.

The third use of the Decalogue, however, maintains the prominent
position within the Christian life in order to instruct the faithful in
godly or pietistic living before a sovereign God. Found within his
rhetoric of pietas, Calvin’s axiomatic doctrine is the believer’s mysti-
cal union with Christ. His expression of this doctrine manifests the
Reformer’s fundamental theological commitment to a vertical piety.
Calvin’s apologia for the life of piety rests on the sovereign God of
Scripture who unites the spiritually dead person to Christ. Because
of that union, the Christian has both the power and the obligation to
live his or her life with zeal to illustrate the glory of God in thought,
word, and deed and, as such, is manifest by a life of vertical piety. The
nature of this vertical piety is marked by honor resulting in obedience
rendered to God as Father and reverential fear which results in service
rendered to God who is Lord.44
After Geneva became a Reformed city, the Italian Cardinal, Sa-
dolet, wrote to the City Council of Geneva in an attempt to bring
them back under papal influence. He began his letter with a lengthy
section on the costliness of eternal life before presenting his dispu-
tation against the Reformation. In the fall of 1539, Calvin wrote a
masterful response to Sadolet, which took just six days to pen. Luther
read the letter and exclaimed, “Here is a writing which has hands
and feet. I rejoice that God raises up such men.”45 This, being one of
Calvin’s earliest letters, exposes the heart of the young theologian.
The foundational and central issue for Calvin, which shaped his life,
both public and private, was the supremacy and majesty of the glory
of God.46 Calvin writes:
[Your] zeal for heavenly life [is] a zeal which keeps a man entirely
devoted to himself, and does not, even by one expression, arouse
him to sanctify the name of God.... It is not very sound theology
to confine a man’s thought so much to himself, and not to set
before him, as the prime motive of his existence, zeal to illustrate
the glory of God.... I am persuaded that there is no man imbued
with true piety who will not consider as insipid that long and
44. Battles, The Piety of John Calvin, 14.

45. Henry F. Henderson, Calvin in His Letters (London: J.M. Dent & Co.,
1909), 68.
46. Inst., 3.2.26.
labored exhortation to zeal for heavenly life, a zeal which keeps

a man entirely devoted to himself and does not, even by one
expression, arouse him to sanctify the name of God.47
The ethos of Calvin’s response was demonstrated throughout much
of his writings. The Reformer maintained a singular goal for piety as
soli Deo Gloria, with a singular motivation for piety as the sovereign
God he found in Scripture, which he asserted all of humanity lived
before as coram Deo.
Calvin’s Understanding of Scripture

as the Foundation of Pietas
In light of the Reformer’s nuanced approach to a vertical piety center-
ing upon God, the necessity of revelation naturally found expression
in Calvin’s writings. He maintained in his rhetoric of piety the abso-
lute necessity of God’s revelation. Without knowledge, specifically the
knowledge of God and of self, true piety cannot exist. According to
John T. McNeill, Calvin’s theology is “his piety described at length,”48
which is the very reason that Calvin wrote the Institutes. In the preface
of the Institutes, he addresses the King of France, Francis I, and states
that the purpose of writing the Institutes was “solely to transmit certain
rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion
might be shaped to true godliness (pietas).”49
Calvin intended for his Institutes of the Christian Religion to be used
in conjunction with his commentaries as a handbook for studying
Scripture. The Reformer put the greatest amount of effort in his line-
by-line expositional commentaries of Scripture because he believed
the recovery of Scripture to be fundamental in bringing about Chris-
tian piety that would result in reform. He desired to see the faithful
conformed in their thinking and behavior to the faith of the Scrip-
ture.50 In his view, without God’s special revelation to mankind, there
could be no conformity to true piety. Calvin maintained that the
47. John Calvin, John Calvin: Selections from His Writings, ed. John Dillenberger
(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1971), 89.
48. Cited in John Hesselink, “The Development and Purpose of Calvin’s In-
stitutes,” in Richard C. Gamble, ed., Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, vol. 4, Influences
upon Calvin and Discussion of the 1559 Institutes (New York: Garland, 1992), 215–216.
49. Inst. 1.9.
50. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching (Edinburgh: Westminster / John Knox
Press, 1992), 1.
Scripture delivered by God is the beginning of covenant conscious-

ness for the people of God, and the first step of faith. The fruit of
such Scripture-informed faith becomes apparent in the knowledge
that God is Father.51 This knowledge of God as Father was central to
his rhetoric of piety in which he re-cast the view of God by emphasiz-
ing familial language. This revelation, according to Calvin, can only
take place when true knowledge, the Scripture, is met with a heart
changed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Some scholars hold that Calvin was overly influenced by his doc-
trine of God.52 The Reformer, however, maintained that men do not
live out their created purpose until they are so changed by the power
of the Holy Spirit, who instructs the heart in the truth of the Scrip-
ture so that the re-created man cries out:
Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die
for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all
our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly
strive toward him as our only lawful goal [Rom. 14:8; cf. 1 Cor.
6:19]. O, how much has that man profited who, having been
taught that he is not his own, has taken away dominion and rule
from his own reason that he may yield it to God!53
The Reformer held an all-pervasive view of God’s sovereign con-
trol and taught that because the covenanting God redeems, justifies,
adopts, and sanctifies His people, they are delivered from the domin-
ion of sin unto a life of piety in which the glory of the Lord may shine
through them. Calvin communicated in his writing and preaching the
way in which God instructs His people to glorify and serve Him. He
was convinced that for true piety to exist, it must be fed God’s Word
and that “piety would soon decay if the living preaching of doctrine
[Scripture] should cease.”54 The Spirit of God enables and advances
the child of God in the way of piety. One of the tools used to spur on
51. Inst. 2.6.1–2.

52. See David Hunt, Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God (Bend: Loyal Publish-
ing, 2004).
53. Inst. 3.7.1.
54. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a
Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). 230.
the elect in the pursuit of godliness is the law, which becomes the rule
of life for the Christian.55
Calvin’s call to Pietas through Covenant,

Unity (Christological), and Law
Throughout redemptive history, God’s people have asked the ques-
tion, “How do we glorify God?” The answer to this question has
taken on many different shapes as the church has waxed and waned
from one generation to the next, from the Old dispensation to the
New. Calvin’s answer to this question was shaped as much by his
understanding of God’s covenant as by any other doctrine. The cov-
enantal framework insists upon the continuity of the Old and New
Testament; because God deals with His people by way of covenant,
which comes through God’s Word, Calvin held the Word as central to
the instruction of God’s people. He writes:
Because the Word of God is called our spiritual sword we ought
to be armed with it. For in this world the devil never stops
fighting against us, to seduce us and lure us into his falsehood.
Now, to exhort us the better to do this, St Paul here says, first,
that God’s Word deserves such reverence that each person shall
range himself beneath it and listen to it peaceably and without
contradicting. Next, he adds the profit we receive from it—and
this also should move us to receive it with all reverence and obe-
dience. Now, he is speaking principally of Holy Scripture.56
Fundamental for Calvin was the Scripture studied and understood
through this covenantal framework, which enabled him and other
Reformers to see what they believed to be the greater mosaic of God’s
redemptive plan.57 This hermeneutic, guided and influenced by a cov-
enantal view of Scripture, informed Calvin’s understanding of the
place of God’s special revelation, both law and gospel, in the life of the
Christian. Calvin writes:
God has prescribed for us a way in which he will be glorified by
us, namely, piety, which consists in the obedience of his Word.
55. Beveridge, Selected Works of John Calvin, 56 & 69.

56. CO 54:283.
57. Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,”
in ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter
Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980), 241–242.
He that exceeds these bounds does not go about to honor God,

but rather to dishonor him.58
The desire for Scripture, the willingness to place oneself under its
authority, the mortifying of sin in the flesh, and a longing for loving
obedience cannot take place unless a person is brought into union
with Christ. A person united to Christ by faith, living a life of piety, is
under the authority and guidance of Scripture; however, a person who
rejects Scripture draws a strong rebuke from Calvin. He asserts:
Creatures undertake war against God if they will not accept
Holy Scripture. Why? “It is not of man’s fabricating;” says St
Paul, “there is nothing earthly here.” …Holy Scripture is profit-
able. For when it pleased God to teach us by its means this was
for our good and salvation. But Holy Scripture will not be prof-
itable if we are not convinced that God is its author.59
The full flower of Calvin’s covenantal thought is evident in his
doctrine of union with Christ. God has not simply bound Himself to
His people physically by way of covenantal signs but also spiritually,
making effectual all of His great promises. Just as God came down
to meet the people at Mt. Sinai to give them the law, He also comes
down and meets with the elect through the Holy Spirit to write His
law on their hearts. David Willis-Watkins explains:
Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is one of the most con-
sistently influential features of his theology and ethics, if not the
single most important teaching that animates the whole of his
thought and his personal life.60
According to the Reformer, the person enabled to confess in unison
with Calvin, “Cor meum tibi offere domine prompte et sincere,”(“Unto you,
Lord, I offer my heart, promptly and sincerely”) is one who has been
brought into union with Christ and has the law of God written upon
his heart. Calvin was convinced that what had been written on the
stone tablets on Mt. Sinai became one and the same with what is
written on the hearts of believers. With such a view, the law took a
58. Inst. CO 49:51.

59. CO 54:284 –285.
60. D. Willis-Watkins, “The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According
to Calvin,” in Willem van ’t Spijker, ed., Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festshrift für Wilhelm
Heinrich Neuser zum 65. Geburtstag (Kampen: Kok, 1991), 78.
substantial place in shaping his piety, which prompted many of his

contemporaries as well as modern scholars to charge Calvin with a
legalistic tyranny enforced by the Genevan City Council.61
Calvin understood the Decalogue to operate similarly to preach-
ing and the sacraments. The Decalogue is a summation of the entire
moral law of Scripture and represents humanity’s duties to both God
and man. Calvin discusses the two tables of the Decalogue:
Accordingly, in the First Table, God instructs us in piety and the
proper duties of religion, by which we are to worship his majesty.
The Second Table prescribes how in accordance with the fear of
his name we ought to conduct ourselves in human society.62
B. W. Farley, in his introduction to Calvin’s sermons on the Ten
Commandments, notes how Calvin develops in the Institutes five
themes from the moral law that he expounds in his sermons on Deu-
teronomy. First, the moral law cannot be separated from the natural
law that God has written upon the hearts of every human being. Sec-
ondly, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law, and, as such, Christ
is the telos of the law. Thirdly, the moral law is two-edged, enclosing
blessing and cursing, promise and hopelessness. The law’s demand
is more than any person can fulfill if that person seeks to be justified
through law-keeping. Fourthly, because of Christ Jesus, the law has
been rendered impotent as the letter that kills because, for the Chris-
tian, the law has become a spiritual blessing, freeing one to love and
serve the Lord. Finally, the law functions in three distinct ways. It
reveals the holy character of God and His rejection of sin; it restrains
evil within the world as it is wielded by the civil government; and it
teaches and encourages believers how to live in a manner that is pleas-
ing to God.63 Farley writes:
In the sermons, it is this third function [or third use of the Law]
that dominates.... It is the third use that empowers the series.
From beginning to end, Calvin’s primary purpose is to dem-
onstrate how God’s will for everyday life is revealed in the Ten
Commandments; and not only revealed, but published to exhort
61. See Milan Zafirovski, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism,
Puritanism, Democracy, and Society (New York: Springer, 2007).
62. Inst. 2.8.2.
63. Farley, John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments, 24–25.
and strengthen man’s witness and confirm his life in obedience

to God. In this respect, the third use of the law constitutes the
critical foundation for all sixteen sermons.64
As an aspect of this third use, Calvin emphasized the necessity of
delivering to the people the full counsel of God in order that godly
correction might take place as a necessary part of pietas. The Reformer
employs familial language in discussing how the law is used by the
Father to move the Christian in the way of piety.65 Calvin sought to
correct those who charged him with legalism by insisting that the
law applied apart from Christ Jesus and the covenant of grace will
completely fail. He maintained that the law was not given to lead
people away from the Christ; rather, it was given to prepare the way
for Messiah’s coming.66 Calvin’s message for the Christian concern-
ing the law is it exists chiefly to direct the elect in the service and love
of the Lord.67
Anthropology, Soteriology and Pietas

Does humanity initiate and participate in its own forgiveness and sal-
vation, or does God initiate and complete salvation in the helpless
person so all glory is necessarily attributed to God only? After Luther
posted his 95 Theses in Wittenberg and the tide of reformation began
to billow over Europe, Erasmus defended the Roman Church’s doc-
trine of man and his use of the will in his Diatribe entitled Discussion
on the Freedom of the Will. Erasmus, the refined humanist, wrote his
Diatribe in elegant and graceful Latin prose. This work often finds a
prominent place in the argument that Erasmus’s value to the church
was not as a theologian. In reading Erasmus on the nature of hu-
manity, a sharp point of departure takes shape when comparing his
understanding of anthropology and soteriology with that of Calvin.
The church called Erasmus to write a defense not only because of
his fame and skill but also because of his apparent commitment to the
fundamentals of the church’s teaching, such as the church as the great
dispenser or wellspring of the sacraments that alone could provide the
64. Ibid., 25.

65. CO 54:290.
66. Inst. 2.7.2.
67. Joel Beeke, “Calvin on Piety,” in Donald K. McKim, ed., The Cambridge
Companion To John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 133.
necessary baptismal cleansing for original sin. To Erasmus, the church

was also the source for the equally necessary allegorical interpretation
of Scripture to uncover the “philosophy of Christ.” Hoffman writes,
“A composite picture of Erasmus’s statements on faith indeed bears
out that his allegorical interpretation coordinates faith with Christ
and the church.”68 Erasmus held all of these actors as axiomatic along
with the Christian’s acquiescence to them as necessary to bring about
a faith which leads to the daily struggle for piety. On the basis of
Christ’s suffering for sin and righteous law-keeping, the church invites
all people through the proclamation of the “Philosophy of Christ” to
exercise faith and return to their original image of God.69 By faith and
baptism,70 Christians are united to Christ’s body, the church. Eras-
mus described this process as metamorphosis, or a transformation and
transmutation.71 The result of such a metamorphosis is a restoration
of the Adamic state of innocence. This, for Erasmus, brings forth light
from darkness, order out of perversion, and, most importantly, the
freedom from guilt or evil enjoyed before the fall.72 Hoffman writes,
“Although this total change [in Christ’s body] is brought about by
God’s love and grace alone, it nevertheless involves human action.”73
With such apparent theological commitments that move away from
understanding humanity as incapable of meriting salvation, Luther
and others charged Erasmus and the church with holding a form of
semi-Pelagianism, giving humanity power within to do meritorious
works. They made the accusation that such theological commitments
lead Christians away from rightly worshiping God and understand-
ing His grace and salvation. O’Malley writes:
Christ is, then, first and foremost a teacher, ‘who has been sent
forth from heaven,’ as the Paraclesis informs us. In many pas-
sages Erasmus leaves us with the impression, in fact, that it was
by his teaching that Christ principally effected our salvation: ‘in
order to transmit [the celestial philosophy], he who was God
became man.’ He boldly states in the Paraclesis that the philos-
68. Hoffmann, 247.

69. ASD V–2, 150, 680; 209, 514; 212, 615; ASD V–3, 146, 974.
70. ASD V–2, 174, 323; 198, 142; 247, 740; 260, 180; 300, 451; V–3, 101, 231;
288, 38; 351, 577.
71. ASD V–2, 254, 979, 985; ASD V–3, 733; 234, 389.
72. ASD V–2, 174, 327; 198, 155; 260, 160; 349, 665, 666; ASD V–3, 384, 500.
73. Hoffmann, 248.
ophy itself is ‘the restoration of human nature originally well

formed.’ We miss in passages like these the Anselmian theory
of atonement…there is a decidedly sapiential cast to Erasmus’
Christology, which surely reflects his own conviction that
teaching, by word and example, is the basic function for good
that all leaders in society perform—parents, priests, and kings.
‘The imitation of Christ’ lies pre-eminently in teaching—Eras-
mus’ own vocation, as we must not forget.74
It would appear that Erasmian faith, working with God, “unites” the
Christian to Christ via the church, subsequently enabling him to
make great use of the sacraments, the warnings of the law, as well as
the all-important sapiential “Philosophy of Christ” in order to pro-
duce the struggle for a life of piety lived day-to-day. Erasmus, the
herald of Philosophia Christi, set down the pattern for the Christian
life of pietas in his Enchiridion. For many, this pattern has done the
opposite. Huizinga writes, “On the contrary, Loyola has testified that
the reading of the Enchiridion militis Christiani relaxed his fervour and
made his devotion grow cold.”75
In juxtaposition, Calvin held an Augustinian view of humanity,
and, as such, he placed the sine quo non for piety in the sovereign grace
of God.76 For Calvin, fallen humanity is incapable of reaching out to
God or living lives of piety. He defined original sin as “hereditary de-
pravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all the parts of
the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the divine wrath and producing
in us those works which the Scriptures call the works of the flesh.”77
Calvin could not agree with Erasmus, or the church then, concern-
ing condign and congruent merit because of his Augustinian view
that humanity is not spiritually ill, with wills inclined towards evil,
but that humanity is spiritually dead and incapable of doing good in
the sight of God. Calvin writes, “The will, therefore, is so bound by
the slavery of sin, that it cannot excite itself, much less devote itself to
anything good.”78
The implications of such a view ripple throughout Calvin’s
74. CWE, vol. 66, Spiritualia, xxii.

75. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation (New York: Phoenix
Press, 1924), 189.
76. CO 26:225; 29:5; 51:147.
77. Inst. 2.7.1.
78. Inst. 2.3.2.
theology and, necessarily, his soteriology. Often referred to as the

“theologian of the Holy Spirit,” Calvin placed God alone as the one
who pours out the Holy Spirit into the life of a spiritually dead and
helpless person.79 The Reformer maintained that only this gift of the
Holy Spirit uniting the sinner to Christ is responsible for rendering
the sinner capable of receiving the Scripture.80 Furthermore, Calvin
maintained, God alone gives the gift of the Scripture. Calvin held
that the Scripture read or faithfully exposited, without the need of
any special allegorical or tropological exegetical work produced by
the church, is God’s accommodating communication of His love and
benefits found in Christ.81 The perspicuity of this simple gospel mes-
sage, which was once the dead letter, is now living and irresistible
to the sinner, newly united to Christ. Upon hearing the Scripture,
the once dead sinner reaches out with “faith, if we call it a firm and
certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon
the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our
minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”82 The
object of Calvin’s faith, similar to Anselm, is the one and only person
he believed could save sinners. Calvin writes, “This is our absolution,
that the guilt which made us obnoxious to punishment, is transferred
to the person of the Son of God.”83
A sharp contrast may be drawn between Calvin’s writing of the
“dead letter”84 of Scripture for those devoid of the Holy Spirit and
Erasmus’s “pagan letter” of Scripture for all those devoid of the cor-
rect allegorical interpretation. Erasmian faith appears to be a daily
symbiotic process employing the efforts of Christ, the Christian, and
the church, while Calvin’s doctrine of faith appears to rest in God’s
sovereign uniting of the helpless sinner to Christ. In this, Calvin saw
79. See B.B. Warfield, Calvin as Theologian and Calvinism Today (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1909).
80. Inst. 3.2.2.
81. Ford Lewis Battles, “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capac-
ity,” in Donald K. McKim, ed., Readings in Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1984), 23.
82. Inst. 3.2.7.
83. Inst. 2.6.2.
84. Calvin, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. Christopher Fetherstone
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 103.
an unmerited gift of grace that takes care of the believer’s fundamen-

tal problems hindering him or her from a life of piety.85
Conclusion
Both Erasmus and Calvin have had a profound impact upon Chris-
tianity and Western civilization. Erasmus’s gift of the Greek New
Testament as well as his writings did much to alert people about
the church’s shortcomings, especially in the area of horizontal piety.
Calvin was able to build on Erasmus’s work to bring about a more
thorough reform, heavily influenced by the primacy of vertical piety.
At the heart of their theological commitments, their perspective views
of pietas differ significantly; however, they both held the fundamental
belief that theology would manifest itself in a life of piety.
85. Inst. 3.2.2.

PRJ 2-1 (2010): 166 –181
Thomas Watson:
The Necessity of Meditation
Jennifer c. Neimeyer
q
In modern times, a Christian’s reference to his morning’s “meditation”

would likely invoke for his hearers (both Christians and non-Chris-
tians alike!) images of Buddhist monks and transcendentalist “New
Agers” humming with closed eyes and folded legs. They might assume
he meant that he had spent time that morning completely emptying
his mind, separating it from the world, and then attaching it to “the
so-called Cosmic Mind.”
While Scripture mentions meditation in various places, it depicts
meditation in a manner vastly different from the above image. Accord-
ing to Psalm 1:2, the righteous man delights in God’s law, “and in his
law doth he meditate day and night.” This meditation is active (“day
and night”) and has content (“in his law”); it involves filling the mind,
not passively emptying it. Joshua 1:8 calls God’s people to this active
thinking: “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but
thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe
to do according to all that is written therein.” Here, Joshua expands
meditation from just thinking about the Word to include speaking it
as well (“shall not depart out of thy mouth”). In addition, he relates
the purpose of meditation, namely, obedience (“to do according to all
that is written therein”).
Despite the teaching of these and other biblical passages on medi-
tation, God’s people though the ages have regularly neglected and
forgotten the practice. Three and a half centuries ago, Puritan author
and pastor Thomas Watson recognized this lack, especially the dearth
. Joel R. Beeke, “The Puritan Practice of Meditation,” in Puritan Reformed

Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 74.
. Cf. Psalm 119:97.
Thomas Watson: The Necessity of Meditation 167
of written material on meditation. He wrote in the “Dedicatory” of

his manual on meditation, “There is little written (so farre as I know)
upon this subject. Most Discourses of this nature digresse into ejacu-
lations. I have with the help of God cut out my way thorough [sic] the
rock, not finding any path that others had gone in before me; so that I
have not offered that to you which cost me nothing....” Not only did
Thomas Watson think the practice an important one to revive, but
his writings even suggest that he saw meditation as the most impor-
tant aspect of private Christian devotion. Support for such a claim is
threefold. First and most significantly, Watson’s The Saints Delight, To
Which is Annexed a Treatise of Meditation openly affirms the importance
of meditation with broad, sweeping statements, and it gives medita-
tion a position of priority over other spiritual disciplines. Because this
work contains the most direct assertions of meditation’s superiority,
it will receive the greatest discussion in this essay. Second, the format
and content of Watson’s magnum opus, A Body of Divinity, exemplify
the primacy of meditation for the man who desires to know and love
Christ. Finally, particular statements in his other writings, along with
the general tenor and layout of his Godly Man’s Picture, support the
argument that Watson viewed meditation as most foundational to
personal piety.
Background on Thomas Watson

Thomas Watson was born in 1620, likely in Yorkshire. He attended
. Thomas Watson, The Saints Delight, To Which is Annexed a Treatise of Meditation

(London: Printed by T. R. & E. M. for Ralph Smith, 1657) [book on-line]; EEBO,
SBTS Library; accessed 21 September, 2008; available from http://71.16.238.140:2
349/search/ full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&ACTION= ByID&ID= V170676;
Internet, A4–A5.
. Although this is the full title of Watson’s work, I will regularly refer to it as
his “treatise” or “manual” on meditation throughout this essay.
. This information comes from four sources: William S. Barker, “A Body
of Divinity, by Thomas Watson (d. 1686),” in The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the
Puritan Classics, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2004), 200–202; Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet
the Puritans, With a Guide to Modern Reprints (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2006), 605–613; Hamilton Smith, ed., Gleanings from Thomas Watson: Extracts
from the Writings of Thomas Watson (London: Central Bible Truth Depot, 1915; re-
print, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), xi–xv; C. H. Spurgeon, “Brief Memoir
of Thomas Watson,” in A Body of Divinity, rev. ed. (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth,
1965; reprint, 2003), vii–xii.
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, graduating with his B.A. in 1639 and

his M.A. in 1642. During his time at Cambridge, he was known as a
diligent student, both focused and able. He aligned with the Presby-
terians, and from 1646 until 1662, he served St. Stephen’s as a lecturer
for the first ten years, and a rector for the final six. During that time,
he married the daughter of an Essex minister of Puritan persuasion.
She bore him seven children, of whom only three survived childhood.
He also became involved in politics, which landed him in some trou-
ble. The nature of his involvement was appealing to Cromwell not
to execute Charles I, a plea that Cromwell ignored. Two years later
(1651), Watson involved himself again by aiding a group that corre-
sponded with Charles II in an effort to restore him to the throne. As
a result, Cromwell locked Watson in the Tower for a year, after which
time he was reinstated to his pastorate at St. Stephen’s. His ministry at
St. Stephen’s, however, came to an abrupt halt in 1662, when the Act
of Uniformity required Watson to use the Book of Common Prayer in his
church, something he could not do in good conscience. Heartbroken,
he left St. Stephen’s and ministered privately until the Declaration of
Indulgence (1672) allowed him to obtain a license and preach from the
great hall of Crosby House. Stephen Charnock ministered alongside
him for eight years before passing away. A few years later, Watson’s
own health declined, and he moved to Barnston in Essex. Watson died
unexpectedly in 1686, while praying alone in his room.
Little else, beyond this basic timeline, is known of Watson’s life.
Although few of these facts directly support the thesis of this es-
say, they do give a general idea of what sort of man Watson was and
what was happening in his world. Most notable of what we know
of Watson’s life is that he was a man of singular devotion to Christ.
Many in London thought highly of him on account of his renowned
preaching, thorough knowledge of Scripture, personal piety, and
prayerfulness. Watson’s devotion to Christ flowed out in both his
preaching and—as we can appreciate even today—his writing. He
had a clear style of writing that was both deep in doctrine and rich
in application. His illustrations were especially notable, for they
. Spurgeon, “Brief Memoir of Thomas Watson,” viii.

. Smith, Gleanings from Thomas Watson, xii.
. Beeke, Meet the Puritans, 606.
animated theological truths for his readers. One of the few known
anecdotes of Watson’s life reflects the vitality of his spiritual life. Ed-
mund Calamy wrote about one Bishop Richardson who came to hear
Watson speak. Moved by Watson’s sermon—and especially his prayer
after the sermon—he followed Watson home in order to thank him
and request a copy of the prayer. Yet, when Bishop Richardson asked
for this copy, Watson told him that he could give him none, for, said
Watson, “I do not use to pen my prayers; it was no studied thing, but
uttered, pro re nata, as God enabled me, from the abundance of my
heart and affections.”10 This incident reveals that when Watson wrote
about affection and zeal for Christ, his words stemmed from the real-
ity existent in his own life. Furthermore, that he died while praying
privately illustrates his diligence and faithfulness in seeking Christ,
even to his final breath.
In 1657, Watson published his treatise on meditation, the full
title of which was The Saints Delight, To Which is Annexed a Treatise
of Meditation. It contained two major sections: the first discussed the
believer’s delight in the Word, and the second, the result such delight
produces—meditation. He saw a desperate need for such a manual in
his time: the only other work on the subject from his own age and in
his own language (as far as he knew11) was Reverend Bishop Hall’s Art
of Divine Meditation, first published in 1606. Bishop Hall (1574–1656),
like Watson, attended Emmanuel College in Cambridge, although he
was there more than a generation before Watson.12 Thus, it is not sur-
prising that—though Hall was not a Puritan in his ecclesiology—he
did align with them on many theological positions.13 Likewise, he
shared with the Puritans a great love of piety, something he acquired
during his time at Cambridge.14 In his treatise, Watson commended
Hall’s tract to his readers, that they might understand “the necessity,
excellency, and usefulnesse of this Christian duty.”15 Watson found it
to be quite helpful; yet, he objected, it was such a small tract within
such a voluminous work that it would be difficult to get it into the
. Ibid.
10. Spurgeon, “Brief Memoir of Thomas Watson,” viii.
11. Watson, The Saints Delight, B6.
12. Beeke, Meet the Puritans, 309–313.
13. Beeke, “Puritan Practice of Meditation,” 76.
14. Beeke, Meet the Puritans, 309.
hands of many people. Therefore, Watson sought to write a treatise

that would be easier to disseminate and could be useful to a broader
span of people.16
During the seventeenth century, at least two other Puritans wrote
their own manuals on meditation. One was John Ball, who wrote A
Treatise of Divine Meditation—decades before Watson wrote his—to
revive the practice Ball found to be the most neglected of all Chris-
tian duties. “Though the heads of many are swelled with notions,”
lamented Ball, “yet their hearts are very empty of grace and good
affections.”17 This work might have helped Watson “cut out [his] way
through the rock,”18 had only he had access to it. Yet, Ball wrote for
the benefit of close friends only, never actually publishing Treatise. It
was not until 1660, twenty years after Ball’s death (and a mere three
years after Watson published his own treatise, interestingly enough),
that Ball’s trusted friend Simeon Ashe, keeper of all his manuscripts,
finally published the manual.19
Another Puritan who composed a manual on meditation during
Watson’s time was Nathanael Ranew. He published Solitude Improved
by Divine Meditation: A Treatise proving the Duty, and demonstrating the
Necessity, Excellency, Usefulness, Natures, Kinds, and Requisites of Divine
Meditation about ten years after Ashe published Ball’s treatise.20 These
manuals, along with numerous sermons preached on meditation dur-
ing the same century21 reveal that the topic surfaced as one of great
importance in Watson’s day. Whether Watson’s treatise helped stim-
ulate this development, or whether the various teachings emerged
16. Ibid.
17. John Ball, A Treatise of Divine Meditation (London: Published by Simeon
Ashe, 1660) [book on-line]; EEBO, SBTS Library; accessed 9 November, 2008;
available from http://71.16.238.140:2349/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg
&ACTION=ByID&ID=V170506; Internet, A3.
18. See note 3 for his original quote.
19. Ibid.
20. Beeke, Meet the Puritans, 494–495.
21. Sermons from many other Puritan preachers remain. Among these are
Isaac Ambrose’s “Of the Nature and Kindes of Meditation” (1658), William Bridge’s
Christ and the Covenant, the Work and Way of Meditation (1667), Edmund Calamy’s The
Art of Divine Meditation (1680), William Fenner’s The Use and Benefit of Divine Medita-
tion in Two Sermon’s (1665), Thomas Manton’s Sermons on the XXIV Chapter of Genesis
(1693), and Thomas White’s A Method and Instructions for the Art of Divine Meditation
with Instances of Several Kindes of Solemn Meditation (1655).
simultaneously due to a common spiritual climate, is unclear. What is

evident is that Watson’s contribution to the corpus of writing on the
topic of meditation was significant.
Meditation Defined
Before showing that Watson thought meditation to be the most im-
portant aspect of personal piety and growth, we must first define the
term from Watson’s writings. Each of his works defines “meditation”
with slightly different words but the same general idea. The clearest
of these seems to be the definition in Heaven Taken by Storm: it is “an
holy exercise of the mind, whereby we bring the truths of God to
remembrance, and do seriously ponder upon them, and apply them
to our selves.”22 In other words, to meditate is (1) to remember God’s
truths, (2) to think deeply upon them, and (3) to apply them to one’s
life. In his treatise, Watson mentioned two aspects of the practice of
meditation.23 The first is that, in order to meditate, one must remove
himself from the world. He must separate himself physically before
he can separate himself mentally and spiritually. Second, he must
intensely and seriously gather his thoughts toward, and remember
truths about, God. This takes much time and great effort: “It is not a
few transient thoughts that are quickly gone, but a fixing and staying
the mind upon heavenly objects: This cannot be done without excit-
ing all the powers of our souls, and offering violence to our selves.”24
Meditation is hard work, but the end goal—that “the heart may be
raised up to heavenly affections”25 —is worth all the labor.
We must address one final matter before arguing our case; that is
to say, we must distinguish genuine meditation from its counterfeits.
22. Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken By Storm, or The Holy Violence a Christian is to
Put Forth in the Pursuit after Glory (London: Printed by R. W. for Thomas Parkhurst,
1669) [book on-line]; EEBO, SBTS Library; accessed 21 September, 2008; avail-
able from http://71.16.238.140:2349/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&
ACTION=ByID&ID=V106548; Internet, 42.
23. Thomas Watson, “A Christian on the Mount: or, A Treatise Concerning
Meditation,” in The Saints Delight, To Which is Annexed a Treatise of Meditation (Lon-
don: Printed by T.R. & E.M. for Ralph Smith, 1657) [book on-line]; EEBO, SBTS
Library; accessed 21 September, 2008; available from http:// 71.16.238.140:2349/
search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=V170676; Inter-
net, 61–65.
24. Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, 42.
25. Watson, “A Christian on the Mount,” 65.
Meditation without the following characteristics, maintained Watson,

is not true meditation. More specifically, in order for one’s separation
from the world and gathering of his thoughts to be most valuable for
his personal relationship with Christ, it must follow six rules.26 First,
meditation must be serious. It ought to reflect awe and reverence for
God, as well as honest, solemn studying of self. Second, meditation
must be single in focus. To think on multiple truths at once—no
matter how excellent the subjects—leaves the mind scattered and un-
focused. Third, meditation must be preceded by reading of Scripture.
Scripture is to be the driving force of all meditation, providing its
content and direction. Fourth, meditation must include examination.
Truths about God, humanity, sin, salvation, and final destiny should
never be considered apart from the consideration of how these apply
to one’s own heart and spiritual condition. Fifth, meditation must
include prayer; after all, the Spirit is the only one who can change
man’s heart. If a man does not fully depend upon the Lord while he
meditates, that man will never change in his affections, life, or con-
duct. Finally, meditation must lead to practice. Meditation is not just
about seeing where we lack or what we need to change; it must include
taking the necessary steps toward that change. Meditation without
practice only leads to further judgment of God.
Watson’s Treatise on Meditation Clearly States It

Now that the definition and requirements of meditation are clear, we
come to the first and strongest evidence for the argument at hand:
Watson’s treatise on meditation clearly states that meditation is the
most important aspect of Christian piety. It does this in two ways: (1)
it makes blanket statements about the importance of meditation, and
(2) it lists reasons why meditation is so valuable, including its priority
over other Christian duties. The strong statements about the value
of meditation begin with the key text Watson used in both major
sections of The Saints Delight, To Which is Annexed a Treatise of Medita-
tion,” Psalm 1:2. It reads, “But his delight is in the law of the Lord;
and in his law doth he meditate day and night.”27 The man who does
these things, namely delighting and meditating on God’s law (which
26. Ibid., 259–275.

27. Watson, The Saints Delight, 1, 57.
may be expanded to include all of God’s Word28) is called “blessed”

in verse one. From the second part of Psalm 1:2, Watson set forth
the key proposition, “A good Christian is a meditating one”29 as the
foundation on which he built the remainder of the discourse. Several
chapters later, he expounded on this idea of being a “good Christian”
when he wrote, “The necessity of meditation appears in this, because
without it we can never be good Christians; a Christian without med-
itation is like a soldier without arms or a workman without tools.”30 In
other words, meditation is the instrument that enables the Christian
to carry out his task. A soldier with no weapon is no soldier; he is
merely a civilian. In the same way, it is not enough for a workman to
know his trade; he must also have the necessary tools to carry out his
tasks in order to bear the name workman.31
What, then, is the task of the Christian, for which he needs the
instrument of meditation? Watson wrote, “The errand God sent us
into the world about is salvation, and that we may attain the end we
must use the means, viz. Holy Meditation.”32 Some might misconstrue
this statement as saying that doing an action, viz. meditating, saves a
man. Yet, such a rendering does not fit with the remainder of Watson’s
writings, which plainly teach that salvation is by grace alone. 33 In-
stead, the ensuing pages flesh out this idea, explaining that a man may
never “offer violence to himselfe”—that is, deny himself and mor-
tify his sin—if he never meditates on God and His Word.34 While a
man may intellectually know the truths of the gospel, his heart will
only become warm toward the gospel by examining it and assessing
his own heart alongside it—in meditation.35 This is not to say that
28. Thomas Watson, “The Saints Spiritual Delight,” in The Saints Delight, To
Which is Annexed a Treatise of Meditation (London: Printed by T.R. & E.M. for Ralph
Smith, 1657) [book on-line]; EEBO, SBTS Library; accessed 21 September, 2008;
available from http://71.16.238.140:2349/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&
ACTION=ByID&ID= V170676; Internet, 11.
30. Ibid., 194–195.
31. Beeke, “Puritan Practice of Meditation,” 78–79.
33. Watson, A Body of Divinity, 167–168.
34. Watson, “A Christian on the Mount,” 211. Cf. Beeke, “Puritan Practice of
Meditation,” 73.
35. Recall, also, that prayer must always accompany meditation (page 7). Cf.
Beeke, “Puritan Practice of Meditation,” 83.
meditation causes his salvation, but meditation must flow from true
salvation. Watson made this argument from Psalm 1:2. First, he stated
that the true believer delights himself in God’s Word; in fact, Watson
called this delight “the badge of a Christian.”36 Then, while “grace
breeds delight in God,” Watson continued, “delight breeds Medita-
tion.”37 In other words, delight will necessarily lead to meditation in
the believer: a lack of meditation betrays a lack of delight.38 If one
delights in the salvation God has given, he will accordingly desire “to
look into the mysteries of salvation,”39 meaning that he will meditate.
Joel Beeke supports this idea when he writes that spiritual growth is
expected of a believer (2 Pet. 3:18), and yet one cannot grow spiritu-
ally if he fails to “cultivate spiritual knowledge.”40
Further commendation of meditation in Watson’s treatise in-
cludes praising meditation as the most excellent of all tasks: “Other
duties have done excellently, but Thou excellest them all.”41 Meditation
is so excellent, he argued, because it breathes life into the believer’s
faith. It is a duty “wherein the life and power of godlinesse doth con-
sist,”42 a duty “wherein consist the essentials of Religion, and which
nourisheth the very life blood of it.”43 He also called it “the greatest
work in the world”44 and “the best way for a man to prosper in his es-
tate.”45 These superlatives praising meditation reflect the primacy that
Watson gave to the practice. Without meditation, one cannot “work
out his salvation with fear and trembling,” for the lack of it exposes a
heart that does not prize the gospel. Just as a husband who cherishes
his wife thinks about her often, recalling and praising her attributes,
so a man who loves and cherishes Christ spends his days thinking
about, recalling, and praising the attributes of his Lord.46
The second way in which Watson’s treatise on meditation clearly
states the importance of meditation is by listing and describing rea-
36. Watson, “The Saints Spiritual Delight,” 10.

38. Watson, “The Saints Spiritual Delight,” 26ff.
44. Ibid., 262.
45. Ibid., 258. He refers here to Joshua 1:8.
46. Watson, “The Saints Spiritual Delight,” 26ff.
sons why meditation is valuable, particularly its role in and priority

over other Christian duties. Beeke gives an analogy that helpfully in-
troduces this assertion:
Meditation was a daily duty that enhanced every other duty of
the Puritan’s Christian life. As oil lubricates an engine, so medi-
tation facilitates the diligent use of means of grace..., deepens the
marks of grace..., and strengthens one’s relationships to others.47
Beeke’s quotation reminds us that, while Watson set meditation
in a category above other Christian duties, he still thought those
other duties necessary. The primacy of meditation came in, however,
when all other Christian practices should necessarily be joined to
meditation. A closer examination of Watson’s treatise will assist us in
understanding this point.
First, utilizing Beeke’s categories, let us study how meditation
enhances the means of grace, according to Watson’s treatise. One of the
most important disciplines in the Christian life—and one that regu-
larly characterized Watson’s own life—is prayer. Watson called prayer
“the spiritual pulse,” and even the “breath,” of the soul: “There is no
living without prayer; a man cannot live unless he takes breath, no
more can the Soul unless it breathes out its desires to God.”48 While
he acknowledged the vitality of this spiritual discipline in the Chris-
tian life, Watson still thought that meditation was more important:
“Meditation fits for Prayer.... Meditation is like oyl to the lamp; the
lamp of prayer will soon go out unless meditation cherish and sup-
port it.”49 This is not to say that Watson thought meditation alone was
better than prayer; rather, he thought that meditation together with
prayer was better than prayer alone.50
Two other means of grace enhanced by meditation are reading
the Word and hearing it preached. Watson wrote, “There are many
truths ly, as it were, in the heart dead, which when we begin to Medi-
tate upon, they begin to have life and heat in them. Meditation of a
truth is like rubbing a man in a swoon, it fetcheth life. Tis meditation
makes a Christian.”51 Truths about God and His Word are excellent,

48. Watson, “The Saints Spiritual Delight,” 239.
49. Ibid., 239–240.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., 197.
but if one merely knows them intellectually, without ruminating on

them, he will never profit by them. In fact, they will only increase his
condemnation52 and bring upon him spiritual sickness:
There is a disease in children called the Rickets, when they have
great heads, but their lower parts are small, and thrive not. I
wish many of the Professors in London, have not the spiritual
Rickets, they have great heads, much knowledge, but yet they
thrive not in godliness, their heart is faint, their feet feeble, they
walk not vigorously in the waies of God, and the cause of this
disease is, the want of meditation.53
For this reason, Watson thought it “better [to] meditate on one
Sermon than hear five.”54 Thus, praying, reading Scripture, and hear-
ing sermons—while all vital means to grow in grace—depend upon
and are enhanced by meditation. These three means of grace are a
small sampling of the evidence Watson gave in his treatise supporting
the primacy of meditation over the other spiritual disciplines.55
Not only does meditation enhance the means of grace, but it
also augments the marks of grace. One example of this is how Wat-
son related meditation and humility. In his treatise, Thomas Watson
remarked, “Meditation fits for Humiliation.”56 The Scripture from
which he drew this was Psalm 8, where David contemplated God’s
creation, which led to the diminishing of his pride and the stirring of
“Self-abasing thoughts.”57 Essentially, Watson argued that one could
never fully sense his own unworthiness and lowliness before the
Lord if he never took time to think deeply about such things. Medita-
tion advances numerous other marks of grace, maintained Watson,
including turning from sin (repentance)58 and growing in holiness
(sanctification).59 Finally, meditation improves one’s relationships to
others. Most importantly, it helps a man love Christ more, Watson
believed, for to consider deeply Christ’s love for man and His ex-
52. Ibid., 70.

53. Ibid., 235.
54. Ibid., 234.
55. Among the other means of grace over which meditation is superior, con-
tended Watson, are study (ibid., 72) and memorization (ibid., 232).
56. Ibid., 242.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid., 243–248.
59. Ibid., 76.
ceedingly great sacrifice will produce greater love and appreciation in

the genuine believer. By way of illustration, Watson depicted a man
who walks on hot coals growing warmer because of the heat beneath
him.60 In sum, this evidence from Watson’s treatise, while far from
comprehensive, defends the contention that he saw meditation as the
most important facet of Christian piety.
Watson’s Body of Divinity Exemplifies It

The second evidence for the primacy of meditation in Watson’s writ-
ings is the format and content of Watson’s magnum opus, A Body of
Divinity. This book, composed of sermons based on the Westminster
Shorter Catechism, is the best known of his works.61 First, it should be
noted that the book directly mentions meditation in various places.
For example, Watson wrote in the section on the Scriptures, “Labor
that the Word may not only be a lamp to direct, but a fire to warm.”62
Here again is the idea that the Word should affect not only a Chris-
tian’s mind, but his heart as well. Later, when speaking on the eternity
of God, Watson wrote that believers should “think of eternity,” for
“thoughts of eternal torments are a good antidote against sin.”63 Al-
though he used the word “think” instead of “meditate,” it is clear that
meditation is what he had in mind. While these statements support
the argument, they are not the focus of this section. More striking
than the book’s direct references to meditation, the entire corpus of
A Body of Divinity represents the contemplation and digestion of spiri-
tual truth—meditation, as Watson defined it. The book, then, can
serve as an example for others to follow when they meditate. Beeke
even suggests that, while essentially a systematic theology, A Body
of Divinity could be used in one’s personal quiet time: “Unlike most
other systematic theologies, it weds knowledge and piety together,
and can be used effectively in daily devotions.”64
60. Ibid., 93.

61. Originally published in 1692 under the title A Body of Practical Divinity, it
exists today in three separate volumes: A Body of Divinity, The Ten Commandments,
and The Lord’s Prayer (Barker, “A Body of Divinity,” 203). The focus of this section
will be the first of these volumes.
62. Watson, A Body of Divinity, 35.
63. Ibid., 65.
64. Beeke, Meet the Puritans, 608. See also Barker, “A Body of Divinity,” 208–
209.
The first way in which A Body of Divinity serves as an example for

believers to follow in their own private meditation is that its format
conforms to that which Watson set forth in his treatise on meditation.
Recalling the six rules Watson set forth in meditation, we see that this
work closely follows all six.65 A Body of Divinity is very serious in the
work of ruminating on theological truths, unafraid to express even
the painful truths of death, hell, or condemnation (rule 1).66 It follows
the outline of the catechism, but each section begins with Scripture
(rule 2).67 Each portion of the work is narrow in its focus, carefully
examining individual points and implications before proceeding to
the next (rule 3). It constantly calls the reader to examine his own life
and compare it with what he is reading (rule 4).68 It exhorts the reader
to pray, and it even contains some of Watson’s own prayers (rule 5).69
It challenges the reader to take action in changing how he lives, to
respond to what he is reading (rule 6).70 That A Body of Divinity abides
by these rules is significant, because it allows that the book might be
considered a form of private meditation, at least in its format.
In addition to its format, the content of A Body of Divinity also
serves as an example of private Christian meditation. The bulk of
Watson’s treatise on meditation is a list and description of the subject
matter on which a believer is to meditate.71 Significantly, most of the
items on this list correlate with the content of A Body of Divinity.72 The
subjects on which believers are to meditate (the list from his treatise),
paired with their corresponding sections of A Body of Divinity, are as
65. Watson, “A Christian on the Mount,” 259–275.

66. Watson, A Body of Divinity, 132–153.
67. Ibid., 6, 7ff. Cf. Barker, “A Body of Divinity,” 205.
68. For example, when speaking on original sin, he writes, “Christian, thou
canst not believe the evil which is in thy heart, and which will break forth suddenly,
if God should leave thee” (Watson, A Body of Divinity, 145). Then, “Let us lay to
heart original sin, and be deeply humbled for it. It cleaves to us as a disease, it is an
active principle in us, stirring us up to evil” (ibid., 147).
69. “Lord, I am indigent; but wither shall I carry my empty vessel, but to a full
fountain?” (ibid., 165). Cf. “Go to Christ to teach you. ‘Lead me in thy truth, and
teach me.’ Ps. xxv 5” (ibid., 170).
70. “Let original sin make us walk with continual jealousy and watchfulness
over our hearts” (ibid., 148). Cf. Barker, “A Body of Divinity,” 209.
71. Watson, “A Christian on the Mount,” 72–156.
72. The exceptions are the more personal items of meditation, but these he ad-
dresses more thoroughly in The Godly Man’s Picture, which will be discussed in the
following section.
follows: God’s attributes (II), God’s promises (most sections), Christ’s

love (IV), sin (III), the creature’s vanity (not directly addressed), the
beauty of grace (V), your spiritual condition (III, V, and VI), how few
will be saved (not directly addressed), final apostatsy (III), death (VI),
the day of judgment (VI), hell (III), heaven (VI), eternity (VI), and
your experiences (not directly addressed). Consequently, in A Body
of Divinity, Thomas Watson examined the very material on which he
called believers to meditate, and he did so in a manner that looks
quite similar to meditation. It seems a fair conclusion to draw, then,
that the book—which he wrote as a means to ground and settle peo-
ple73 —could rightly serve as an example of meditation for believers
to follow.
Watson’s Other Works Support It

Many of Watson’s other works also support the idea that he thought
meditation to be the key to personal spiritual vitality. Within them lie
direct statements of the importance of meditation, and one book in
particular (The Godly Man’s Picture) depicts for believers the self-ex-
amination that rightly accompanies meditation. First, various writings
contain statements that place high importance on the practice. Heaven
Taken by Storm calls meditation “a duty wherein the very heart and
life-blood of Religion lies.”74 Like the treatise, it also exposes the
superiority of meditation over merely hearing the Word: “Hearing
begets knowledge, but meditation begets devotion.”75 Watson’s ser-
mon, “How We May Read the Scriptures with the Most Spiritual
Profit,” reiterates the necessity of meditating while reading the Word:
“Reading brings a truth into our head, meditation brings it into our
heart....”76 The two should never be separated, emphasized Watson,
for reading is like a bee sucking pollen from a flower, while meditat-
ing is like that bee then turning the pollen into honey. Meditation
requires content, to be sure, but the receiving of content should re-
main the means, not become the end in itself. In the same sermon,
Watson described the link between meditation and the heart, calling
73. Watson, A Body of Divinity, 5.

74. Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, 42.
75. Ibid., 43.
76. Thomas Watson, “How We May Read the Scriptures with the Most Spiri-
tual Profit,” in Puritan Sermons, 1659–1689, ed. Samuel Annesley (Wheaton, IL:
Richard Owen Roberts, 1981), 2:62.
meditation “the bellows of the affections.”77 “The reason we come

away so cold from reading the word,” he articulated, “is because we
do not warm ourselves at the fire of meditation.” These quotations,
while by no means the entirety of the evidence, help to show that
many of Watson’s writings directly argued for the priority of medita-
tion in Christian devotion.
The final piece of evidence is The Godly Man’s Picture, a book Wat-
son wrote to depict for readers the portrait of a man who will finally
be saved. If Watson actually thought meditation to be the most im-
portant spiritual discipline, surely he would characterize “the godly
man” by this discipline. This is, in fact, the case. He certainly directly
asserted that the godly man meditates: “A pious soul meditates on
the truth and holiness of the Word. He not only has a few transient
thoughts, but leaves his mind steeping in the Scripture.”78 Further-
more, when answering the question of what a Christian may do to
become godly, Watson listed eight rules, at least half of which speak
directly of meditation: (1) take heed of the world; (2) accustom your-
selves to holy thoughts; (3) watch your hearts; (4) think of your short
stay in the world.79
Yet, as was the case in our analysis of A Body of Divinity, it is not
the general statements with which we are most concerned in this
argument; rather, it is the broader picture painted in the book that
provides the weightiest evidence. Watson began the book with an ex-
hortation to his reader to study the character of the man described
therein and to make himself like that man: “Christian, aspire after
piety; it is a lawful ambition. Look at the saints’ characteristics here,
and never leave off till you have got them stamped upon your own
soul. This is the grand business that should swallow up your time and
thoughts.”80 Thus, Watson essentially asked his readers to meditate on
the character of the godly man, assess their own lives in comparison
with him, and then take the necessary steps to change and become
like that man. In other words, he placed meditation in the position
of priority, both while Christians read about and strive for godliness
77. Ibid.
78. Thomas Watson, The Godly Man’s Picture, Drawn with a Scripture Pencil, or,
Some Characteristic Marks of a Man who is Going to Heaven (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1992), 62.
79. Ibid., 206–207.
80. Ibid., 8.
(“look at the saints’ characteristics here”), and while they go about the
business of their days (“should swallow up your time and thoughts”).
In conclusion, evidence from a variety of Watson’s writings supports
the idea that he perceived meditation to be the most important spiri-
tual discipline. His writings do this both by making direct statements
about its significance and by exhorting Christians to practice it as they
seek to grow in godliness.
Conclusion
The above survey of the writings of Thomas Watson supports the
argument that he saw meditation upon the Word of God as the most
important aspect of private Christian devotion. His treatise on medi-
tation openly states this; A Body of Divinity exemplifies this; and his
other works support and affirm this. While we should regularly prac-
tice all the other Christian duties, we must always join these to the
rumination on God’s attributes, our sinfulness, and His amazing work
of salvation. Finally, if we believe, as Beeke points out, that medita-
tion will be the oil for our spiritual engines, we should heed Watson’s
advice: “If you have formerly neglected it, bewail your neglect, and
now begin to make conscience of it: Lock up your selves with God
(at least once a day) by holy meditation. Ascend this Hill, and when
you are gotten to the top of it, you shall see a fair prospect, Christ and
heaven before you.81
81. Watson, “A Christian on the Mount,” 205–206. Italics added.

PRJ 2-1 (2010): 182 –196
Was Samuel Rutherford A Mystic?

robert arnold
q
Friedrich von Hügel identified the three elements of religion as the

institutional, the speculative, and the mystical. Examples of institu-
tional and speculative religion abound in Scotland, but historically,
the classification of “mystic” has not been associated with Scottish
theologians. However, Samuel Rutherford’s (1600–1661) poetic de-
scriptions of Christ led Agnes Machar, in 1886, to publish an article
entitled “A Scottish Mystic.” She concluded that Rutherford was “one
of the most remarkable of truly [sic] spiritual mystics, whose burning
words have awakened many a sleeping soul to its glorious inheri-
tance in Christ Jesus.” This article was the first to apply the label of
“mystic” to Rutherford, but since then various authors have followed
suit. Adam Philip characterized Rutherford as a man “with mystical
longings.” Biographer Robert Gilmour depicted Rutherford as one
of Scotland’s “greatest scholastics and greatest mystics in one,” and,
. Friedrick von Hügel, The Mystical Element of Religion: as Studied in the St. Cath-
erin of Genao and Her Friends (London: J.M Dent and Sons, 1923), 1:50.
. Agnes Maule Machar, “A Scottish Mystic,” Andover Review 6, 34 (Oct 1886):
379–395.
. Adam Philip, The Devotional Literature of Scotland (London: James Clarke &
Co., 1920), 117. In the first quarter of the twentieth century, various Scottish and
British authors perpetuated Machar’s label and classified Rutherford as a mystic.
Additional references include Hector Macpherson, The Covenanters under Persecution:
a study of their religion and ethical thought (Edinburgh: W. F. Henderson, 1923), 67; and
William Henry Martyn B. Reid, The Holy Spirit and the Mystics (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1925), 197.
. Robert Gilmour, Samuel Rutherford: A Study Biographical and Somewhat Critical
(Edinburgh: Oliphant & Co., 1904), 23.
Was Samuel Rutherford a Mystic? 183
as recently as 2005, Alison Searle classified Rutherford as a “Scottish

Covenanter and mystic.”
These descriptions prompt the question, “Was Rutherford a mys-
tic?” This investigation will focus first on Rutherford’s Letters. While
in Aberdeen, the High Commission forced Rutherford to assume a
solitary, somewhat ascetic lifestyle, and his letters were his only con-
tact with the outside world for months at a time. Significantly, this
ascetic lifestyle was not a personal choice, but political events thrust
it upon him. He spent only two years in isolation, but wrote a major-
ity of his correspondence during this time. Consequently, the letters
from Aberdeen may not accurately represent the entire man; they
were indicative of only a brief period in his life. To compensate, this
investigation will also examine Rutherford’s other works, many of
which were written post-exile. In particular, this study will examine
treatises that either described Rutherford’s view of the Christian life,
or expressed antagonism toward sects that held to mystical theology.
If Rutherford was a mystic, he was a Christian mystic and reflected
Protestant, Calvinistic theology. He affirmed Chalcedonian Trini-
tarianism and acknowledged the divinity and humanity of Christ.
Moreover, he anathematized heterodox sects and foreign religions
. Alison Searle, “The Biblical and Imaginative Interiority of Samuel Ruther-

ford,” The Dalhousie Review 85, 2 (Summer 2005): 308.
. One treatise that addressed heterodoxy was: A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist,
opening the Secrets of the Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichristian Doctrine of John
Saltmarsh, and Will. Del., the present preachers of the Army now in England, and of Robert
Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, Eaton, and others. In which is revealed the rise and spring of
Antinomians, Familists, Libertines, Swenckfeldians, Enthysiasts. The minde of Luther a most
professed opposer of Antinomians, is cleared, and diverse considerable points of the Law and the
Gospel, of the Spirit and the Letter, of the two Covenants, of the nature of free grace, exercise
under temptationes, mortification, justification, sanctification are discovered. In Two Parts. Any
future references to this work will be abbreviated as: Samuel Rutherford, A Survey
of the Spiritual Antichrist (London: J.D & R.I. for Andrew Crooke, 1648), [facsimile
copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com; In-
ternet.
. He acknowledged the Trinity when he wrote, “Ye are now yourself alone,
but ye may have, for the seeking, three always in your company, the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. I trust they are near you.” Samuel Rutherford, “Letter XI,” in Letters of
Samuel Rutherford, ed. Andrew Bonar (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1664, repr.
2006), 52. In addition, he acknowledged the incarnation, “Oh, if men would draw
the curtains, and look into the inner side of the ark, and behold how the fullness of
the Godhead, dwelleth in Him bodily.” Rutherford, “Letter LXXXVII,” 185.
as idolatrous. Therefore, this investigation will remain within the

bounds of Christianity, despite the fact that many religions have mys-
tics. By determining whether Rutherford was a mystic, we will gain
insight into a man who was instrumental in the emerging Presby-
terian Church and who left an enduring ecclesiastical, political, and
theological legacy throughout the English-speaking world.
A Definition of Mysticism
The terms mysticism and mystic have proven notoriously difficult to
define. Evelyn Underhill attempted to define mysticism as “the art
of union with Reality. The mystic is a person who has attained that
union in greater or less degree; or who aims at and believes in such
attainment.” Underhill’s definition emphasized “union” but notice-
ably omitted a reference to the divine, instead substituting the word
“reality.” Conversely, Bernard McGinn included a reference to the
divine while, at the same time, providing a much richer perspective
by separating mysticism into three headings.
Rather than trying to define mysticism (any simple definition of
such a complex and controversial phenomenon seems utopian),
I prefer to give a sense of how I understand the term by discuss-
ing it under three headings: mysticism as a part or element of
religion; mysticism as a process or way of life; and mysticism as
an attempt to express a direct consciousness of the presence of
God.
McGinn recognized a horizontal dimension “as a part or element
of religion,” a personal dimension “as a process or way of life,” and a
vertical dimension “as an attempt to express direct consciousness of
the presence of God.” Further, he explained that many definitions
stressed “some form of union with God, particularly a union of ab-
sorption of identity in which the individual personality is lost.” He
argued that these definitions were too narrow, omitting too many
mystics, and instead suggested that the term “presence” was a “more
. Evelyn Underhill, Practical Mysticism (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1948), 8.
. Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysti-
cism, vol. 1, The Foundations of Mysticism (New York: Crossroads Publishing, 1991),
xv–xvi.
central and a more useful category for grasping the unifying note in
the varieties of Christian mysticism.”10
A third author, Geraldine Hodgson, wrote about mysticism on
the British Isles and concluded that a main characteristic was the
“love” between the devotee and God. “However voluminous the elu-
cidations, or elaborate the illustrations, must it not all come at last to
some such simple phrase as direct communication, in an atmosphere
of love, between the human spirit and its divine Source?”11 Mystics
often employed the language of the Song of Songs, which was a sen-
sual language based upon the marriage metaphor, to express this love.
Thus, Hodgson highlighted the emotional passion behind mysticism,
a dimension not emphasized by the earlier definitions.
All three definitions emphasize different characteristics, but none
is comprehensive in scope. Consequently, we must realize that a brief
definition is necessary but inadequate because it will emphasize only
two or three of the manifold aspects of Christian mysticism. While
realizing the limitations, for the purpose of this investigation, mysti-
cism is a contemplative process or lifestyle that involves heightened
levels of spiritual experience through a perceived divine presence,
intense love, and spiritual insight.12 Likewise, mystics sought to ex-
perience the divine presence in order to understand mysteries that
were incomprehensible through the natural means of observation and
empirical reasoning.
Rutherford’s Works
Rutherford was painfully aware of life’s mysteries, but at the same
time he had a burning desire to know God intimately. He used the
term “mystery” to describe aspects of the Christian life he could not
explain. Sometimes he used the term to describe a moral or spiri-
10. Ibid., xvi–xvii.

11. Geraldine E. Hodgson, English Mysticism (London: Morehouse Publishing,
1922), 10.
12. This definition attempts to integrate elements from all three definitions,
but it too is susceptible to legitimate criticism. For example, Roman Catholics have
tended to stress contemplation and mystery; thus, one Catholic defined mystical
theology as “an incommunicable and inexpressible knowledge and love of God or
of religious truth received in the spirit without precedent effort or reasoning.” The
other three definitions only allude to divine mystery. M. D. Knowles, The Nature
of Mysticism, ed. Joannes M. T. Barton, Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism
(New York: Hawthorn Books, 1966), 13.
tual lesson learned during a difficult experience or ordeal.13 At other

times, he described the love of Christ as a “mystery.”14 Most often,
however, Rutherford used the phrase “mystical Christ” to refer to the
churches of Ireland, Scotland, and England.15 The church was “mysti-
cal” because the saints of God were united mystically to Christ and to
each other; while the saints suffered, they corporately yearned for the
day when this union would become an earthly reality.16
Nevertheless, a man who used terms like “mystery” and “mysti-
cal” was not automatically a mystic. It is necessary, for this reason, to
establish criteria as a standard to examine Rutherford’s works. Four
elements of mysticism will serve as these criteria: 1) a mystical pro-
cess with clearly delineated steps; 2) a mystical union with the divine
“presence”; 3) a mystical darkness and feelings of abandonment; and
4) a mystical insight or special revelation, which was usually accom-
panied by mystical ecstasy.17
13. “I behooved to come to Aberdeen to learn a new mystery in Christ, that His
promise is better to be believed than his looks, and that the devil can cause Christ’s
gloom to speak a lie to a weak man.” Rutherford, “Letter XCIX,” 206–207. He also
wrote, “It hath pleased his holy Majesty to take me from the pulpit, and teach me
many things, in my exile and prison, that were mysteries to me before.” Rutherford,
“Letter CLVII,” 288.
14. “His [Christ’s] love is a mystery to the world. I would not have believed that
there was so much in Christ as there is. ‘Come and see’ maketh Christ to be known
in his excellency and glory.” Rutherford, “Letter LXIX,” 148.
15. “And what if your mourning continue till mystical Christ (in Ireland and
Britain) and ye laugh both together.” Rutherford, “Letter CCXCII,” 587. Other ex-
amples are in Letters CCXIV and CCXV.
16. “The saints are little pieces of mystical Christ, sick of love for union.” Sam-
uel Rutherford, The Trial and Triumph of Faith or An Exposition of the History of Christ’s
dispossessing of the daughter of the woman of Canaan. (London: Printed by John Fields,
1645), 6–7 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 23 March 2006; retrieved from http://
chadwyck.com; Internet. Future references will use the abbreviated title.
17. In addition to the motif of a “divine presence,” McGinn identified four ad-
ditional characteristics in a separate article that were central in the history of Chris-
tian mysticism: “the role of Jesus in his humanity; the place of the ‘dark night,’ or
the experience of the withdrawal of God; the relation of love and knowledge in the
mystical life; and the connection between action and contemplation.” This was used
to identify mystical criteria. Bernard McGinn, “English Mystics,” in Christian Spiri-
tuality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, ed. Jill Raitt (New York: The Crossroad
Company, 1988), 195.
The Mystical Process

The Mystical Process, or “Mystical Way,” is the first element of mys-
ticism that will serve as a criterion. The mystical process involved a
process or lifestyle with specific steps or stages, and the mystic strictly
adhered to the process. By doing so, he transcended the earthly plane
to draw near to the divine. Neo-platonic dualism, especially received
through the Greek philosopher Plotinus, was a formative influence;
Plotinus drew sharp distinctions between the physical and spiritual
realms.18 Supposedly, mystics bridged the gap through contempla-
tion and self-abnegation. The number of steps or stages varied,19 but
at a minimum, “the Mystic Way — the ladder of perfection or scale
perfectionis — has been divided into three stages: the purgative life, the
illuminative life, and the unitive or contemplative life.”20 Purgation
involved separation from sin and worldly impediments. Illumina-
tion involved a heightened form of knowledge or insight inaccessible
through empirical observation or human reason. Union with the Di-
vine is the final stage where “Thou castest thyself in an infinite sea of
goodness, that more easily drowns and happily swallows thee up than
the ocean does a drop of water.”21
In contrast to mystics, Rutherford embraced the Protestant doc-
trine of sanctification, a process whereby all Christians develop or
mature in Christ. Rutherford rejected the Roman Catholic notion
that sanctification was contingent upon works such as the sacraments,
sexual renunciation, an ascetic lifestyle, or legalism. Sanctification
was a work of the Spirit and the instrument of the Spirit was the
Word of God. In his catechism, Rutherford defined sanctification
as “the work of God’s Spirit by the Word, putting in us the life of
18. Geraldine E. Hodgson, English Mysticism (London: Morehouse Publishing,

1922), 55.
19. For example, the mystic John of Ruysbroeck, born in 1291, just south of
Brussels, had seven steps. Jan Van Ruysbroeck, The Seven Steps of the Ladder of Spiri-
tual Love, trans. F. Sherwood Taylor (London: Dacre Press, 1944), v–viii.
20. Michael Cox, Mysticism, The Direct Experience of God (Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire: Aquiarian Press, 1983), 26. This is also explained in Geraldine
E. Hodgson, English Mysticism (London: Morehouse Publishing, 1922), 81. Also
discussed in the general reference material, Justo L. Gonzalez, Essential Theological
Terms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 118.
21. Robert Leighton, “Rules and Instructions for the Holy Life,” in The Life of
God in the Soul of Man, by Henry Scougal (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian
Focus, 1996), 154.
Christ and renewing all the power of our soul.”22 Through the Word,
the Spirit vivifies and divinely empowers the elect. The Holy Spirit,
however, also had another instrument at His disposal, the instrument
of human suffering. According to Rutherford, suffering was a tool
used by God to purify believers, but in contrast to mystical practices,
the Christian did not choose affliction voluntarily; instead, the Spirit
thrusts it upon him. Suffering brings spiritual growth. After an ex-
tended struggle with personal affliction, Rutherford was able to write
to Lady Kenmure that “[t]here is a nick in Christianity, to the which
whosoever cometh, they see and feel more than others can do.”23 He
repeated this claim often and believed that the sanctification process
would guide him to even more lofty heights.24
The Mystical Union

The mystical union is the second element that will serve as a crite-
rion.25 Defining union is almost as difficult as defining mysticism or
mystic. Mystical union was the final stage and ultimate goal of mysti-
cism. In a medieval English document, The Cloud of Unknowing, the
anonymous author attempted to describe this union with the Divine.
It is only by his mercy and without any merit of yours that you
are made a god in grace, united with him in spirit without any
division between you, both here and in the happiness of heaven
without end. So though you are one with him in grace, you are
yet far beneath him in nature.26
This was a description of the theological concept of theosis or dei-
fication. The mystical union was a state of existence where the mystic
22. Samuel Rutherford, “Ane Catechisme Containing the Soume of Christian

Religion,” in Catechisms of the Second Reformation, ed. A. F. Mitchell (London & Edin-
burgh: University of Edinburgh, 1886), 199.
23. Rutherford, “Letter LXX,” 151.
24. “He hath brought me to a nick and degree of communion with himself that
I knew not before.” Rutherford, “Letter CXIII,” page 230.
25. You may recall from an earlier quote that McGinn suggested that an em-
phasis on the “presence” of God was a more appropriate term than “union” with
God. He went on to explain: “When I speak of mysticism as involving an immediate
consciousness of the presence of God I am trying to highlight a central claim that
appears in almost all mystical texts.” McGinn, The Presence of God, xix.
26. Anon., The Cloud of Unknowing, ed. by James Walsh (New York: Paulist
Press, 1981), 250.
became god-like, perfectly united with the Divine, yet remaining dis-
tinct from the divine nature or essence. Despite mystical descriptions
like this one, McGinn warned that any definition that emphasized
“absorption of identity in which the individual personality is lost” is
too narrow.27 Evelyn Underhill, however, noted that often there was
an aspect of deification or divination involved, where the personality
of the mystic disappeared as he journeyed “beyond the reach of the
senses” and was enveloped by the Divine. She observed that “Teresa
of Avila went so far as to declare that she had achieved union with the
Divine Essence.”28
Rutherford anathematized any form of union that involved par-
ticipation in the divine essence (ousia). He attributed this heresy to
Henry Nicholas, the founder of the Family of Love, who claimed to
be “Godded” or “Christed.”29 Second Peter 1:4 promises Christians
that they were “partakers of the divine nature.” Rutherford was aware
that sects such as the Swenckfeldians and Familists misinterpreted
this passage, so he corrected their mistake. He wrote:
Now to be a partaker of the divine nature is to partake of the
graces and created goodnesses and anointing of the Spirit, oth-
erwise the essence and nature of God in us should be subject to
change.30
A primary tenet of Christianity was divine immutability. Ruther-
ford opposed the deification of Swenckfeldians and Familists because
they implied that the essence and nature of God was changeable.
Consequently, when he spoke of the believer’s union with Christ, he
27. “If we define mysticism in this sense, there are actually so few mystics
in the history of Christianity that one wonders why Christians used the qualifier
‘mystical’ so often (from the late second century on) and eventually created the term
‘mysticism’ (first in French, ‘la mystique’) in the seventeenth century.” McGinn,
The Presence of God, xvi.
28. Underhill, Practical Mysticism, 8.
29. Rutherford quoted Nicholas as saying, “God hath wrought a wonderful
work on the earth, and raised up me, Henry Nicholas, the least among the holy ones
of God, which lay altogether dead, and without breath and life among the dead, and
made me alive through Christ, as also anointed me with his godly being; manned
himself with me, and godded me with him to be a living tabernacle, or house, for his
dwelling, and a seat of his Christ, the seed of David.” Samuel Rutherford, A Survey
of the Spiritual Antichrist, 179 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005;
retrieved from http://chadwyck.com; Internet.
30. Ibid., 16.
never confused the personality or essence of Christ with the person-

ality or essence of the elect. No matter how intimate the communion,
Rutherford continuously stressed the eternal distinction. A barrier
between Christ the Creator and His creations exists for all eternity.31
Like the mystics, Rutherford used the metaphor of steps, but,
unlike the mystics, God took the steps through Christ on behalf of
humanity.
I know that God is casten (if I may speak so) in a sweet mould,
and lovely image, in the person of that heavenly jewel, the Man-
Christ, and that the steps of the steep ascent and stairs to the
Godhead is the flesh of Christ, the New and Living Way; there
is footing for faith in that curious Ark of the humanity, wherein
dwelleth the Godhead, married upon our humanity. 32
Rutherford mixed metaphors but he was referring to the incarna-
tion. Christ was the “ascent,” the “stairs,” the “new and living Way,”
and the “ark of humanity.” Believers do not ascend to God, but God
descended and dwelt among men through the incarnation of Christ.
Strickland rightly observed that
[w]e must note the distinction he [Rutherford] draws between
grace and the essence of divinity in order to avoid any concept
of union with God that might imply the absolute deification, or
conversely, annihilation of humanity. While stressing that our
participation in the divine nature is a real thing, he [Rutherford]
is clear that this does not mean that we are united ‘to Christ with
the same union that Christ’s humanity on earth was with His
Godhead.’33
In contrast to most mystics, Rutherford was confident that a union
with Christ was an automatic and present reality. Unification was at
the point of salvation through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Sanctifica-
tion was the process and glorification was the goal. Glorification was
31. “And now I see he must be God, and I must be flesh.” Rutherford, “Letter
LXXIII,” 156. “I pass from my (oh witless) summons: He is God, I see, and I am
man.” “Letter LXXXIX,” 189. “He is not such a Lord and Master as I took Him to
be; verily he is God, and I am dust and ashes.” “Letter XCIX,” 206.
32. Rutherford, “Letter CCCI,” 609.
33. David Strickland, “Union with Christ in the Theology of Samuel Ruther-
ford: An Examination of his Doctrine of the Holy Spirit” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1972), 60.
a heightened state of unification, but it, too, was a work of the Spirit.
Glorification was impossible as long as the believer was living in a
corrupt, fleshly body.
In his writings, Rutherford affirmed Christ’s presence or union
with the elect in at least three ways. First, the union had a physical di-
mension. When Christ took on human flesh through the incarnation,
the human race vicariously participated in a union of humanity and
divinity. Christ, in His earthly body, was subject to weaknesses of the
flesh and yet remained fully divine. He ascended into heaven after the
resurrection in His glorified human form. 34 He sits at the right hand
of God, as a man, mediating with the Father on humanity’s behalf. At
the same time, He dwells as God in men, mediating with humanity
on the Father’s behalf.
Second, the union had a legal or covenantal dimension. Christ
was the second Adam and appointed to the federal headship of God’s
elect, through which He assumed all the obligations of the covenant.35
Rutherford used many metaphors to explain this aspect of the divine
presence, but his most vivid metaphors were in nuptial terms. Christ
is the Husband and Bridegroom of the church; believers are His bride
both corporately and individually.36
Third, the union had a spiritual dimension. Believers are incor-
porated into the Body of Christ through the work of Christ. This
union, however, is more than just the vicarious substitution (where
God forensically forgave sin and imputed righteousness); it involves a
work of the Holy Spirit. 37 The Spirit consists of the same essence as
34. “We believe Christ died, and rose, and in our flesh is sitting at the right
hand of God, and withal, that in a spiritual manner he dwells in us by faith, clothing
a sinner in his whites of glory, and breathing, living, acting in him as in a Taber-
nacle, a redeemed and graced balance, which he will cast down, and raise up at the
last day, and more then over-gold with finest purest gold; this is Christ in us, the
hope of glory.” Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 227.
35. “Now God hath substituted in our room, and accepted His Son, the Media-
tor, for us and all that we can make.” Rutherford, “Letter LXXXV,” 180. “Think you
not, dear sister, but our High Priest, our Jesus, the Master of requests, presents our
bills of complaint to the great Lord Justice? Yea, I believe it, since He is our Advo-
cate, and Daniel calls Him the Spokesman, whose hand presents all to the Father.”
Rutherford, “Letter XII,” 54.
36. “Therefore, I commend Christ to you, as your last-living, and longest-liv-
ing husband, and the staff of your old age. Let Him now have the rest of your days.”
Rutherford, “Letter CXXXI,” 258.
37. To Marion McNaught he wrote, “Your body is the dwelling house of the
the Father and the Son. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
humanity is the house and temple of God, and the Spirit makes avail-
able all the communicable qualities of the other members of the
Godhead.38
Again, from Rutherford’s perspective this union with Christ was
not an ontological union with God’s essence. Rutherford acknowl-
edged the eternal distinction, but there was unification, and his goal
was to experience that union more fully. He longed for God to infuse
him with His communicable qualities, such as holiness, righteousness,
and love. This became a reality as the Holy Spirit drew a believer’s
thoughts, emotions, and will into harmony with the divine will.
Mystical Darkness and Spiritual Abandonment

Mystical darkness, or spiritual abandonment, is the third element of
mysticism that will serve as a criterion. In this aspect, Rutherford
is most like the mystics. Rutherford’s communion with Christ did
not commonly bring lasting assurance but doubts and insecurity.
The Christian mystic Saint John of the Cross called this the “dark
night of the soul.”39 Feelings included confusion, helplessness, and
a sense of abandonment. “The clarity of the mind’s judgment seems
to fade, and life runs for a time, and perhaps for a long time, in a
maze of doubt and uncertainty which to an observer and to a reader
bear a strong superficial resemblance to the phases of psychological
illness.”40 Rutherford’s experiences of communion with Christ were
usually brief and sporadic. Once time had passed, despair replaced his
Spirit; and therefore, for the love you carry to the sweet guest, give a due regard to
his house of clay.” He went on to assure her, “Your life is hid with Christ in God,
and therefore ye cannot be robbed of it.” Rutherford, “Letter XXVII,” 85–86.
38. “If any have the Spirit, he cannot want the influences of God. The Spirit is,
as it were, all saving influences, and such as are void of the Spirit know not anything
of saving influences; yea, the Father and the Son let out all their influences in and by
the Spirit.” Samuel Rutherford, The Influences of the Life of Grace, or A Practical Treatise
Concerning the way, manner, and means of having and improving spiritual dispositions, and
quickening influence for Christ the Resurrection and the Life. (London: printed by T.C. for
Andrew Crooke, 1658), 164 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December 2005;
retrieved from http://chadwyck.com; Internet. Future references will use the ab-
breviated title.
39. Saint John of the Cross, “Dark Night of the Soul,” The Complete Works of
Saint John of the Cross, vol. 2, trans. Allison E. Peers (Westminster, MD: Newman
Press, 1964), iv.
40. Knowles, The Nature of Mysticism, 68.
joy. During these feelings of abandonment he would question “[i]f

Christ and I did ever shake hands together in earnest,” which was his
way of questioning his salvation.41 Sometimes, in an attempt to ex-
plain the source of his misery, he attributed his suffering to a struggle
against demonic forces.42 At other times, he identified Christ as the
source of despair, because He had been “abandoned” by God.43 When
God abandoned Rutherford, it was for one of two reasons: to drive
him into a deeper dependence upon Christ or to make him more
Christ-like through participation in the Lord’s suffering.44 Often an
external crisis such as the exile to Aberdeen, persecution,45 or family
illness triggered Rutherford’s spiritual crises. He viewed tribulation
as chastisement for previous sins46 and reoccurring guilt was a com-
mon ingredient to his suffering.47 He did not publicly confess his sins,
but he warned younger men against the “follies” and “sins of youth.”48
41. “My sins prevail over me, and the terrors of their guiltiness. I am put often
to ask, if Christ and I did ever shake hands together in earnest.” Rutherford, “Letter
CLXVIII,” 315. At another point he lamented that, “I have been taken up to see the
new land, the fair palace of the Lamb; and will Christ let me see heaven, to break my
heart, and never give it to me.” Rutherford, “Letter XCII,” 195.
42. “I have been and am exceedingly cast down, and am fighting against a mali-
cious devil, of whom I can win little ground” Rutherford, “Letter XVIIII,” 66.
43. “He [Christ] hath yoked me to work, to wrestle with Christ’s love; of long-
ing wherewith I am sick, pained, fainting, and like to die because I cannot get Him-
self; which I think a strange sort of desertion.” Rutherford, “Letter CXIV,” 231.
44. “He figureth and portrayeth us to His own image, cutting away pieces of
our ill and corruption. Lord cut, Lord carve, Lord wound, Lord do anything that
may perfect Thy Father’s image in us, and make us meet for glory” Rutherford,
“Letter CCLXXXII,” 547.
45. He lamented, “No face that hath not smiled upon me; only the indwellers
of this town are dry, cold, and general. They consist of Papists, and men of Gallio’s
metal, firm in no religion; and it is counted no wisdom here to countenance a con-
fined and silenced prisoner.” Rutherford, “Letter CCV,” 402.
46. “The Almighty hath doubled his stripes upon me, for my wife is so sore tor-
mented night and day, that I have wondered why the Lord tarrieth so long. My life is
bitter to me, and I fear the Lord be my contrair party.” Rutherford “Letter VI,” 45.
47. “The old ashes of the sins of my youth are new fire of sorrow to me. I have
seen the devil, as it were, dead and buried, and yet rise again, and be a worse devil
then ever he was.” Rutherford, “Letter CLXXXI,” 349.
48. “I am sentenced with deprivation and confinement with the town of Ab-
erdeen. But O my guiltiness, the follies of my youth, the neglect in my calling....”
Rutherford, “Letter LXII,” 139. He also wrote, “My guiltiness and the sins of youth
are come up against me, and they would come into the plea in my sufferings, as
deserving causes in God’s justice.” Rutherford, “Letter CLXII,” 303.
Rutherford struggled with depression throughout his life, but during

his exile in Aberdeen his turmoil was most intense; nevertheless, de-
spite the pessimistic overtones, Rutherford viewed his struggles as an
essential part of the sanctification process.49 God was purifying him
through earthly trials to remove the sin and dross of his life.
Mystical Enlightenment and Special Revelation

Spiritual enlightenment and special revelations is the fourth ele-
ment of mysticism that will serve as a criterion. Rutherford’s theory
of inspiration is crucial to any investigation concerning spiritual
knowledge and understanding. He measured all theology by Scrip-
ture, and the Bible served as the sole source of faith and practice. The
Scriptures were “infallible” and “inerrant”;50 he drew no distinction
between the two terms and they were synonymous. The Word of
God was authoritative because the Holy Spirit was the author. The
“pen-men” of canonical Scripture were passive instruments or “or-
gans,” and therefore, Scripture was the voice of God. Rutherford went
as far as to use the term “dictation” to describe the process of inspira-
tion.51 Consequently, Rutherford openly attacked any mystical sect
that undermined Scripture’s authority by claiming divine authority
from other sources.
Among mystics, ecstasy often accompanied mystical insight or
higher levels of spiritual attainment. Once again, McGinn warned
49. “Think well of the visitation of your Lord; for I find one thing, which I saw
not well before, that when the saints are under trials, and well humbled, little sins
raise great cries and warshouts in the conscience; and in prosperity, conscience is a
pope, to give dispensations, and let out and in, and give latitude and elbow room to
our heart.” Rutherford, “Letter CXXXIII,” 260.
50. “I answer, the pen-men of Scripture when they did speak and write Scrip-
ture, were infallible, & de jure, & de facto, they could neither err actually, and by
God’s will they were obligated not to err, and in that they were freer from error,
than we are, who now succeed them to preach and write”; Samuel Rutherford, The
Due Right of Presbyteries, or, A Peaceable Plea for the Government of the Church of Scot-
land. (London: Printed by E. Griffin for Richard Whittaker and Andrew Crooke,
1644), 367 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 14 December 2005; retrieved from
http://chadwyck.com; Internet.
51. “For the Spirit is the Author creator and in the immediately inspired organs,
the prophets and apostles, the pen-men, and the Spirit, devised and dictated the
words, letters, and doctrine of the Old and New Testament.” Samuel Rutherford, A
Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 307 [facsimile copy on-line]; accessed 15 December
2005; retrieved from http://chadwyck.com; Internet.
that altered states of consciousness did not necessarily constitute the

essence of mysticism.52 It did nonetheless play a large role. There was
scant evidence that Rutherford experienced any extra-biblical inspira-
tion, auditory and visual revelations, premonitions, or the ecstasy that
so often accompanied mysticism. Additionally, he did not dwell on
negative descriptions of the divine, the glorifying of abstractions, and
other usual accompaniments of mysticism in the technical sense.53
Conclusion
I began by asserting that historically, the classification of mystic has
not been associated with Scottish theologians. This does not mean,
however, that Rutherford was the only Scotsman to be a candidate
for mysticism. Henry Scougal, a contemporary of Rutherford’s from
Aberdeen University, had much to say about the “mystical union” and
the “divine life.”54 His small pamphlet, The Life of God in the Soul of
Man, left an indelible mark on future theologians such as Whitefield
and Wesley.55 In the same way, Robert Leighton, the Archbishop of
Glasgow, emphasized the “mystical way” in his Rules and Instructions
for a Holy Life. Leighton taught a disciplined life whereby believers
could achieve perfect union with God.56 Like Rutherford, Scougal
and Leighton may not fit the criteria as mystics, but their works reveal
that Rutherford’s writing style and perspective were not unique.
In answer to the question of whether Rutherford was a mystic,
evidence shows that the term does not accurately represent Ruther-
ford. He had a relationship with Christ so intimate and vivid that,
52. “The term mystical experience, consciously or unconsciously, also tends to

place emphasis on special altered states—visions, locutions, raptures, and the like—
which admittedly have played a large role in mysticism but which many mystics
have insisted do not constitute the essence of the encounter with God.” McGinn,
The Presence of God, xvii.
53. Button, “Scottish Mysticism in the Seventeenth Century,” 40.
54. “True religion is a union of the soul with God, a real participation of the Di-
vine nature, the very image of God drawn upon our soul, or, in the apostle’s phrase,
‘it is Christ formed with us.’” Scougal, The Life of God in the Soul of Man, 41–42.
55. Packer, J. I, “Introduction” to ibid., 7.
56. Leighton wrote, “When thou perceiveth thyself thus knit to God, and thy
soul more fast and joined nearer to him than to thine own body, then shalt thou
know his everlasting, and incomprehensible, and ineffable goodness, and the true
nobleness of thy soul that came from him, and was made to be reunited to him.”
Leighton, “Rules and Instructions for the Holy Life,” 157.
at times, it was nearly tangible. Nevertheless, after examining Ruth-

erford’s works, we must agree with Clifford Button, “We have seen
enough, however, of the man, and of the theological, religious, and
political influences that surround him, to make us expect that if we
find him to be a mystic it will be a mysticism of a kind different from
that of the grand mystics.”57 Likewise, John Coffee suggested, “Mys-
ticism is perhaps not the best term to apply to Rutherford,”58 and he
warned, “The term ‘mysticism’ needs to be used with care.”59 Finally,
biographer Kingsley Rendell stated, “Patently we must conclude that
Rutherford’s mysticism was not the experience we usually associate
with the word, not self-absorption in his own individual experience,
but the union with Christ which is the right of every Christian.”60
Rutherford’s poetic descriptions were devotional reflections of intense
spiritual piety. Rutherford may have displayed certain similarities, but
his works did not reflect enough important elements of mysticism to
include Rutherford among the mystics.
57. Button, “Scottish Mysticism in the Seventeenth Century,” 40.

58. Ibid., 82.
59. John Coffee, Politics, Religion, and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel
Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997), 95.
60. Kingsley G. Rendell, Samuel Rutherford: A New Biography of the Man and His
Ministry (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2003), 131.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 197 –212
The “Sense of the Heart”:

Edwards’s Public Expression of his Pietistic
Understanding of Religious Experience
karin spiecker stetina
q
What is the single greatest challenge facing North American evan-

gelicals today? When this question was posed to the Wheaton Bible
Theology Department, Dr. Daniel Block, Knoedler Professor of Old
Testament, responded: “demonstrating the mind of Christ by living
according to the ethics of the Kingdom of God.” He suggests that “the
test of true faith is found in neither creedal orthodoxy nor passion-
ate worship”; rather, it is “verified by living according to the supreme
command of Christ, loving God with all of our being and loving our
fellow human beings as ourselves.” Block’s answer echoes Jonathan
Edwards’s concern nearly three hundred years before him. Though
Edwards is often recognized for his philosophical and scientific mind
as well as his fiery Puritan sermons, promoting a biblical understand-
ing of true faith was his primary goal throughout his life.
Edwards desired more than anything to make known the biblical
truth that he had personally experienced—that true religion is rooted
in an understanding of God’s glory, love, and grace revealed in Jesus
Christ and supernaturally imparted to the soul of mankind. The new
nature of the soul, which is established by the Holy Spirit and the
. newBiTS, vol. 2, ed. 1, September 2009.

. Edwards writes, “There is no question whatsoever, that is of greater im-
portance to mankind, and that it more concerns every individual person to be well
resolved in, than this.... What is the nature of true religion?” A Treatise Concerning
Religious Affections, introduction in Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2. General editor:
Perry Miller. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957– . Hereafter cited as Y W.
. This idea is also found in many of his religious forefathers. For example,
John Calvin wrote, “We are called to a knowledge of God: not that knowledge
which, content with empty speculation, merely flits in the brain, but that which will
be sound and fruitful if we duly perceive it, and if it takes root in the heart” (The
Word, transforms the heart, mind, and actions of the Christian after
the righteousness of Christ. Edwards recognized, as Block, that fol-
lowing Christ’s supreme commandment is evidence of true faith and
transformation of the soul to the image of God. The core idea of the
new nature of the soul, which emerged in Edwards’s early sermons in
New York as a product of his own religious experience, evolved in his
later public writings into the concept of the “sense of the heart.” In
chronologically examining his early writings and three of his public
works that deal with the topic of religious experience—A Divine and
Supernatural Light, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, and Nature
of True Virtue—it is evident that Edwards’s biblical interpretation of
his spiritual encounters was foundational to his theology throughout
his career.
Edwards’s Early Theology

In his personal writings, Edwards described having experienced re-
demption from sin and felt that his whole life was being transformed
by the Holy Spirit to this new spiritual nature. As a Christian he was
privy to new thoughts, feelings, and inclinations. This “new sense”
was more than an intellectual knowledge. It impacted his whole be-
ing and resulted in love for God and a desire to give himself entirely
to Him. During his New York pastorate, he attempted to provide his
congregation with the occasion for a similar experience. Edwards en-
couraged his congregants to pursue experiencing God’s redemptive
work—which is the result of Christ infusing new life into the soul by
means of the Holy Spirit and the Word.
By the time Jonathan Edwards left New York in 1723, he had
developed a strong biblical foundation for his theology. He returned
Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, vols. 20 and 21, The Library of
Christian Classics [London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1960], 1.5.9).
. Edwards favored the term “true religion” to refer to the religious experi-
ence of a Christian. This article uses this term to provide an intellectual construct
that organizes Edwards’s understanding of the experience of God’s divine grace in
redemption.
. See Karen Spiecker Stetina, “The Biblical-Experimental Foundations of
Jonathan Edwards’s Theology of Religious Experience,” PRJ 2 (2009):170–186, for
a developed discussion on Edwards’s understanding of religious experience in his
New York sermons.
The “Sense of the Heart” 199
to Yale with the goal of continuing to grow in his faith. Though

Edwards did not see the increase in spirituality that he had hoped
for, his studies provided him with the philosophical and theologi-
cal tools of John Calvin, John Locke, Isaac Newton, and the likes
of Francis Hutcheson to express his understanding of religious ex-
perience. The regenerate state for Edwards was a unique spiritual
experience that was difficult to convey. Edwards used his academic
training at Yale, particularly his studies of John Locke, to articulate a
distinction between the “understanding of the head” and the “sense
of the heart.” Edwards’s devotion to Scripture and to following Jesus
Christ, however, kept him from being captivated by these theological
and philosophical systems.
Building on his earlier descriptions of religious experience, Ed-
wards describes the experience of the Christian as a “new sense of the
heart,” “sight or discovery,” or “a lively or feeling sense of heart.”10 Just
as the words of 1 Timothy 1:17 had appeared new to him, Edwards
. Diary, Y W 16:786.
. Ibid.
. Based on his use of the word “sense,” scholars have arguably linked Edwards
to a number of different intellectual systems. Fiering points out that the term “sense”
was used by devotional writers like Hooker and Cambridge Platonists such as More
as a metaphor for feeling. Locke also employed the word to describe the mental ef-
fects of the immediate perception of physical objects. On the other hand, the British
Moralists such as Hutcheson utilized the term to refer to an innate awareness of
moral qualities such as virtue (Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards’s Moral Thought
and its British Context [Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1981],
123–128). Edwards’s rather imprecise use of the term, however, defies categoriza-
tion. Edwards saw the spiritual sensations as distinct from natural feelings, physical
perceptions, or moral apprehensions. They came about only by the internal work of
the Holy Spirit. It goes beyond this paper to detail Edwards’s use of Lockean lan-
guage. It is important to note, however, that Edwards freely used Locke’s ideas and
images in his later works to express the understanding of religious experience. In
Locke, Edwards found a natural analogy that resonated with his own supernatural
experience.
. While he did not have as much time at Yale to study the Bible, it was enough
of a priority that he began a personal notebook he entitled Notes on Scripture. From his
Catalogue and writings, it is also clear that Edwards spent time studying the Puritan
divines, Cambridge Platonists, British moral philosophy, and English Empiricism.
As Hopkins records, Edwards found Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding
more satisfying than “handfuls of silver and gold” are to a greedy miser (Samuel
Hopkins, The Life and Character of Jonathan Edwards [Boston, 1765], 3).
10. FN, Y W 4:171–172, 177. “Conversion is a great and glorious work of God’s
power, at once changing the heart and infusing life into the dead soul.” Edwards fur-
describes the converted as having a new understanding of spiritual

notions. Consequently, the “things of religion” seem “new to them...
preaching is a new thing...the Bible is a new book.”11 Edwards’s own
biblically grounded experience of a new “sense of the glory of the
Divine being” in his soul became a core part of his public theology of
religious experience.12
A Divine and Supernatural Light

After completing his Master’s degree and tutoring at Yale, Jonathan
Edwards came to Northampton, Massachusetts in 1726, as an associ-
ate pastor to his elderly grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. On February
22, 1729, approximately two years after he had been ordained and
had married Sarah Pierrepont, he became the minister of the church.
While at Northampton, Edwards continued to expound upon his ex-
perience of God’s redemptive work in the soul, using the new tools
he had gained at Yale.
In 1733, a year in which the people of Northampton were plagued
first by locusts and then by influenza, Edwards gave one of his most
celebrated sermons describing the nature of true religious experience.
In A Divine and Supernatural Light, Edwards preached about the need for
a spiritual transformation of the inner nature to truly know and love
God. The sermon, published in 1734, has rightly been described as a
miniature of “the whole of Edwards’ system.”13 In this work he draws
together the themes and ideas from more than a decade of personal ex-
perience, biblical reflection, and preaching on religious experience.14
In A Divine and Supernatural Light, Edwards returns to the anal-
ogy of light that he had used in his early sermons to communicate his
experience of the “renewing and sanctifying” work of the Holy Spirit
in the soul.15 In this work, Edwards utilizes terminology reminis-
ther elaborates on his understanding of the “sense of the heart” in Misc. 782, “Ideas,
Sense of the Heart, Spiritual Knowledge or Conviction, Faith,” Y W 18:452–466.
11. Y W 4:181.
12. Diary, Y W 16:759; PN, Y W 16:792.
13. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards, (New York: William Sloane, 1949), 44.
14. Edwards incorporated insights from his writings from the New York Pe-
riod, particularly his personal writings and the sermon Christ, the Light of the World.
He also included his thoughts on spiritual knowledge from Misc. 489, “Faith, or
Spiritual Knowledge,” Y W 13:533.
15. See, for example, Light, Y W 10:533–546.
cent of Locke to help explain his biblically grounded understanding

of faith. He begins the sermon by establishing the biblical basis for
the difference between a notional knowledge of Christ and a spiri-
tual apprehension of Christ with Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession
of faith in Matthew 16:17. Edwards writes of how Jesus confirmed
Peter’s direct revelation of Christ’s divine nature by the Holy Spirit,
which resulted in saving faith. The description of the experience of
the “divine light,” or a spiritual apprehension of Christ, parallels his
own experience that he had recorded over ten years prior in his per-
sonal writings.
In this sermon, Edwards advocates that such a supernatural ex-
perience in the soul of the converted is fundamental to true religion.
While he recognizes the importance of natural capacities including
the conscience and reason, Edwards asserts that true religious knowl-
edge is qualitatively different from natural sensory knowledge.16
Recalling his earlier writings, he describes it as a result of the Spirit
acting in the redeemed as a “new, supernatural principle of life and
action.”17 “Natural men,” according to Edwards, only know God as an
object; they have no real apprehension of the glory of God. Though
they may recognize their sin and may be able to construct proofs of
God’s existence by use of their reason, they have no comprehension
of who He is. They lack “a real sense and apprehension of the divine
excellency...a spiritual and saving conviction of the truth and reality
of these things.”18
The Spirit of God acts in a very different manner in the regen-
erate person. Edwards explains, in words similar to early writings
from the New York period, that spiritual knowledge is supernaturally
conferred to the souls of “saints” by a “new sense” of the heart, an
“indwelling principle” that makes all things new.19 This spiritual light
16. DSL, Y W 17:411. He writes that God “deals with man according to his na-
ture, or as a rational creature; and makes use of his human faculties.”
17. Ibid.; LCDG, Y W 10:570–571.
18. DSL, Y W 17:413. Edwards clearly separated himself from Locke by distin-
guishing between natural and supernatural apprehensions of God. Though he em-
ployed sensory language like Locke, Edwards’s understanding of spiritual percep-
tion more closely follows the Calvinistic, biblical concept of spiritual illumination
and the infusion of the Holy Spirit.
19. Ibid. 17:411. “The Spirit of God...acts in the mind of a saint as an indwell-
ing vital principle...he unites himself with the mind of a saint, takes him for his
temple, actuates and influences him as a new, supernatural principle of life and ac-
does not consist of new truths or propositions not contained in the

Word of God. Rather, it is a supernatural apprehension of those things
that are taught in the Scriptures.20
Edwards argues that it is only by this divine light of the Spirit
that the soul can be brought into a saving relationship with Christ.
This true revelation of divine things produces love, appreciation, and
faith in God. Reminiscent of his own experience, he explains that
when spiritual light is “immediately imparted to the soul by God,”
the converted is able to know God subjectively as a living, personal
God.21 He contends, “[T]his light is such as effectually influences
the inclination, and changes the nature of the soul,” providing a new
foundation from which the human faculties operate.22 Elaborating on
his New York works, Edwards writes, “It conforms the heart to the
gospel...and it effectually disposes the soul to give up itself entirely
to Christ.”23
Edwards exhorts his audience to seek this spiritual light, allud-
ing to the great benefits he had personally experienced. He writes
that there is no greater pleasure on earth than experiencing the divine
light shining into the soul. This light allows the soul to know and en-
joy the beauty and “glory of God in the face of Christ.” Furthermore,
it “assimilates the [human] nature to the divine nature, and changes
the soul into an image of the same glory that is beheld (2 Cor. 3:18).”24
As a result the soul is weaned from the world and drawn to a “sincere
love to God.” The internal change is reflected in a “universal holi-
ness” of life.25
tions.... The Holy Spirit operates in the minds of the godly, by uniting himself
to them, and living in them, and exerting his own nature in the exercise of their
faculties.” Diary, Y W 16:759, 761–763. “This day revived by God’s Spirit, Affected
with the sense of the excellency of holiness. Felt more exercise of love to Christ than
usual. Have also felt sensible repentance of sin, because it was committed against so
merciful and good a God.”
20. Ibid. 17:413. “A true sense of the divine and superlative excellency of the
things of religion; a real sense of the excellency of God, and Jesus Christ, and of the
work of redemption, and the ways and works of God revealed in the gospel.”
21. Ibid. 17:408.
22. Ibid. 17:424.
23. Ibid.; Diary, Y W 16:762; Resolution 44, Y W 16:756; Dedication, Y W
10:553–554.
24. DSL, Y W 17:424.
25. Ibid.
The new spiritual foundation of the soul, the “sense of the heart,”
which Edwards describes in A Divine and Supernatural Light, is what
stands at the core of both his personal experience and his theology. In
addressing the question of the difference between the “natural man,”
who understands God objectively, and the “regenerate man,” who has
a sense of God in his soul, Edwards communicates publicly what he
had privately experienced. The nature of true religion is not merely a
“notional or speculative understanding of the doctrines of religion.”26
Rather, it consists of a new “sense of the heart” supernaturally im-
parted, a “sense of the glory of the Divine being...quite different from
anything” a person had ever experienced before.27 As he personally
knew, “there is nothing so powerful as this to support persons in af-
fliction, and to give the mind peace and brightness, in this stormy and
dark world.”28
Religious Affections
In the Divine and Supernatural Light, Edwards explains the nature of
true religious experience on an individual level, arguing that it con-
sists of a “new sense” of the heart conveyed by the Spirit of God.
Edwards continues to expand on this theme in A Treatise Concerning
Religious Affections (1746). Writing this work after he had witnessed
both the fruits and the disappointments of the revivals, Edwards sets
out to defend the true religion that he had personally experienced by
arguing against both the excesses and errors of the revivals as well as
against the rationalist opponents of a heartfelt faith.
Though he had experienced the loss of his uncle, Joseph Hawley,
when he committed suicide after becoming emotionally distraught
and feeling hopeless during the revivals, Edwards still remained hope-
ful of the revivals in his earlier work, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising
Work of God (1737). His optimism quickly faded, however, when he
saw the lack of perseverance of many revival “converts.” In Religious
Affections, he reconsiders the nature of true religion, giving special at-
tention to signs of an authentic religious experience. This work stands
as his comprehensive explanation of the gracious work of the Holy
Spirit in the soul.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid. 17:413; Diary, Y W 16:762; PN, Y W 16:792.
28. DSL, Y W 17:424; Diary, Y W 16:765.
The fundamental point of Religious Affections, as with the rest of

his theology of religious experience, is that genuine piety is a result
of the supernatural, transforming work of God in the soul. Edwards’s
biblical, experimental theology of the gracious activity of the Spirit in
the individual emerges in this three-part examination written at the
end of the Great Awakening. In the first part, he defines the nature of
religious affections and shows their fundamental importance in true
religion. In the second section, he examines the unreliable criteria that
had been used during the revivals for judging whether or not affections
are of a gracious or saving nature. Finally, he describes the true signs of
the holy affections that mark the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
In Religious Affections, Edwards covertly develops and explains
how the Holy Spirit had provided him with a new spiritual sense
that resulted in the religious affections of love to God and Christian
happiness. He begins with the scriptural picture of true religion in
1 Peter 1:8. In this passage, Peter observed how true religion oper-
ated in the lives of the early Christians, writing, “Whom having not
seen ye love: in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye
rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.” Edwards explains that
this text teaches that true religion consists in the affections of love
and joy. The former depends upon a spiritual apprehension of Jesus
Christ, since He cannot be seen with bodily eyes. The latter is the
fruit of faith. The nature of such joy is “unspeakable and full of glory.”
Edwards writes, in words that could have been used to describe his
own experience, that the joy of the early Christians “filled their minds
with the light of God’s glory and made ’em themselves to shine with
some communication of that glory.”29
From Peter’s biblical description Edwards argues that “true reli-
gion, in great part, consists in holy affections” or biblical fruits.30 In
words that correspond to the “sweet burning” he experienced in his
own heart, Edwards writes that when the Spirit of God is received in
the soul, the saving and sanctifying influences “may be said to burn
within” the heart.31 He believed that religious affections reveal the gra-
cious activity of the Spirit within the soul.32 In light of the emotional
29. RA, Y W 2:94-95. PN, Y W 16:792.

30. RA, Y W 2:95.
31. Ibid. 2:100; PN, Y W 16:793.
32. RA, Y W 2:100.
excesses of the revivals, however, he insists that they must be tested by

biblical criteria to discriminate between genuine faith and false piety.
In the first part of this work, Edwards argues that the chief affec-
tion of the converted soul is “love to God.” Speaking from Scripture
and experience, Edwards declares that love, the first fruit of salvation,
is the “fountain” of all holy affections. It is out of “a vigorous, affec-
tionate, and fervent love to God” that a Christian experiences a hatred
of sin, joy when God is graciously and sensibly present, hope in the
future enjoyment of God, and fervent zeal for the glory of God.33
Thus, the essence of all true religion resides in holy love.34
It is important to note, however, that Edwards was not, in con-
trast to emotionalism, equating Christianity with passionate feelings.
He taught, as he had experienced, that religious affections, including
love to God, are grounded in God’s saving work in Christ and impact
the whole person. Edwards writes that “there must be light in the
understanding, as well as an affected fervent heart”; for, “where there
is heat without light, there can be nothing divine or heavenly in that
heart.” On the other hand, in opposition to the rationalists, he pro-
claims that “where there is a kind of light without heat, a head stored
with notions and speculations, with a cold and unaffected heart, there
can be nothing divine in that light, that knowledge is no true spiritual
knowledge of divine things.” If the truths of Christianity are properly
understood, Edwards argues they will affect the heart or soul.35 He
was careful in the second part of this work, however, to explain that
affections cannot be judged to be gracious merely on account of their
great effect on the intellect or feelings.36 Rather, Christians must look
to Scripture and their Christian practice to determine whether their
affections are gracious.
The final part of Religious Affections, the twelve distinguishing
signs, develops the center of Edwards’s biblical understanding of the
gracious work of the Spirit. Though he never directly refers to his
spiritual encounters, almost every sign corresponds to his experience.
Edwards’s biblical, experimental foundation is particularly evident in
his description of the Holy Spirit’s work being marked by a new sense
33. Ibid. 2:107–108.

34. Ibid.
35. Ibid. 2:120.
36. Ibid. 2:130.
of God’s glory and the transformation of the character and life of the
saint after the holiness of Christ.
In conjunction with his New York writings, Edwards teaches that
the Holy Spirit provides a “new spiritual sense” or a “new founda-
tion” for the soul in redemption.37 The first six signs describe the new
spiritual foundation and its impact on the soul. He writes that the
Holy Spirit “operates by infusing or exercising new, divine and su-
pernatural principles; principles which are indeed a new and spiritual
nature, and principles vastly more noble and excellent than all that is
in natural man.”38 Edwards goes to great lengths to describe how this
nature enables God’s beauty and excellency to be perceived and en-
joyed.39 This spiritual apprehension leads to holy love, a conviction of
the truths of the gospel, and “evangelical humiliation.”40 These signs
biblically describe and subtly interpret Edwards’s own experience of
the glory and excellency of God.41
The seventh sign further elaborates on the impact of the Holy
Spirit’s gracious work on the soul. Not only does the Spirit illumine
the Christian to God’s holiness and glory, but He also transforms the
soul after the divine nature.42 In accordance with his own experience,
Edwards explains through the use of Scripture that the Holy Spirit
is united to the soul in conversion and becomes the new spiritual
principle of life transforming the saint after the image of God.43 This
transformation is not, however, completed in an instant; it is a “con-
37. Ibid. 2:206.

38. Ibid. 2:207.
39. Ibid. 2:271.
40. In the second and third signs Edwards describes how the apprehension of
the amiable nature of divine things results in holy love (RA, Y W 2:244). In the fifth
sign Edwards writes, “A view of this divine glory directly, convinces the mind of the
divinity of these things, as this glory is in itself a direct, clear, and all-conquering
evidence of it” (RA, Y W 2:298). In the sixth sign Edwards speaks of the “evangelical
humiliation,” or a sense of insufficiency and depravity, that true saints experience in
response to their “discovery of the beauty of God’s holiness and moral perfection”
(RA, Y W 2:312).
41. PN, Y W 16:792. “As I read the words, there came into my soul...a sense
of the glory of the divine being; a new sense, quite different from anything I ever
experienced before. I thought with myself, how excellent a Being that was; and how
happy I should be, if I might enjoy that God, and be wrapt up to God in heaven, and
be as it were swallowed up in him.”
42. RA, Y W 2:340.
43. Ibid. 2:342; Misc. a, “Of Holiness,” Y W 13:163; PN, Y W 16:795.
tinued conversion and renovation of nature.”44 Over time, the new

nature manifests itself in progressive transformation of the soul to
Christ’s love and holiness.
The remaining five signs primarily urge Edwards’s readers to look
to Scripture, as he had in his own life, to see whether or not they pos-
sess the marks of transformation. If they have a Christ-like character
within themselves, mourn over their sins, have an increased appetite
for God, and seek to obey God, then they exhibit the influence of the
Spirit on their soul.45 Based on 1 Corinthians 15:47–49, he writes, “As
we have borne the image of the first man, that is earthly, so we must
also bear the image of the heavenly” Savior.46 He describes Christ’s
character as one of true holiness and encourages his audience to look
at the picture of Christ in the gospels and the Beatitudes as the stan-
dard to measure oneself, just as he had in his New York writings. He
writes that “true Christians” are “clothed with the meek, quiet and
loving temper of Christ.”47
The twelfth and most extensive sign, which recalls Edwards’s
own desire for and pursuit of a holy life, states that “Christian prac-
tice or a holy life is a great and distinguishing sign of true and saving
grace.”48 He believes that love and gratitude to God are displayed in
the persistent pursuit of obedience to God’s commands. Edwards ar-
gues that a holy life is the chief of all the evidences.49 It “is much to
be preferred to the method of the first conviction, enlightenings and
comforts in conversion, or any immanent discoveries or exercises of
grace whatsoever, that begin and end in contemplation.”50 It is the
most concrete way to identify God’s grace at work in the soul. While
44. RA, Y W 2:343.

45. The eighth and ninth signs focus on what it means to have a Christ-like
character. The tenth sign discusses the need and desire of the Christian to continu-
ally repent (RA, Y W 2:367). The eleventh sign describes the increasing love for God
and holiness (RA, Y W 2:377). The twelfth sign tells of the progressive conformity
of the behavior of believers to the Christian rules (RA, Y W 2:383–461).
46. RA, Y W 2:347.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid. 2:406.
49. The seeds of the idea that holy practice is a sign of the gracious work of the
Spirit are seen in his writings from the New York period, particularly the sermon
WH, Y W 10:473.
50. RA, Y W 2:426.
the “sense of the heart” precedes holy action, the existence of holy af-
fections is most clearly evidenced by Christian practice.51
It is important to recognize that Edwards had no intention of es-
tablishing the twelve signs as empirical criteria to distinguish infallibly
true Christians from false Christians. He believed that this judgment
is God’s prerogative alone. Furthermore, Scripture and his own expe-
rience had convinced him that there is room for variation in religious
experience and that the Spirit is not bound to a set order in convert-
ing and sanctifying the soul.52 Scripture explicitly directs us “to try
ourselves by the nature of the fruits of the Spirit; but nowhere by the
Spirit’s method of producing them.”53 Edwards’s primary purpose in
Religious Affections was to proclaim what Scripture and experience had
taught him: that true religion is God’s supernatural work in the soul
by the Spirit and the Word.
Throughout Religious Affections, Edwards made abundant use of
the works of theologians and philosophers, including John Calvin,
Thomas Shepard, Solomon Stoddard, John Flavel, William Perkins,
John Owen, John Smith, and John Locke. It is a mistake to deduce,
however, as some scholars have, that Edwards’s doctrine of religious
experience depends upon these works.54 His thought is remarkably
consistent with his own experience. Furthermore, he firmly insisted
that his view of religious affections was founded upon Scripture. It
seems that the works of these thinkers served to illustrate and further
substantiate his position rather than influence it. This is true even of
his frequent references to Calvin, Stoddard, Shepard, and Locke in
this work.55
51. Edwards’s emphasis on holy practice as evidence of true faith stands in

contrast to Locke’s emphasis on the internal states of the mind.
52. RA, Y W 2:162. Early in his life Edwards struggled with assurance of his
salvation due to the fact that his conversion did not follow the sequential Puritan
schemes of conversion that he had been taught. After finding assurance of faith in
New York, he moved away from the strict salvation morphologies, teaching that the
conversion experience can vary somewhat.
53. Ibid.
54. Perry Miller sees RA as an affirmation of Lockean Empiricism ( Jonathan
Edwards, 193). Conrad Cherry sees RA as an example of how Edwards chose to
“broaden and impregnate” Calvinistic theology to address the eighteenth-century
theological issues facing New England (The Theology of Jonathan Edwards [Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 5, 78).
55. Edwards’s use of the metaphor of sweetness in RA to explain the “sense of
As the revivals came to a close, Edwards recognized the impor-

tance of proclaiming the spiritual sense or the “sense of the heart” as
the foundation of religious experience. This key concept, commu-
nicated here in more philosophical language than in his New York
writings, corrected the errors of emotionalism and rationalism by
teaching that true religion is neither a matter solely of the affections
nor of the mind. As the Word and Spirit had taught him, it is a matter
of the whole person being spiritually transformed by Christ.56
Nature of True Virtue

The capstone of Edwards’s defense of true religion as a unique expe-
rience of God’s supernatural work in the soul appears in his treatise
The Nature of True Virtue (1755). In this polemical work, as in his other
public writings, Edwards utilized intellectual tools to defend his per-
sonal understanding of religious experience against the threats of
secular moralism. After the 1730s, Edwards became more aware of
the dangers that secular moralism presented to the biblical doctrine
of holiness. From his “Catalogue” and direct references it is fairly
certain that by the time he wrote this treatise he had read Francis
Hutcheson’s Inquiry into Beauty and Virtue and his Essay on the Passions,
David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, and Bishop
Butler’s Analogy, which included the “Dissertation of the Nature of
Virtue.” 57 While Edwards found the works of the British moral phi-
losophers helpful in explaining “common morality,” he disagreed
with their idea that a “moral sense” naturally exists in humans apart
the heart” is one example of his clever use of philosophical and theological tools to
express his own thought. In distinguishing between having an intellectual under-
standing that honey is sweet and having a sense of its sweetness after tasting it, Ed-
wards uses the same distinction between having a “merely notional understanding”
about something and having “a sense of” the object as Locke expressed in his Essay
Concerning Human Understanding. While Edwards utilizes the Lockean distinction be-
tween notional and sensual understanding, he in no way compromises his biblical,
experimental theology of religious experience. There is no opposition in Edwards’s
thought between understanding and affections, or the “mind” and the “heart.” Ac-
cording to Edwards, holy affections are possible only when the person has a “spiritual
understanding” of the true nature of religion. For Edwards, like Calvin, a “sense”
of the divine love is rooted in the person’s perception of the supreme holiness and
beauty of God. This analogy which Calvin had used in his Institutes, was also readily
available to Edwards in Scripture (e.g., Psalm 19:9–10).
56. Diary, Y W 16:762.
57. Edwards referenced the ideas of secular moralists in NTV.
from God that inclines one to holiness or “true virtue.” He believed

this assertion was overly optimistic of human nature and stood in
sharp contrast to what was taught in Scripture. He set out in this work
to show that “true virtue,” which most essentially consists in “love to
God,” results from a “union of the heart” with God.58
According to Edwards, the “moral sense” that the secular moralists
spoke of was little more than the natural conscience, the perception
of natural or “secondary beauty,” or some subtle form of “self-love.”
He endeavored to distinguish this inferior concept from the spiritual
sense or the “sense of the heart” that he had experienced in redemp-
tion. Edwards had found in his own life that he was incapable of
truly knowing God and being holy apart from the influence of the
Spirit.59 In this treatise, he develops that insight by identifying the
natural inclination of human nature apart from God as self-centered
and showing the need for God’s grace in the soul in order for true ho-
liness to exist. Using the language of the secular moralists, he writes
that “true virtue,” or the disposition of “love to God,” is only possible
if the Spirit has a “seat in the heart.”60
In this polemical treatise, Edwards continues to build on his un-
derstanding of holiness first expressed in his personal writings and
later in Religious Affections, arguing that true virtue must be grounded
in a first benevolence that has none prior to it.61 Such a benevolence
arises only when the object of that love is God. Edwards is not sug-
gesting, however, that there is no virtue in a love that is not pure
benevolence. In accordance with his own experience, he taught that
there is a secondary object of virtuous benevolence, exemplified in
love for the neighbor.62 Rather, what Edwards is communicating is
that there is nothing in the nature of “true virtue” in which “God is
not the first and last.”63
In a passage of this treatise, Edwards paints a picture of the “vir-
58. NTV, Y W 8:540.

59. Diary, Y W 16:760. “Dull. I find by experience, that let me make resolutions,
and do what I will, with never so many inventions, it is all nothing, and no purpose
at all, without the motions of the Spirit of God.... There is no dependence upon
myself.... It is to no purpose to resolve, except we depend upon the grace of God.”
60. NTV, Y W 8:540; Diary, Y W 16:761; Light, Y W 10:543.
61. NTV, Y W 8:540–541.
62. Ibid. 8:544–545.
63. Ibid. 8:560.
tuous” or godly disposition that was clearly modeled after a biblical

interpretation of his own experience. Using secular moralist’s termi-
nology, he writes:
By these things it appears that a truly virtuous mind, being as
it were under the sovereign dominion of love to God, does above
all things seek the glory of God, and makes this his supreme, gov-
erning, and ultimate end: consisting in the expression of God’s
perfections in their proper effects, and in the manifestation of
God’s glory to created understandings, and the communications
of the infinite fullness of God to the creature; in the creature’s
highest esteem of God, love to God, and joy in God, and in the
proper exercises and expressions of these. And so far as a virtu-
ous mind exercises true virtue in benevolence to created beings,
it chiefly seeks the good of the creature, consisting in a knowl-
edge of view of God’s glory and beauty, its union with God,
and conformity to him, love to him, and joy in him. And that
temper or disposition of heart, that consent, union, or propen-
sity of mind to Being in general, which appears chiefly in such
exercises, is virtue, truly so called; or in other words, true grace
and real holiness.64
Early in his life, Edwards described the Holy Spirit as enabling him
to apprehend the glory of God and feel love toward and joy in God.
These experiences changed his life. He aspired to be totally dedicated
to God and fully conformed to the divine nature. He also felt called to
draw others to love God and be united and conformed to God. This
passage reflects his biblical interpretation of that core experience. In
this later work, he describes “true virtue” or “real holiness” as the spiri-
tual exercise of the soul united to God. Edwards felt that the moralists
had obscured this idea by falsely identifying “true virtue” solely with
public benevolence, leaving the supernatural work of God entirely out
of the equation.65 The concept of the divine “sense of the heart” as the
source of true holiness was Edwards’s way of correcting this problem.
Conclusion
Having personally encountered the conviction of sin and the real-
ity of God’s glory and grace, Edwards sought to defend the salvation
64. Ibid. 8:559.

65. Ibid. 8:560.
experience from the challenges of Emotionalism, Idealism, Secular

Moralism, and Rationalism. Edwards desired to make known what
he read in Scripture and experienced, namely that true religion con-
sists of knowledge of God’s gracious love made manifest on the cross
and supernaturally imparted to the soul by the Holy Spirit. He did so
by publicly expressing his experience of salvation in the concept of the
“sense of the heart.”
The significance of Edwards’s dependence upon the Word and
his spiritual encounters has often been obscured by his innovative
use of secular thought and Reformed theology in his public writings.
It is clear from the works examined above, however, that Edwards
had a unique ability to use intellectual tools in his public writings to
express true religion as he experienced and biblically understood it.
It is the hope of this work that new comprehensive studies will con-
tinue to recognize the significance of Scripture and Edwards’s own
religious experience on his theology. Only then will more Edward-
sean scholarship be able to move beyond categorizing him according
to intellectual systems and know him as he intended: as a Christian
and biblical pastor who desired to be an “instrument” of God’s glo-
ry — guiding people to love God66 — a goal that is still apropos for all
Christians today.
66. In a letter “To the Reverend George Whitfield” in February of 1739, Ed-
wards writes, “But pray, sir, let your heart be lifted up to God for me among others,
that God would bestow much of that blessed Spirit on me that he has bestowed on
you, and make me also an instrument of his glory” (Y W 16:81). He makes a similar
statement in an October 1748 letter “To Reverend John Erskine,” Y W 16:262. Also
his intention is seen in a letter in July 1751 “To Thomas Gillespie,” Y W 13:383.
Pastoral Theology
and Missions
q
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 215 –227
John Owen and the Third Mark

of the Church
stephen yuille
q
Art Azurdia cautions, “Today the church faces a moral crisis within
her own ranks. Her failure to take a strong stand against evil (even
in her own midst), and her tendency to be more concerned about
what is expedient than what is right, has robbed the church of biblical
integrity and power.” In a similar vein, Albert Mohler warns, “The
decline of church discipline is perhaps the most visible failure of the
contemporary church. No longer concerned with maintaining pu-
rity of confession or lifestyle, the contemporary church sees itself as a
voluntary association of autonomous members, with minimal moral
accountability to God, much less to each other.” To put it another
way, one of the church’s most urgent needs is to recapture the prac-
tice of biblical church discipline in order to fulfil its calling to convey
God’s holiness to the world. The purpose of this article is to con-
. Art Azurdia, “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” Reformation and
Revival 3 (1994):61–79.
. Albert Mohler, “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” The Southern Bap-
tist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):16. Mark Dever identifies two important facets to
church discipline: accepting members (i.e., what he calls “closing the front door”);
and disciplining members (i.e., what he calls “opening the back door”). Nine Marks of
a Healthy Church (Washington: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 44–45. It is worth
noting the causal relationship between the two; namely, a more careful approach to
“closing the front door” would drastically minimize the need for “opening the back
door.” It is also worth noting the need for both “formative” (i.e., instruction) and
“corrective” discipline. According to Don Cox, “Church discipline is, in actuality, a
binary concept rooted in Scripture that seeks to accomplish at least four goals… (1)
to build a regenerate church membership; (2) to mature believers in the faith; (3)
to strengthen the church for evangelism and the engagements of culture; and (4) to
protect the church from inner decay.” “The Forgotten Side of Church Discipline,”
The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):44.
. For helpful treatments of this subject, see Jay E. Adams, Handbook of Church
sider the practice of such discipline through the eyes of the Puritan
John Owen.
The Puritans believe the Holy Spirit cultivates holiness in Chris-
tians through appointed means. By “means,” they have in view what
George Swinnock calls “secret, private, and public duties.” Simply
put, they are “conduit-pipes whereby the water of life is derived from
Christ in the hearts of Christians.” There are many means of grace,
such as praying, reading God’s Word, and receiving the Lord’s Supper.
However, a particularly important means of grace for the Puritans
that is often overlooked is church discipline. As Jonathan Edwards
says, “If you strictly follow the rules of discipline instituted by Christ,
you have reason to hope for his blessing; for he is wont to bless his
own institutions, and to smile upon the means of grace which he hath
appointed.”
Like his fellow Puritans, Owen is convinced that the proper
execution of church discipline is a means by which the Holy Spirit
Discipline (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986); J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Dis-
cipline (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985); and Daniel E. Wray, Biblical Church
Discipline (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1978).
. George Swinnock, Fading of the Flesh and Flourishing of the Faith; or, One cast
for eternity: with the only way to throw it well: as also the gracious persons incomparable por-
tion (1662) in The Works of George Swinnock, ed. James Nichol (London, 1868; rpt.,
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1992), 3:416.
. Swinnock, Fading of the Flesh, 1:102.
. John Calvin sets these “means” within the context of the church. The fourth
book of his Institutes is devoted to “the external means or aims by which God invites
us into the society of Christ and holds us therein.” Calvin writes, “As explained
in the previous book, it is by faith in the gospel that Christ becomes ours and we
are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness brought by him. Since,
however, in our ignorance and sloth (to which I add fickleness of disposition) we
need outward helps to beget and increase faith within us, and advance it to its goal,
God has also added these aids that he may provide for our weakness.” Institutes of the
Christian Religion in The Library of Christian Classics: Vol. XX-XXI, ed. J. T. McNeill
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4.1.1. Among these means, Calvin includes
“the discipline of the church.” Institutes 4.12.1–28. For a discussion of Calvin’s view,
see Robert White, “Oil and Vinegar: Calvin on Church Discipline,” Scottish Journal
of Theology 38 (1985):25; and Timothy Fulop, “The Third Mark of the Church?—
Church Discipline in the Reformed and Anabaptist Reformations,” The Journal of
Religious History 19 (1995):26–42.
. Jonathan Edwards, The Nature and End of Excommunication in The Works of
Jonathan Edwards (1834; rpt., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 2:121.
Owen and the Third Mark of the Church 217
cultivates holiness in God’s people. In the context of 1 Corinthians

5:1–7, he summarizes his view as follows:
The whole of what we plead for is here exemplified; as,—(1)
The cause of excommunication, which is a scandalous sin un-
repented of. (2) The preparation for its execution, which is the
church’s sense of the sin and scandal, with humiliation for it. (3)
The warranty of it, which is the institution of Christ, wherein his
authority is engaged. (4) The manner and form of it, by an act of
authority, with the consent of the whole church. (5) The effect
of it, in a total separation from the privileges of the church. (6)
The end of it,—1st. With respect unto the church, its purging and
vindication; 2dly. With respect unto the person excommunicated,
his repentance, reformation, and salvation.
The above summary provides a helpful outline of Owen’s view. We
will review each of his chief points in turn.
The “Cause” of Church Discipline

There are three instances in which Owen believes church discipline
is necessary.
Moral
For starters, church discipline is for “a scandalous sin unrepented
of.” Elsehwere, Owen says it is for those who “continue obstinate in
the practice of any scandalous sin after private and public admonition.”10
Aware of the potential for abuse, Owen provides four guidelines to
help in determining what constitutes “a scandalous sin unrepented of.”
• The sin must be “such as is owned to be such by all, without doubt-
ing, dispute, or hesitation.”11 In other words, it must be clearly
condemned in Scripture—“such as the Holy Ghost witness-
eth, that, continued in without repentance, it is inconsistent
with salvation.”12 Similarly, Thomas Goodwin comments, “It
. John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church and Its Government in The
Works of John Owen (London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850; rpt., Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1976), 16:161.
. Mohler labels these three: fidelity of doctrine; purity of life; and unity of fel-
lowship. “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” 24–25.
10. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:167.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
is scandalous sin that is the matter of censure, sin judged so by

common light, and received principles; sin that goes afore to
judgment, that you may read afar off (1 Tim. 5:24). Doubtful
disputations and sins controverted are not to be made the sub-
ject of church censures; for if the weak are not to be received
to such, then neither are they to be cast out for such.”13
• The accused must admit to the sin. If not, the sin must be
“clearly proved” so that the accused cannot deny it.14 In short,
there must not be any doubt as to the individual’s guilt in the
matter.
• The accused must be admonished privately and publicly

“with patient waiting for the success of each of them.”15 The
purpose of this “patient waiting” is to gauge obstinacy.
• The accused must be judged obstinate “by the whole church

in love and compassion.”16 This is important, as Owen ex-
plains, because “there are few who are so profligately wicked
but that, when the sin wherewith they are charged is evi-
dently such in the light of nature and Scripture, and when it
is justly proved against them, they will make some profession
of sorrow and repentance.”17
Doctrinal
Church discipline is also for those guilty of serious doctrinal error.18
Owen remarks, “If the errors intended are about or against the fun-
damental truths of the gospel, so as that they that hold them cannot
‘hold the Head,’ but really make ‘shipwreck of the faith,’ no pretended
usefulness of such persons, no peaceableness as unto outward deport-
ment, which men guilty of such abominations will frequently cover
themselves withal, can countenance the church in forbearing, after
13. Thomas Goodwin, The Government of the Churches of Christ in The Works of
Thomas Goodwin (London: James Nichol, 1861; rpt., Grand Rapids: Reformation
Heritage Books, 2006), 11:48.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., 16:169.
17. Ibid.
18. See 1 Tim. 1:19–20, Titus 3:10–11, and Rev. 2:2, 6, 14–15, 20.
due admonition, to cut them off from their communion.”19 False doc-
trine must be dealt with because it threatens the church like gangrene
threatens the body.
In 1 Timothy 1:3– 4, Paul urges Timothy to remain at Ephesus so
that he can instruct certain men to cease from teaching strange doc-
trines. Paul means any teaching that is different from that of Christ
and His apostles. These “strange doctrines” result in “mere specula-
tion.” The Greek term is much stronger; it literally means “disputes”
or “quarrels.”20 In addition, these “strange doctrines” hinder “the ad-
ministration of God which is by faith.” Rather than edify, these false
teachers destroy. It is for this reason that Paul delivered Hymenaeus
and Alexander to Satan. This means that they were excommunicated
from the church so that they might “learn not to blaspheme”—that
they might repent of their error.
Behavioral
Finally, church discipline is for those who disrupt the peace of the
church. When people insist on debating issues that are of secondary
importance to the point that peace is threatened, they must be disci-
plined.21 Owen states, “With respect unto such opinions, if men will,
as is usual, wrangle and contend, to the disturbance of the peace of the
church, or hinder it in any duty, with respect unto its own edification,
and will neither peaceably abide in the church nor peaceably depart
from it, they may and ought to be proceeded against with the cen-
sures of the church.”22
The “Preparation” for Church Discipline

The Puritans are careful to stress that church discipline must not be
undertaken in a casual or careless manner. According to Owen, the
church must prepare for the execution of discipline by cultivating a
sense of “sin and scandal, with humiliation for it.”23 He gives four ad-
ditional guidelines. (1) We must assign all cases that are “dubious and
disputable, wherein right and wrong are not easily determinable unto
all unprejudiced persons that know the will of God in such things.”

20. See 1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:9.
21. See Rom. 14:1–3; Phil. 3:15–16.
23. Ibid., 16:161.
(2) We must rid ourselves of all “prejudice,” “partiality,” “provocation,”

and “precipitation.” (3) We must “charge our consciences with the
mind of Christ and what he would do himself in the case, considering
his love, grace, mercy, and patience, with instances of his condescen-
sion which he gave us in this world.” (4) We must remember that “we
also are in the flesh and liable to temptation; which may restrain and
keep in awe that forwardness and confidence which some are apt to
manifest in such cases.”24
In short, Owen is concerned that those involved in church dis-
cipline put on the mind of Christ. Elsewhere, he appeals to Christ’s
example as our guide, commenting, “Meekness, patience, forbear-
ance, and forgiveness, hiding, covering, removing of offense, are
the footsteps of Christ…. Let, then, all tenderness of affection and
bowels of compassion towards one another be put on amongst us, as
becometh saints. Let pity, not envy; mercy, not malice; patience, not
passion; Christ, not flesh; grace, not nature; pardon, not spite or re-
venge,—be our guides and companions in our conversations.”25 This
is an important point, given the fact that it is easy to execute discipline
in a censorious and contemptuous spirit.
The “Warranty” for Church Discipline

Goodwin believes that Christ instituted three church ordinances: the
proclamation of God’s Word, the administration of the sacraments,
and the execution of discipline.26 Owen agrees that discipline is the
24. Ibid., 16:182.

25. John Owen, Eshcol; A Cluster of the Fruit of Canaan, brought to the borders for
the encouragement of the saints traveling thitherward, with their Faces towards Zion: or, Rules
of Direction for the Walking of the Saints in Fellowship, according to the Order of the Gospel
in The Works of John Owen (London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850; rpt., Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, 1976), 13:72.
26. Goodwin, Government of the Churches of Christ, 11:43–44. This view of the
three marks of the church appears to go back to the Belgic Confession (1561): “The
marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the
gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacra-
ments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin;
in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things
contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the
Church” (Article 29).
third mark of the church: “an express ordinance of our Lord Jesus
Christ…fully declared in the Scripture.”27 He provides three proofs.
The first is Matthew 16:19, where Christ grants the “keys of the
kingdom of heaven” to the church. Owen explains the significance
as follows: “Seeing the design of Christ was, to have his church holy,
unblamable, and without offence in the world, that therein he might
make a representation of his own holiness and the holiness of his
rule…—that design would not have been accomplished had he not
given this authority unto his church to cast out and separate from
itself all that do by their sins so give offence.”
The second proof text is Matthew 18:15–20, where Christ com-
mands the church to excommunicate those who persist in sin. Owen
remarks, “The rejection of an offending brother out of the society of
the church, leaving him, as unto all the privileges of the church, in the
state of a heathen, declaring him liable unto the displeasure of Christ
and everlasting punishment, without repentance, is the excommu-
nication we plead for; and the power of it, with its exercise, is here
plainly granted by Christ and ordained in the church.”
The third proof text is 1 Corinthians 5:1–7, where Paul exhorts
the church at Corinth to judge its own members. Regarding these
verses, Owen writes:
He declares the cause of this excision:—(1) The supreme efficient
cause of it is the power or authority of the Lord Jesus Christ insti-
tuting this ordinance in his church, giving right and power unto
it for its administration in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and with his power; (2) The declarative cause of the equity of this
sentence, which was the spirit of the apostle, or the authorita-
tive declaration of his judgment in the case; (3) The instrumental,
ministerial cause of it, which is the church, “Do it ‘in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together.’”28
The “Manner” of Church Discipline

As for the manner of discipline, Owen maintains that it must be done
“by an act of authority, with the consent of the whole church.”29

28. Ibid., 16:159–160.
29. Ibid., 16:161. This is a problem today. Why? As Gregory Wills points out,
“Churches in practice deny their authority to judge the belief and behavior of indi-
The Duty of the Oversight

In the first place, this means that discipline is an act of church author-
ity, exercised by the elders. “We may add hereunto,” explains Owen,
“that the care of the preservation of the church in its purity, of the
vindication of its honour, of the edification of all its members, of the
correction and salvation of offenders, is principally incumbent on
them, or committed unto them.… And therefore the omission of the
exercise of it, when it was necessary, is charged as a neglect on the an-
gels or rulers of the churches.”30 Similarly, Goodwin says that elders
are “to prevent and heal offences in life or doctrine.… The elders are
to seek to heal it; for if it be not removed or reformed, it lies upon
their heads.”31 Clearly, the Puritans believe that elders are responsible
for the execution of church discipline, and that elders will be held ac-
countable for their failure to fulfil this duty.
The Duty of the Church

However, Owen also makes the point that the church as a whole has a
role to play in discipline.32 Why? (1) It has a concern “in point of duty.”
The members of a church are responsible for one another. They are
also responsible for “the good, the honour, the reputation, and edifi-
cation of the whole.” Owen adds, “They who are not concerned in
these things are dead and useless members of the church.” (2) It has
a concern “in point of interest.” The members of a church should be
concerned lest they be defiled by sin. Tolerating scandalous sin will
undermine their faith, love, and obedience. (3) It has a concern “in
point of power.” The members of a church ultimately determine the
efficacy of discipline.33 Owen gives this reason why: “According as
they concur and practise, so it is put in execution or suspended; for it
vidual members.” “Southern Baptists and Church Discipline,” The Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 4 (2000): 4. Wills attributes the cause to “an expansive individu-
alism.” Mohler also attributes the decline to Christianity’s “moral individualism.”
“Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” 16.
30. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:165–166.
31. Goodwin, Government of the Churches of Christ, 11:507.
32. Azurdia observes, “Gone is the idea that Christians are ‘one body in Christ,
and individually members one of another’ (Rom. 12:5). Church members have little
regard for the fact that they are a part of a whole.” “Recovering the Third Mark of
the Church,” 74.
33. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:166–167.
is they who must withdraw communion from them, or the sentence

is of no use or validity.”
The Procedure
As for the actual handling of church discipline, both Owen and
Goodwin appeal to Matthew 18:15–20. Goodwin states: “We have
order given for the degrees of proceedings in these [verses], as orderly
as any law can make provision, for the indemnity of men innocent
and just, proceeding in any civil court in order to amend men.” He
proceeds to identify four steps. (1) If the sin is private, the individual
is to be admonished privately. (2) If he refuses to listen, he is to be
admonished by two or three church members. (3) If he still refuses
to listen, he is to be admonished by the whole church. (4) If he still
refuses to listen, he is to be cast out of the church.34
For his part, Owen identifies three “ingredients” that must accom-
pany the above steps. (1) There must be prayer: “The administration
of any solemn ordinance of the gospel without prayer is a horrible
profanation of it; and the neglect or contempt hereof, in any who take
upon them to excommunicate others, is an open proclamation of the
nullity of their act and sentence.”35 (2) There must be lamentation:
Compassion for the person offending, with respect unto that
dangerous condition whereinto he hath cast himself, the exci-
sion of a member of the same body, with whom they have had
communion in the most holy mysteries of divine worship and
sat down at the table of the Lord, with a due sense of the dishon-
34. Goodwin, Government of the Churches, 11:48–49.

35. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:169. Here, Owen appeals to Christ’s
words in Matthew 18:18–20, where He gives the power of binding and loosing to
the church, directing its members to ask assistance in prayer. It is important to note
that the actions described in heaven are future perfect passives, which could be
translated, “will have already been bound in heaven…will already have been loosed
in heaven.” In other words, the heavenly decree confirming the earthly one is based
on a prior verdict. “When the person refuses to turn from sin after repeated loving
confrontation, the church by disciplining the person simply recognizes the spiritual
reality that is already true in God’s sight.” Craig Keener in W. D. Mounce, Basics
of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 121. Azurdia makes the same
observation: “It becomes apparent that this is not a carte blanche promise that heaven
will ratify the decisions of the church, but more significantly, that when the church
carries out this work on earth her decisions will reflect the will of God in heaven.”
“Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” 69–70.
our of the gospel by his fall, ought to ingenerate this mourning

or lamentation in the minds of them who are concerned in the
execution of the sentence; nor is it advisable for any church to
proceed thereunto before they are so affected. 36
(3) There must be “a due sense of the future judgment of Christ.”
Owen declares, “Woe to them who dare pronounce this sentence
without a persuasion, on good grounds, that it is the sentence of
Christ himself!”37
The “Effect” of Church Discipline

Owen acknowledges the view of those who put forward two sorts
of excommunication: “the one they call the ‘lesser,’ and the other the
‘greater.’”38 The “lesser” includes suspension from the Lord’s Sup-
per, whereas the “greater” includes separation from the church. 39 For
Owen, however, there is only one sort of church discipline: “segrega-
tion from all participation in church-order, worship, and privileges.”
It has two aspects: privative and positive.40
Privative
The privative aspect is, in the words of Owen, “a total separation
from the privileges of the church.”41 This “total separation” is essential
because it: (1) testifies to “our condemnation of the sin and disap-
probation of the person guilty of it”; (2) guards us “from all kinds of
participation in his sin”; and (3) makes “him ashamed of himself, that
if he be not utterly profligate and given up unto total apostasy, it may
occasion in him thoughts of returning.”42
36. Ibid., 16:170.

37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 16:165.
39. According to Owen, a suspension from the Lord’s Supper may be an “act of
prudence in church-rule, to avoid offence and scandal,” but it is not an institution.
40. These are Edwards’s expressions. Nature and End of Excommunication, 2:118–
120.
41. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:161. See Matt. 5:17; 1 Cor. 5:2, 5, 9,
11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14–15; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10.
42. Ibid., 16:181. The common objection to such treatment is that it is unlov-
ing. However, as Thomas Schreiner notes, “Discipline is not contrary to love, but
an expression of love, when properly applied.… Associating with or even eating
with a person under discipline is banned (1 Cor. 5:9,11), for such fellowship would
communicate that nothing serious has happened. Relating to the person as usual
Positive
The positive aspect, according to Goodwin, “imports something…
distinct from and including more in it than ejection out of the church.
It imports a giving up a person to receive a positive punishment from
Satan.”43 The Apostle Paul seems to imply just that in 1 Corinthians
5:5, where he declares, “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan
for the destruction of his flesh.” For Owen, this does not refer to “the
destruction of his body by death,” but to “the mortification of the
flesh.”44 By way of further clarification, Owen states:
The gathering of men into the church by conversion is the “turn-
ing of them from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18); a
“delivery from the power of darkness,”—that is, the kingdom of
Satan,—and a translation into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13).
Wherefore, after a man hath, by faith and his conjunction unto
a visible church, been translated into the kingdom of Christ,
his just rejection out of it is the re-delivery of him into the vis-
ible kingdom of Satan; which is all that is here intended…. And
this, if there be any spark of ingenuous grace left in him, will be
effectually operative, by shame, grief, and fear, unto his humili-
ation, especially understanding that the design of Christ and his
church herein is only his repentance and restoration.45
The “End” of Church Discipline

Owen stresses three ends or purposes in church discipline.46
would display a lack of love, betraying apathy about the person’s salvation. If we see
someone who is about to wander over a cliff and destroy himself, it is unloving to
say nothing and watch that person plunge to destruction.” “Loving Discipline,” The
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):2.
43. Goodwin, Government of the Churches of Christ, 11:44.
45. Ibid., 16:163.
46. Dever identifies five reasons for practicing church discipline: (1) for the
good of the person disciplined (1 Cor. 5:1–5); (2) for the good of the other Chris-
tians, as they see the danger of sin (1 Tim. 5:20); (3) for the health of the church as
a whole (1 Cor. 5:6–8); (4) for the corporate witness of the church (Matt. 5:16; John
13:34–35; 1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Pet. 2:2); and (5) for the glory of God as we reflect His holi-
ness (Eph. 5:25–32; Heb. 12:10–14; 1 Pet. 1:15–16; 2:9–12; 1 John 3:2–3). “Biblical
Church Discipline,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):40–41.
For the Individual

The first is for the individual; namely, “his repentance, reformation,
and salvation.” For this reason, Owen affirms that discipline must
always seek to be “corrective, not vindictive,—for healing, not de-
struction.”47 When exercised properly, it is one of the principal means
by which the Holy Spirit works to bring about repentance. As Owen
observes, “Wherefore this delivery unto Satan is an ordinance of
Christ for the exciting of saving grace in the souls of men, adapted
unto the case of falling by scandalous sins, peculiarly effectual, above
any other gospel ordinance.”48
For the World

The second “end” is for the world. God’s chosen people are to reflect
His holiness to unbelievers.49 Jonathan Edwards remarks, “If strict
discipline, and thereby strict morals, were maintained in the church,
it would in all probability be one of the most powerful means of con-
viction and conversion towards those who are without.”50
For the Church

The third and principal “end,” according to Owen, is for the church;
namely, “its purging and vindication.” Another well-known Puritan,
Richard Baxter, notes, “The principal use of this public discipline is
not for the offender himself, but for the Church. It tendeth exceedingly
to deter others from the like crimes, and so to keep the congregation
and their worship pure.”51 By way of example, the Puritans appeal to
1 Timothy 5:19–20. The context is accusations against elders. If an
accusation is true, then the elder is to be rebuked in the presence of
all. This public rebuke serves three purposes. (1) It gives him an op-
portunity to repent. (2) It protects the testimony of the church. (3) It
serves as an example. In other words, it imparts to believers an acute

48. Ibid., 16:162.
49. See Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 2:9–12.
50. Edwards, Nature and End of Excommunication, 2:121. According to Dever,
“Undisciplined churches have actually made it harder for people to hear the Good
News of new life in Jesus Christ.” “Biblical Church Discipline,” 34.
51. Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (1656; rpt., Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1999), 105.
awareness of the gravity of sin and its consequences. Owen sees the
same “end” in all cases of church discipline.52
Conclusion
It is precisely this view of discipline as a means of grace that has been
lost today. Because of this loss, the church has robbed itself of one
of the principal means by which the Holy Spirit cultivates holiness
among God’s people. For Owen, the absence of church discipline
is tantamount to neglecting the proclamation of the Word (the first
mark of the church) or the administration of the sacraments (the sec-
ond mark of the church). If today’s church is to fulfill its calling to
convey God’s holiness to the world, it must recapture the third mark:
the practice of biblical church discipline.
52. Azurdia states, “When a church takes seriously the injunction to confront
sin, its very commitment to the process will engender a deeper holiness within the
assembly. It has the beneficial effect of prompting continual self-examination, of re-
minding all members of their own propensity toward sin, and warning them of its
consequences if left unconfessed.” “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” 73.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 228 –245
Jeremiah Burroughs on Worship

james davison
q
How God is to be worshipped is an important subject for Jeremiah

Burroughs, and one he gave much attention. The reason is well stated
by Burroughs in one of his sermons: “As God is glorious in holiness,
so set Him out in His glory by keeping His worship pure.” “Especially
look to your heart, to cleanse it when you draw near to this holy God
in this holy worship.”
That holiness is the jewel in the crown of worship for Burroughs
is clearly evident when he says, “God’s ordinances are the beauty of
His holiness. Therefore we must labour to come pure and clean to
them.” And again, “If we would honour and magnify God in His
holiness, let us keep His worship pure, for holiness becomes the
worship of God forever.” Burroughs makes the point that “there is
nothing in the world that has the power to humble the heart as much
as God’s holiness.” Indeed, the very consideration of this, Burroughs
urges, “should humble us and make us ashamed for the remainder of
the unholiness that is in our hearts,” and that because “there is more
dreadful evil in unholiness than reprobation.”
The subject of worship is expounded in detail by Burroughs in
fourteen sermons based on Leviticus 10:3: “Then Moses said unto
Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in
them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.”
These sermons, which were first published in 1648 as Gospel Worship,
emphasize the proper manner of worshipping God in hearing the
Word, receiving the Lord’s Supper, and prayer. But first, Burroughs
. Jeremiah Burroughs, The Saints Treasury (London: for John Wright, 1654),
27, 26.
. Ibid., 27, 28, 24.
Jeremiah Burroughs on Worship 229
begins with a general introduction to worship. This is based on the

occasion of the words of the text, which are the result of Aaron’s two
sons, Nadab and Abihu, offering incense with “strange fire” unto
God, for which God struck them dead.
In opening up his text, Burroughs notes two ways by which God
will be sanctified: 1) “by the holiness of His people in their carriage
before Him, holding forth the glory of God’s holiness”; and 2) “in
ways of judgement upon those who do not sanctify His name in ways
of holiness.” Following this Burroughs notes that, in God’s worship,
“there must be nothing tendered up to God but what He has com-
manded. Whatever we meddle with in the worship of God must be
what we have a warrant for out of the word of God.” This is followed
by multiple points of a general nature, including the following: “those
who enter into public places, and especially such places as do concern
the worship of God, they need have the fear of God upon them”;
“God would have us all pick out His mind from dark expressions in
His word”; “God is very quick with some in the ways of His judge-
ment”; “Though the lives of men are dear and precious to God, yet
they are not so precious as His glory.”
These general remarks, which continue into the third sermon,
conclude with this comment: “If in the duties of worship we are near
to God, then hence appears the great honour that God puts upon
His servants that do worship Him. Certainly the worshippers of God
have great honour put upon them because the Lord permits them
to draw near unto Him.” At this point, Burroughs extends his net
further than his immediate hearers when he says, “Herein any man,
woman, or nation, may be said to be great, that is, greatly honoured
by the Lord God, in that they have the Lord near unto them and they
are near unto Him. Here is the greatness of a nation.” This comment
about a nation’s greatness draws our attention to the situation in Eng-
land at the time the sermons were preached. Such was the situation
that Burroughs and his fellow Puritan ministers were advocating to
Parliament the need to cleanse the nation of all ungodliness and to
establish true religion in it.
. Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Worship: or The Right Manner of Sanctifying the

Name of God (London: for Peter Cole and R. W. 1648), 5, 8.
. Ibid., 13, 14, 17, 22.
. Ibid., 39–40.
. See R. Jeffs, ed., The English Revolution: Fast Sermons to Parliament 1640–1641
Returning to his immediate hearers, Burroughs writes: “This is

the dignity that God has put upon you, that you are separated by His
grace to be one near to Him.... This is your privilege, and you should
count it your great honour.... You are one of God’s separated ones,
you who are near to Him.” The privilege of drawing near to God,
however, carries with it the necessity of doing so in a proper manner.
Burroughs states this unambiguously when he stresses the need for
“due preparation of the soul unto the duties of God’s worship.” First,
because “that God we come to worship is a great and glorious God”;
and second, “the duties of God’s worship are great duties. They are
the greatest things that concern us in this world.” Indeed, argues Bur-
roughs, “it is a sign of a very carnal heart to slight the duties of God’s
worship, to account them as little things.” Burroughs recognizes that
many do not understand the duties of God’s worship as great matters
and makes this plea:
My brethren...learn this lesson this morning.... [Learn] to ac-
count the duties of God’s worship as great matters. They are the
greatest things that concern you in this world, for they are the
homage that you render up to the high God...and those things
wherein God communicates Himself in His choice mercies [to
you].... Christians, I beseech you to account highly your time
of worship.
Burroughs insists that “due preparation of the soul unto the du-
ties of God’s worship” is “a special part of sanctifying...God’s name
in drawing nigh unto Him.” One reason, among many, given to sup-
port the need for preparation for worship is worthy of quoting in full
as it shows clearly Burroughs’s estimation of human nature:
There must be preparation because our hearts are naturally, ex-
ceedingly unprepared for every good work. We are all naturally
reprobate to every good work. The duties of God’s worship are
high and spiritual and holy things, but by nature our hearts grovel
in the dirt and we are carnal, sensual, drossy, dead, slight, sot-
(London: Cornmarket Press, 1971), which speaks to this very point. Parliamentar-
ians were also advocating the setting up of true religion in the nation, as may be seen
in the many addresses made before Parliament.
. Burroughs, Gospel Worship, 41, 42, 43, 44.
. Ibid., 45.
. Ibid., 42.
tish, and vain, altogether unfit to come into the presence of God.
Oh, that we were but apprehensive and sensible of the unfitness
of our hearts to come into God’s presence. Perhaps because you
do not know God you can rush into His presence without any
more ado, but if you know yourself and God, you could not but
see yourself altogether unfit for His presence, so as to wonder
that the Lord should not spurn you out of His presence every
time you come unto Him. There needs to be, then, preparation
because we are so unfit to come into His presence.10
Recognizing the natural inclinations of the human heart leads
Burroughs to suggest some ways by which the soul may be prepared
for worship, namely, meditation on the person of God, the turning
from sinful ways, the disentangling of the heart from worldly affairs,
and watchfulness and prayer. By such preparation, says Burroughs,
“we come to make every duty of worship easy to us.” Burroughs,
however, accepts that there is a cost to such preparation for worship,
but he believes it is a cost worth paying: “When the heart is prepared
for that which is good, when it comes into the presence of God, it
is able to lift itself up without fear in a steadfast, comfortable way...
this will quit the cost of any labour.” By grace, “where the heart is
prepared to duties, there the Lord will pass by weaknesses and imper-
fections in duties.”11
In this last comment Burroughs shows his concern for those who
have a tender conscience. To such people Burroughs gives two pieces
of advice. The first relates to “whether we ought to at all times to set
apart some time for preparation to every duty of God’s worship”; the
second relates to whether it would be better to put off some duty in
worship, if it was felt that the heart was not prepared for the duty.
Burroughs’s treatment of the first of these issues, while indicating the
necessity of a positive response, also recognizes that “it is possible to
keep the heart so close to God as to be fit for prayer, and the hearing
of the word, and for receiving the Sacrament every day, or any hour of
the day.” However, to be in this condition, as Burroughs notes, “needs
a very close walking with God and communion with God, and, the
10. Ibid., 46.

11. Ibid., 52, 53.
truth is, this is very rare, [for] most men let out their hearts so much
to other things.”12
The second query is whether holy duties may be set aside if “we
do not find our hearts prepared according to that which we desire.”
Burroughs gives four reasons why it would be wrong to “let the duty
go for that time and forbear the performance of it.” The first is that
“the omission of a duty, or the laying aside of a duty, will never fit
the soul for a duty afterwards.” Indeed, “to forbear a duty for want of
preparation...will never help to further preparation, but will make the
soul more unfit for duty.” A second reason is to understand this way
of thinking as “a temptation to keep you from it [the duty], to tell you
that you are not prepared,” but in doing this “you do gratify the devil...
and so [he] would be encouraged to tempt you at another time.” Bur-
roughs concludes with this plea: “Oh, let us take heed of gratifying
the devil in his temptations”13 to draw us from holy duties.
The third reason given by Burroughs highlights the need for sin-
cerity in worship: “if anyone performed a duty of worship in that
sincerity and strength that he is able to do, though he is not as pre-
pared as he ought, yet it is better to do it than to neglect it.” It is
also true, argues Burroughs, that as “one sin prepares the heart for
another sin, so one duty prepares the heart for another.” For Bur-
roughs, because sin becomes easier the more you do it, it follows that
the more we perform duties of worship, the resolve not to neglect
those duties will strengthen. Fourth, Burroughs gives advice to those
who may be “struggling with their souls and the corruption of their
own hearts,” which is keeping them from holy duties. Such people,
says Burroughs, should “call in the help of God and of Jesus Christ”
for this is the “best way to fall upon a duty.” Finally, says Burroughs,
“[t]hough you cannot find your heart prepared as you desire, the very
falling upon it [holy duty] will fit you for it.”14
So far in these sermons on gospel worship, Burroughs has been
emphasizing the need to have the heart prepared, or sanctified, for
duties of worship. This insistence on proper preparation for worship
has as its foundation the majesty and glory of the God who is being
worshipped. In Burroughs’s theology, as with nearly all Puritans, God
12. Ibid., 55, 56.

13. Ibid., 57, 58, 59.
14. Ibid., 59, 60, 61.
must have first place in life. Failure to give God the honor that is due
to Him is an affront to His incomparable excellency. For this reason
it is not difficult to understand why Burroughs refers to the subject of
God in His majesty and in doing so gives his hearers some guidance
on how this glorious God is to be approached. This we find in ser-
mons five, six, and seven of his Gospel Worship.
God’s majesty is clearly exalted by the way Burroughs instructs
his hearers as to their behavior when worshipping God: “Look upon
the Lord lifted up in glory, not only above all creatures, but above all
excellencies that all angels and men in heaven and earth are able to
imagine.” Continuing with his eulogy, Burroughs exhorts his hear-
ers, “Look upon the Lord as having all excellencies in Himself, joined
in one, and that immutably. Look upon Him as the fountain of all
excellency, good, and glory that all creatures in the world have.” Fur-
thermore, urges Burroughs, “Look upon the Lord every time you
come to worship Him as that God whom angels adore and before
whom the devils are forced to tremble.”15
Finally, “when we are worshipping God,” says Burroughs, “we
should have our hearts set above all creatures and above ourselves.”
God being holy and all glorious, great care must be taken that “we do
not subject the worship of God unto our lusts.” Neither must we sub-
ject “the duties of God’s worship to the praise of men...for the esteem
of men,” nor should we make “self our end.” These important warn-
ings are followed by Burroughs’s exhorting his hearers to come into
the presence of God with “much reverence and much fear”—not “a
servile fear, but a filial and reverential fear...a sanctifying fear.” Bur-
roughs also makes the point that the worship of God who is infinite
in power and glory must be full of strength, that is, “strength of inten-
tion...the strength of affection...the strength of all the faculties of the
soul and the strength of the body too, as much as we are able.” This
being said, however, Burroughs is also insistent that coupled with
these strengths there must be “a humble frame of spirit...with much
humility of soul.”16
To further encourage his hearers to exercise proper behavior in
worshipping God, Burroughs sets out twelve characteristics of God,
namely, God as Spirit, as eternal, as incomprehensible, as unchange-
15. Ibid., 71.

16. Ibid., 72, 73, 74, 78, 80, 84.
able, as the living God, as Almighty, as omniscient, as of infinite

wisdom, as holy, as merciful, as just, and as faithful.17 In concluding
his treatment of these characteristics, Burroughs says: “Now, then,
put all these attributes of God together and there you have His glory,
the infiniteness of His glory. The shine and lustre of all the attributes
together is God’s glory.” Since we have to deal with such a glorious
God, let us “labour to perform such services as may have a spiritual
glory upon them, that some image of the divine lustre that is in God”
may be upon our services.18
In the eighth sermon of Gospel Worship, Burroughs considers
some of the duties required in worship, namely, the hearing of God’s
Word, receiving the sacraments, and prayer. Each of these three topics
is given detailed treatment. While recognizing the importance of each
of the topics, we will concentrate only on the first of them19 because,
for Burroughs, indeed for the whole Puritan movement, the preach-
ing of God’s Word was the means of drawing individuals to Christ
and exhorting people to live a life of godliness. For these men and
women, preaching was nothing less than God’s Word being directly
communicated to them via the sermon.
Hearing God’s Word

Burroughs acknowledged that “God is pleased at the willingness of
people to come to hear His word,” but he warns his hearers that they
“must not rest barely in hearing.” They must take heed how they hear
it, for “it is part of the worship of God.” In coming to hear the Word
of God, “we profess,” says Burroughs, “that we depend upon the Lord
God for the knowing of His mind and the way and rule of eternal
17. Ibid., 93–103.

18. Ibid., 102.
19. For sermons on the Lord’s Supper, see The Puritans on the Lord’s Supper
(Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997). This work consists of sermons
by Richard Vines, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Wentworth, Joseph Alleine, and Tho-
mas Watson. For sermons on prayer, see The Puritans on Prayer (Morgan, PA: Soli
Deo Gloria Publications, 1995), which consists of The Saint’s Daily Exercise by John
Preston, The Spirit of Prayer by Nathaniel Vincent, and Secret Prayer by Samuel Lee.
Two other important Puritan works on prayer are Gospel Incense, or a Practical Treatise
on Prayer by Thomas Cobbet (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1993),
and The Lord’s Prayer in A Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson (Grand Rapids: Sov-
ereign Grace Publishers, n.d.).
life.” For this reason the hearer must be in a readiness of mind to

receive God’s Word, as Acts 17:11 confirms: “These were more noble
than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness.”20
In commenting on Acts 17:11, Burroughs gives us a glimpse of
the situation in his own day—at least in respect of those who attended
his preaching of God’s Word at Stepney, where the sermons that make
up Gospel Worship were preached. It should be noted that, although
the phraseology used by Burroughs at this point could be seen as in-
dicating some prejudice against those who are not “better bred,” this
would be a false interpretation of his comments. Burroughs suggests
that more noble (better bred) people, people “who are exercised in arts
and sciences, who have some understanding and some ingenuity in
them will hearken unto reason.” Whereas a “rude people who never
had any good breeding...will behave themselves rudely, they slight
the word, and like swine, regard acorns rather than pearls.” 21
Burroughs is making the general point that it is “a sign of good
breeding of men of ingenuity to be willing to hear the word....
Preached as the word of God to them, they will grant their presence at
least.” Contrary to these people “are those in a parish that so disregard
the word so as not to hear it.” They are “the ruder sort” who “would
rather be in alehouses drinking and swilling,” than hear the Word
preached. In referring to his own locality, Burroughs may be giving
an indication of the sort of people who attended his own ministry
when he puts this question to his hearers: “What place is there more
full of miserable, poor people than this place, and yet what a poor at-
tendance is there of such people at the hearing of the word?”22
Turning then to the necessity of having the heart ready to receive
the Word of God, Burroughs makes the point that his hearers do not
come to hear a man preach, but to receive the Word preached as the
very Word of God: “It is not the speaking of a man that you are go-
ing to attend...you are now going to attend upon God and to hear
the word of the eternal God. Possess your souls with this. You will
never sanctify God’s name in the hearing of His word otherwise.”23
20. Burroughs, Gospel Worship, 162, 163.

21. Ibid., 165.
22. Ibid., 165.
23. Ibid.
This comment emphasizes to us again Burroughs’s understanding of

what he, or any other minister of God, was about when he preached,
that is, he was functioning as a conduit through which God commu-
nicated His Word to the hearers. Indeed, Puritan ministers, including
Burroughs, would not have regarded the phrase “Thus says the Lord”
used by the Old Testament prophets as misapplied if it was applied to
their own preaching.
Burroughs accepts that it is profitable to read sermons at home,
but he insists that, “the great ordinance is the preaching of the word.”
Burroughs notes: “Faith comes by hearing, the Scriptures say, and
never by reading.” This is, undoubtedly, a very bold statement, but it
is one that goes to the very core of the Puritan theology of preaching.
On the premise, then, that preaching is “the great ordinance for the
converting and edifying of souls in the way of eternal life,” and “the
great ordinance that God has appointed for the conveyance of spiritual
good,” it is important that those who come to hear the Word should
“come with longing desires after the word.” In other words, “there
must be an opening of the heart to receive what God speaks.”24
This comment must not be understood as if Burroughs is saying
that men of themselves can open their hearts to God. What Burroughs
means is clearly stated: “It is true that it is the work of God to open the
heart, but God works upon men as rational creatures, and He makes
you to be active in opening your hearts so that when you should have
any truth come to be revealed, you should open your understandings,
your consciences, your wills and affections.”25
But the hearers must not stop at receiving the Word, “an apply-
ing of the heart to the word”; there must also be “an applying of the
word to the heart.” Here, again, we hear Burroughs echoing his fel-
low Puritan ministers as he urges his hearers to make use of the Word
preached: “The application of the word to the heart is of marvellous
use.... [Therefore] apply it to your own souls.” Applying God’s Word
has a twofold purpose in the thought of Burroughs: “My brethren,
there is no such way to honour God or get good to your souls as the
application of the word unto yourselves.” The contrary is also true,
24. Ibid., 167, 170, 175.

25. Ibid., 175.
however, for “you do not worship God,” if “you do not apply it to

yourselves,”26 nor reap any benefit from it.
In identifying different ways of coming to hear God’s Word, Bur-
roughs notes that the hearers of sermons “must mix faith with the
word or else it will do us but little good.” In other words, “there must
be a mixture of faith to believe the word that the Lord brings to you,”
but this does not mean that everything must be believed “merely be-
cause it is spoken.” Here Burroughs assists us in determining if what
is said in the name of God is indeed of God and as such may be be-
lieved: “Do not cast off anything presently that comes in the name of
God...until they have [been] examined and tried whether they are so
or not.” Likewise, “grant enough respect to the word that is spoken
to you” for such respect “has been the beginning of the conversion of
many souls.” Finally, “my brethren,” says Burroughs, “until we come
to believe the word, though we sit under it for many years, it will do
us little good and we shall never sanctify the name of God in the
hearing it.”27
These aids to believing the Word are immediately followed by
several directions on “the right behaviour of the soul in sanctifying
God’s name.” Here Burroughs notes “meekness of spirit,” “a trembling
heart,” “a humble subjection,” “with love and joy,” and a willingness
“to hide the word in our hearts,” as proper behavior. Burroughs urges
a quietness of spirit “in attending upon the word” because “it is a
dreadful thing to have the heart rise against the word.... It is a great
dishonour to the name of God for men to give liberty to their pas-
sions to rise against the word.”28
Those who would allow their passions to rise above the Word are
such who “have some trouble of conscience in them.... [And] their
spirits are in a discontented, wicked humour because they do not have
that comfort they desire.” Then, because they have no “present com-
fort by it,” their “spirits are in a distemper and a perverseness and they
cast it off.” Another sort who allow their passions to rise up are “those
who, when they find the word come near unto them relating those
sins that their consciences tell them they are guilty of, their hearts
rise against God and His word, and ministers too.” Indeed, argues
26. Ibid., 175, 176, 177.

27. Ibid., 177, 178, 179.
28. Ibid., 178, 182, 184, 190, 179, 180.
Burroughs, because the Word preached “would pluck away some be-
loved corruption, because it rebukes them of some habitual practice
of evil...it puts a shame on them.”29
As it is a dishonor to God not to receive His Word with a spirit of
meekness, so it is a dishonor to God not to have “a humble subjection
to the word that we hear.” In other words, as God’s Word is above us
in authority, “so our hearts must bow to it, must lie under the word
that we hear.” “Let God speak and we will submit had we 600 necks,
we will submit all we are or have to this word of the Lord,” for to “lie
down under the word of God which is preached...is a most excellent
thing, and God’s name is greatly sanctified.” Such submission should
be comprehensive: “Know then that God expects that you should
submit your estates, your souls, your bodies, [and] all that you have
to this word.” Importantly, Burroughs reminds his hearers that they
must examine what they hear “to see whether it is according to God’s
word or not.”30
Simply to acknowledge the authority of the Word of God over
you, however, falls short of what is necessary if it is not accompanied
with love and joy: “It is not enough for you to be convinced of the
authority of it...[you must] receive the word with love and with joy.”
“You must receive the word not only as the true word of the Lord,
but as the good word of the Lord.” Burroughs sees salvation as more
than simply escaping the fire of hell: “It is not enough, my brethren,
to receive the truth that we might be saved, but we must receive the
love of the truth if ever we would be saved.” When we receive the
Word of God with joy, it increases our “apprehensions of the spiritual
excellencies that are in the word,” because the Word “reveals God and
Christ” to the soul. The point is well made by Burroughs when he
says, “I see the image of God in His word, I see the very glass of God’s
holiness in His word. I feel that in the word that which may bring my
soul to God, wherein my soul enjoys communion with God and Jesus
Christ, and it is this that gladdens my soul.”31
For Burroughs, therefore, recognizing what was preached as the
pure Word of God should be a means of drawing from the hearers a
desire to hide God’s Word in their hearts. By so doing, it will sanctify
29. Ibid., 179, 180.

30. Ibid., 183, 184.
31. Ibid., 184, 184–185, 185, 186, 187, 186.
God’s name for it gives “testimony to the excellency of the word and
manifest[s] the high esteem” the hearers have for it. It also recognizes
the benefit that may be gleaned from the Word in the days that lie
ahead, “against the many temptations you meet with.” Furthermore,
“those who have the word of God abiding in them overcome the
wicked one.” Finally, says Burroughs, “If ever you would expect to
receive any good from the word or to look upon the face of God with
comfort...do not be a shame to His word.” 32
One of the reasons given by Burroughs why God would have
“His name sanctified in the ordinance of hearing His word” is be-
cause it is “the great ordinance to convey the special mercies that He
intends for the good of His people.” This last point, however, has a
flip side attached to it as Burroughs warns his hearers that their failure
to “sanctify God’s name in hearing His word in those ways that have
been opened...[will] lose [them] the greatest and happiest opportu-
nity for good that ever creatures had for an outward opportunity.”
“Know,” says Burroughs, “this word that is appointed by God for the
conveyance of so much mercy to the elect will prove to be the great-
est aggravation of your sin that can be.” And further, “when the word
works not upon men it is a dreadful sign of reprobation.” But, always
the encourager, Burroughs exhorts his hearers to think that when
“God shall magnify His word before men and angels,” they could be
in a position to say, “This is the word that spoke to my heart...that I
reverenced, that I obeyed, that I loved, that I made to be the joy of my
heart.” And such thinking “will be comfortable to your soul.”33
A Trembling Heart
One of the injunctions given for the proper hearing of God’s Word
is that it must be done with a trembling heart, for “God has a re-
gard to that soul that trembles at His word rather than to any who
should build the most sumptuous buildings in the world for Him.”
Burroughs’s emphasis on God being “more magnified in His word
than in all His works” is a reminder to us of the importance he placed
on the being of God. That emphasis prompts Burroughs to ask his
hearers to consider that “the word is that which binds the soul over
either to life or death.” Burroughs asserts that such who come to hear
32. Ibid., 190, 192, 194.

33. Ibid., 193, 200, 202, 214, 215.
God’s Word with a trembling heart “are the most likely of all men and
women to understand the mind of God...to understand God’s coun-
sels revealed in His word.” On the other hand, those who “are rich in
their own thoughts and understandings, are sent away empty.”34
Hearing the Word of God with a trembling heart was so impor-
tant for Burroughs that he preached three sermons on it from Isaiah
66:2 followed by four sermons on 2 Kings 22:19, which speaks of a
tender or melting heart. The seven sermons were published in 1674,
twenty-eight years after Burroughs’ death, as Gospel Fear or the Heart
Trembling at the Word of God. Both in Gospel Fear and Gospel Worship
Burroughs emphasizes again and again that although the Lord is
high and mighty, yet “God has a regard to that soul that trembles at
His word.” Furthermore, says Burroughs, “it is a very good sign of a
spiritually enlightened soul when he can see the name of God more
magnified in His word than in all His works.” Indeed, “there is more
of His glory in the word than there is in the whole of creation of
heaven and earth.” 35 There is “so much of God in His word.” 36
The wonder of God’s glory, majesty, authority, and holiness are all
evident in the Word as are God’s infinite justice, power, and glorious
divine mysteries. All these are considered in Gospel Fear, 37 in which
Burroughs is a master at showing that God’s Word is “full of efficacy
and quickness” as “it works the soul with abundance of quickness one
way or the other; to heaven or hell.” The Word is seen by a trembling
heart as that which “must be opened to judge it on the Great Day.”
Indeed, says Burroughs, “The words that you now hear shall be called
all over again, and every sermon that you have heard, every truth
that God has caused to come to your consciences shall be called over
again, and shall judge you at the Great Day.” And such a prospect can-
not but make you to “tremble at the word of God.”38
In his application Burroughs gives evidence that there is great
comfort to be had in God’s Word, knowledge of which “may help
you with other fears you may have,” “help you with comfort against
all your weaknesses,” and “give comfort in times of affliction.” Com-
34. Ibid., 181, 182.

35. Ibid., 181, 182.
36. Ibid., 195.
37. Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Fear,: or The Heart Trembling at the Word of God
Evidences a Blessed Frame of Spirit (London, 1674), 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16.
38. Ibid., 18, 22.
fort is also to be found in knowing that those who “would venture

anything rather than go against God’s word in any particular” God
will surely vindicate. Burroughs presents contemporary proof of this
when he says, “these were cast into prison with the pretence, ‘Let
the Lord be glorified.’ Now hear you this, ‘He shall appear to your
joy, and they shall be ashamed’ [Isaiah 66:5]. O how has this been
fulfilled! The fulfilling of this one Scripture should make us fall in
love with the word of God.” Burroughs concludes his first sermon in
Gospel Fear by exclaiming, “O labour to keep your hearts in a constant
trembling frame and the word that you do now tremble at will forever
hereafter comfort your heart.”39
In his second sermon in Gospel Fear, Burroughs deals with a possi-
ble query to his insistence that “the heart that trembles at God’s word,
God looks upon with affection.” The query relates to the words of
James 2:19 “the devils also believe, and tremble,” and asks “does God
have affection towards them?” In his reply Burroughs states that there
is a great difference between the trembling of devils and some men,
who only see the terror of God’s Word, and a sanctified trembling of
the heart at the Word of God. This latter trembling is, for Burroughs,
“a sign that the word has some power over you more than it did be-
fore.” It also suggests “the right setting of fear upon the right object,”
but with this qualification: “though there is not a gracious principle
to act it in that manner as it should be upon the object.” Yet such fear
“may prevent a great deal of evil,” and “may also be a preparation for
more good that God may intend towards” such people.40
Burroughs then expounds what the sanctified fear of God and the
Word is: “True fear and trembling at the word is that which will settle
the heart and strengthen the heart against all other fears.”41 To drive
home his point Burroughs sets before his hearers the Old Testament
prophet Habakkuk’s description of himself on hearing God’s Word:
“when I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rot-
tenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself” (Hab. 3:16).
Further, insists Burroughs, “such fear as subdues the heart to the
power of the word, subdues the thoughts, the opinions, the conscience,
the will, [and] the affections to the power of the word.” Burroughs
39. Ibid., 23, 24, 25, 29.

40. Ibid., 30, 32.
41. Ibid., 42.
also emphasizes the point that a truly sanctified trembling of the heart
will be habitual and not only on sudden occasions:
Many times God strikes some sudden flashes of terror into the
hearts of men and women, but they vanish and come to nothing.
But this trembling at God’s word that the Lord so highly esteems
is a constant, habitual disposition of soul. It is not, therefore,
only at some apprehensions of God’s displeasure, but lets God
speak peace to the soul. (I beseech you observe this point). Let
God speak peace never so much to this soul, yet still it continues
trembling at the word of God. Many men will tremble at God’s
word in time of their sickness and affliction, but let them have
quiet and outward peace and ease; then their trembling is gone.
But a gracious heart trembles at the word of God even when it
has a most quiet conscience.42
Five reasons are given why God prizes a sanctified trembling
heart: 1) it is a disposition that glorifies God’s Word; 2) it is a disposi-
tion that greatly honors God; 3) because God loves a broken heart; 4)
it is a serious heart, and God loves a serious disposition; and 5) it is
a disposition that is teachable.43 Burroughs then turns to the benefits
that flow from applying God’s injunctions to worship. In his applica-
tion Burroughs shows the graciousness of God towards those who
tremble with awe at the Word, by noting that God “does not judge as
men judge.” Men call “the proud happy, but God calls the trembling
heart the happy man.” Indeed, though despised by the world “there is
no object in heaven or earth that pleases God better than such a one
that trembles at His word.”44
Burroughs is also very aware of his own responsibility as a min-
ister of God’s Word, as he recognizes that if such a disposition so
pleases God it is imperative that he or any other minister of God’s
Word “must not come to dally and play with men’s fancies nor
their own wit.” Preachers must not preach with what the Apostle
Paul calls the “enticing words of man’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:4). Such
preaching may “commend the man, but condemn the word” for it is
definitely not preaching in “demonstration of the Spirit and of power”
(1 Cor. 2:4). Burroughs is adamant that when “a minister of God comes
42. Ibid., 45–46.

43. Ibid., 47, 48, 51.
44. Ibid., 53.
in God’s name and preaches in the demonstration of the Spirit...he

preaches with power, such power as prevails with the consciences
of men.”45
Likewise, “the ministers of Christ ought to speak in the name
of Christ, as being backed with the authority of Christ, as men who
have to deal with men’s consciences.” The preacher should labor not
to account their honor in “the humms [sic] of people, [or] in their
applause, but in their crying out, ‘What must I do to be saved?’” The
reason why Burroughs advocated such preaching is to be found in the
sufficiency of Scripture: “There is matter enough in the word of God
to make any heart tremble if it is delivered as the word of God.”46
In his application Burroughs sets out several “streams of consola-
tion” which “flow into the hearts of such as tremble at God’s word.”
These streams include a knowledge that “God has begun to enlighten
the soul,” and that with the “very words of salvation God intends...
in a special manner” to the soul. Such consolation is to be gathered
from “the promises in Scripture,” which clearly state that “the Lord
will reveal Himself to this soul,” that is, to the soul that trembles at
God’s Word. However, it might be, warns Burroughs, that “for the
present He does not do it, yet wait upon Him and the Lord will make
known the most glorious things to you.” Burroughs also reminds his
hearers that “God will honour His word before men and angels....
Be sure that there is a time coming that the Lord will make His word
honourable before all the world, and, therefore, happy are those that
tremble at it now in reverencing it.” Indeed, says Burroughs, there
are those who will say, “blessed be God that while I lived I trembled
at the word, that the Lord has now come to make so glorious before
men and angels.”47
Contrary to this, Burroughs reminds his hearers, are “those who
are far from such a disposition of heart as this is” and “go on in a
constant way of disobedience against the word of God, in a way of re-
bellion against the word.” Such make it the foundation of their “peace
and present rest and comfort...[that] things will not prove as bad as
they are revealed in the word,” “as bad as ministers preach out of the
word.” What follows is a stinging reproof from Burroughs: “Cursed
45. Ibid..
46. Ibid., 54, 55.
47. Ibid., 56, 57, 59, 62.
be that peace, that comfort...that has no other ground for it but to

hope God’s word is not true.” “Cursed is the hope that is grounded on
no other ground,” says Burroughs.48 These are provocative statements,
but surely they are uttered in defence of the integrity and authority of
God’s Word and with the desire to awaken the impenitent from the
fearful slumber they are in.
Furthermore, those who do not reverence, nor tremble at the
Word, but “cavil against the word as if the word were their equal,”
live “in a way of rebellion against the word,” “have their hearts raised
against God’s word,” and who also “rage at the word of God,” well,
laments Burroughs, “the Lord cannot but with judgement look upon
such object[s]…. O, it is impossible that the Lord should look upon
them without destruction.” A further reminder is given to this category
of people by Burroughs: “Know that the word you do not fear is work-
ing your destruction,” which the glory that God’s sovereignty, majesty,
holiness, and justice demand. But not willing to end on such a note,
Burroughs urges them: “Entreat God that He would show unto your
soul the glory of His name,” not “as a curse” but “as a blessing.”49
Conclusions
The sermons of Burroughs we have been considering proclaim an ex-
plicit message: the One whom Burroughs describes as “glorious in all
His attributes and works” will have from man what man was created
for, and in a way that will exalt and glorify God. In other words, “God
will be honored in all His works of creation and providence” as a holy
God, for “it is the end of the great council of God from eternity, that
He might manifest the beauty of His holiness.” And this God will do
by those “two great attributes, mercy and justice”: mercy to those who
will tremble at the Word of God and reverence the God of the Word.
Indeed, declares Burroughs, “it is the great business for which the
Son of God came into the world: that He might redeem to Himself
a people to serve Him in holiness.”50 But until that great day when
God will be manifested in all His glory, “let us all...labour,” exhorts
Burroughs, “for such a blessed disposition of heart...[will] be to the
honour of the great God.... Let us lay upon our hearts the meditation
48. Ibid., 56, 58, 60.

49. Ibid., 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 63–64, 65.
50. Burroughs, The Saints Treasury, 15, 18.
of how much there is in the word, and consider the majesty of God
that is there.”51
Burroughs is also careful in these sermons to strike a balance
between his presentation of the excellency of God and its practical
application. This balance is articulated clearly in these instructions:
“As God is all glorious in His holiness so set Him out in His glory
by keeping His worship pure.” “Especially,” says Burroughs in Gospel
Fear, “look to your heart, to cleanse it when you draw near to this holy
God in this holy worship.”52 The high esteem for worship that Bur-
roughs portrayed, as we have discovered in our analysis of his Gospel
Worship, flows from his concept of God. In this work, Burroughs gives
us a penetrating analysis of worship, but even before he comes to de-
fine what proper worship is, he is insistent on a proper preparation for
worship. This is very important for Burroughs and implies that, for
him, proper worship cannot take place without due preparation.
Much can be gleaned from the way Burroughs handles his sub-
ject in general and his insistence that worship must be conducted in a
proper manner, but none more so than in the way he links the hearing
of God’s Word to worship. In Gospel Worship, Burroughs highlights
not only the preaching of God’s Word, but the Puritan insistence on
how the Word is to be heard: with the heart and with the head. This
is an important concept for Burroughs, as is evidenced by the great
lengths to which he goes to show the necessity of using both the in-
tellect and the emotions in recognizing the authority of the Word over
us in everything—our estates, our bodies, and our souls.
Such preaching was undoubtedly powerful and apt to put the fear
of God into those who heard these sermons, but it was not Burroughs’s
intention solely to present the awesomeness of God coupled with a
warning of judgment. His goal was that those who were given the
opportunity of worshipping God in the hearing of His Word would
recognize the great privilege that was being accorded to them and
glorify God for it. This privilege also showed the graciousness of God
towards such people as they are the recipients of genuine comfort and
blessing in the hearing of the Word of God preached. This message
is so contrary to those which are all about the “feel good” factor and
one’s own self-esteem rather than living to the glory of God.
51. Burroughs, Gospel Fear, 64.

52. Burroughs, The Saints Treasury, 26, 27.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 246 –265
Samuel Davies: One of America’s

Greatest Revival Preachers
john e. skidmore
q
Samuel Davies was one of America’s greatest preachers. That as-

sessment was made by the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones to students
at Westminster Theological Seminary in 1967. Lloyd-Jones was
astounded that so great a preacher as Davies was unknown in the
country where he ministered. Ashbel Green, a President of Princeton
College after Davies, wrote of him, “President Davies was probably
the most accomplished preacher that our country has produced.”
These statements about Davies are even more remarkable consider-
ing that he died at the age of thirty-seven. During his short ministry
in Virginia in the 1740s and 1750s, he regularly preached to seven
congregations scattered over a three-county area. Under his ministry,
the number of people gathering to hear the Word of God preached
grew from tens to hundreds. His sermons were well received by both
gentlemen farmers and slaves. His persuasiveness as an orator gained
him and the dissenters to whom he ministered the favor of the gover-
nor of the colony, and his winsome demeanor and eloquence enabled
him to have an influence on many people, including King George of
England. His preaching style also influenced the oratory of the leg-
endary leader of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry.
During his short ministry of a dozen years in Colonial Virginia,
Davies saw the church grow from several clusters of people hungry
for God’s Word to seven congregations of hundreds of people who
. Iain H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American
Evangelicalism 1750–1858 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1994), 3.
. Joseph Jones, Life of Ashbel Green (New York: Robert Carter, 1849), 251,
quoted in Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 3n.
. George William Pilcher, Samuel Davies, Apostle of Dissent in Virginia (Knox-
ville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1971), 83–85.
Samuel Davies 247
experienced the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Davies’s sermons

were published individually in America and Great Britain during his
lifetime and several editions of his collected sermons were printed in
the nineteenth century. His sermons were studied by ministers for a
hundred years after his death, enabling his ministry of the Word to
long outlive his short life. Interestingly, in his diary, Davies expressed
the desire to publish his sermons so that he might “be of service in
places far remote from the sphere of my usual labours.”
The first part of this article will briefly sketch the life and minis-
try of Samuel Davies and the historic context in which he served; the
second will present Davies’s theology of revival as it emerges from
some of his sermons. Davies believed that sound doctrine is essential
to a revival of religion. In his sermons, he emphasized doctrines that
he identified as essential to revival, yet neglected in his day. Four of
the “neglected” doctrines that Davies emphasized in his preaching
are the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God, the doctrine of the
eternal state, and justification by faith. An analysis of his sermon on
1 John 3:1–2 will demonstrate how Davies presented Reformation
doctrines in his sermons.
Davies believed that a preacher has two types of people in his
audience: the children of God and the children of the devil. A sub-
category of the latter type are those who are Christian in name only.
Davies makes a special effort to reach this special and difficult au-
dience. In the sermon on 1 John 3:1–2, Davies addresses all three
types of people. The sermon reveals the burden Davies bore to see
the saints of God working out their faith through holy living. It also
reveals his conviction that mankind is hopelessly lost and destined
for an eternity of torment unless God intervenes on their behalf. Da-
vies taught his congregation that man’s salvation is wholly dependent
upon divine intervention; yet he did not hesitate to urge sinners to
repent and place their trust in Christ alone for salvation. Of particular
interest for our times is Davies’s addresses to those who called them-
selves Christians but whose religion lacked fervency. Davies sternly
. Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 3.

. George William Pilcher, ed., The Reverend Samuel Davies Abroad: The Diary
of a Journey to England and Scotland, 1753–1755 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1967), entry for July 5, 1754.
warns these nominal or lukewarm Christians that they are in danger

of spending eternity in hell.
Historical Sketch
Early Life and Education
Samuel Davies was born in New Castle County, Delaware, in 1723,
to devout parents who provided young Samuel with examples of true
piety. At the age of twelve, Samuel was converted and at age fifteen
he made a profession of faith and joined the Presbyterian Church. He
received a classical and theological education at Fagg’s Manor, Penn-
sylvania, under the tutelage of the Rev. Samuel Blair, one of the great
preachers of the First Great Awakening in the middle colonies.
Davies learned about spiritual awakening while studying under
Blair. When Blair first settled among the Presbyterians in Chester
County, Pennsylvania, in 1739, he found them ignorant of any knowl-
edge of saving faith in Christ. In 1757, Davies recalled preaching with
Blair in Pennsylvania in 1741. He describes the state of religion in
that colony as “out of fashion” and the inhabitants as lying “in a dead
sleep in sin.” Davies reports that “suddenly, a deep general concern
about eternal things spread through the country.” According to Da-
vies, thousands were converted and were changed and “still remain
shining monuments to the power of divine grace.” Davies experi-
enced another awakening while assisting the Rev. William Robinson
in Maryland in 1745, calling it “the most glorious display of divine
grace.” In 1747, Davies was licensed to preach by Newcastle Pres-
bytery and sent to Hanover, Virginia, to preach to several groups of
settlers who regularly gathered to have sermons read to them. These
experiences under Blair and Robinson prepared him for the ripe fields
he would face in Virginia.
Sketch of the Revivals in Virginia, 1740–1754

Eighteenth-century Virginia was controlled by a few hundred wealthy
and powerful plantation families who resided in the lowlands along
the coast. In the 1730s, the leaders of Virginia began to invite set-
. Thomas Talbot Ellis, “Samuel Davies: Apostle of Virginia,” The Banner of

Truth Magazine, no. 235, April 1983; reprinted in “Fire and Ice Sermon Series,”
www.puritansermons.com, 2.
. Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 5.
. Ibid., 6.
Samuel Davies 249
tlers from Pennsylvania and northern colonies to settle their western

lands to provide security against Indian attacks and to expand their
commercial markets. In 1738, Governor William Gooch notified the
Synod of Philadelphia that he was inclined to allow nonconformist
churches to send ministers west of the Blue Ridge to minister among
the new settlers there. In response, the Synod sent Scotch Irish preach-
ers to the Great Valley area, west of the Blue Ridge.
The settling of the uplands of Virginia east of the Blue Ridge
took place along the various rivers. Inland settlements were small and
a small group of elites exerted coercive control over the affairs of the
inhabitants. One arm of this coercive social structure was the Angli-
can Church, which was established by law in Virginia. Settlers east of
the Blue Ridge were expected to attend and pay tithes to the Anglican
Church. Absence from the established church was punished by fines
and ostracism.
At the request of several small groups of settlers stirred up by the
preaching of George Whitefield, New Side Presbyterians from the
Synod of New York began to preach to these groups of settlers east of
the Blue Ridge. This agitated Anglicans in Virginia and in England.
Davies, an eloquent spokesman for the cause of religious liberty, was
able to effectively lobby the governor of Virginia for permission to
preach to these groups.10 He was the first dissenting minister licensed
to preach in Virginia. Throughout his career in Virginia, Davies was
opposed by the Anglican clergy who felt that his ministry succeeded
at their expense.11
Samuel Morris, a member of one of Davies’s congregations, re-
counted the origins of the revivals that swept through Virginia in
the 1740s.12 In 1740, Morris had been unable to make the sixty-mile
. D.W. Meinig, The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of

History, Vol. 1, 1492–1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 155–160.
10. Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Scepter: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities,
and Politics, 1689 to 1775 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), 131–133. See
also Richard M. Gummere, Seven Wise Men of Colonial America (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1967), 41– 49.
11. Ellis, “Samuel Davies,” 2.
12. Samuel Davies, State of Religion among the Protestant Dissenters in Virginia. An
Account of a Remarkable Work of Grace, or the Great Success of the Gospel in Virginia. In
a letter from the Rev. Mr. Davis...to the Rev. Mr. Bellamy.... With an account of the state of
religion in several parts of North America, from 1743 to June 1751 (London: J. Lewis, and
G. Englefield, 1752), 2.
journey to Williamsburg to hear George Whitefield preach, but, in

1743, he purchased a book that reprinted a few of Whitefield’s ser-
mons. Eventually, the reading material was expanded to include the
writings of some of the most well-known names in seventeenth-
century England, Robert Bolton, Richard Baxter, John Flavel, and
John Bunyan. After he read the sermons, he invited his neighbors
to come and hear the sermons read. Many were convicted of their
“undone condition” and “sought the Lord’s remedy with earnestness.”
Morris reports that a great number began to gather every Sunday,
and sometimes on weekdays, to hear sermons read. Morris began to
receive requests to read sermons at locations some distance from his
home. Eventually, he wrote a letter to the Synod of New York request-
ing that a preacher be sent to them. New-light Presbyterian ministers
from Pennsylvania were sent by the synod to the new settlements in
Virginia. Those who had been listening attentively to the read sermons
were “lost in agreeable surprise and astonishment” at the preaching of
William Robinson. Many who came to hear Robinson preach out of
curiosity “were pricked to the heart,” were “alarmed with apprehen-
sions about their dangerous condition,” and were “earnestly enquiring
what they should do to be saved.”13
After the Rev. Robinson left, the sermon readings continued,
attended by “considerable numbers,” and many more people were
converted. The assemblies became so large that meetinghouses had
to be constructed. Morris continued to be invited to read sermons at
places thirty to forty miles from his home. Several other ministers
passed through this part of Virginia, preaching the gospel to eager
ears; John Blair, John Roan, Gilbert Tennant, and Samuel Finley.
From the ministries of these men “the people of God were refreshed,
and several careless sinners were awakened.”14 The attendees of the il-
legal meetings were elated when Samuel Davies arrived in April 1747,
with a license to preach in four meetinghouses.15
In 1748, three more meetinghouses were approved by the gov-
ernment and Davies divided his time among the seven scattered
congregations. Some of the members lived forty miles from the near-
est meetinghouse. Davies reported that some people also traveled to
13. Ibid., 3.
14. Ibid., 5.
15. Ibid., 7.
Samuel Davies 251
meetinghouses other than their own. At first he suspected that these

people were merely attending out of curiosity but later concluded that
they were “thoroughly wrought upon” by the preached Word. Some
curiosity seekers apparently did attend Davies’s meetings, for he es-
timated that fifty or sixty families were “entangled in the net of the
Gospel by their own curiosity.” Davies attributed the success in Vir-
ginia to nothing else than a “work of the Lord.” In the span of only
a few years, the number of people who professed faith in Christ rose
from fewer than ten to several hundred.16 Davies reported that he had
about three hundred communicants in his congregation and many
other regular attendees, including one hundred slaves. Davies baptized
approximately forty slaves in his first three years in Hanover.17 In ad-
dition to his members, Davies was preaching to between five hundred
and six hundred non-communicants in the various meetinghouses
by 1753.18 Davies pleaded with Joseph Bellamy to send pastors for the
six or seven “destitute” congregations in Virginia, some of whom had
gone more than a year without hearing a sermon.19
In 1758, Davies was invited to become the President of the
College of New Jersey. This greatly distressed his congregation in
Hanover, who appealed to the Presbytery and Synod not to take their
beloved minister from them.20 At first Davies declined the position at
Princeton, but eventually he was persuaded to take the position. His
tenure was brief, lasting only eighteen months. In 1762, at the age of
37, Davies died after being bled for a severe cold.
Davies and Revival

When Davies arrived in Virginia in 1747, he began his preaching min-
istry to people who had been sustained only by reading sermons and
occasionally hearing an itinerant preacher. Under his ministry, the
small gatherings would multiply and swell to hundreds over the next
twelve years. How can one account for this phenomenal growth dur-
ing the ministry of this young and relatively inexperienced preacher?
Some would point to Davies’s great gifts of oratory as the reason. Da-
16. Ibid., 10.

17. Ibid., 8.
18. Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 10.
19. Ibid., 11–12.
20. “A Letter to Hanover Presbytery and the Synod of New York,” in Pilcher,
Samuel Davies, 193–195.
vies himself attributed it to a work of God, not to his or to any other

man’s abilities. Davies believed that his duty, like that of all ministers,
was simply to preach sound biblical doctrine, for this is the means
God employs to enliven His church.
Davies attributed the languid condition of the church in his day
largely to the neglect of sound doctrine. For him, the doctrines of
the Reformation were the doctrines of revival. On his trip to Great
Britain on behalf of the founding College of New Jersey, he was ap-
palled at the content of many of the sermons he heard. In his diary, he
noted the decline of a particular Presbyterian church and comments,
“the Presbyterians have gone off from the good old doctrines of the
Reformation.”21 Drawing on several of Davies’s sermons, his theology
of revival can be constructed to the benefit of the modern church.
After presenting some of the doctrines Davies considered essen-
tial to revival, an analysis of Davies’s sermon on 1 John 3:1–2 will be
presented as an example of how he communicated the doctrines of
the Reformation to his congregation.
The Neglected Doctrines

Davies believed that sound doctrine is requisite for a living church.
Davies’s experience in America and Great Britain convinced him that
neglect of the doctrines of the Reformation had led to the decline in
the church. Four of the “neglected” doctrines that Davies emphasized
in his preaching are the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God, the
doctrine of the eternal state, and justification by faith. These themes
recur in many of Davies’s sermons; sometimes an entire sermon is
devoted to one of them.
• The Doctrine of Man’s Depravity

Davies believed that preaching the doctrine of depravity is necessary
to the practice of true religion. Davies considered the neglect of the
teaching of depravity to be one of the major defects in the preaching
of his day. He believed that teaching men that they can “do something
very considerable in religion” causes them to scorn total dependence
upon divine grace. In response, God withdraws the influence of His
Spirit from them until “they are brought to the dust.”22
Davies believed that the Scriptures plainly teach the degeneracy
21. Davies, Diary, July 21, 1754.

22. Samuel Davies, “The Success of the Ministry of the Gospel, Owing to
Samuel Davies 253
of mankind, but it is also confirmed by universal experience. He ar-

gued that
the whole bent of our souls by nature is contrary to the gospel.
The gospel is designed to reclaim men from sin; but they are
obstinately set upon it; it is designed to make sin bitter to them,
and to dissolve their hearts into tender sorrows for it; but we
naturally delight in sin, and our hearts are hard as the nether
millstone; it is intended to bring apostate rebels back to God,
and the universal practice of holiness; but we love estrangement
from him, and have no inclination to return. We abhor the ways
of strict holiness, and choose to walk in the imaginations of our
own hearts.23
Davies said that “such is the present degeneracy of human nature,
that all the ministrations of the gospel cannot remedy it, without the
concurring efficacy of divine grace. So barren is the soil, that the seed
of the word falls upon it and dies and never grows up; as though it had
never been sown there, till it be fructified by divine grace.”24 Deprav-
ity renders the gospel useless unless accompanied by the ministry of
the Holy Spirit in the hearer.
• The Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty

As a consequence of Davies’s belief in the depravity of man, he also
believed that man cannot be saved without the immediate influence of
the Holy Spirit. Davies credited the large number of conversions that
had taken place in Virginia not to anything good in the converts or
the gifts of the preacher, but to the outpouring of God’s grace through
the Holy Spirit.25 The doctrine of sovereignty, or divine influence as
Davies refers to it, was a central theme of his preaching.
Davies taught his congregation that “the design of God in all his
works of creation, providence, and grace, is to advance and secure the
glory of his own name.” Drawing on the text of 1 Corinthians 3:7–8,
“then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;
but God that giveth the increase,” Davies noted that “God uses a va-
a Divine Influence, a sermon preached at Hanover, Virginia, November 9, 1757”

(Philadelphia: William W. Harding, 1864), 12.
23. Ibid., 4.
24. Ibid., 3.
25. Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 21–22.
riety of suitable means to form degenerate sinners into his image,

and fit them for a happy eternity. All the institutions of the gospel
are intended for this purpose.” It is often through the painful toil of
the minister that God brings forth a harvest, but, Davies argues, un-
less God pours out His spirit from on high, the minister’s labors will
not be successful. Davies illustrates from the realm of agriculture:
“the agency of his Holy Spirit is as necessary to fructify the word,
and make it the seed of conversion, as the influences of heaven are to
fructify the earth and promote vegetation.”26
By 1757, the revival had come to an end in Virginia. In a sermon
to his Hanover congregation, he reminds them, “You hardly know
one careless sinner that has been made seriously religious, within
these two or three years.” Davies attributes the decline of religion to
the Lord’s withholding of His influence. In Davies’s view, the reason
God had withdrawn from them was because the people had become
dependent upon the minister and themselves, rather than on God. He
laments that “in general, it is evident that a contagious lukewarmness
and carnal security have spread themselves among us.”27 At times,
God gives an extra measure of the Holy Spirit to effect revival; at
other times, He withdraws the Spirit, bringing a revival to an end.
• The Doctrine of the Eternal State

Davies was distressed by the neglect of the Virginia clergy to teach on
the eternal destiny of unbelievers. In his words, the preaching of the
Virginia clergy was “as though their hearers were crowding promiscu-
ously into heaven.” These preachers “do not represent their miserable
condition in all its horrors; do not alarm them with solemn, pathetic
and affectionate warnings.” He wrote to the Bishop of London in
1752, “The plain truth is, a general reformation must be promoted
in this colony by some means or other, or multitudes are eternally
undone: and I see alas! but little ground to hope for it from the gen-
erality of the clergy here, till they be happily changed themselves.”28
Davies’s assessment was that most of the ministers in Virginia were
unconverted men.
Davies unashamedly affirms that the unbeliever will perish in
26. Ibid., 1–2.

27. Samuel Davies, “The Success of the Ministry of the Gospel,” 13.
28. Quoted in Murray, Revival and Revivalism, n. 2, 26–27.
Samuel Davies 255
eternity. This belief compelled him to fervently preach the damna-

tion of sinners in order to stimulate them to repent. In his letter to
the Bishop of London, Davies expressed the burden that he felt. He
wrote, “[B]ut I dare profess, I cannot be an unconcerned spectator of
the ruin of my dear fellow mortals; I dare avow my heart at times is
set upon nothing more than to snatch the brands out of the burning,
before they catch fire and burn unquenchably.”29 Davies also taught
on the eternal state of believers, hoping thereby to motivate them in
their Christian walk. This is the major emphasis of his sermon on
1 John 3:1–2.
• The Doctrine of Justification by Faith

Davies’s belief in hell motivated him to clearly articulate the only
remedy for hell—justification by faith in Christ alone. After recover-
ing from an illness that almost took his life, Davies sought to preach
a sermon to his congregation that would have “the most tendency to
save your souls.”30 He believed that many of those assembled before
him were sinners in need of a Savior. Davies was uncompromising in
his belief that the only means of salvation was through the atoning
work of Jesus Christ. He tells his audience, “Without Christ you are
all in a perishing condition.” Davies believed this condition obtained
not only for his immediate audience, but for all the world. There is no
other way of salvation than in the death of God’s Son.
Davies taught that salvation consists of two parts: the deliverance
from punishment for sins committed and the advancement to a state
of perfect happiness.31 The honor and justice of God as sovereign of
the universe makes it absolutely necessary that He punish sin. There
is, however, no such necessity that sinners be saved from their sin. If a
sinner were to die for his own sins, the justice of God would be satis-
fied, but the sinner would still be alienated from God. The good news
of the gospel is that Christ suffered “in the stead of sinners” so that
the demands of justice are satisfied. Christ’s “infinite dignity” made
him alone a suitable substitute for sinners. The sinner can neither
keep the rigorous demands of the law nor endure its penalty without
being forever miserable. In Christ, all the demands of the law were
29. Ibid., 28.

30. Samuel Davies, Sermons on Important Subjects (Philadelphia: M. Carey and
Son, 1818), 1:40.
31. Ibid., 46.
met so that rebellious sons can be restored to favor with God. Davies
calls those who make light of sin to look to the cross and see how
greatly they have offended God that the only remedy for sin is the
death on the cross of His only Son.32
After presenting the need for Christ’s atoning sacrifice, Davies
turns to the subject of faith on the part of the sinner. He rejects the
assertion common in his day and ours that God removed all obstruc-
tions to heaven so that nothing remains “to hinder our crowding into
heaven promiscuously.” In Davies’s words, faith in Jesus Christ is the
“grand prerequisite” for sinners to obtain the benefits of His work on
the cross. He argues that one obstruction remains within the sinner
which, while it remains, renders his salvation impossible: the depravity
and corruption of his nature. Until his nature is changed, he cannot
“relish those fruitions and employments in which the happiness of
heaven consists.” Davies explains that faith is the root of all holiness
in a sinner.33 Faith on the part of the sinner is necessary because it
would be “highly incongruous” to save a sinner against his will or
in a way he dislikes. Davies argues that we cannot be saved through
Jesus Christ until His righteousness becomes ours. In this way, all the
demands of the law are met and we obtain the favor of God. But the
righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to us legally until we are
one legal person with Him, and faith is that bond of union between
us and Christ. Without faith, we cannot receive any benefit from his
righteousness.34
Davies says that faith in Christ is comprised of four parts. First,
faith “presupposes a deep sense of our undone, helpless condition.”
Second, “faith implies the enlightening of the understanding to dis-
cover the suitableness of Jesus Christ as a savior, and the excellency
of the way of salvation through him.” Third, “the sinner is enabled to
embrace this savior with all his heart, and to give a voluntary, cheerful
consent to this glorious scheme of salvation.” Fourth, “faith implies
a humble trust or dependence upon him alone for the pardon of sin,
acceptance with God, and every blessing.”35
Davies warns his hearers that there is such a thing as a false faith
32. Ibid., 51–52.

33. Ibid., 53.
34. Ibid., 55.
35. Ibid., 56–57.
Samuel Davies 257
and exhorts them to examine whether their trust in God will stand
this test:
There are many that flatter themselves they put their trust in
God; but their trust wants sundry qualifications essential to a
true faith. It is not the trust of an humble, helpless soul, that
draws all its encouragement from the mere mercy of God, and
the free indefinite offer of the Gospel, but it is the presumptuous
trust of the proud, self-confident sinner, who draws his encour-
agement in part at least from his own imaginary goodness and
importance. It is not a trust in the mercy of God, through Jesus
Christ, as the only medium through which it can be honorably
conveyed; but either in the absolute mercy of God, which, with-
out a proper reference to a mediator, or in his mercy, as in some
measure deserved or moved by something in the sinner. 36
Davies continues by describing the “inseparable effects” of true
faith on the sinner. True faith, according to Davies, purifies the heart
and is a lively principle of inward holiness. True faith “always pro-
duces good works,” “overcomes the world and all its temptations,”
and “realizes eternal things and brings them near.”37
Davies concludes by encouraging his hearers that “everyone who
is enabled to believe in Jesus Christ, no matter how notorious his
past, shall certainly be saved.”38 Davies presses his audience to make
a “full decisive answer to this proposal” before leaving the building,
about whether they believe in Jesus Christ or not. He argues the mat-
ter will not admit of a delay and the duty is so plain, that there is no
need of time to deliberate. Davies anticipates the objection that, since
faith is a gift of God, his hearers cannot choose to exercise it. Davies
answers that he is not encouraging the “spontaneous growth of cor-
rupt nature” but the exercise of the means which God is pleased to
bless for salvation. Davies exhorts his hearers to believe in order to
“set you upon the trial” which will convince them of their total inabil-
ity to believe. By actively engaging in prayer and other means of grace
with “natural seriousness,” the sinner will become acquainted with
his own helpless condition and cast himself upon the divine mercy.
36. Ibid., 58.

37. Ibid., 59.
38. Ibid., 60.
Davies affirmed that faith is a gift from God, yet never was faith pro-
duced in one soul while “lying supine, lazy and inactive.”39
An Example of Revival Preaching

What was the nature of preaching that captivated hundreds of gen-
tlemen farmers and slaves in the middle of the eighteenth century,
causing them to turn in life-changing faith to Christ? An example of
Davies’s preaching during the years of revival in Virginia is found in
his sermon preached at Henrico, Virginia, on April 29, 1753.40 This
sermon demonstrates how Reformation doctrines can effectively be
taught from the pulpit. It also demonstrates that both believers and
non-believers need to hear the Word of God addressed to them.
•Synopsis of the Sermon

The text for Davies’s Henrico sermon was 1 John 3:1 and 2,
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not,
because it kneweth him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and
it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall
appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Davies addresses the three types of people that may be listening to
his sermons—believers, non-believers, and lukewarm professors. Da-
vies admonishes believers to contemplate how great the love of God is
toward them, that He has made them to be His children. To assist the
saint in this contemplation, Davies calls them to speculate about what
they will become in the eternal state. He paints a picture of the perfect
state of the saint, growing ever more perfect through the ages of eter-
nity. The sons of God, he says, will be enlarged in soul and body and
will obtain the degree of righteousness suitable for God’s presence.
By showing them what they shall become, he attempts to draw their
attention away from the “eager attachment to the world” that so often
enslaves and imprisons God’s people. He encourages them to pursue
holiness in this life, for that is the destiny of the sons of God.
True to his commitment to seek the conversion of sinners, Davies
calls upon the unbeliever also to contemplate the glories that await
39. Ibid., 64.

40. Samuel Davies, “A Sermon preached at Henrico, Virginia, April 29, 1753,
and at Canongate, May 26, 1754.”
Samuel Davies 259
the sons of God. Like the sons of God, the unregenerate “sons of the
devil” will be enlarged, but their enlargement will be the exact oppo-
site of God’s children. Their enlargement will be the achievement of
“a horrid perfection in sin” and will be “full of torments.” Davies also
addresses a third type of audience, those who profess faith yet are am-
bivalent or hostile toward the true exercise of religion. These nominal
Christians are addressed as unbelievers and are warned that one day
they will observe the glory of the sons of God from a distance.41
• Address to the Sons of God

In his address to the believers in his congregation, Davies tells them
what they are by nature, and invites them to contemplate the privi-
lege of being the sons of God and to imagine what they will be in the
eternal state. By this contemplation of their privilege and destiny, he
hopes to motivate the believers to seek to live holy lives in the pres-
ent world.
Davies laces this sermon with terms that make it clear to its hear-
ers that man, in his natural state, is fallen and lives in a fallen world.
He uses terms such as “rebellious sinners,” “heirs of ruin,” and “re-
bellious worms” to describe what the regenerate are by nature. It is
necessary that the saint recognize what he is by nature in order to
recognize how great the grace and love of God are that He now calls
them sons. Davies uses these derogatory terms so that the saints will
not fall into Satan’s trap of trusting in their own righteousness and
thus provoke the Spirit of God to withdraw from them.
In the course of the sermon, Davies reminds his believing hearers
that they are not sons of God by nature; they are God’s sons because
He has adopted them. Davies includes himself as one of the “rebel-
lious sinners and heirs of ruin” that are now the heirs of future glory.
Because of God’s love for them, “rebellious worms” are now distin-
guished with the most glorious title imaginable: “sons of God.”
Davies informs believers that “such is the present degeneracy of
human nature, that all the ministrations of the gospel cannot remedy
it, without the concurring efficacy of divine grace.” He adds, “So bare
is the soil, that the seed of the word falls upon it and dies, and never
grows up; as though it had never been sown there.... It is a soil fruit-
41. Ibid., 19.

ful of briars and thorns.”42 He shows that Scripture teaches that “the
whole bent of our souls by nature is contrary to the gospel.”43 Without
God’s intervention, no man could be saved.
Davies contrasts the present world with the eternal state. He char-
acterizes the present world as an “infant state” in which confusion
reigns. Everything is small and obscure. In contrast, in the mature
world of the eternal state, the saint will be able to see the greatness
and glory of God and His creation with clear vision.
Redeemed saints, while in this world, exist in “a state of darkness
and imperfection” and cannot fathom the glory that awaits them when
Christ appears. God gives the saints a foretaste, a “pre-libation,” of the
future state, but their present knowledge is only a glimpse intermin-
gled with the “gall and wormwood” of this world. Davies asserts that
the full manifestation of the glory of the sons of God has been, by the
design of providence, wisely put off to the most proper season. Hav-
ing a full manifestation now, Davies argues, would cause the saint to
become utterly impatient with this life and cease engagement in the
necessary activities of this world. He reminds those who have tasted
of this glory that the amazing scenes may be only a few years, even
a few moments, away. By emphasizing the shortness of life on earth,
Davies impresses on his hearers the importance of the future life and
their need to prepare for it.
Having shown them their low natural state, Davies encourages
saints to stretch their minds in contemplating the grace that has be-
stowed on them the privileged title “sons of God.” Davies suggests
that, upon entering the eternal state, the saints will undergo an “en-
largement” from their present state.
In his present state, the saint is incapable of handling the “intol-
erable glory of heavenly brightness.” He cites as an example of this
inability the conversion experience of the Apostle Paul when Christ
appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Christ was so splendid in
His appearance that all those present were struck to the ground and
the future apostle was temporarily blinded. In order to grasp infinity
and join in the exalted services of the mature world, the soul must
be enlarged. Davies assures the saints that, though incapable of these
things now, God will make them what they need to be—the Father
42. Samuel Davies, “The Nature of Looking to Christ Opened and Explained,” 3.
43. Ibid., 4.
Samuel Davies 261
can make prodigies of His children. Davies illustrates the difference

between the present state of the saint and his future glory by using
the analogy of human life. As the adult differs from the infant, so the
saint will be taken by God from an immature state to a mature state.
In eternity, the soul of the saint will grow in degrees of perfection
through the series of everlasting ages.
The enlarged soul of the glorified saint requires an enlarged body
in which to dwell. Davies argues that the body will be changed “in a
most amazing manner,” yet will remain substantially the same. The
body will retain its materiality, yet will be “exquisitely refined” so as
also to be a spiritual body. These bodies will be incapable of pain,
hunger, thirst, sickness, and death. In the glorious state, the body will
become capable of experiencing the most excellent sensations of plea-
sure. The enlarged body will become a suitable companion for the
enlarged soul.
Finally, the saint will become perfect in holiness. Davies argues
that, no matter how enlarged the soul and body, without a propor-
tional increase in holiness, we would still be miserable. The saint can
now experience “a spark of divine love” and exert his feeble powers
in the service of God and contemplation of His excellencies, but that
experience is cut short by “numberless imperfections” and sin, which
“deadens our powers” of experience. When all the powers of the soul
and body are enlarged and those powers are animated and guided by
perfect holiness, the saint will be capable of participating fully in the
“exercises” of heaven, unhindered by guilt and sin; he will find all his
powers “full of unwearied immortal vigor.”
According to Davies, Scripture declares that, in the eternal state,
the sons of God will be employed in the contemplation of the divine
perfections and their displays in the works of nature and grace. The
saints will celebrate the praises of God and make “prostrate adorations”
before Him. All of these things will be a large part of the happiness
of the mature state. But, Davies speculates, these are not the only ac-
tivities in which the saint will engage. The perfected state of vigorous
immortals has prepared them for a state of activity in eternity.
The saint in his present state cannot fully understand the “won-
ders that open” before him in the eternal state. Davies utilizes some of
the satisfactions obtained in this life to illustrate the bliss of eternity.
Davies perhaps overstates the case when he says, “In eternity every
want will be supplied, every desire satisfied, all of our vast capaci-
ties filled to the utmost.” He summarizes that the eternal state of the
saints in eternity will be “exquisitely happy.”
Davies concludes his address to the regenerate by entreating them
not to set their hearts and minds upon the things of this world “as
if they were your portion.” He admonishes them to preoccupy their
minds with the contemplation of their inheritance. He asks them to
consider how they would have sleepless nights contemplating their
riches were they to be informed that they had inherited a large estate.
He laments how the saints of God depreciate their inheritance by fo-
cusing on the things of this world rather than on heaven.
• Address to the Sons of the Devil

Having painted a picture of the state of bliss that awaits the saints in
heaven, Davies addresses the “unhappy sinners” in the congregation.
Everything he said about the natural state of the sons of God applies
to unbelievers as well. But these sinners, he says, are not the sons
of God by regeneration, but are the “children of the devil.” He calls
upon them to contemplate the future glories that await the sons of
God, as if to motivate them to convert out of jealousy. Davies does
not allow them to remain comfortable in their unbelief but contrasts
their future with that of the sons of God. Similar to the regenerate,
the unregenerate will undergo a threefold enlargement in eternity;
however, their enlargement will be the reverse of the enlargement
of the regenerate. Their souls will be enlarged so that they will have
a greater capacity for torment. Their bodies will be made strong and
immortal, so that it will be able to bear strong, immortal misery. In-
stead of being enlarged in holiness like the saint, the unbeliever will
arrive at a “horrid perfection in sin.” To the degree that the regener-
ate will be made free from sin, the unregenerate will degenerate into
“pure, unmingled wickedness.” To the degree that the saint will be
made happy and full of bliss, the sinner will be made miserable and
full of torments.
Davies assures the sinners that they, too, are “near the eternal
world and all its solemn wonders.” He argues that they might even
land there tonight, in their present condition. He minces no words
describing their condition; “you are undone, you are ruined, you are
inconceivably miserable forever.” He warns them that, if they con-
tinue in their present condition, they will be “prodigies of misery”
and “monuments of vengeance.” They will soon be initiated into the
Samuel Davies 263
“horrid mysteries of woe” and will be taught these horrors by per-

sonal experience. Until they are born again—that is, until they have
dispositions of children toward God—they have no hope of escaping
the “intolerably dreadful” conditions that await them. He calls upon
the unregenerate sinners to awake from their carelessness and neglect
and seek earnestly to become children of God.
• Address to the Lukewarm

Having contrasted the future estate of the sinner and the saint, Da-
vies shifts his focus to how the sons of God are not recognized by
the world. Davies uses the term “world” here in a narrow sense for
those who would call themselves Christians, but who oppose true
and living Christianity; that is, those who are Christian in name only.
Davies says that the world fails to recognize the sons of God because
they fail to recognize the features of the Father in them, and they do
not recognize the features of the Father in the saints because they do
not know the Father. Davies shows how the world, while professing
to love religion, shows contempt for the true exercise of it. They cloak
their contempt for true religion in a professed hatred of hypocrisy.
Wherever true religion appears, they oppose and ridicule it, especially
when a person appears “remarkably religious.” No doubt, Davies had
encountered in his ministry many who professed to be Christians
who were nonetheless critical of those who were zealous to live a
godly life after experiencing the love of God in conversion. Davies
comments that, for these zealous sons of God, the world reserves the
most negative names. Rather than recognizing the “peculiar glory
and excellency” of God’s children on earth, the world considers them
an “odious irregularity.” The world describes the saints as “stupid,
mopish [gloomy] creatures” that have no taste for the pleasures of life.
Here Davies exposes the god of these nominal Christians: pleasure.
By showing how the world fails to recognize the sons of God, Da-
vies subtly exposes the religious unconverted for what they are—sons
of the devil. He admonishes them to consider that these “professors of
living Christianity” are “princes in disguise” and will soon be shining
more glorious than the sun. The nominal Christian will be observing
the glory of these princes from a distance, for they will not be among
the saints in glory, but with the sons of the devil suffering eternal
punishment.
Davies addresses the theme of nominalism, or “lukewarmness,”
as he prefers to call it.44 He argues that all the means of grace solicit
man’s consent to the gospel and are intended to engage the affections
of the participants to Christ, yet so many are unaffected by them.
These unaffected ones are those who are Christians in name only.
Davies provides an illustration that captures the essence of nominal-
ism. It is like a sick person “infatuated with the imagination that the
mere grateful remembrance of Galen or Hippocrates...will be suf-
ficient for his recovery, without following their prescriptions.” Davies
considered lukewarmness in religion or nominalism to be “the most
absurd and inconsistent thing imaginable: more so than avowed impi-
ety, or a professed rejection of all religion.”45 Davies reveals its essence
when he says,
[if you] looked upon religion as a cheat and openly rejected
the profession of it, it would not be strange that you should be
careless about it, and disregard it in practice. But to own it true
and make profession of it, and yet be lukewarm and indifferent
about it, this is the most absurd conduct that can be conceived;
for if it be true, it is certainly the most important and interesting
truth in all the world, and requires the utmost exertion of all
your powers.46
Davies exhorts the lukewarm to “shake off your sloth and be fer-
vent in spirit,” adding a word of warning that if they do not, it will be
to their peril, for the judgment of God is near.
CONCLUSION
Samuel Davies was indeed a great preacher. Contemporary accounts
indicate that he was a master communicator, but that ability would
only enable him to draw crowds, not to change lives. What changed
the lives of hundreds of people in Virginia three decades before the
Revolutionary War was not his oratory skill but his commitment to
preaching God’s Word, no matter how out of fashion its teachings
might be. He was out of step with most of his contemporaries in
preaching the doctrines of man’s depravity, God’s sovereignty, an eter-
nal state that included hell for nonbelievers, and justification by faith
44. Ibid., 2.
45. Samuel Davies, “The Danger of Lukewarmness in Religion,” in Sermons on
Important Subjects, 2:55.
46. Ibid.
Samuel Davies 265
in Christ alone. Davies recognized that these were the doctrines that
revived the church in the Reformation and these doctrines needed to
be preached in his day. They also need to be preached in twenty-first-
century churches.
Samuel Davies’s sermons should be read by Christians for a vari-
ety of reasons. First, Davies’s sermons provide great examples of how
biblical doctrine can be effectively taught from the pulpit. Second,
Davies teaches us that revival is a work of God and is dependent upon
the outpouring of his Spirit, rather than upon man’s machinations.
Third, Davies teaches us that revival sermons should be directed to-
ward all types of hearers: believers, non-believers, and the lukewarm
professor of Christianity.
He urges believers to pursue holy living, for that is their destiny;
he urges non-believers to repent and turn to Christ or they will suffer
eternal punishment; and he warned those who profess Christianity
but scorn the holiness it demands that their eternal destiny is with
the unbeliever in hell. Samuel Davies’s sermons are as relevant and
needed today as they were in eighteenth-century colonial Virginia.
They can be read with profit today for those who are interested in
how God has enlivened His church in times past through the preach-
ing of the Word. They should be read today to see how a local revival
can be effected and sustained through preaching what Davies called
the “good old doctrines of the Reformation.”
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 266 –276
A Pastor’s Analysis of Emphases in Preaching:

Two False Dichotomies and Three Conclusions
ryan m. mcgraw
q
The strength of the church depends largely upon the preaching of

the Word, yet many debates rage over the manner in which preach-
ing should be done. Some debate whether or not preaching should
be Christocentric or Trinitarian. Should ministers preach Christ and
Him crucified in every discourse? Or should they emphasize the
Person of the Godhead set before them in the passage at hand? A
related question is whether preaching ought to be exegetical or re-
demptive-historical. Many ministers believe that they must choose
between a simple exposition of a book and the place of each portion
of Scripture in redemptive history. However, I am increasingly con-
vinced that most modern debates about preaching are fundamentally
off base. I intend to examine the two choices stated above, contrast
them with the history of Reformed preaching, and offer three con-
clusions. This article represents a non-technical analysis because I am
not responding to scholarly debates over emphases in preaching, but I
am addressing issues as they have come up regularly in conversations
with fellow ministers over the past decade or so.
Christocentrism vs. Trinitarianism

First, Christ-centered preaching and Trinitarian preaching should
not be competing options, since each is implied in the other. The bib-
lical doctrine of the Trinity, while recognizing that each of the three
Persons of the Godhead is equal in power and glory and entitled to
divine worship, is distinctly Christocentric. As John Owen has sug-
gested, the “great discovery” of the gospel is the love of the Father,
. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Gould (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, 1997), 2:19.
A Pastor’s Analysis of Emphases in Preaching 267
and the highest goal and privilege of the gospel is to come to God
as Father. Yet no man comes to the Father except by the Son (John
14:6). It is through Him that we come to the Father, by one Spirit
(Eph. 2:18). All preaching must be theocentric and place varying de-
grees of emphasis upon each of the three Persons as each passage of
Scripture demands. However, if the Father is preached in detachment
from the Son, He cannot be preached as the God who is love (1 John
4:8). The Father revealed Himself as love by sending His Son to die
for our sins (v. 9).
With regard to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Jesus summarized
His work under three aspects: to convict the world of sin, righteous-
ness, and judgment (John 16:8). As Owen has pointed out, all of these
terms must be understood primarily with reference to the Lord Jesus
Christ. The context of John 16 spells this out clearly. Though not
excluding other points of the Law, the Spirit convicts the world of
sin primarily because it rejects God’s undeserved mercy and pardon
through the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 9; see Acts 17:30–31 as an example
of this). Righteousness probably bears the sense of “vindication,” and
has reference to Christ returning to His Father after His death and
resurrection. The Spirit convinces men that they are wicked and that
their sin reaches its highest expression in the rejection of the Sav-
ior and, as a corollary, He convinces men that Christ was holy in
His death and that God vindicated His righteousness by resurrecting
Him and lifting Him up to heaven. Peter appealed to God’s vindica-
tion of Christ in this manner in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:24, 36.
Judgment is explained in terms of the judgment accomplished against
Satan (“the ruler of this world”) through the cross (John 12:31; Heb.
2:14; Rev. 12). Satan is still active in this world and he rages because
he knows that his time in short (Rev. 12:12), but the Spirit convinces
men that Satan is like a strong man who is bound by Christ, who is
stronger than Satan and is plundering Satan’s “goods” by redeeming
sinners (Matt. 12:29; cf. Rev. 20:2). On a popular level, this passage
is paraphrased often as “judgment to come,” yet the context points to
. Ibid., 9:58–60.
. Ibid., 2:94–106.
. See Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commen-
tary; trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 533. Most other com-
mentators do not pick up on the idea of vindication that is clearly implicit in this
passage.
a judgment that is past and has already been accomplished by Christ.

However, this victory over Satan cannot be detached from the cer-
tainty of the final judgment. In every aspect of His ministry, the Spirit
does not testify out of His own resources, but declares what belongs
to Christ (v. 15). According to Jesus, the sum and substance of the
ministry of the Holy Spirit is that “He shall glorify me” (v. 14).
The point is that when you preach any of the three Persons of
the Godhead, you cannot do so biblically without preaching the Lord
Jesus Christ. Are you preaching on the Father? Then remind your
hearers that He is not Father to you or to them except through the
work of the Son. Without preaching the Son, you cannot preach the
love of the Father. Are you preaching the Holy Spirit? Even if you tell
your hearers to worship and glorify the Spirit as God, you dishonor
Him if you do not reflect the fact that His mission is to glorify Christ.
If you preach the Spirit without preaching the Son, you run contrary
to the express and sovereign purpose of the Spirit. There is no hope
in preaching without the demonstration of the Sprit’s power (1 Cor.
2:4), yet how can you expect His blessing upon a sermon that does
not pursue His purposes? The primary purpose of preaching is to set
forth the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph. 3:8). Paul purposed in
his heart to make nothing known among men apart from Christ and
Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). In preaching, men must hear Christ (Rom.
10:14). Many things may and ought to be said about how to preach
Christ in every sermon. Most of our Reformed forefathers certainly
held this position (see section three below). I have one suggestion at
this juncture: instead of clouding the issues involved by only read-
ing modern books and following modern debates on preaching, read
some of the classic treatments respecting why you must and how you
ought to preach Christ and Him crucified. We should do well to note,
however, that if Christ affects our hearts in any measure comparable
to how He affected the heart of the apostle Paul, we would never
need to be reminded to preach Christ in every sermon. Paul wrote of
Christ in at least every other sentence in his epistles.
However, even if your preaching is Christ-centered, you must
never detach the Person and work of Christ from the Father and the
Holy Spirit. In every act of worship, through Him we have access to
the Father by one Spirit (Eph. 2:18). Christocentric preaching must be
Trinitarian, and Trinitarian preaching is unavoidably Christocentric.
These theological considerations impose themselves upon you as a
preacher, and should greatly shape the manner in which you prepare
your sermons. This raises questions regarding the proper exposition
of Scripture in preaching.
Exegetical vs. Redemptive-Historical

True ministers of the gospel must preach from the Bible alone, yet
even here we are often given a choice between exegetical and re-
demptive-historical preaching. Considered in themselves, both of
these approaches merely represent two aspects of what is necessary
in preaching, while neither sufficiently fulfills the mandate to preach.
Many are attracted to the idea of verse-by-verse exposition of books of
the Bible, yet act as though a simple exposition of the text coupled with
a few practical observations is all that is necessary to preach the Word.
This method is useful for Sunday school or Bible study lessons, but is
not sufficient for sermons. Frankly, reading commentaries and telling
others what you read is not particularly difficult and barely requires
the ability to teach, let alone preach. There are no examples of bare
exposition in apostolic preaching. As vital as the systematic exposition
of Scripture is, the Bible can be expounded verse by verse faithfully
without ever being preached. It is one thing to expound the meaning
of a text; it is another thing to speak as a herald on behalf of God, apply
His message to men’s hearts, and call them to respond to His Word.
Others adopt an exclusively redemptive-historical approach to
preaching. Instead of simply expounding the words and sentences
of Scripture in their immediate context, this approach unfolds each
passage of Scripture in relation to the plan of redemption as it is grad-
ually unfolded throughout the Bible. In some cases, the exegetical
model roughly corresponds to the “Trinitarian” preaching referred
to above, and the redemptive-historical model roughly corresponds
to “Christocentric” preaching. This model attempts to take seriously
the apostolic mandates to preach Christ and Him crucified. This ap-
proach, however, is not always an improvement over bare exposition,
since at times there is a tendency to Christomonism rather than Chris-
tocentrism. It is one thing to make the Lord Jesus Christ central in
preaching; yet it is possible to preach Him almost exclusively. If car-
. John Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002),

130.
ried out consistently, this may end in a tendency towards modalism.

Some have even taken the bizarre position that preaching should not
directly appeal to the consciences of those in the congregation. This is
bizarre both because it runs counter to every example of preaching in
Scripture, and because it forbids direct address in preaching, which is
one of the primary factors distinguishing the preaching of the Word
from every other form of address.
The dichotomy between exegetical and redemptive-historical
preaching implicitly excludes a third element that is vital for true
biblical preaching. Preaching must be both exegetical and redemptive-
historical, but ultimately, preaching must be systematic and practical.
Warfield’s paradigm for theological study illustrates this well. Exege-
sis is the most basic level of biblical study. The exposition of Scripture
provides the preacher with the “raw materials” of theology. Biblical
theology then places exegesis in the context of the author of each par-
ticular book and of the Bible as a whole. The purpose of exegesis and
redemptive history is to systematize theological conclusions regarding
the mind and will of God in Scripture. These conclusions then make
practical demands upon the lives of those who hear. In other words,
the goal of exegetical and biblical theology is systematic and practi-
cal theology. Applied to preaching, the sermon begins with what the
divinely inspired author says, then harmonizes this with what God
says about that subject in general, and finally concludes with what
God says to you. The purpose of preaching must be identical with the
purpose of the Scriptures: to teach what man is to believe concerning
God, and what duty God requires of man (Westminster Shorter Cate-
. Carl Trueman has written a thought-provoking critique of modern redemp-

tive-historical preaching in, The Wages of Spin (Fearn, Ross-Shire, UK: Christian
Focus Publications, 2004), 171–174.
. For a devastating critique of the arguments against application, see Carrick,
Imperative of Preaching, 108–146. For a summary guide to experimental preaching, see
Joel Beeke’s chapter on “Applying the Word” in Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction
to Calvinism (Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2008), 255–274.
. See Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in The Works
of Benjamin B. Warfield (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 9:49–87, especially 74. Also, see
the following article on “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology,” 9:91–105.
. Geerhardus Vos, who has often been called the father of Reformed Biblical
Theology, actually subordinated Biblical Theology to Exegetical Theology. See Geer-
hardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (Phillipsburg: P&R Publish-
ing, 1980), 6–7.
chism, Question 3). This cannot be done without drawing theologi-

cal conclusions from the exposition of Scripture and directly applying
them to the church. In other words, a thorough and growing knowl-
edge of systematic theology is indispensable to the preacher.10
This is why one of the greatest mistakes commonly committed
by ministers is reading commentaries alone to prepare sermons. It
is far better to plan and read ahead, especially if you are preaching
systematically through entire books of Scripture and are able to an-
ticipate doctrinal and practical subjects that will arise in the course of
preaching that book. Though useful, most commentaries provide lit-
tle material for preaching. With rare exceptions, in order to transform
the material gleaned from commentaries into sermons, the pastor is
left largely on his own. It is one thing to comment upon a passage of
Scripture and draw a few practical inferences from it. It is another
thing entirely to prepare a sermon which convinces hearers that the
text was written for them and that God is instructing and appealing
directly to them through it. For a vivid illustration of this difference,
read Calvin’s commentary on a book of Scripture and then compare
it to his sermons on that same book. Both are practical, but the differ-
ences speak for themselves. I have many friends in the ministry who
have developed the bad habit of surviving from Sunday to Sunday
with a spiritual diet that consists of commentaries alone. If you stimu-
late your thoughts for preaching exclusively through commentaries,
you may starve your own soul, and the flock will starve with you.
A Historical Perspective
The historical precedent set by Reformed preaching does not recog-
nize the division between emphases that men are being asked to make
today. Virtually every work of pastoral theology written since the time
of the Reformation has mandated Christ-centered preaching. The
question as to whether Christ was directly presented in the passage
at hand or not was irrelevant. The assumption was that Christ was
naturally related to every doctrine of Scripture, and that He could al-
ways be imposed upon the sermon without doing violence to the text.
Consider the following examples: “Christ is the center of revelation
10. See Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Indispensibleness of Systematic Theology

to the Preacher,” in Selected Shorter Writings, ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: P&R
Publishing, 1973), 2:280–288.
and the adequate subject of preaching; and he must be the substance

and bottom of every sermon.”11 “This is the one mode of preach-
ing God has promised to bless: when all our sermons...are made to
set forth and magnify Christ the Lord. Uniformity of sentiment upon
this cardinal point has always marked the labor of faithful ministers,
and secured the Divine blessing upon their work; while a deficiency
in this particular...is attended invariably with proportionate ineffi-
ciency.”12 “The design of the pulpit is identical with that of the cross:
and the preacher is to carry out the design of the Saviour in coming
to seek and save that which is lost.”13 John Jennings advocated that
Christ should be the end of preaching, the matter of preaching, and
the distinguishing mark of Christian preaching.14 The great William
Perkins wrote: “The heart of the matter is this: Preach one Christ, by
Christ, to the praise of Christ.”15
From a historical perspective, it is as abnormal not to preach
something of Christ in every sermon as it is to preach only Christ in
every sermon. Our forefathers advocated a thoroughly Christ-cen-
tered emphasis in preaching, yet none of them would have recognized
much of what now goes by the name of redemptive-historical preach-
ing. They preached Christ as relevant to every passage and doctrine of
Scripture, while proclaiming and carefully applying the whole coun-
sel of God.
11. Thomas Foxcroft, The Gospel Ministry (Boston, 1717; reprint, Grand Rapids:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 5.
12. Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry: With an Inquiry into the Causes of its
Inefficiency (1830; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 239–240. Emphasis
original. In this section, Bridges provides six instructions as to how, not whether,
we ought to preach Christ.
13. John Angell James, An Earnest Ministry: The Want of the Times (1847; reprint,
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993), 35.
14. John Jennings, “Of Preaching Christ,” in John Brown, ed., The Christian
Pastor’s Manual (1826; reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1991),
32–46.
15. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (1606; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1996), 79. See also Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (1881; reprint,
Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1990), 73ff; Charles P. McIlvaine, Preaching
Christ: The Heart of Gospel Ministry (1863; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
2003); Pierre Marcel, The Relevance of Preaching, trans. Rob Roy McGregor (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1963), 49–55; Arturo Azurdia, Spirit Empowered Preaching: The Vitality
of the Holy Spirit in Preaching (Fearn, Ross-Shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications,
1998).
Discussions of exegetical preaching are often too limited at the

present time as well. Most church members have come to adopt the
idea that unless pastors preach verse by verse through books of the
Bible, they cannot be exegetical or faithful to the text of Scripture.
I have two observations: first, who mandated that they must preach
verse by verse through books of the Bible? Not a single example of
New Testament preaching follows this model. If the Bible has not
mandated that they preach in this manner, then why has this method
virtually come to stand as a test of orthodoxy? R. L. Dabney made an
excellent practical case why it is best to preach through books of the
Bible, but this case is mandated only by being the best among avail-
able options.16 I am not by any means advocating that we reject this
method for our normal course of preaching; we would be foolish to
set aside Dabney’s arguments lightly. Preaching through books of the
Bible helps God’s people understand the Bible better as a whole and
it presents biblical doctrines in “Bible dress.”17 This method forces
ministers to address the topic demanded by the text rather than their
favorite subjects. However, this method does not remove all diffi-
culties. I know congregations that will testify to the fact that some
ministers continuously preach on their favorite topics irrespective of
the text or book of the Bible at hand!
Second, preaching exegetically or expositionally should not be
equated with preaching through books of the Bible. If this were true,
no individual sermon could be regarded as exegetical unless con-
nected with a series. Who could question the expositional depth of
the sermons of Jonathan Edwards? His introductions in particular
provide some of the most profound expositions of Scripture ever
produced.18 Yet, with rare exceptions, Edwards did not preach consec-
utively through extended portions of Scripture. His sermons were so
powerful because most of them were grounded in thorough exegesis
of a portion of Scripture, while the depth of theology and application
in his sermons rivals that of some of his major theological treatises.
Historically, most Reformed preaching has not been limited to
16. R. L. Dabney, Evangelical Eloquence: A Course of Lectures on Preaching (1870;

reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 37– 40, however, arguments for this
sort of preaching pervade this entire book.
17. Ibid., 29, 67ff.
18. See John Carrick, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 2008), 121–130.
preaching through books of the Bible. Early Reformers such as Lu-

ther, Calvin, and Zwingli did so almost exclusively. Later Puritans
such as Joseph Caryl, Thomas Manton, and Jeremiah Burroughs pro-
duced significant collections of sermons on various books or chapters
of Scripture. Davies, Griffiths, Payson, Spurgeon, Palmer, Edwards,
Boston, and many others fulfilled the biblical mandate to preach
without preaching through books of Scripture. However, most Pu-
ritan sermons that were beloved then and now did not follow this
model. Many people are almost apologetic for Puritan preaching, as
though somehow they knew nothing of what true biblical preaching
was! They say, “We love the Puritans for their robust and practical
theology as well as their command of Scripture, yet we reject their
preaching, which they viewed as the primary function of their lives
and ministries.” We may have more to learn from their preaching
than we at first may recognize. Their sermons were biblical and con-
tained a theological depth and practical quality that is lacking in most
preaching today, even when expounding entire books. Moreover, we
find this characteristic in the few inspired sermons we have recorded
in Scripture. Peter’s Pentecost sermon expounded Joel 2 and Psalm
16 in accord with their contexts. He reasoned from Psalm 16 and
demonstrated that the text must point to Christ. He drew theological
conclusions about Jesus and applied these truths to the consciences
of his hearers by calling them to repent and be baptized. His sermon
was exegetical, redemptive-historical, profoundly theological, and in-
tensely practical. Is this so different from the example of our Reformed
forefathers? Do we choose between false dichotomies in preaching
because we no longer ask the right questions about preaching?
Conclusions
First, I propose a model for preaching (not the model for preaching).
Preaching must reveal the mind of God from the Scriptures. It must
be performed by a messenger ordained, sent, and gifted by God, so
that preaching carries the weight and authority of an ambassador of
Christ. Preaching must be Christ-centered and Trinitarian; exegeti-
cal and redemptive-historical; systematic and practical. D. Martyn
Lloyd-Jones modeled all of these factors well, particularly in his series
on Romans and Ephesians. Those who read these sermons will grow
in their grasp of these books of the Bible in a manner that few other
sermons can achieve. Yet, while expounding a book, his sermons de-
velop a profound theology, and the entire discourse is Christ-centered,

Trinitarian, and engages his audience in heart and mind from start to
finish. The fact that he achieved all of this in his sermons is the rea-
son why it took him years to preach through each book of Scripture.
However, there is also great advantage to preaching through the en-
tire Bible to one congregation. This means much less exposition and
much more Bible presented to the people. Flexibility must be allowed
with regard to the style of preaching and even the content of preach-
ing, provided that we pursue all the ends of preaching.
Second, pastors must pursue great depth of learning in every area
of theological study. Seminary training should not be regarded simply
as a necessary step to ordination. Seminary should provide a theologi-
cal baseline and foundation to build upon for the rest of a minister’s
life. If you lapse into studying nothing but commentaries, your semi-
nary training will truly prove to have been a waste of time. Pastors
must be first-rank theologians. They must excel in every area of theo-
logical study and, even more importantly, their theology must flow
from their hearts to the minds and hearts of those who hear them. If
you question the relevance of seminary training, remember that the
great John Owen did not believe that he was qualified to train minis-
ters at Oxford because he only completed two years of his seven-year
divinity degree.19 This was after obtaining a B.A. and M.A.! Min-
isterial training in Owen’s day required reading in all of the major
Reformed literature before anyone could be considered a competent
pastor.20 The task of preaching demands no less.
Third, make slow but steady progress. Read systematic theology,
pastoral theology, works of devotion, historical theology, commen-
taries, biblical theologies, biographies, and sermons. Strive to avoid
random reading as well. Look ahead at what you will be preaching
this year and start reading ahead. For example, if you are preaching
through John, be reading works on the Trinity, Christology, and the
Holy Spirit. Read books that are both theological and practical. If you
read systematically rather than randomly, you will increasingly be-
come a more effective preacher and will avoid losing the profit of your
19. Derek Thomas, “John Owen,” lectures from Puritan Reformed Theologi-
cal Seminary.
20. See Carl R. Trueman, “John Owen as a Theologian,” in John Owen: The
Man and his Theology, ed. Robert W. Oliver (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press,
2002), 44–51.
reading. I keep a record of everything that I read and present it quar-

terly to our ruling elders in order to gauge progress and identify areas
of weakness. At my own ordination, Joseph Pipa commented that, by
the blessing of the Holy Spirit, our preaching should improve every
year. Your growth, however, will be proportionate to your diligence
in your studies and your diligent prayer over your studies.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 277 –300
“For God’s Glory [and] for the Good

of Precious Souls”:
Calvinism and Missions in the
Piety of Samuel Pearce (1766–1799)1
michael a. g. haykin
q
One of the most common charges raised against Calvinism in recent

days is that it is not a theological perspective conducive to fostering
a passion for missions and evangelism and to fueling such a passion
over the long term. To anyone acquainted with the details of the
history of Calvinistic Baptists—who stand at the fountainhead of
most English-speaking Baptists today, no matter their orientation on
the matter of Calvinism —the charge is frankly quite incongruous.
There have been Baptists too numerous to number across the centu-
ries who have been ardent in their commitment to a Calvinist view of
salvation and at the same time aflame with the desire to see men and
women converted.
. This paper was read at The Southern Baptist Founders Conference Midwest
2009 (February 25, 2009). The author was unable to deliver it due to illness, but
it was kindly read for him by Dr. Curtis McClain, Professor of Bible at Missouri
Baptist University, St. Louis, Missouri.
The quotation in the title is from Samuel Pearce, Letter to Cannon Street Bap-
tist Church, July 18, 1790 (cited S. Pearce Carey, Samuel Pearce, M. A., The Baptist
Brainerd, 3rd. ed. [London: The Carey Press, n.d.], 95).
. See Kenneth J. Stewart, “Calvinism & Missions: The Contested Relation-
ship Revisited” (unpublished paper, 2009, 18 pages). Stewart intends to include this
paper as a chapter in his book Ten Myths About Calvinism (Downers Grove: InterVar-
sity Press, forthcoming).
. When it comes to Baptist origins in the seventeenth century, the attention
of Baptist historians has largely been focused on the General Baptists. Yet, it is the
Calvinistic Baptists, who, though they appear on the scene of history later than
the General Baptists—that is Baptists committed to an Arminian perspective—are
more important for the ongoing stream of Baptist history. See Glen H. Stassen,
“Anabaptist Influence in the Origin of the Particular Baptists,” The Mennonite Quar-
terly Review 36 (1962):322–323.
“Look to Jesus”: Evangelism among seventeenth-century Calvinistic Baptists

A number of Calvinistic Baptist leaders from seventeenth-century
England can be briefly cited to illustrate the point here. Probably
the most famous of such Baptists is John Bunyan (1628–1688), best
known for his classic Pilgrim’s Progress. His open-membership Baptist
convictions meant that, in his day, he was not as influential among
his fellow Calvinistic Baptists—for whom closed-membership and
closed-communion convictions were the norm—as he became for
this community in subsequent centuries. Strongly committed to
Calvinism after his conversion in the early 1650s, Bunyan was soon
bearing witness to his faith in small villages and hamlets tucked away
in rural Bedfordshire, his home county. In his own account of his con-
version and early Christian experience, Grace Abounding to the Chief of
Sinners (1666), he tells us of his evangelistic zeal.
My great desire in fulfilling my Ministry, was, to get into the
darkest places in the Countrey, even amongst those people that
were furthest off of profession; yet not because I could not en-
dure the light (for I feared not to shew my Gospel to any) but
because I found my spirit leaned most after awakening and con-
verting Work, and the Word that I carried did lean itself most
that way; yes, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where
Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foun-
dation, Rom. 15:20.
In my preaching I have really been in pain, and have as it
were traveled to bring forth Children to God; neither could I
be satisfied unless some fruits did appear in my work: if I were
fruitless it matter’d not who commended me; but if I were fruit-
ful, I cared not who did condemn.… It pleased me nothing to
see people drink in Opinions if they seemed ignorant of Jesus
Christ, and the worth of their own Salvation, sound convic-
tion for Sin, especially for Unbelief, and an heart set on fire to
be saved by Christ, with strong breathings after a truly sancti-
. On Bunyan, see Kenneth Dix, John Bunyan: Puritan Pastor (N.p.: The Fau-
conberg Press for The Strict Baptist Historical Society, 1978); N.H. Keeble, ed.,
John Bunyan: Conventicle and Parnassus. Tercentenary Essays (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1988).
. I.e., travailed.
Calvinism and Missions in the Piety of Samuel Pearce 279
fied Soul: that was it that delighted me; those were the souls I
counted blessed.
Given Bunyan’s passion to reach sinners for Christ, it comes as no
surprise to learn that when Bunyan preached on occasions in Lon-
don, twelve hundred or so would regularly turn out to hear him on a
weekday morning, and no less than three thousand if he were there
on a Sunday!
Then there is Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), probably the most sig-
nificant Calvinistic Baptist theologian of the late seventeenth century.
Keach’s pulpit ministry was characterized by vigorous evangelism and
regular calls to the unconverted to respond to Christ in faith. Here
is one example of many that could be cited: “Receive this Saviour,
believe in him, and you shall be saved whosoever you are. It is not the
greatness of your Sins that can hinder or obstruct him from saving
your Souls; though your Sins be as red as scarlet, or as red as Crim-
son, he will wash them all away, and shall make you as white as Wool,
as white as Snow.”
According to C. H. Spurgeon (1834 –1892)—the famous nine-
teenth-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher who pastored the
congregation that descended from Keach’s congregation—in speak-
ing to the lost, Keach was “intensely direct, solemn, and impressive,
not flinching to declare the terrors of the Lord, nor veiling the free-
ness of divine grace.”10 Typical of Keach’s evangelistic appeals to the
unconverted is the following, cited by Spurgeon to illustrate the above
statement:
Come, venture your souls on Christ’s righteousness; Christ is
able to save you though you are ever so great sinners. Come
to him, throw yourselves at the feet of Jesus. Look to Jesus, who
. Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, 289–291 [ John Bunyan: Grace Abounding
to the Chief of Sinners, ed. Roger Sharrock (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 89].
. T. L. Underwood, “John Bunyan: A Tercentenary,” American Baptist Quarterly
7 (1988):439.
. On Keach, see Austin Walker, The Excellent Benjamin Keach (Dundas, On-
tario: Joshua Press, 2004); Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a
Baptist Identity (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 163–193.
. “The Great Salvation,” A Golden Mine Opened (London, 1694), 385. I am
indebted for this reference to Austin Walker of Crawley, England.
10. The Metropolitan Tabernacle; Its History and Work (London: Passmore and Ala-
baster, 1876), 31.
came to seek and save them that were lost.… You may have the
water of life freely. Do not say, “I want qualifications or a meek-
ness to come to Christ.” Sinner, dost thou thirst? Dost thou see
a want of righteousness? ’Tis not a righteousness; but ’tis a sense
of the want of righteousness, which is rather the qualification
thou shouldst look at. Christ hath righteousness sufficient to
clothe you, bread of life to feed you, grace to adorn you. What-
ever you want, it is to be had in him. We tell you there is help in
him, salvation in him. “Through the propitiation in his blood”
you must be justified, and that by faith alone.11
If one turns from such well-known figures to lesser-known men,
the passion for the advance of the gospel is no different. Consider
three sermons, all of them funeral sermons, given by the London
Calvinistic Baptist John Piggott (d. 1713) in the first decade of the
seventeenth century.12 On the occasion of the death of the Baptist
minister Thomas Harrison (d. 1702), Piggott closed his funeral ser-
mon for Harrison with a long and emotional appeal to those who
had been the regular hearers of his dead friend’s preaching, yet who
remained unconverted:
To you that were the constant Auditors of the deceas’d minister.
Consider how indulgent and favourable God has been to several
of you, even in this dark Dispensation: He has removed one
that was ripe for Heaven; but how dismal had been your State,
if he had call’d you that are unprepar’d! If you drop into the
Grave while you are unprovided for Eternity, you sink beyond
the Reserves of Mercy. O adore the Patience and Long-suffering
of God, that you are yet alive, and have one Call more from this
Pulpit, and another very Awful one from the Grave of that Per-
son who us’d to fill it. His Death calls upon you to repent, and
turn to close with Christ, and make sure of Heaven. Surely you
cannot but feel some Emotions in your Breasts, when you think
11. Cited Metropolitan Tabernacle, 31.

12. For what follows with regard to these three sermons, I am indebted to re-
search carried out by Pastor Steve Weaver in an unpublished paper, “A Seventeenth
Century Baptist View of Ministry as seen in Three Funeral Sermons by John Pig-
gott” (August 2006), that he submitted to me in a course taught at The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, on “Baptist Theologians in
Historical Context.”
you shall never see nor hear your Painful13 minister more. And
methinks the Rocks within you should flow, when you think that
he preached himself to Death, and you have not yet entertain’d
that Jesus whom he preached. ’Tis true, God gave him several
Seals of his ministry, which was the Joy of his Heart, and will be
his Crown in the Day of the Lord.
But if you who were only Hearers will continue so, he will
be a swift Witness against you in the Day of God. For tho one
place held you and him in this World, you’l [sic] have very differ-
ent habitations in the next. He shall eternally solace himself in
boundless Rivers of Pleasure; but you shall be eternally plung’d
into a bottomless Lake of Fire. But let me intreat you by all that
is sacred, by the Joys of Heaven and the Torments of Hell, by the
Interest of your never-dying Souls, by Christ’s bloody sweat in
the Garden, and his Agony on the Cross, that you immediately
close with Christ, and receive him as offered in the Gospel; sub-
mitting to his Scepter, as well as depending on his Sacrifice; that
you may eternally be lodged in the Bosom of his Love.14
In his funeral sermon for Hercules Collins (d. 1702),15 who died
on October 4, less than two months after Harrison, Piggott also
commented upon the evangelistic zeal of Collins by saying that “no
Man could preach with a more affectionate Regard to the Salvation
of Souls.”16 Later in this sermon, Piggott called on the regular hearers
of Collins’ Wapping-street Church who remained unsaved to be wit-
nesses to the gospel fervor of the dead preacher: “You are Witnesses
with what Zeal and Fervour, with what Constancy and Seriousness
he us’d to warn and persuade you.”17 At this point Piggott himself
could not hold back from crying out, “Tho you have been deaf to his
former Preaching, yet listen to the Voice of this Providence, lest you
13. I.e., hard-working.

14. John Piggott, A Funeral Sermon Occasion’d by the Death of the Reverend Mr.
Thomas Harrison in his Eleven Sermons Preach’d upon Special Occasions (London: Nath.
Cliff and Dan. Jackson, 1714), 196–197.
15. On Collins, see Michael A.G. Haykin with Steve Weaver, “Devoted to the
Service of the Temple”: Piety, Persecution, and Ministry in the Writings of Hercules Collins
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007).
16. A Sermon Preach’d at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Hercules Collins in his
Eleven Sermons, 236.
17. Ibid., 240.
continue in your slumber till you sleep the sleep of death.” And he
closed with these forceful words:
You cannot but see, unless you will close your Eyes, that this
World and the Fashion of it is passing away. O what a Change
will a few Months or Years make in this numerous Assembly!
Yea, what a sad Change has little more than a Fortnight made in
this congregation! He that was so lately preaching in this Pulpit,
is now wrapped in his Shroud, and confin’d to his Coffin; and
the Lips that so often dispers’d Knowledg [sic] amongst you, are
seal’d up till the Resurrection.
Here’s the Body of your late Minister; but his Soul is enter’d
into the Joy of his Lord. O that those of you that would not
be persuaded by him living, might be wrought upon by his
Death!18
As in his funeral sermon for Thomas Harrison, Piggott’s own passion
for the salvation of souls is clearly visible in the way in which he ad-
dressed the unconverted.
Finally, in the funeral sermon that he preached for another Cal-
vinistic Baptist minister, William Collins (d. 1702)—Piggott was
called upon to preach this but three weeks after the one he gave for
Hercules Collins—Piggott asserted that the main content of Collins’
sermons were related to free gospel proclamation rooted in a love for
sinners :
The Subjects he ordinarily insisted on in the Course of his Min-
istry, were the great and important Truths of the Gospel, which
he handled with great Judgment and Clearness. How would he
open the Miseries of the fall! And in how moving a manner
would he discourse of the Excellency of Christ, and the Virtues
of his Blood, and his willingness to save poor awaken’d bur-
dened sinners!19
The rest of this paper could be filled with the names and stories of
other Calvinistic Baptists from this era who shared this indefatigable
passion for evangelism—men like Abraham Cheare (c. 1626–1668),20
18. Ibid.
19. A Funeral Sermon Occasioned by the Death of the Reverend Mr. William Collins in
his Eleven Sermons, 280–281.
20. For Cheare, see below.
Andrew Gifford, Sr. (1642–1721), William Mitchel (1662–1705), and

Joseph Stennett I (1663–1713), who preached Piggott’s own funeral
sermon. Instead, I shall look at a Calvinistic Baptist leader at the close
of the “long” eighteenth century, Samuel Pearce (1766–1799), who was
convinced that both Calvinist soteriology and a passionate concern
for evangelistic preaching are biblical givens. A close friend of fellow
Calvinist William Carey (1761–1834), who is one of the most iconic
figures of the modern missionary movement, Pearce’s Calvinistic and
missional piety are indeed worthy of imitation, as we shall see.
Remembering Samuel Pearce 21

Scarcely known today, Samuel Pearce was in his own day well known
for the anointing that attended his preaching and for the depth of
his spirituality. It was said of him that “his ardour…gave him a kind
of ubiquity; as a man and a preacher, he was known, he was felt ev-
erywhere.”22 William Jay (1769–1853), who exercised an influential
ministry in Bath for the first half of the nineteenth century, said of
his contemporary’s preaching: “When I have endeavoured to form an
image of our Lord as a preacher, Pearce has oftener presented himself
to my mind than any other I have been acquainted with.” He had, Jay
went on, a “mildness and tenderness” in his style of preaching, and a
“peculiar unction.” When Jay wrote these words it was many years af-
ter Pearce’s death, but still, he said, he could see his appearance in his
mind’s eye and feel the impression that he made upon his hearers as
he preached. Ever one to appreciate the importance of having spiritual
individuals as one’s friends, Jay has this comment about the last time
21. The following study of Pearce’s Calvinism and missionary piety draws
heavily on six of the author’s earlier studies: “The Spirituality of Samuel Pearce,”
Reformation Today no. 151 (May-June 1996):16–24; “The Spirituality of Samuel
Pearce (1766–1799),” Bulletin of the Canadian Baptist Historical Society, 2, 1 (April
1998), 2–10; “Calvinistic Piety illustrated: A study of the piety of Samuel Pearce
on the bicentennial of the death of his wife Sarah,” Eusebeia 2 (Spring 2004):5–27;
“An “Eminently Christian Spirit”: The Missionary Spirituality of Samuel Pearce,”
Journal of the Irish Baptist Historical Society, 11, NS (2004–2005), 25–46; “Introduc-
ing Samuel Pearce” in Andrew Fuller, A Heart for Missions. The Classic Memoir of
Samuel Pearce (Birmingham, Alabama: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006), i-vii;
“The Spirituality of Samuel Pearce” (http://www.trinity-baptist-church.com/pearce.
shtml; accessed March 29, 2008).
22. F. A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society, from 1792 to 1842 (London:
T. Ward & Co./G. J. Dyer, 1842), 1:54.
that he saw Pearce alive: “What a savour does communion with such
a man leave upon the spirit.”23
David Bogue and James Bennett, in their history of the Dis-
senting interest in England up to the early nineteenth century, have
similar remarks about Pearce. When he preached, they said, “the most
careless were attentive, the most prejudiced became favourable, and
the coldest felt that, in spite of themselves, they began to kindle.” But
it was when he prayed in public, they remarked, that Pearce’s spiritual
ardor was most apparent. Then the “most devout were so elevated
beyond their former heights, that they said, ‘We scarcely ever seemed
to pray before.’”24 In fact, for some decades after his death it was not
uncommon to hear him referred to as the “seraphic Pearce.”25
Formative years, 1766–1789

The youngest of a number of children, Pearce was born in Plymouth
on July 20, 1766, to devout Baptist parents.26 His mother died when
he was but an infant, and so he was raised by his godly father, William
Pearce (d. 1805) and an equally pious grandfather. He would also have
known the nurturing influence of the “sturdy Baptist community”
of Plymouth, whose history reached back well into the seventeenth
century.27 The heritage of these Baptists is well seen in the character
of one of their early ministers, Abraham Cheare, who has been men-
tioned above.28 During the time of the great persecution from 1660
to 1688 of all those Christian bodies outside of the Church of Eng-
land, Cheare was arrested, cruelly treated and imprisoned on Drake’s
23. The Autobiography of William Jay, eds. George Redford and John Angell James
(1854; repr. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 372, 373.
24. The History of Dissenters, 2nd. ed. (London: Frederick Westley and A. H.
Davis, 1833), 2:653.
25. See, for example, The Life and Letters of John Angell James, ed. R. W. Dale, 3rd
ed. (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1861), 67; John Angell James, An Earnest Minis-
try the Want of the Times, 4th. ed. (London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1848), 272. The
phrase appears to have originated with Pearce’s friend, John Ryland, Jr.; see Ernest
A. Payne, “Samuel Pearce,” in his The First Generation: Early Leaders of the Baptist Mis-
sionary Society in England and America (London: Carey Press, 1936), 46.
26. “Memoir of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce, A.M.,” The Evangelical Magazine,
8 (1800):177.
27. Payne, “Samuel Pearce,” 47.
28. On Cheare, see Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists (London,
1814), 2:103–116.
Island, a small island in Plymouth Sound. Fearful that some of his

flock might compromise their Baptist convictions to avoid persecu-
tion, he wrote a number of letters to his church during the course of
his imprisonment. In one of them, he cites with approval a statement
from the Irenicum (1646) of “holy Burroughs,” that is, the Puritan
author Jeremiah Burroughs (c. 1599–1646). “I desire to be a faithful
Minister of Christ and his Church, if I cannot be a Prudent one,”
Cheare quotes from Burroughs’s “Epistle to the Reader,” “Standing in
the gap is more dangerous and troubelsom [sic] than getting behind
the hedge, there you may be more secure and under the wind; but it’s
best to be there where God looks for a man.”29 Cheare himself was
one who “stood in the gap,” for he died in 1668 while a prisoner for
his Baptist convictions.
As Pearce came into his teen years, however, he consciously
spurned the rich heritage of his godly home and the Plymouth Baptist
community. According to his own testimony, “several vicious school-
fellows” became his closest friends and he set his heart on what he
would later describe as “evil” and “wicked inclinations.”30 But God
had better plans for his life. In the summer of 1782, a young preacher
by the name of Isaiah Birt (1758–1837) came to preach for a few
Sundays in the Plymouth meeting-house.31 The Spirit of God drove
home Birt’s words to Pearce’s heart. The change in Pearce from what
he later called “a state of death in trespasses and sins” to a “life in a
dear dying Redeemer” was sudden but genuine and lasting.32 After
his conversion, Pearce was especially conscious of the Spirit’s witness
within his heart that he was a child of God and of being “filled with
peace and joy unspeakable.”33 A year or so later, on the day when he
celebrated his seventeenth birthday, he was baptized as a believer and
joined the Plymouth congregation in which he had been raised.
It was not long after his baptism that the church perceived that
29. Words in Season (London: Nathan Brookes, 1668), 250.

30. Andrew Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce, A. M. (2nd ed. (Clip-
stone: J. W. Morris, 1801), 1–2. Henceforth cited as Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev.
Samuel Pearce.
31. For the life of Birt, see the memoir by his son: John Birt, “Memoir of the
Late Rev. Isaiah Birt,” The Baptist Magazine, 30 (1838):54–59, 107–116, 197–203,
32. Samuel Pearce, Letter to Isaiah Birt, October 27, 1782 (The Evangelical Mag-
azine, 15 [1807]:111).
33. Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce, 2–3.
Pearce had been endowed with definite gifts that marked him out
as one called to pastoral ministry. So, in November of 1785, when
he was only nineteen years of age and serving as an apprentice to his
father who was a silversmith, Pearce received a call from the church to
engage in the ministry of the Word. The church recommended that
Pearce first pursue a course of study at the Bristol Baptist Academy.
From August 1786 to May 1789, Pearce thus studied at what was then
the sole Baptist institution in Great Britain for the training of minis-
ters for the Calvinistic Baptist denomination. The benefits afforded
by this period of study were ones for which Pearce was ever grateful.
There was, for example, the privilege of studying under Caleb Ev-
ans (1737–1791), the Principal of the Academy, and Robert Hall, Jr.
(1764–1831)—the former a key figure in the late eighteenth-century
Calvinistic Baptist community and the latter a reputed genius and
one who was destined to become one of the great preachers of the
early decades of the next century.34
Then there were the opportunities for the students to preach and
try their wings, as it were. A number of years later Pearce recalled
one occasion when he went to preach among the colliers of Coleford,
Gloucestershire, the town in which his father in the faith, Isaiah Birt,
had grown up. Standing on a three-legged stool in a hut, he directed
thirty or forty of these miners to “the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world.” “Such an unction from above” attended his
preaching that day that the entirety of his hearers were “melted into
tears” and he, too, “weeping among them, could scarcely speak…for
interrupting sighs and sobs.”
34. On the life and ministry of Evans, see especially Norman S. Moon, “Caleb
Evans, Founder of the Bristol Education Society,” The Baptist Quarterly, 24 (1971–
1972), 175–190; Roger Hayden, “Evangelical Calvinism among eighteenth-century
British Baptists with particular reference to Bernard Foskett, Hugh and Caleb Evans
and the Bristol Baptist Academy, 1690–1791” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University
of Keele, 1991), 209–240. On Hall, see, in particular, John Greene, Reminiscences
of the Rev. Robert Hall, A.M., 2nd ed. (London: Frederick Westley and A. H. Davis,
1834); G. W. Hughes, Robert Hall (1764–1831) (London: Independent Press Ltd.,
1961); George J. Griffin, “Robert Hall’s Contribution to Early Baptist Missions,”
Baptist History and Heritage, 3, 1 (January, 1968):3–8, 42; Thomas R. McKibbens, Jr.,
The Forgotten Heritage: A Lineage of Great Baptist Preaching (Macon, Georgia: Mercer
University Press, 1986), 61–66.
Cannon Street Baptist Church, Birmingham, 1789–1799

Early in 1789, Pearce received and accepted a call to serve for a year’s
probation as the pastor of Cannon Street Baptist Church in Birming-
ham. He had supplied the Birmingham pulpit the previous summer
as well as over the Christmas vacation. Impressed by Pearce’s evange-
listic zeal—a number were saved on both occasions—along with his
ability to edify God’s people, the church sent their request to him in
early February 1789. Five weeks later, Pearce wrote back consenting
to their request, and by June, his studies finished, he was with them. 35
The following year, he was formally called to be the pastor of what
would turn out to be his only pastoral charge.
His ministry at Cannon Street occupied ten all-too-brief years.
Yet they were years of great fruitfulness. No less than 335 individuals
were baptized during his ministry and received into the membership
of Cannon Street. This figure does not include those converted under
his preaching who, for one reason or another, did not join themselves
to the Birmingham cause. A Sunday school was started in 1795 and
within a very short period of time grew to the point that some 1200
scholars were enrolled in it.36
At the heart of his preaching and spirituality was that key-note
of evangelicalism, the mercy of God displayed in the cross of Christ.
Writing one Sunday afternoon to William Summers, a friend then
residing in London, Pearce told him that he had for his sermon that
evening “the best subject of all in the Bible. Eph. i.7—Redemption!
how welcome to the captive! Forgiveness! how delightful to the guilty!
Grace! how pleasant to the heart of a saved sinner!” Christ’s atoning
death for sinners, he went on to say, is “the leading truth in the N.T.
…a doctrine I cannot but venerate; and to the Author of such a re-
demption my whole soul labours to exhaust itself in praise.”37 And
in his final letter to his congregation, written on May 31, 1799, he
reminded them that the gospel which he had preached among them
35. S. Pearce Carey, Samuel Pearce, M. A., The Baptist Brainerd, 3rd ed. (London:
The Carey Press, n.d.), 93–94.
36. Ibid., 113; Arthur S. Langley, Birmingham Baptists: Past and Present (London:
The Kingsgate Press, 1939), 34. Even after Pearce’s death, his wife Sarah could re-
joice in people joining the church who had been saved under her husband’s ministry.
See Andrew Fuller, “Memoir of Mrs. Pearce,” in his Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel
Pearce, A. M. (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1829), 160–161.
37. Carey, Samuel Pearce, 97–98.
for ten years and in which he urged them to stand fast was “the gos-
pel of the grace of God; the gospel of free, full, everlasting salvation,
founded on the sufferings and death of God manifest in the flesh.”38
Men and women called him the “silver-tongued” because of the
intensity and power of his preaching. 39 But there were times when
preaching was a real struggle for him. Writing to William Carey
(1761–1834) in 1796, for example, he told the Baptist missionary who
at that time was living in Mudnabati, West Bengal:
At some times, I question whether I ever knew the grace of God
in truth; and at others I hesitate on the most important points of
Christian faith. I have lately had peculiar struggles of this kind
with my own heart, and have often half concluded to speak no
more in the name of the Lord. When I am preparing for the
pulpit, I fear I am going to avow fables for facts and doctrines of
men for the truths of God. In conversation I am obliged to be
silent, lest my tongue should belie my heart. In prayer I know
not what to say, and at times think prayer altogether useless. Yet
I cannot wholly surrender my hope, or my profession.—Three
things I find, above all others, tend to my preservation:—First,
a recollection of time when, at once, I was brought to abandon
the practice of sins which the fear of damnation could never
bring me to relinquish before. Surely, I say, this must be the
finger of God, according to the Scripture doctrine of regenera-
tion:—Second, I feel such a consciousness of guilt that nothing
but the gospel scheme can satisfy my mind respecting the hope
of salvation: and, Thirdly, I see that what true devotion does ap-
pear in the world, seems only to be found among those to whom
Christ is precious.40
A handful of his sermons were published, as well as the circular
letter for the Midland Baptist Association that he drew up in 1795 and
that was entitled Doctrine of Salvation by Free Grace Alone. A good over-
view of his Calvinism may be found in the following extract from
this circular letter:
The point of difference between us and many other professing
38. Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce (2nd ed.), 123–124; see also
140–141.
39. Payne, “Samuel Pearce,” 48–49.
40. Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce (2nd ed.), 80–81.
Christians lies in the doctrine of salvation entirely by grace. For

whilst some assert that good works are the cause of justifica-
tion; some that good works are united with the merits of Christ
and so both contribute to our justification; and others that good
works neither in whole nor in part justify, but the act of faith; we
renounce everything in point of our acceptance with God, but
his free Grace alone which justifies the ungodly, still treading in
the steps of our venerable forefathers, the compilers of the Bap-
tist Confession of Faith, who thus express themselves respecting
the doctrine of justification: “Those whom God effectually cal-
leth, he also freely justifieth,…for Christ’s sake alone; not by
imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangeli-
cal obedience to them as their righteousness; but by imputing
Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedi-
ence in his death for their whole and sole righteousness, they
receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith”
which “is the alone instrument of justification.”41
In this point do all the other lines of our confession meet. For
if it be admitted that justification is an act of free grace in God
without any respect to the merit or demerit of the person justi-
fied, then the doctrines of Jehovah’s sovereign love in choosing
to himself a people from before the foundation of the world, his
sending his Son to expiate their guilt, his effectual operations upon
their hearts, and his perfecting the work he has begun in them
until those whom he justifies he also glorifies, will be embraced as
necessary parts of the glorious scheme of our salvation.42
A second prominent feature of his spirituality was a passion for
the salvation of his fellow human beings. On a preaching trip to
Wales, for instance, he wrote to his wife Sarah (d. 1804) about the
lovely countryside that he was passing through: “Every pleasant scene
which opened to us on our way (& they were very numerous) lost
half its beauty because my lovely Sarah was not present to partake its
pleasures with me.” But, he added, “to see the Country was not the
immediate object of my visiting Wales—I came to preach the gos-
pel—to tell poor Sinners of the dear Lord Jesus—to endeavour to
41. The Second London Confession of Faith 11.1, 2.

42. The Doctrine of Salvation by Free Grace Alone (1795; repr. n.p.: New York Bap-
tist Association, 1855), 2.
restore the children of misery to the pious pleasures of divine enjoy-

ment.”43 This passion is strikingly revealed in four events.
Preaching at Guilsborough
The first event took place when Pearce was asked to preach at the
opening of a Baptist meeting-house in Guilsborough, Northamp-
tonshire, in May 1794. The previous meeting-house had been burnt
down at Christmas 1792, by a mob that was hostile to Baptists. Pearce
had spoken in the morning on Psalm 76:10 (“Surely the wrath of man
shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain”). Later
that day, during the midday meal, it was quite evident from the con-
versation that was going at the dinner tables that Pearce’s sermon had
been warmly appreciated. It was thus no surprise when Pearce was
asked if he would be willing to preach again the following morning.
“If you will find a congregation,” Pearce responded, “I will find a ser-
mon.” It was agreed to have the sermon at 5 a.m. so that a number of
farm laborers could come who wanted to hear Pearce preach and who
would have to be at their tasks early in the morning.
After Pearce had preached the second time, and that to a con-
gregation of more than two hundred people, and he was sitting at
breakfast with a few others, including Andrew Fuller, the latter re-
marked to Pearce how pleased he had been with the content of his
friend’s sermon. But, he went on to say, it seemed to him that Pearce’s
sermon was poorly structured. “I thought,” Fuller told his friend,
“you did not seem to close when you had really finished. I wondered
that, contrary to what is usual with you, you seemed, as it were, to
begin again at the end—how was it?” Pearce’s response was terse: “It
was so; but I had my reason.” “Well then, come, let us have it,” Fuller
jovially responded. Pearce was quite reluctant to divulge the reason,
but after a further entreaty from Fuller, he consented and said:
Well, my brother, you shall have the secret, if it must be so. Just
at the moment I was about to resume my seat, thinking I had
finished, the door opened, and I saw a poor man enter, of the
working class; and from the sweat on his brow, and the symp-
toms of his fatigue, I conjectured that he had walked some miles
to this early service, but that he had been unable to reach the
43. Letter to Sarah Pearce, July 11, 1792 (Samuel Pearce Mss., Angus Library,
Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford).
place till the close. A momentary thought glanced through my

mind—here may be a man who never heard the gospel, or it
may be he is one that regards it as a feast of fat things; in either
case, the effort on his part demands one on mine. So with the
hope of doing him good, I resolved at once to forget all else, and,
in despite of criticism, and the apprehension of being thought
tedious, to give him a quarter of an hour.44
As Fuller and the others present at the breakfast table listened to
this simple explanation, they were deeply impressed by Pearce’s evi-
dent love for souls. Not afraid to appear as one lacking in homiletical
skill, especially in the eyes of his fellow pastors, Pearce’s zeal for the
spiritual health of all his hearers had led him to minister as best he
could to this “poor man” who had arrived late.
“An Instrument of establishing the empire of my dear Lord”

Given his ardor for the advance of the gospel, it is only to be expected
that Pearce would be vitally involved in the formation in October
1792, of what would eventually be termed the Baptist Missionary
Society, the womb of the modern missionary movement. In fact, by
1794, Pearce was so deeply gripped by the cause of missions that he
had arrived at the conviction that he should offer his services to the
Society and go out to India to join the first missionary team the Soci-
ety had sent out, namely, William Carey, John Thomas (1757–1801),
and their respective families. He began to study Bengali on his own.45
And for the entire month of October 1794, which preceded the early
November meeting of the Society’s administrative committee where
Pearce’s offer would be evaluated, Pearce set apart “one day in every
week to secret prayer and fasting” for direction.46 He also kept a di-
ary of his experiences during this period, much which Fuller later
inserted verbatim into his Memoirs of Pearce and which admirably
44. F. A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society, from 1792 to 1842 (London:
T. Ward & Co./G. J. Dyer, 1842), 1:52–53. Pearce’s friendship with Fuller drew him
into a highly significant circle of friends. For the story of this circle, see Michael
A. G. Haykin, One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends and his times
(Darlington, Co. Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995).
45. Payne, “Samuel Pearce,” 50.
46. Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce (2nd ed.), 38.
diplays what Fuller described as his friend’s “singular submissiveness

to the will of God.”47
During one of these days of prayer, fasting, and seeking God’s
face, Pearce recorded how God met with him in a remarkable way.
Pearce had begun the day with “solemn prayer for the assistance of the
Holy Spirit” so that he might “enjoy the spirit and power of prayer,”
have his “personal religion improved,” and his “public steps directed.”
He proceeded to read a portion of the life of the American mission-
ary David Brainerd (1718–1747) by Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758),
a book that quickened the zeal of many of Pearce’s generation, and
to peruse 2 Corinthians 2–6. Afterwards he went to prayer, but, he
recorded, his heart was hard and “all was dullness,” and he feared that
somehow he had offended God.
Suddenly, Pearce wrote, “it pleased God to smite the rock with the
rod of his Spirit, and immediately the waters began to flow.” Liken-
ing the frame of his heart to the rock in the desert that Moses struck
with his rod in order to bring forth water from it (see Exod. 17:1–6),
Pearce had found himself unable to generate any profound warmth
for God and His dear cause. God, as it were, had to come by His
Spirit, “touch” Pearce’s heart, and so quicken his affections. He was
overwhelmed, he wrote, by “a heavenly glorious melting power.” He
saw afresh “the love of a crucified Redeemer” and “the attractions of
his cross.” He felt “like Mary [Madgalene] at the master’s feet weep-
ing, for tenderness of soul; like a little child, for submission to my
heavenly father’s will.” The need to take the gospel to those who had
never heard it gripped him anew “with an irresistible drawing of soul”
and, in his own words, “compelled me to vow that I would, by his
leave, serve him among the heathen.” As he wrote later in his diary:
If ever in my life I knew anything of the influences of the Holy
Spirit, I did at this time. I was swallowed up in God. Hunger,
fulness, cold, heat, friends and enemies, all seemed nothing be-
fore God. I was in a new world. All was delightful; for Christ
was all, and in all. Many times I concluded prayer, but when
rising from my knees, communion with God was so desirable,
47. Ibid., 59. For the diary, see Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce
(2nd ed.), 39–57. For some lengthy extracts from the diary, see also Michael A. G.
Haykin, “Samuel Pearce, Extracts from a Diary: Calvinist Baptist Spirituality in the
Eighteenth Century,” The Banner of Truth, no. 279 (December 1986), 9–18.
that I was sweetly drawn to it again and again, till my…strength

was almost exhausted.48
The decision of the Society as to Pearce’s status was ultimately
a negative one. When the executive committee of the Society met at
Roade, Northamptonshire, on November 12, it was of the opinion
that Pearce could best serve the cause of missions at home in England.
Pearce’s response to this decision is best seen in extracts from two
letters. The first, written to his wife Sarah the day after he received
the decision, stated: “I am disappointed, but not dismayed. I ever wish
to make my Saviour’s will my own.”49 The second, sent to William
Carey over four months later, contains a similar desire to submit to
the perfectly good and sovereign will of God.
Instead of a letter, you perhaps expected to have seen the writer;
and had the will of God been so, he would by this time have
been on his way to Mudnabatty: but it is not in man that walketh
to direct his steps. Full of hope and expectation as I was, when I
wrote you last, that I should be honoured with a mission to the
poor heathen, and be an instrument of establishing the empire
of my dear Lord in India, I must submit now to stand still, and
see the salvation of God.
Pearce then told Carey some of the details of the November meeting
at which the Society executive had made their decision regarding his
going overseas.
I shall ever love my dear brethren the more for the tenderness
with which they treated me, and the solemn prayer they re-
peatedly put up to God for me. At last, I withdrew for them
to decide, and whilst I was apart from them, and engaged in
prayer for divine direction, I felt all anxiety forsake me, and an
entire resignation of will to the will of God, be it what it would,
together with a satisfaction that so much praying breath would
not be lost; but that He who hath promised to be found of all
that seek him, would assuredly direct the hearts of my brethren
to that which was most pleasing to himself, and most suitable
to the interests of his kingdom in the world. Between two and
48. Ibid., 55.

49. Ibid., 35.
three hours were they deliberating after which time a paper was
put into my hands, of which the following is a copy.
“The brethren at this meeting are fully satisfied of the fit-
ness of brother P[earce]’s qualifications, and greatly approve of
the disinterestedness of his motives and the ardour of his mind.
But another Missionary not having been requested, and not be-
ing in our view immediately necessary, and brother P[earce]
occupying already a post very important to the prosperity of
the Mission itself, we are unanimously of opinion that at pres-
ent, however, he should continue in the situation which he now
occupies.”
In response to this decision, which dashed some of Pearce’s deepest
longings, he was, he said, “enabled cheerfully to reply, ‘The will of the
Lord be done;’ and receiving this answer as the voice of God, I have,
for the most part, been easy since, though not without occasional
pantings of spirit after the publishing of the gospel to the Pagans.”50
From the vantage-point of the highly individualistic spirit of
twenty-first-century Western Christianity, Pearce’s friends seem to
have been quite wrong in refusing to send him to India. If, during his
month of fasting and prayer, he had felt he knew God’s will for his
life, was not the Baptist Missionary Society executive wrong in the
decision they made? And should not Pearce have persisted in pressing
his case for going? While these questions may seem natural ones to
ask given the cultural matrix of contemporary Western Christianity,
Pearce knew himself to be part of a team and he was more interested
in the triumph of that team’s strategy than the fulfillment of his own
personal desires.51
“Surely Irish Zion demands our prayers”

Pearce’s passion for the lost found outlet in other ways, though. In
July of 1795, he received an invitation from the General Evangelical
Society in Dublin to come over to Dublin and preach at a number
50. Letter to William Carey, March 27, 1795 [Missionary Correspondence: contain-
ing Extracts of Letters from the late Mr. Samuel Pearce, to the Missionaries in India, Between
the Years 1794, and 1798; and from Mr. John Thomas, from 1798, to 1800 (London: T.
Gardiner and Son, 1814), 26, 30–31].
51. See Ralph D. Winter, “William Carey’s Major Novelty” in J. T. K. Daniel
and R. E. Hedlund, eds., Carey’s Obligation and India’s Renaissance (Serampore, West
Bengal: Council of Serampore College, 1993), 136–137.
of venues. He was not able to go until the following year, when he

left Birmingham at 8 a.m. on May 31. After traveling through Wales
and taking passage on a ship from Holyhead, he landed in Dublin on
Saturday afternoon, June 4.52 While in Dublin, Pearce stayed with a
Presbyterian elder by the name of Hutton who was a member of a
congregation pastored by a Dr. McDowell.53 Pearce preached for this
congregation on a number of occasions, as well as for other congrega-
tions in the city, including the Baptists.
Baptist witness in Dublin went back to the Cromwellian era to
1653, when through the ministry of Thomas Patient (d. 1666), the
first Calvinistic Baptist meeting-house was built in Swift’s Alley.54
The church grew rapidly at first and, by 1725, this church had be-
tween 150 and 200 members.55 A new meeting-house was put up in
the 1730s. By the time that Pearce came to Ireland in 1796, though,
the membership had declined to roughly forty members. Pearce’s
impressions of the congregation were not too positive. In a letter he
wrote to William Carey in August 1796, the month after his return to
England, he told the missionary:
There were 10 Baptist societies in Ireland.—They are now re-
duced to 6 & bid fair soon to be perfectly extinct.
When I came to Dublin they had no meeting of any kind
for religious purposes…. Indeed they were so dead to piety that,
tho’ of their own denomination, I saw & knew less of them than
of every other professors in the place.56
This opinion does not appear to have dampened his zeal in
preaching. A Dublin deacon wrote to a friend: “We have had a Jubilee
for weeks. That blessed man of God, Samuel Pearce, has preached
52. Samuel Pearce, Letter to Sarah Pearce, June 4, 1796 (Samuel Pearce mss.).
53. Ibid.
54. B. R. White, “Thomas Patient in England and Ireland,” Irish Baptist Histori-
cal Society Journal 2 (1969–1970):41. See also Robert Dunlop, “Dublin Baptists from
1650 Onwards,” Irish Baptist Historical Society Journal 21 (1988–1989):6–7.
55. Joshua Thompson, “Baptists in Ireland 1792–1922: A Dimension of Prot-
estant Dissent” (unpublished D. Phil. Thesis, Regent’s Park College, University of
Oxford, 1988), 9.
56. Letter to William Carey, August, 1796 (Samuel Pearce Carey Collec-
tion—Pearce Family Letters, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, University of
Oxford).
amongst us with great sweetness and much power.”57 And in a letter

to his close friend Summers, Pearce acknowledged:
Never have I been more deeply taught my own nothingness;
never has the power of God more evidently rested upon me.
The harvest here is great indeed; and the Lord of the harvest has
enabled me to labor in it with delight.58
This passionate concern for the advance of the gospel in Ireland is well
caught in a sentence from one of his letters to his wife Sarah. “Surely,”
he wrote to her on June 24, “Irish Zion demands our prayers.”59
Praying for the French

In the three remaining years of Pearce’s earthly life, he expended
much of his energy in raising support for the cause of foreign mis-
sions. As he informed Carey in the fall of 1797:
I can hardly refrain from repeating what I have so often told
you before, that I long to meet you on earth and to join you in
your labours of love among the poor dear heathens. Yes, would
my Lord bid me so, I should with transport obey the summons
and take a joyful farewell of the land that bare me, though it
were for ever. But I must confess that the path of duty appears
to me clearer than before to be at home, at least for the present.
Not that I think my connexions in England a sufficient argu-
ment, but that I am somewhat necessary to the Mission itself,
and shall be as long as money is wanted and our number of
active friends does not increase. Brother Fuller and myself have
the whole of the collecting business on our hands, and though
there are many others about us who exceed me in grace and
gifts, yet their other engagements forbid or their peculiar turn of
mind disqualifies them for that kind of service. I wish, however,
to be thankful if our dear Lord will but employ me as a foot in
the body. I consider myself as united to the hands and eyes, and
mouth, and heart, and all; and when the body rejoices, I have my
share of gladness with the other members.60
57. Carey, Samuel Pearce, 119.

58. Memoir of Rev. Samuel Pearce. A.M. (New York: American Tract Society,
n.d.), 132.
59. Letter to Sarah Pearce, June 24, 1796 (Samuel Pearce mss.).
60. Letter to William Carey, September 8, 1797 (Missionary Correspondence,
53–54).
One of the meetings at which Pearce preached was the one that
saw William Ward (1769–1823) — later to be one of the most invalu-
able of Carey’s co-workers in India—accepted as a missionary with
the Baptist Missionary Society. Those attending the meeting, which
took place at Kettering on October 16, 1798, were deeply stirred
by Pearce’s passion and concern for the advance of the gospel. He
preached “like an Apostle,” Fuller later wrote to Carey. And when
Ward wrote to Carey, he told his future colleague that Pearce “set the
whole meeting in a flame. Had missionaries been needed, we might
have had a cargo immediately.”61
Returning back to Birmingham from this meeting, Pearce was
caught in a heavy downpour of rain, drenched to the skin, and sub-
sequently developed a severe chill. Neglecting to rest and foolishly
thinking what he called “pulpit sweats” would effect a cure, he con-
tinued a rigorous schedule of preaching at Cannon Street as well as in
outlying villages around Birmingham. His lungs became so inflamed
that Pearce was necessitated to ask Ward to supply the Cannon Street
pulpit for a few months during the winter of 1798–1799.
By mid-December, 1798, Pearce could not converse for more
than a few minutes without losing his breath. Yet still he was thinking
of the salvation of the lost. Writing to Carey around this time, he told
him of a plan to take the gospel to France that he had been mulling
over in his mind. At that time, Great Britain and France were locked
in a titanic war, the Napoleonic War, that would last into the middle
of the second decade of the next century. This war was the final and
climactic episode in a struggle that had dominated the “long” eigh-
teenth century. Not surprisingly, there was little love lost between
the British and the French. But Pearce was gripped by a far differ-
ent passion than those that gripped many in Britain and France — his
was the priority of the kingdom of Christ. In one of the last sermons
that he ever preached, on a day of public thanksgiving for Horatio
Nelson’s annihilation of the French Fleet at the Battle of the Nile
61. Andrew Fuller, Letter to William Carey, April 18, 1799 (Letters of Andrew
Fuller, typescript transcript, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, University of
Oxford); William Ward, Letter to William Carey, October 1798 (cited S. Pearce
Carey, William Carey, ed. Peter Masters [London: Wakeman Trust, 1993], 172). In
his memoirs of Pearce, Fuller wrote that Pearce’s sermon was “full of a holy unction,
and seemed to breathe an apostolical ardour” (Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce
[2nd ed.], 100).
(1798) and the British repulse of a French invasion fleet off the coast
of Ireland in the fall of 1799, Pearce pointedly said:
Should any one expect that I shall introduce the destruction of
our foes, by the late victories gained off the coasts of Egypt and
Ireland, as the object of pleasure and gratitude, he will be dis-
appointed. The man who can take pleasure at the destruction
of his fellow men, is a cannibal at heart;… but to the heart of
him who calls himself a disciple of the merciful Jesus, let such
pleasure be an everlasting stranger. Since in that sacred volume,
which I revere as the fair gift of heaven to man, I am taught,
that “of one blood God hath made all nations,” [Acts 17:26] it is
impossible for me not to regard every man as my brother, and to
consider, that national differences ought not to excite personal
animosities.62
A few months later—when he was desperately ill—he wrote a
letter to Carey telling him of his plans for a missionary journey to
France. “I have been endeavouring for some years,” he told Carey, “to
get five of our Ministers to agree that they will apply themselves to
the French language,… then we [for he was obviously intending to be
one of the five] might spend two months annually in that Country,
and at least satisfy ourselves that Christianity was not lost in France
for want of a fair experiment in its favour: and who can tell what God
might do!”63 God would use British evangelicals, notably Pearce’s
Baptist contemporary Robert Haldane (1764–1842), to take the gos-
pel to Francophones on the Continent when peace eventually came,
but Pearce’s anointed preaching would play no part in that great work.
Yet his ardent prayers on behalf of the French could not have been
without some effect. As Pearce had noted in 1794, “praying breath”
is never lost.
Final days
By the spring of 1799, Pearce was desperately ill with pulmonary
tuberculosis. Leaving his wife and family—he and Sarah had five
children by this time—he went to the south of England from April to
July in the hope that rest there might effect a cure. Being away from
his wife and children, though, only aggravated his suffering. Writing
62. Motives to Gratitude (Birmingham: James Belcher, 1798), 18–19.

63. Cited Carey, Samuel Pearce, 189.
to Sarah—“the dear object of my tenderest, my warmest love”—from

Plymouth, he requested her to “write me as soon as you receive this”
and signed it “ever, ever, ever, wholly yours.” Three weeks later when
he wrote, he sent Sarah “a thousand & 10 thousand thousand em-
braces,” and then poignantly added, “may the Lord hear our daily
prayers for each other!”64
Sarah and the children had gone to stay with her family in Alces-
ter, twenty miles or so from Birmingham. But by mid-May, Sarah
could no longer bear being absent from her beloved. Leaving their
children with Birmingham friends, she headed south in mid-May,
where she stayed with her husband until the couple slowly made their
way home to Birmingham in mid-July.65 By this time, Samuel’s voice
was so far gone that he could not even whisper without pain in his
lungs. His suffering, though, seemed to act like a refiner’s fire to draw
him closer to Christ. “Blessed be his dear name,” he said not long
before his death, “who shed his blood for me.… Now I see the value
of the religion of the cross. It is a religion for a dying sinner.… Yes, I
taste its sweetness, and enjoy its fulness, with all the gloom of a dy-
ing-bed before me; and far rather would I be the poor emaciated and
emaciating creature that I am, than be an emperor with every earthly
good about him, but without a God.”66 Some of his final words were
for Sarah: “I trust our separation will not be forever…we shall meet
again.”67
He fell asleep in Christ on Thursday, October 10, 1799. William
Ward, who had been profoundly influenced by Pearce’s zeal and spiri-
tuality, well summed up his character when he wrote not long before
the latter’s death: “Oh, how does personal religion shine in Pearce!
What a soul! What ardour for the glory of God!… you see in him a
mind wholly given up to God; a sacred lustre shines in his conversa-
tion: always tranquil, always cheerful.… I have seen more of God in
him than in any other person I ever met.”68
64. Letters to Sarah Pearce, April 20, 1799 and May 3, 1799 (Samuel Pearce
mss.).
65. Ernest A. Payne, “Some Samuel Pearce Documents,” The Baptist Quarterly
18 (1959–1960), 31.
66. Fuller, Memoirs of the Late Rev. Samuel Pearce (2nd. ed.), 141.
67. “The dying words of dear Brr Pearce to his wife” (Samuel Pearce Mss.).
68. Cited Carey, Samuel Pearce, 188.
A Concluding Word
When Pearce accepted the pastorate of the Birmingham con-
gregation at Cannon Street, he stated in his letter of acceptance,
written on July 18, 1790, that he hoped the union between pastor
and church would “be for God’s glory, for the good of precious
souls, for your prosperity as a Church, and for my prosperity as
your minister.”69 It is noteworthy that he placed “God’s glory”
and “for the good of precious souls” as his first two goals of his
ministry. These two expressions well capture the twin themes
examined in this article: Pearce’s Calvinistic commitment to
living to the glory of God and his missional passion for the sal-
vation of sinners.
69. Carey, Samuel Pearce, 95.

Contemporary and
Cultural Issues
q
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 303 –312
Handling Error in the Church

martin downes interviewing joel r. beeke
q
As you reflect back to your days in seminary and early years in the min-
istry, were there men who started out with evangelical convictions who
later moved away from the gospel? How did you cope with that?
I can only think of a few men with whom I had some personal
acquaintance who have fallen from evangelical convictions. Initially,
these rare situations shook me—particularly one Reformed brother
with whom I studied at Westminster Seminary who embraced Ro-
man Catholicism. Praying for their awakening and return, and for
myself that I might not stumble nor look down haughtily upon them,
has helped me cope. Then, I suppose, so have the daily challenges of
the ministry which press me to keep my hand on the plow and not
become overly distracted by an erring brother or two.
I know far more ministerial colleagues—numbering well into
the hundreds—who have moved from non-evangelical positions to a
solid evangelical and Reformed stance. Many of them suffered greatly,
losing large portions, if not all, of their congregations in the process.
I have often been profoundly encouraged by their courageous stance
to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints (Jude 3).
Have you ever been drawn toward any views or movements that time
has shown to have been unhelpful or even dangerous theologically?
By the grace of God, no.
How should a minister keep his own heart, mind, and will from theo-
logical error?
• Keep yourself deeply immersed in the Scriptures, and pray
daily to be willing to surrender all to their inerrant truth.

• Surround yourself with sound, godly colleagues and lay
people who love you sufficiently to be honest with you, so
that iron will sharpen iron.
• Read the best, sound, scriptural, classic books, especially
those by the Reformers and Puritans, that address your
mind with clarity, convict your conscience with poignancy,
bend your wills with conviction, and move your feet with
passion.
• Meditate on those truths preached that do your people the
most good; in every case, you will discover that they are
biblical truths.
• Develop the hide of a rhinoceros so that you won’t be
tossed about with every criticism and wind of doctrine
while maintaining the heart of a child, so that you will be
a tender undershepherd to the needy.
Calvin said that ministers have two voices. One is for the sheep and the
other for warding off the wolves. How have you struck the right balance
in this regard in your pulpit ministry?
I suppose that one can never be absolutely certain that he is
striking the right balance on this critical subject, but here are four
guidelines that I find helpful:
• Pray daily for biblical balance in all areas of ministry.
• Love your sheep. Love has a way of balancing out our of-
ten imbalanced personalities. Those in error can receive
much more from a minister who obviously loves them
than from one who comes across as combative.
• Be patient with your sheep. Be willing to teach them the
same truth repeatedly, just as the Lord has done with you
(cf. Phil. 3:1; 2 Peter 3:1–2).
• Let your “voice for the sheep“ always receive the primary
accent of your ministry. Truth must ultimately be positive
in nature to win the day with a congregation. Many minis-
ters have focused too much on polemical and apologetical
Handling Error in the Church 305
theology, often setting up and beating upon straw men in

their congregation to the detriment of the flock. Polemics
and apologetics must have their proper place of a minor
accent in the ministry, so that no error is left unexposed.
But the minister must expose error wisely, forthrightly,
humbly, compellingly, not by lording it over the sheep
(2 Tim. 4:1–2; 1 Pet. 5:2–3).
Why do old heresies persist today? Why do men possessed of fine in-
tellectual gifts end up embracing and believing significant theological
errors?
Heresy is the product of the mind of “the natural man,” as Paul
puts it in 1 Corinthians 2:14, that is, “the unrenewed man” (Charles
Hodge), who must necessarily receive and understand Christian truth
without the illumination of the Holy Spirit and without a renewed
mind. As a stranger to “the wisdom of God” revealed in the gospel, he
must also consult and depend on “the wisdom of this world” (1 Cor.
1:19–24). Compounding the problem is the vanity of his mind, his
darkened understanding, his ignorance and blindness of heart (Eph.
4:17–18). Such a man can have at best only a shallow, imperfect, dis-
torted view of the truth, and it is not surprising that he conceives and
propagates a multitude of errors and falsehoods.
The root of our English word “heresy” is the Greek word haire-
sis, meaning “choice” or “opinion.” Note that the word implies the
activity of both the mind and the will of man. Having come to a
misunderstanding of the truth or having concocted or embraced a
falsehood in its place, the natural man cleaves to his errors and zeal-
ously asserts and advances them precisely because they are his own
opinions.
Nor is it surprising that when a false prophet or teacher begins
to proclaim his erroneous views to others, there are many willing to
receive and embrace them. Fallen men are hostile to the truth of God
and prefer to believe a falsehood rather than submit to that truth.
The wonder is not that there are many heretics, but that there are not
many, many more.
Because the mind of the natural man is finite, there are only
so many erroneous or heretical views it can conceive or embrace.
Because that mind is corrupt and the corruption is inherited by suc-
ceeding generations, there is a tendency to resurrect or reproduce the
errors of the past. After 2000 years, it is only to be expected that the
errors and heresies of the present day all seem to have their historical
antecedents, often reaching back to the earliest history and experience
of the ancient church.
Ignorance always serves the cause of error. Christians who do not
know what the Bible says and have no knowledge of the history of
Christian doctrine find themselves unequipped to detect and refute
these resurrected errors and heresies of the past. As a result, it is all
too easy for false teachers “to creep in unawares” (Jude 4) and launch
campaigns to subvert congregations and denominations that histori-
cally embraced the apostolic Christian faith.
In America, wealth and business acumen have also been called
upon to advance some of the most ancient and obvious falsehoods
and errors. The Church of Latter-Day Saints, better known as “the
Mormons,” is a huge and highly profitable business enterprise de-
voted to promoting polytheism on a scale that rivals Hinduism, a
“gospel” of salvation by works righteousness, continuing revelation,
“baptism for the dead,” “eternal marriage,” and a secret temple cultus
modeled on Free Masonry.
Finally, we must reckon with the activity of Satan as “the father
of lies” (John 8:44). Wherever men call into question the truth and
trustworthiness of God’s Word, handle the Word of God deceitfully,
and love and make a lie as a substitute for the truth of God’s Word, we
can see the hand of the enemy of souls at work.
How can a minister discern between those who are thinking their way
through doctrines on the way to greater depth and clarity, and those who
are questioning doctrines in a way that could lead to significant error?
First of all, we must follow the example of Christ and the apostles,
who openly invited and urged their hearers to prove or test the truth
and worth of what they proclaimed and taught. Reformed Christians
have asserted and maintained the liberty of the Christian and the lib-
erty of conscience. “The requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute
and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason
also” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20.2).
Every minister must learn to defend the faith without being de-
fensive or combative. “The servant of the Lord must not strive; but
be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing
those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:24, 25a). We should encourage
our people to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21). Rather than rebuking
someone for asking questions, we should devote our energy to find-
ing answers to those questions from God’s Word. The Ecumenical
Creeds and Reformed Confessions, and the vast theological literature
connected with them, are also great helps to a right understanding of
faith and practice.
On the other hand, as those who watch for the souls of God’s
people, we must be alert to any sign of straying from the truth. We
must warn against embracing any notion or doctrine that requires
one to set aside the clear testimony of Scripture. We must resist efforts
to reinterpret Scripture in order to accommodate sinful practices or
lifestyles. We must expose the sinful tendency of the fallen man to
exalt himself and make himself a judge of God’s Word, rather than
submitting to its judgment.
We must use discernment. A true Christian will gladly receive
faithful instruction from the Word of God. A man who is merely
dabbling in theology or looking for an intellectual sparring partner
deserves to be rebuked. And “a man that is an heretic after the first
and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is sub-
verted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10–11).
How do you cope with men who are sound in many ways, and whose
ministries have been beneficial, but who, nonetheless, have held harm-
ful views?
One of the consequences, or benefits, of being known as a Re-
formed Christian who adheres consistently to the teaching of
Scripture as summarized in the Reformed Confessions is that one
is seldom put in such a position. Such men as you describe in your
question seem to find the Reformed faith to be a pill they can’t or
won’t swallow—perhaps because for all their strengths, these men are
generally pragmatists and averse to consistency.
Even so, our people often find something attractive in the
ministries of such men, and we need to take time to know their
positions—both strengths and weaknesses—so that we can speak in-
telligently and helpfully about them. The difficulty is that these men
and their ministries, broadcasts, and books are many and various.
There is almost always one big name at a given moment, the man
whose sayings and doings and nostrums are being widely discussed
and hotly debated. We should beware of being drawn into endless and
useless debates. These men come and go and have surprisingly little
impact over the long term.
It should be a rule with us to have nothing to do with any man
or ministry that errs in regard to the way of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Whatever good a man may do along other lines, he has done the
greatest conceivable harm if he errs at this point. “It were better for
him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were
drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6).
Many Christians would be surprised to learn that major heretics like

Pelagius and Faustus Socinus were known for scrupulously moral liv-
ing, when perhaps they would have expected them to be openly immoral.
How did Paul’s assertion that false teaching leads to ungodliness mani-
fest itself in the lives of these false teachers?
It is a misreading of Paul to suggest that false teaching must al-
ways lead to ungodliness or immorality, although it often does. Paul
was keenly aware of the life he had lived as a Pharisee, so zealous
to observe the traditions of the elders that he claimed to be “touch-
ing the righteousness of the law, blameless” (Phil. 3:6). He likewise
bears record of his fellow Jews that “they have zeal of God, but not
according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteous-
ness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not
submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:2–3).
It is simply a fact of human experience that men often do the right
things for the wrong reasons.
It is therefore essential to the Christian notion of ethics to con-
sider motive or “the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12), as
well as outward appearance or conduct, when determining whether
one’s works are good or not. That which is not done out of true faith,
in obedience to God’s Word, and for the glory of God, is not, in the
most important sense, a good work (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 91).
According to the Word of God, Pelagius and Faustus Socinus were
both “as an unclean thing,” and all their good works were “as filthy
rags” (Isa. 64:6).
However much these men may have lived an outwardly moral
life, Scripture describes them in very different terms: as “grievous
wolves…speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”
(Acts 20:29–30). In the balance of Scripture, the sins of the mind and
heart are more heinous than the sins of the flesh. It is gross wicked-
ness to mislead others concerning the way of salvation, to destroy

faith in the truth of God’s Word, and to corrupt the worship of God.
At the same time, many Christians are guilty of failing to “adorn
the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things” (Titus 2:9)—that is, by
a consistent Christian manner of life and conduct. Because of the de-
pravity that still cleaves to us, there must always be a gap between our
profession and our conduct. We are called upon nonetheless to crucify
the old nature, to walk in newness of life, and, in dependency on the
Holy Spirit, to make every effort to narrow the gap between profes-
sion and conduct, for the sake of Christ and the gospel (cf. Rom. 8).
What would you consider to be the main theological dangers confronting

us today, and how can we deal with them?
Some dangers have been with us for a long time, and some are
just beginning to loom on the horizon. “The Battle for the Bible” has
been with us for more than one hundred years, and it has proven to
be a great setback for the cause of Christ in the world. The apostasy
of the Protestant churches in Europe and Great Britain; the disor-
der and corruption of evangelical churches in North America; the
extension of much of that disorder and corruption to newly planted
churches in Latin America, Africa, and Asia; the resilience of corrupt
bodies such as the Church of Rome, and the sway it holds over so
many millions; the propagation of cults of many kinds—all this may
be attributed in very large measure to ignorance, false views, and rank
unbelief concerning the unique character, content, and authority of
Holy Scripture as God’s written Word.
In the community of Reformed churches, we must deplore the
rise of what can be called “boutique” versions of the Reformed faith:
little groups centered around some novel idea or practice, such as
paedocommunion, that sets them apart from other Reformed Chris-
tians. Equally distressing is the widespread defection from the faithful
observance of the Second Commandment regarding the regulation of
the content and manner of Christian worship; many Reformed Chris-
tians have forgotten that the Reformers were as much concerned to
regulate Christian worship according to Scripture as they were deter-
mined to establish Christian doctrine from the Word of God. Rightly
understood and practiced, Christian worship is profoundly theologi-
cal, spiritual, and practical.
Nothing, however, is more astonishing than contemporary de-
nials or disclaimers concerning faith as the sole instrument of our

justification before God. Nothing was more basic to the Reformation,
and nothing is more essential to the gospel, than justification by faith
alone. Scripture acknowledges only one way of salvation, and it has
nothing to do with covenant status, church membership, sacramental
administration, Christian education, or progressive sanctification to
acquire salvation. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved” (Acts 16:31).
Almost as disturbing is the rise of the “postmodern” school of
thought or mind-set, and the inroads it is making among Christians
in North America. As the name implies, postmodernism is a reac-
tion to the modernism so dominant in Europe and America in the
last decades of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the
twentieth. One would think this rejection of modernism would work
in favor of the historic Christian faith, but that is not the direction
postmodernism has taken. Fundamental to postmodernism is the re-
jection of rational systems of thought and any kind of meta-narrative.
Reformed Christianity has a rational system of thought, summarized
in its historic creeds and confessions; its meta-narrative is nothing
less than the witness of Holy Scripture to the history of redemption
in Christ, and its summary in the gospel.
It is open to question whether there is any such thing as postmod-
ernism, at least anything that can be expressed in positive terms. Even
so, there are many important self-identified postmodern thinkers,
writers, and shapers of popular culture. Their blend of radical skepti-
cism, unbelief, eclecticism, and nihilism is making its impact on our
world and the people to whom we must preach the gospel. It must
also be admitted that these trends in the culture around us often have
a profound and often destructive impact on the Christian church. We
ministers should be alert to the ways in which the young people in
our own churches, much more attuned to and involved in popular
culture than we may like to think, may be embracing the stances and
ways of postmodernism.
Knowledge is power, and we need to know and understand the
world we live in and the churches we serve. Even more important, we
need to grow in our knowledge and practice of the things taught and
commanded in Holy Scripture. The man who knows the Scriptures
well is “throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16), in-
cluding in particular the good work of proclaiming the great truths
of the Christian faith, wielding God’s Word as a mighty spiritual

weapon, “casting down imagination, and every high thing that exalt-
eth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5)—in order to
save both himself and his hearers and to build up the church of Christ
unto all generations.
It is natural that a younger generation can find it harder to navigate

the theological currents in the church. With all your ministerial experi-
ence, what advice would you give to younger ministers as they assess and
handle various movements today?
Younger ministers are sometimes the victim of the particular bent
of their theological training. Since the rise of the so-called “Church
Growth” movement, there has been an increasing emphasis on tech-
nique and methodology at the expense of the disciplines that once
were the “meat and potatoes” of seminary education, namely, biblical
languages, exegesis, systematics, apologetics, church history, and the
history of Christian doctrine.
Where this shift in emphasis has taken place, the seminary gradu-
ate will not have the tools he needs to use Scripture effectively and to
wield it with ever-increasing knowledge and skill as “the sword of the
Spirit.” He will not have sufficient access to the Scriptures themselves,
nor the comprehensive and analytical grasp of Christian truth, to be
a true minister of the Word in today’s world. He will find himself
captive to the winds of the moment. As a preacher, he will be reduced
to repeating the ideas of other men, gleaned from commentaries and
popular books.
The minister who finds himself in this unhappy position should
take action to make up for this deficit of knowledge and skill. He
can go back to seminary and make a better choice of a place to train.
He can seek advice and direction from other ministers and enter on
a course of self-study. The important thing is for him to realize what
he doesn’t know and needs to know, and for him to seek out the best
kind of books and study helps. Conferences and seminars are also
helpful, and the guidance and encouragement of older and better-
equipped ministers of the Word will be invaluable.
In sum, here are three short guidelines:
• Become and stay well versed in the Scriptures, in con-
fessional Reformed theology, and in the great classics of
Reformed, experiential theology.
• Summarize the errors of various movements succinctly

from the pulpit when the scriptural text you are expound-
ing pertains to them. Enlarge upon your exposure of error,
perhaps, in catechism classes (because young people are
the church’s future) or weekday classes (because those who
attend have, in general, greater appreciation for apologetics
than does your average Sabbath attendee and because your
teaching situation is less formal).
• Remember that you cannot study every false movement in
depth, nor should you. Study in depth for yourself those
that directly affect your congregation. Otherwise, read the
best book from an evangelical perspective that refutes a
particular error. In some cases, reading one good article
may suffice.
Younger ministers should beware of being so caught up with the
trends, debates, and crises of the present that they neglect to rein-
force their knowledge of Christian history and Christian doctrine. It
is important that they know what they are up against in terms of the
challenges of today, but it is even more important that they know pre-
cisely what the Christian faith is at its roots, what the authentic gospel
of Jesus Christ is, and how it is to be proclaimed, according to its
Author. God does not change, His Word cannot change, His mercy is
from everlasting to everlasting, and His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ,
is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
This article is reprinted from Martin Downes, ed., Risking the Truth: Inter-
views on Handling Truth and Error in the Church (Fearn, Ross-shire:
Christian Focus, 2009), 165–176. Twenty other ministers are similarly inter-
viewed in this book, including Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, Mark Dever,
Derek Thomas, Iain D. Campbell, Tom Ascol, Conrad Mbewe, Geoffrey
Thomas, and Ligon Duncan. Available from heritagebooks.org.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 313 –328
Interview with Geoff Thomas
Geoffrey Thomas is Pastor of Alfred Place Baptist Church, Aberystwyth,

Wales, where he has served the Lord for forty-five years. He also serves as an
adjunct professor at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. His preaching
and written ministry are deeply appreciated by many of God’s people around
the world. In this slightly abridged interview conducted by Men for Ministry,
he reflects on the life and work of the preacher.
Please tell us about your background and your own calling to serve God
through preaching His Word.
I was born in 1938, in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales. My Baptist mother
had been influenced by her mother’s brother who had been converted
in the Welsh revival of 1904, and some time during the first World
War through the meetings her uncle led she gave her heart to the
Lord Jesus. She maintained a sweet love for the Savior all her life,
accompanying all her chores with hymn-singing. She was tender,
modest, self-effacing to a degree, wonderfully kind, and loving. I am
like a mouse before an elephant when measured by her graces. My
Congregational father (a station-master) came from one of the most
dynamic Congregational churches in the world a century ago, Betha-
nia, Dowlais. A thousand strong congregation, its membership then
was overwhelmingly evangelical but its ministers steadily and secretly
moved into humanism in the old familiar way, becoming Arminian,
bolstering man’s free will as the pivot for every step in religion, aban-
doning the Old Testament in huge chunks, and soon after such a
momentous step of defiance of Jesus’ convictions, they turned against
. Reprinted with permission from Men for Ministry. From: http://menformin-

istry.blogspot.com/2007/10/men-for-ministry-interview-series-geoff.html
the apostle Paul in the New Testament. So they gave up Jesus’ view
of Scripture and Jesus’ greatest spokesman and they imagined they
could still be loyal to this living person and not grieve Him deeply.
The brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God became for them
the message of the Christian religion. My father’s sister married a
Congregational minister, a follower of Fosdick, and my father’s twin
brother became a minister. He did not preach on the apostle Paul for
years.
I went with my mother to church (the lamb follows the ewe) and,
in 1951, we moved to Hengoed where the Tabernacle Baptist Church
had been erected a hundred yards from our house almost fifty years
earlier. It had started as a split away from the Mount Pleasant Baptist
Church across the other side of the valley in Maesycwmmer when
the 1904 revival affected that church and bifurcated the congregation.
It was made impossible for those who had “entered into the blessing”
to remain in the church and so they resigned and set up Taberna-
cle half a mile away. Unfortunately, they remained linked naively to
the Baptist Union and so received into their pulpits the students and
ministers who rejected the appallingly pessimistic evaluation of the
human condition found in the Bible, one which could be relieved
only by the incarnation, righteous life, and atonement of the Son of
God. Bland universalism and bourgeois ethics became the message
of the day disguised under traditional hymns and God words. Such
insipid views depended largely on personalities to keep the wagons
trundling on.
A young minister came to the church in the 1950s who began by
earnestly preaching the Scriptures, but, attending the Baptist College
in Cardiff, he lost his way and ended up an Anglo-Catholic “Fa-
ther” in the Church of Wales. But while he was in his early days, he
preached faithfully and I came to Christ under his ministry in 1954,
was then baptized, joined the church, and came to the Lord’s Table.
The church, though, shrank and shrank; last year, it was disbanded
and the building demolished.
I found fellowship wherever I could: summer camps, and then at
university in the InterVarsity Fellowship. In 1958, I heard Dr. Mar-
tyn Lloyd-Jones preach, read Dr. J. I. Packer’s Fundamentalism and the
Word of God, began to subscribe to the Banner of Truth magazine,
and read Whitefield’s Journals, Lloyd-Jones’s Studies in the Sermon on the
Mount, and J. C. Ryle’s Holiness. By different means—even the local li-
Interview with Geoff Thomas 315
brary—God brought these things before me. His hand was upon me.
I discovered a growing group of role models, the “sons” of Dr. Lloyd-
Jones, some of them my contemporaries at University, and others
who were younger Welsh ministers. They were a great group whom I
lionized: Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists. They all left
their own mark on me, and so it was not surprising that I preached for
the first time in 1959, and thenceforward Sunday after Sunday.
I studied Biblical Studies, Greek, and Philosophy at Cardiff Uni-
versity and those evangelical books, magazines, gospel ministers, and
their preaching kept me. I read one cluster of men—Edward J. Young,
Ned Stonehouse, John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, and Edmund
Clowney—and was aware that they were all teaching at Westminster
Seminary. I jumped at the opportunity of attending that school, and it
came to me through typical American generosity. I spent three years
in Philadelphia and sailed back to Wales three days after graduation
to marry the girl back home. It was only during the last months of
my course at seminary that I was assured of a call to preach, though
I guess there was nothing else I ever wanted to do or was fit to do. It
seemed a huge step to announce that I was going to be a preacher, but
the counsels of Edmund P. Clowney, the most approachable, kindly,
and prayerful of teachers, were crucial in prodding me to come out
with the inevitable decision. My wife’s background was almost identi-
cal to mine: Welsh Congregational and Baptist, with two of her uncles
also ministers, and as liberal as mine had been. We were both brands
plucked from the burnt-over churches modernism had destroyed.
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones famously stated that “the work of preaching is

the highest and greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone
can ever be called.” How does this statement match your own view of
preaching, and what particular privileges do you feel attach themselves
to teaching God’s Word?
There are other great callings; we believe in the priesthood of
all believers, so that all you do is to be done to the glory of God. For
example, motherhood is a glorious calling; what would I have become
without Mom? But Dr. Lloyd-Jones is defending his own vocation
at a juncture in history when preaching is being marginalized. The
Anglican Church sees the sermon as one part of the service and has
elevated the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper to being the climax of
worship. The charismatic movement has labeled the singing “wor-
ship” and the sermon “teaching.” Modernism has shrunk the sermon
to a comment on current affairs and book reviews. Counseling has
been elevated as a means of changing people.
Lloyd-Jones saw the sermon as a means of dynamic grace com-
ing to convict, illuminate, educate, and convert a sinner. A friend of
mine, Easton Howes, during the 1950s and 60s, was working in the
Westminster City Hall and a Christian colleague would often invite
him to a Bible study on a Friday night nearby. Easton was always
busy and anxious to get home, imagining eight or so people sitting
around making comments on a passage as not being too scintillating.
One night, his friend’s persistence was rewarded and Easton went
reluctantly along with him. He was taken to Buckingham Gate and
into Westminster Chapel where he sat astounded in the midst of a
thousand people and heard Dr. Lloyd-Jones preach on Romans. It was
a life-transforming experience for him, and he brought his pastor the
next week, whose ministry was also affected pervasively.
Such changes for the eternal good of multitudes of men and
women wrought by Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ ministry and then by thousands
of others are the concrete proof of the claim the Doctor makes that
“the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most
glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called.” If one is to es-
timate the credibility of a claim to “conversion,” then one must ask
what part did Bible preaching have in their conversion.
The preacher can minister to an entire congregation with all the
differing needs of that gathering. The Word of God opened up and
applied to the hearers can come upon them from all 360 degrees. By
the Spirit’s power, the lines at which it comes running to you make
sinners utterly defenseless to resist. This wisdom comes unexpect-
edly, from whence they least expect such truths to be dealing with
them, from passages that seemed, when first announced, remote
to their own needs, but by them God worked and elevated and in-
spired and reassured and directed. Hope was rekindled; conviction
was experienced; love was reborn. When I look back to my own peak
Christian experiences, so many of them have been when I was under
the Word of God as it was preached to me and I melted, or again when
it was I who was the spokesman and mouthpiece of God, and the
congregation was still during the sermon, motionless after the service
was over, knowing God was in this place. I have felt after such meet-
ings that saving power was present, though I might never hear of any
specific individuals converted that day.
You have been ministering in Alfred Place Baptist Church in Aberys-

twyth for forty-seven years. What are the main lessons that you have
learned about yourself, the Lord, and the task of preaching during that
period?
Sometimes I feel the main lessons I have learned about myself are
those of my failures, not in terms of the techniques of good preach-
ing, or the principles of hermeneutics and exegesis, or clarifying to
people what a passage says and what they should do about it. I can
do that fairly professionally, and I would not want to minimize that.
Preeminently, it is the moral and ethical demands of the ministry
that are quite overwhelming. A minister must be without blame, and
then one asks, by what standards? The answers the Bible presents take
your breath away. Consider these words from Romans 12:
Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in
honour preferring one another; not slothful in business; fervent
in spirit; serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope; patient in tribula-
tion; continuing instant in prayer; distributing to the necessity
of saints; given to hospitality. Bless them which persecute you:
bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep
with them that weep. Be of the same mind one toward another.
Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be
not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for
evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be pos-
sible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly
beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath:
for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him
drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
That is just one of the ethically stringent passages of the Bible
and it tells me how I am to live, day by day. What is required in the
beginner Christian is utterly essential in the minister. Any failure in
attention to any of those duties is going to reflect on your ministry and
weaken the impact of your preaching. You must have known many
men whose skills in communication were not strong. Their friends
would acknowledge that they were not inspirational preachers, and

yet people are converted under their ministry year after year. The ba-
sis for this is their Christ-like manner, their sheer consistency of life,
their humility and accessibility to the people who listen to them. The
more one progresses in grasping the message of the Book, the more
one is overwhelmed by its demands. Consider the whole sphere of
mortification, of plucking out the right eye if it offends, of self-denial
and cross-bearing if one would follow Christ. Consider the require-
ments of more love for God. Grace started as a trickle of affection for
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Has it ever become a mighty torrent of
love for the Godhead? Why not? This is the chief commandment,
to love God with all one’s heart and soul and mind and strength. As
one goes on in the Christian life, its sheer centrality and significance
seems to become the only thing that matters. Think of it. We are fail-
ing in the thing that matters supremely.
Then consider the demands of the personal devotional life of
the minister, of his growing deepening relationship with the person
of Jesus Christ his Lord and Savior, of fellowship with the Spirit and
communion with God the Father. The apostles gave themselves to
prayer and the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:4). I can understand the
latter duty; that is also my duty all my life and wonderfully delightful
it is, but they gave themselves first to prayer. How? How much? What
was the relationship between the corporate and the individual seasons
of prayer? Did they spend their whole mornings in prayer and the rest
of the day teaching and evangelizing? How did they obey the apostolic
precept to pray without ceasing? It was clearly important to them, and
whereas the details I itch to know are wisely not provided by God, the
importance of prayer to them was paramount. I am overwhelmed with
the feeling that I have never really prayed; that in fact I don’t believe in
prayer; that much of my failure as a preacher at so many different levels
is due to the pathetic nature of my praying. So at this juncture of my
life, failure is my companion, but it is not too late for a flame of sacred
love to be kindled on the lowly altar of my heart.
Or consider again the whole sphere of visitation, pastoral and
evangelistic. Have I ever done this adequately? You just need to read
d’Aubigne’s observations on John Calvin’s ministry in Geneva: “Ob-
serve him in his care of souls, in his visits to the sick, to the stranger,
to the magistrates, and to the poor. He ascends to the garret; he is not
contented with the city, he traverses the suburbs and recalls the disso-
lute to their duty. There is no minister whom he does not encourage;

no prisoner and martyr whom he does not console. His whole life
glorifies the Lord.” You read the life of M‘Cheyne and you meet this
same spirit. How these men were moved by love for others!
The other failures are the more predictable ones, of opening the
whole sixty-six books of the Bible from the pulpit. My own con-
viction has been that every Christian during the years of his or her
earthly pilgrimage should come under the preaching of every part of
the Bible. That is the reason God has given it to us. So I have sought
to preach on all the Bible, but there are enormous challenges with that
view which John Calvin and C.H. Spurgeon seem to have overcome
by their different approaches to preaching. The problem comes first
from the sheer size and proportions of the Bible. There are 847 pages
in the Old Testament but just 247 pages to the New Testament (in
my version of the Bible)—over three times as much material is in
the Old Testament as is in the New. Then there is the different situa-
tion faced by most of the Old Testament prophets compared to those
the New Testament apostles faced as they took the gospel of Jesus
Christ around the eastern Mediterranean basin. Consider the situa-
tion Jeremiah was facing; does it mirror the circumstances of my own
congregation? The professing people of God then had heard Jeremiah
for forty years and still loved their idols more than the prophet and
his God. They were facing judgment, destruction, and exile. That is
not what my congregation is like, and so I hesitate about slowly and
painstakingly taking the people through that book Sunday by Sunday
for a year or two—or more. It would not be pastorally helpful. But I
may not ignore Jeremiah, and so my solution has been to deal with
the book for twenty-five minutes at a time before the time of prayer
during our mid-week meeting, with loads of breaks through the year
when missionaries come and some elders lead the service. We have
steadily gone through Jeremiah’s counsels and learned from them
over two or three years (with many a break, let me repeat). I am sure
Jeremiah’s teaching has never resulted in a compression of spirit un-
der those relentless themes of defiance exposed and idolatry rebuked.
Wives are useful barometers, and her response has always been posi-
. Merle D’Aubigne, Let Christ be Magnified (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,

2007), 45.
tive to those studies in Jeremiah which have recently ended; she is no

fawning sycophant where preaching is concerned.
I use Jeremiah as an illustration of the challenge of preaching con-
secutively through the Old Testament with few role models, extant
or historical. Many Old Testament prophets faced similar incompre-
hension as Jeremiah, and even with the indispensable insights of Vos
and the whole developing school of biblical theology, their message is
often not the message one automatically considers our little European
gospel congregations need to be exposed to exhaustively, though hear
the message of all the Bible they must. That is why God has given it.
Maybe if I were the Archbishop of Canterbury facing the follies of
Anglicanism I might need to apply Jeremiah energetically and compre-
hensively and the prophets to those bishops, deans, and canons. Or if
I were the Pope I would have to declare Jeremiah’s truths exhaustively
to that unreformed denomination which he, unfortunately, heads.
The historical books from Joshua to Esther are in length virtu-
ally the same size as the New Testament. They lend themselves to far
bigger textual units in preaching. There are splendid helps in the com-
mentaries that various evangelical publishing houses steadily provide,
but when one turns to the New Testament one must linger over the
letters and also the discourses of our Lord because of the compression
of truth found in their very prepositions. Dr. Lloyd-Jones’s method of
comprehensive, thorough studying of Ephesians is a perfect model,
and one must resist the attempts to belittle it in favor of glorified Bible
studies—in other words, skating over the whole of Ephesians in ten
studies, with four of you sharing chunks of the letter like schoolboys
dividing stolen apples.
But to do what I set out to do—preach through all the Bible—is
inevitably to end in failure. All ministry ends in failure, of course.
The plan and the noble attempt to accomplish it was simply mine;
God’s plan for me was different. But I believe it was praiseworthy
to try to preach through it all. I have painted myself into a corner,
leaving myself the following books unpreached on: Numbers, Deu-
teronomy, many Psalms, Proverbs, Ezekiel, and a few of the minor
prophets. Think of it! What ranges of mountains to lead my people
across! I will not succeed in preaching on all of those in the brief pe-
riod that lies before me. No desperate devices, no token preaching on
those books, will characterize my last years. I must speak on the one
unfailingly fresh theme that brags about my Savior as much as I am
able, and so Luke’s gospel is my swansong, I guess, balanced by series

of Old Testament passages, plus Romans, strangely working my way
from the back in chunks of a few chapters at a time (reckoning that
the apostolic ethic was needed in the congregation). But there is a ro-
mance about preaching; God’s plan is far wiser than mine. I am, even
as I write this, waiting on God for some indication as to what I might
preach after seven messages on Naaman the leper have been com-
pleted on the Sunday before me. A psalm? Habakkuk? The opening
chapters of Proverbs look enticing and my son-in-law, Gary Brady,
has done such sterling work on them. We all serve the same heavenly
Father who guides all His servants who seek to preach His Word.
In our ministry, we are blessed to be in contact with a number of men

who are just setting out on the path of teaching God’s Word. What would
you advise them to do before, during, and after the act of preaching?
• Before preaching. Search out for some role models, men in the min-
istry you admire, whose ministry and life moves you to emulation.
Learn from them. You will quickly discover they have feet of clay.
Maybe some of them will not let you get close to them, and you will
discover that they are not as smart as you hoped to answer your ques-
tions, but they will have insights and advice. Get men in the past
to serve this end also, such as Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones,
M‘Cheyne, Brainerd, Paton, Carey, and Calvin, and learn from them
all. Lloyd-Jones’s Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, Pink’s Life of Elijah,
and Watson’s Beatitudes are the kind of books that model interesting
popular systematic expository preaching. Go to websites like First
Presbyterian, Jackson where you can hear and read the sermons of
Derek Thomas and Ligon Duncan. You can also hear the sermons of
Joel Beeke and Iain D. Campbell on their websites—find them via
Google. This is an extraordinary phenomenon, that at the end of a
Sunday in Europe I can hear the morning sermon as it was preached
in Heritage Reformed in Grand Rapids. Go to my website and read
my sermons.
When I was beginning my ministry, the task of preparing two
sermons a week was utterly daunting. I had such high standards and
little ability and no experience of relentlessly preparing sermons for a
congregation, especially two a week plus the mid-week preaching ser-
vice. The task was overwhelming with many, many falls. How I wish
I had had a resource of written sermons to turn to in order to help me.

Saul’s armor did not fit David, but Jonathan’s did. Spurgeon’s sermons
don’t fit anyone preaching in the world today, but his whole spirit as
he approached the work of the pulpit and the congregation, his ideas,
application, entreaties, and corrections are invaluable. The sermons of
T. T. Shields were not my size either, but they helped make Paul Tucker
the fascinating preacher he became. I found Al Martin and others in-
valuable helps in preaching in the 1970s. I envied their clear outlines
and passion in delivery. Such men helped me to build on the Doctor
and my Welsh role models to form me. I have also had Iain Murray
as my most consistently helpful counselor, and consider his friendship
and advice the most single blessed support. If there is one man whose
books I must read as they appear it has to be the writings of Iain Mur-
ray. So all that in answer to your first division—before preaching.
• During preaching, covet an ability to relax the congregation, enabling

them to sit back and listen carefully and enjoyably to what is to be
said to them. I’ve been very struck with that grace as manifest in such
men as Ted Donnelly, John Blanchard, and David Norman Jones
of Tasmania. It comes from a trust in God—a cultivation of that
dependence on His enabling to bless the preparation during the proc-
lamation. They have managed to learn to speak humbly and directly
to their audience; they are not bullies; they don’t shout, but neither
are they perennial smilers (which is just as irritating). They speak in-
terestingly of their theme. They have in their minds a grasp of where
this sermon is going and they are determined to take the congrega-
tion to that destination. They use judicious illustration. I believe that
Ted Donnelly is the most excellent sermon illustrator in the UK. I
have learned from him about illustrating, and from the Puritan illus-
trations of Bunyan and Watson, which are quite compressed.
So the ability to settle a congregation down to listen to you during
the sermon is the great gift to seek from God. It comes from loving
familiarity with your theme, and a concern to communicate it to the
people, and a determination to honor the Lord of the Word and the
Word of the Lord.
• After preaching, what would I advise? Ernest Reisinger shared this

aphorism with me years ago: “It is a sin to preach and not to pray.”
Afterwards would be a good time for a group of people to meet, when
preaching is over, to pray for God’s blessing on what has been pro-
claimed, but it is virtually impossible as there are people to welcome,
visit with, and also drive home. The preacher longs for men to gather
around him after a sermon, especially when he has struggled and
found it a barren spiritual exercise, to find then his friends upholding
him in thanking God for something they have learned. Alas, it does
not happen. After the sermon the preacher is invariably discouraged,
especially the older he gets, because he has known some help in ex-
alting Christ and preaching the good news, but there are few sinners
present, and those that are there are the familiar people who have
been coming for years and remain untouched. Where were the unbe-
lievers? How the preacher needs warm praying after both good and
bad sermons, but he is left on his own and he must say, “Sorry, Lord,
that I did not do well again.”
One of your lifelong passions has been the reading and promotion of Pu-
ritan literature. What can the Puritans teach us today about preaching?
You have to try them for yourself, and do it this way. Get J. I.
Packer’s Among God’s Giants and read those essays on various aspects
of the Puritans: their stalwart lives, their controversies, how they con-
ceived of the ministry, their personal disciplines of godliness and their
evangelism. Start with Packer and see what immersion in Puritanism
has done for him in his many helpful books. He has not become a sad
archaic caricature of the seventeenth century in his style. He is among
the most contemporary, bracing, and searching of writers today.
Then try some Puritans. What a wealth you have to choose from.
Start, of course, with Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is the Westminster
Confession of Faith lived out in pastoral theology. Read the debates
especially because in those exchanges you will meet the application of
truth to the kind of people we are meeting. Then there are the Ban-
ner of Truth paperback modern language series of books written by
John Owen. There is the paperback on the Holy Spirit, for example,
and after you have read that you feel nothing else has ever needed to
be written on the third person in the Godhead. The other versions
of Owen’s books are just as helpful. Then there is Thomas Brooks,
surely one of the most helpful and readable of writers; I took his Pre-
cious Remedies from Satan’s Devices and preached a brief series based on
that book. I cannot think of a counselor today who is addressing is-
sues in the church as Brooks does. His newly reset book on personal
prayer is called The Secret Key to Heaven and it is the most encouraging
book on the disciplines of personal devotion. One lady in the church
just gave back to me her read copy, saying how helpful she had found
it and would I pass it on to someone else who might read it and also
find it rich.
What you will find in these books is a God-centeredness which
is absent from the prevailing ethos of “How to...” books that are ev-
erywhere today. The Puritans center on Christ; as Thomas Goodwin
said, “If I were to go to heaven and find that Christ was not there, I
would leave immediately; for heaven without Christ would be hell to
me.” Their books prick our consciences and show us the sinfulness
of sin. They magnify the grace of God. They are so thorough in all
they deal with; Baxter’s A Christian Directory is 900 pages of fine print
divided up into ethics, economics, ecclesiastics, and politics. There
you will find such counsels as ten directions for helping husbands
and wives to live together in quietness and joy. They present to us
the sovereignty of God in a living application to all the providences of
life, individually and in the church. Their books are full of the hope
of heaven.
Do you feel there is a place for dedicated and direct evangelistic preaching
in regular ministry, or should this be present in all expository ministry
from Scripture?
Europe is utterly pagan, and the vestiges of an earlier grace are
getting increasingly threadbare. Anti-Christian sentiment is gaining
in vitriol. Who is ever going to hint at less evangelistic preaching? No
Christian minister will do so, of all people. We will certainly discour-
age vain repetition of the same narrow understanding of what the
gospel is, week by week, as the bleary-eyed young people boringly
twiddle their thumbs at this familiar fare and look at their watches,
waiting for the closing hymn. That is not evangelistic preaching. Ask
why people like those teenagers and their friends do not believe, and
you will get a list of a dozen reasons. There you have a dozen themes
for your evangelism. Your task is to show the loveliness of Jesus
Christ, and that again will give you a dozen messages.
I asked Brian Edwards once what special services had he found
useful in evangelism: baptismal services, Christmas and Easter
messages, meals with a message? He shook his head; “The normal
Sunday preaching has been the occasion when God has blessed His
Word.” Though I had never articulated that conviction, I found that

it mirrored my own experience exactly. How hard it is to crank up a
message to become a super-message for a big occasion. The anxiety,
over-effort, and intensity in preaching the sermon usually ruins any
hope of it doing good.
Always have saving truth in every message for the stranger pres-
ent. One particular church secretary would make the announcements
on a Sunday and would welcome everyone, occasionally adding, “I
see we have some strange faces here today.” We must pray that faces
marked by years of vanity and pride will hear of a Savior wherever in
the Bible you are preaching from. Recently, after the morning service,
a man told me that he was bringing to the evening service two men
who had not been near a church for twenty years. In the past I have
tended to preach the message I have prepared regardless of the arrival
of strangers to grace. I came to regret that, on some notable occasions
when a gang of unbelieving young people suddenly turned up, I failed
to preach the message of salvation simply and clearly to them. So on
this occasion, I radically changed my approach to the sermon and
simply declared the gospel. I thought that I overdid it, that the ma-
jority of the congregation was very familiar with the way I preach “a
simple gospel.” The two men listened and I enjoyed talking to them
after the sermon. They told the man who had invited them that they
thought I was getting at them, and I was. Maybe if I had preached
what I had prepared I might have crept up on them from another
angle, but I think I would have had other regrets in failing to address
them directly. What a challenge preaching is!
As you preach through books and chapters, my only plea is that
when you come to one of those “big texts” of Scripture that you slow
down and give a whole sermon to it—the kind of preaching J. C.
Ryle preached so clearly and helpfully in those sermons now gathered
in Old Paths and Practical Christianity and especially his perennially
blessed book, Holiness. Think of Dr. Lloyd-Jones traveling all over the
U.K. for a mid-week meeting, and consider the themes of his preach-
ing, the texts he preached on, and the moving, awakening power of
his ministry to the nation. That is the kind of sermon I want to preach
myself, the kind that draws men and women to the Lord of glory.
What pieces of advice have most helped you in your ministry?

• The climax of Christian worship is the declaration of the
Word of God. After we have sung His praise and prayed to
Him, then He speaks to us and we are still.
• Do everything for double usefulness. The time is short; we
are so few; there is much work to do. If you can put your
sermons on a computer and then on your website, they can
reach a far greater audience than our small congregations.
If you read a new book, offer a review of it to a magazine
you favor. Offer material from your church newsletter/
magazine to magazines in this country and overseas. Bring
modern technology to the service of the pulpit.
• Do not take your strengths for granted. You may be elo-
quent and make the assumption that you can stand before
a hundred people and preach to them come wind come
weather. Do not assume that. Work on your strengths;
hone all your skills; purify and make more Christocen-
tric your mind, tongue, man-management skills, ability to
speak to children, and pastor.
• Work on one theme at a time throughout your life, steadily
and thoroughly reading, exploring, and taking notes, for
example, on the imputation of Adam’s sin, or the atone-
ment, or the state of man, or the teaching of Jonathan
Edwards on a certain theme. Spend time on this subject.
You never know whether in the future the church will be
divided over this theme and your contribution will be im-
mensely helpful.
• Don’t be a loner; attend the best conferences; put your-
self under the best preachers. Talk with brethren in the
afternoons, over the meals, and at the end of the day in
those places. Those occasions are the most profitable at
such conferences, I find. The messages are a bonus.
What books would you regard as being beneficial and formative for
young preachers?
Anything written by Iain Murray, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, J. C. Ryle,
John Murray, J. Gresham Machen, or J. I. Packer, and the commentar-

ies of John Stott and J. Alec Motyer. From other periods in the history
of the church, you ought to read, D’Aubigne’s History of the Reforma-
tion, Pilgrim’s Progress by Bunyan, The Life of Whitefield by Dallimore,
the Journals of Whitefield, the life of Spurgeon in its two volumes, the
history of Princeton Seminary in two volumes, and the life of Dr.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones by Iain Murray.
For devotional reading, nothing can compare to J. C. Ryle’s Ho-
liness, Dr. Lloyd-Jones’s Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, and his
Sermons on Ephesians chapter two. The book on the Sermon on the
Mount will show you the beauty of a righteous life and make you
want to live it, and it will also show you what consecutive biblical
preaching can achieve.
As for books about preaching, you cannot neglect that most su-
perb paperback of Stuart Olyott, Preaching Pure and Simple. You will
always be turning back to Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ Preaching and Preachers. It is
bracing, humbling, and inspiring. I read John Stott’s book on preach-
ing, I Believe in Preaching (as it was called in the UK), and it made
me want to climb the pulpit steps immediately and preach the Word.
Little booklets by Al Martin on preaching, like his What’s Wrong with
Preaching Today, is out of the top drawer, enormously humbling and
thrilling. Other books by Dabney and Samuel Miller and Spurgeon’s
Lectures to my Students are also helpful.
One of the blessings which many Christians have gained from your
preaching has been your ability to present the complex and theologi-
cal aspects of God’s Word in a way which is both lucid and profoundly
practical. How can a preacher avoid becoming technical and over-com-
plicated in his delivery of messages?
Is that right? Are you sure you are not muddling me up with
someone else? I know I came back from three years at Westminster
Seminary full of graduate theology. I had spent the previous six years
of my life—those long years from 18 to 24—with students, that nar-
row spectrum of age and communication and interest. It was not the
most helpful approach to preaching popularly to my fellow country-
men. When I think of the men who never went to a theological college,
Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, John Blanchard, Iain Murray, and how such
men ran faster than all of us in their constant study and assimilation
of the theology, church history, dogmatics, and biblical exegesis, then
I am tempted to denigrate theological training, but I had John Murray

and Cornelius Van Til. How can I demean such training?
So I thank God for Princeton under Alexander and Hodge and
Machen. I thank God for the Free Church College under Chalmers.
I think of the missionaries and pastors who studied in those institu-
tions and the influence they had all over the world. In Mississippi
today, the P.C.A. presbytery for that state contains about 175 churches
and 120 of them are now pastored by graduates of Reformed Theo-
logical Seminary. The whole character and ethos of Presbyterianism
has been affected by Reformed Theological Seminary.
I believe in Systematic Theology as a necessary and central dis-
cipline in theological training. Today there is Murray, Grudem, and
Frame whose books are lucid presentations of Christian doctrine.
Reymond is also useful, as are many sections of Berkhof. I use anyone
who can help me—recently Spurgeon on Naaman and I. D. Camp-
bell on Imputation; I once saw a title of some sermons of Al Martin
called “Achan and his sin” and the Lord buried that title in my mind
for thirty years until this year when I preached five messages on that
theme. I never heard Al Martin’s expositions, but he once preached a
series on “The most fearful words any man could every hear: ‘Depart
from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
angels.’” I heard him preach two sermons on that text in Sandfields,
Port Talbot, one Saturday thirty-five years ago. That was the most
superb preaching. I can still sense their authority. I seek for that my-
self, and for deep conviction and tender love for my hearers to preach
convicting series of messages on hell regularly. That absence has been
another failure. But whether we judge we have attained that higher
degree of spirituality, we cannot but preach what Christ said about
the eternal state of the impenitent and unbelieving. Our own feelings
may never be the touchstone of what we choose to preach on and
what we omit. His command to every preacher is to teach whatever
the Lord has first spoken. Imagine pleading our own frail feelings as
the excuse for not telling the world what will be its judgment!
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 329 –341
Practical Lessons from the Life

of Idelette Calvin1
joel r. beeke
q
John Calvin was devoted to Scripture and the church. He emphasized

God’s sovereignty and Christian living in his preaching and writing,
and he was surrounded by many loyal Christian friends. Not sur-
prisingly, he also had a very happy marriage. Yet finding a suitable
marriage partner had proved to be a daunting task for Calvin. Many of
his well-meaning friends and family members had attempted to play
matchmaker for him, and each time Calvin had been disappointed.
Eventually he nearly resigned himself to celibacy. When Calvin’s
friend Guillaume Farel wrote to tell of yet another possible life mate,
Calvin responded: “I do not belong to that foolish group of lovers, who
are willing to cover even the shortcomings of a woman with kisses, as
soon as they have fallen for her external appearance. The only beauty
that charms me is that she is virtuous, obedient not arrogant, thrifty,
and patient, and that I can expect her to care for my health.”
When Calvin finally married Idelette van Buren, he found the
one thing needful for which he was looking: a sincere and obedient
heart of piety toward God. For Calvin and Idelette, such piety was key
to braving the difficulties and challenges of married life.
While we know little of Calvin and Idelette’s home life, from all
indications it was serene and godly despite its many tragedies and
hardships. As we examine Idelette’s life with Calvin, let us focus on
. This article was first delivered as an address on October 31, 2009 to a break-
out session for women at the 17th Annual Audubon Bible Church Reformation Cel-
ebration, Laurel, Mississippi.
. John Calvin, Tracts and Letters (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,
2009), 4:191.
. Machiel A. van den Berg, Friends of Calvin, trans. Reinder Bruinsma (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 125 (cf. Tracts and Letters, 4:141).
several lessons that we can learn from her godly example. For in Ide-
lette we see what can be called the blueprint for Christian marriage. It
is the pattern of holy living that Colossians 3:12 says includes “kind-
ness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one
another, and forgiving one another.” These ingredients which per-
meated John and Idelette’s marriage still offer us today a variety of
helpful ways to enrich and bless our marriages.
Courtship
Calvin’s duties as a pastor and Reformer were too much for his health.
He contracted so many diseases under his heavy load that his friends
persuaded him that he needed a helpmeet to relieve some of the bur-
dens of domestic life. Calvin had several students living with him, a
few retirees (pensioners), and a surly housekeeper and her son. Cal-
vin’s good friend Guillaume Farel attempted twice to find Calvin a
spouse who would match his biblical ideal.
Eventually Martin Bucer suggested the widow Idelette van Buren
(possibly from Buren in the Dutch province of Gelderland) as a suit-
able candidate. By this time, Calvin was ready to remain single for
the rest of his life. After contemplating Bucer’s suggestion, however,
Calvin realized that Idelette indeed appeared to have the character
that he sought.
Idelette was a young widow with two young children. Her former
husband, Jean Stordeur, a cabinet maker from Liège (one of “those
cities of the Netherlands in which the awakening had been most re-
markable,” D’Aubigne writes), contracted the plague in 1540 a little
more than a year after Calvin’s arrival there and died within a few
days. The Stordeurs lived in Strasburg, which was a refuge for Chris-
tians fleeing Roman persecution. They were Anabaptists, who were
rejected by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformers alike.
It is possible that Idelette was the daughter of a famous Anabaptist,
Lambert van Buren, who in 1533 was convicted of heresy, had his
property confiscated, and was banished from Liege.
In addition to not believing in infant baptism, the Anabaptists
. J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin

(repr., Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 2000), 6:508.
. Ibid.; cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (repr., Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985), 8:415.
Practical Lessons from the Life of Idelette 331
embraced several teachings that differed from those of the Reformed

faith. For example, the Anabaptists believed they should not partici-
pate in government or fight in wars. They also believed they should
never swear an oath, even in court. In some cases, Anabaptists tried
to separate themselves from the world by establishing their own
communities. Though Jean and Idelette did not belong to the radi-
cal wing of the Anabaptists, generally speaking, the Anabaptists were
radical compared with other faith expressions of the Reformation.
Some Anabaptists stressed spiritual life at the expense of Scripture
and sound doctrine. Others took radical measures to promote their
beliefs, even to the point of violence. Interestingly, Calvin helped
suppress Anabaptism by his writings and by supporting the impris-
onment and banishment of some of its more radical members.
When Calvin and Farel were expelled from Geneva in 1538, Cal-
vin began preaching in the French church in Strasburg, where Jean
and Idelette attended services. How curious they must have been to
hear Calvin, who was already well known for writing the Institutes of
the Christian Religion. Convinced of the Reformed truth, Jean and Ide-
lette soon left the Anabaptists and joined Calvin’s church. There they
acquired a love for Scripture and its central place in worship. They
also enjoyed the clear preaching, pastoral care, and warm friendship
of their leader.
At this time Idelette was already exhibiting a strong commitment
to Christ and a teachable spirit. Instead of resenting Calvin’s stern
policy against the Anabaptists, she read the Institutes and learned to ap-
preciate Calvin’s devotion to the Word of God. She and her husband
attended many of Calvin’s daily Bible lectures. They were also very
hospitable to Calvin. Calvin enjoyed their friendship and considered
them, as they called themselves, his disciples. He admired “the sim-
plicity and sanctity of their lives.”
Jean Stordeur’s death was a profound blow to Idelette. Not only
did she miss her dear husband, with whom she was united in so many
ways, but she had no way to support herself and her children as a
widow.
. Willem Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals, trans. William J. Heynen
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).
. J. H. Alexander, Ladies of the Reformation: Short Biographies of Distinguished La-
dies of the Sixteenth Century (repr., New York: Westminster, 2002), 88.
. Ibid., 89.
Shortly after Stordeur’s death Bucer asked Calvin, “What about

the gentle Idelette?” Though Calvin had formerly thought of Idelette
as a dear sister in Christ, he now began to reconsider that relation-
ship. While working hard to expand the Institutes from six chapters to
seventeen, he must have periodically heard the echo, Why not Idelette?
After all, the woman was godly, kind, and intelligent. Though she was
a few years older than Calvin, she was strikingly young and attractive.
Machiel van den Berg noted that “the extroverted Farel expressed his
astonishment that she was such a pretty woman!” Ultimately, though,
it was the evident fruit of Colossians 3:12 in Idelette’s life that im-
pressed Calvin, who pursued godliness in every aspect of his life.
Calvin had enjoyed Idelette’s hospitality both before and after her
first husband had died. Those visits increased when Calvin formally
began to court Idelette. A few months later, on August 17, 1540, Cal-
vin married Idelette, taking her and her children (a son and daughter)
into his home. Friends came from near and far to attend Calvin’s
wedding.10
Lesson 1: One of the first lessons we can learn from Calvin’s new
wife is the importance of having a full allegiance and humble
submission to the Scriptures as well as a teachable and hospitable
spirit. Too often today people are governed more by tradition
than by Scripture. They do not study the Word for themselves
or seek to learn and grow under the faithful expositional minis-
try of the Word. What about you? Are you humbly submitting to
the Scriptures? Do you demonstrate a teachable spirit? Are you
hospitable and warm to others?
Character
Idelette was quiet, unassuming, cheerful, and yet sober.11 Theo-
dore Beza, Calvin’s first reliable biographer, called her a most choice
woman—“a serious-minded woman of good character.”12 Although
. Van den Berg, Friends of Calvin, 129.

10. D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, 6:509.
11. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8:416, Farel recalled her disposition
as “grave.”
12. Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin (Darlington, U.K.: Evangelical Press,
1997), 35; cf. Edna Gerstner, Idelette (Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992).
she was petite and suffered from poor health, Idelette devoted all of
her strength to educating her children.13 Idelette’s faithfulness within
the hardships she faced indicated her meekness and humility. These
responses did not mean that she was weak or fearful, however. Follow-
ing Christ on the path of suffering takes great strength and courage,
and Idelette submitted patiently to God’s various providences.
To make room for Idelette and her children in his little home
in Strasburg, Calvin had to let two of his renters go. Letting these
sources of revenue go was a significant sacrifice for Calvin, consider-
ing his meager salary, but he appears to have made it gladly. Only
weeks after he was married, he wrote to Farel about how pleased he
was with his new wife. As van den Berg writes, Calvin “clearly found
marriage a special experience of joy.” Van den Berg goes on to say that
their “marriage was more than simply a rational agreement; it became
a true and solid bond of love and loyalty. The quiet and patient Ide-
lette was an exceptionally suitable friend-in-marriage.”14
Shortly after he married Idelette, Calvin went to Regensburg to
attend a theological debate. While he was gone, the plague hit Stras-
burg. One of Calvin’s closest friends, Claude Feray, died from it.
Calvin worried about Idelette, who took refuge outside of the city.
He wrote, “Day and night my wife is in my thoughts, now that she is
deprived of my counsel and must do without her husband.”15 Eventu-
ally Calvin could not take the worry anymore; he left the debate early
to return to Idelette.
Idelette and Calvin stayed in Strasburg for less than a year before
Calvin was called back to Geneva to continue his great work as a Re-
former. The stress of this decision weighed heavily on him. Calvin’s
letters from this period indicate that he was very happy in Strasburg
and did not wish to return to Geneva. He wrote to Farel, “I dread
throwing myself into that whirlpool I found so dangerous.”16 While
we have no account of Idelette’s thoughts and feelings at that time, the
couple decided to move to Geneva in response to the will of God. Ide-
lette’s daughter, Judith, accompanied them, while her son remained
in Strasburg with relatives.
13. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8:415.

14. Van den Berg, Friends of Calvin, 130.
15. Ibid., 131.
16. Alexander, Ladies of the Reformation, 91.
Lesson #2: The second lesson we learn from Idelette is that true
spiritual growth and resignation to God’s will are nearly always
inseparable. When is the last time that you patiently submitted
to God’s will even when you did not feel like doing it? How
did you feel after you placed your will under God’s will by the
Spirit’s grace?
While the Genevan city council provided a beautiful parsonage for

Idelette and Calvin at the top of the Rue de Chanoines—it had a little
garden and a magnificent view of Lake Leman and the Jura moun-
tains on one side and the Alps on the other—Calvin only received a
salary of about $200 per year, twelve measures of corn, and two casks
of wine. Though the resources at her disposal were very modest, Ide-
lette gladly opened up her home to numerous refugees and frequently
extended hospitality to Calvin’s friends, such as Farel, Beza, and Vi-
ret, who all highly respected her.
Idelette was a wonderful wife and companion for Geneva’s most
prominent pastor. When Calvin’s work as a pastor, writer, and civil
servant threatened his health, Idelette proved to be a much needed
confidant, counselor, and sounding board. She tended to his down-
cast spirit and his fragile health, and visited the sick in his place. She
also went out of her way to assure Calvin that she respected him for
remaining true to God and Scripture, no matter what the cost. Ide-
lette was willing to share with him whatever burdens he carried and
assured him that he should never be tempted to shrink from his du-
ties for the sake of her ease and comfort. She was deeply committed to
Calvin’s ministry as a preacher and teacher as well as to his organiza-
tion of a form of church-state government founded on the principles
of Scripture.17
After Idelette’s death in 1549, Calvin wrote to a friend, “I have
been bereaved of the best companion of my life, of one who, had
it been so ordered, would not only have been the willing sharer of
my exile and poverty, but even of my death. During her life she was
the faithful helper of my ministry. From her I never experienced the
slightest hindrance.”18
17. Ibid., 91–92.

Lesson #3: Another lesson a Christian woman can learn from

Idelette is that a marriage will be greatly blessed if the wife is
committed to being a faithful helpmeet for her husband and if
her goals, vision, and passion are similar to his. Do not marry
someone you are not committed to helping, or someone whose
vision and goals differ from your own. Such a marriage will only
cause division later on.
Perhaps the crucial point of Calvin and Idelette’s marriage is that God’s
wisdom shines brightest in poor, earthen vessels. A woman Calvin
considered marrying prior to marrying Idelette was very wealthy. Al-
though she could have provided a substantial dowry, she did not speak
his native French.19 Can you imagine trying to carry out the world-
changing, church-shaping task of providing spiritual direction for the
people of God during one of the most challenging times in history
with a spouse who did not speak the French language? When we seek
God’s will first for our lives, we obtain the blessing, says Colossians
3:24. Calvin and Idelette did not seek riches, status, or worldly gain
for themselves. They are a beautiful example of believers who united
together as spouses to do God’s work in a magnificent way.
Lesson #4: Learn from what Idelette had to offer Calvin that when
you look for a spouse for life, do not let wealth or the lack of it be
a significant issue. Rather, focus on this question: Are both of us
deeply committed to using our talents to provide spiritual direc-
tion and health for the church and kingdom of God?
Trials and Perseverance

Soon after their return to Geneva, Idelette prematurely gave birth to a
little boy they named Jacques. The baby died a month later in August,
1542. “The Lord has certainly inflicted a severe and bitter wound
by the death of our infant son,” Calvin wrote to Viret. “But He is
himself a Father and knows what is necessary for His children.”20 In
the same letter Calvin noted that Idelette was too grief-stricken to
19. She spoke German, which Calvin did not know well.
write, though she was submitting to God in her affliction. She had
also nearly lost her life in the delivery of their baby. Calvin wrote to
Viret that she had been in “extreme danger.”
Idelette recovered, but sorrow followed upon sorrow. Two years
later, she gave birth to a daughter on May 30. Calvin wrote to Farel,
“My little daughter labors under a continual fever,” and days later she
too died.21 Sometime later a third child was stillborn. In the midst of
Calvin’s overwhelming duties and pressures, the grief of losing chil-
dren was most profound, particularly for Idelette. Yet she and Calvin
pressed on, submitting to the Lord and putting their trust in Him.
Lesson #5: Idelette’s life, which included considerable suffer-

ing, shows us the beauty of submitting to God in grief rather
than denying or rebelling against it. Her submission teaches us
that genuine Christianity bows under God, trusting Him as the
greatest friend even when He seems to be our greatest enemy.
The end result of such trust is what the Puritans called “the rare
jewel of Christian contentment.” We might all ask for a greater
portion of this Christlike submission.
Insult was then heaped upon sorrow as some Roman Catholics wrote
that since sterility in marriage was a reproach and a judgment, the
childless condition of Calvin and Idelette must be God’s judgment
against Calvin.22 One writer, Baudouin, even wrote, “He married
Idelette by whom he had no children, though she was in the prime of
life, that the name of this infamous man might not be propagated.”23
Calvin later said the profound affliction of his childlessness
was lifted only by meditating on God’s Word and through prayer.
He wrote privately to his close friend Pierre Viret that he also found
comfort in knowing that he had “myriads of sons throughout the
Christian world.”24
21. Tracts and Letters, 4:420.

22. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8:418–419.
23. Alexander, Ladies of the Reformation, 93
24. Ibid.
Lesson #6: Just as Idelette, together with her husband, took ref-
uge in God’s Word and in prayer in their time of need, we ought
to find relief in the midst of life’s trials by turning in prayer to
the Word-based means of grace. Have you, too, discovered that
the Bible is an amazing book of comfort, and that prayer gives
us solace quite unlike anything else?
More heartbreak followed. Around this time the plague struck peo-
ple all over Geneva. It spread all over Europe, displacing hundreds
of thousands of people from their cities and homes. From a letter
(April 1541) to his father, we learn that Calvin sent Idelette and the
children to Strasburg for safety. The separation from Idelette was un-
bearable. Though Calvin was deeply anxious about his wife’s safety,25
he was also unwavering in his confidence in Christ. We should learn
from this that nothing on earth bound Idelette and Calvin together as
strongly as their bond of love anchored in Christ.
Lesson #7: Learn from Idelette, together with her husband, that
love for truth that is grounded in unwavering confidence in
Christ is what holds a marriage together even in times of pro-
longed absence and great suffering. We need to cultivate loving
trust in each other in good times, when we are not under trials
or absent from each other, so that we have much on hand to
draw from when the trials and absences do impact our lives.
In 1545, hundreds of persecuted Waldensians took refuge in Geneva.

Idelette was at Calvin’s side during that time, working hard to provide
lodging and employment for them. They were so tireless in their de-
votion to the immigrants that some Genevans accused them of being
more helpful to strangers than to friends.

Lesson #8: Learn from Idelette not to expect everyone to praise

you, even when you are doing good. Criticism is an unavoidable
reality of life. Learn to accept it, to turn it over to God, and to
walk forward with biblical integrity and humility.
John and Idelette Calvin experienced joyous times as well as many

heartaches. In our day, when so many psychologists and thera-
pists promise help for marriages, it is tempting to dismiss Scripture
as insufficient for telling us what married life should be. Yet Cal-
vin and Idelette offer a striking example of how a Scripture-based,
Christ-centered marriage can function in the midst of challenging
circumstances. Losing children and friends, uprooting from one
community to another, facing an incredibly demanding schedule, and
adjusting to a new marriage are just some of the trials that faced this
couple. Yet, they were blessed with a peaceful and joyous marriage
and family life.
Calvin and Idelette attributed the success of their marriage to
the grace of God. God was their source of forgiveness, compassion,
mercy, tenderheartedness, patience, and contentment through all
their difficulties. By God’s grace, these gifts and principles do not
change with the times but remain stable in Christ for believers who
pursue God-glorifying marriages. When we live by these principles
in union with Christ, our marriages can know a joy that far exceeds
worldly happiness.
patterning our marriage after Ephesians 5:21–33, then giving
God the glory for any success and joy we encounter in marriage,
is a sure way to increase our joy until the day we are finally wed-
ded forever to Jesus Christ, the perfect Bridegroom, in the glory
of heaven.
Idelette’s death
Idelette’s health steadily worsened during her nine years with Cal-
vin. She suffered from fever during the last three years of her life.
By March 1549, she was bedridden. At that same time, Calvin was
being hounded by powerful enemies in Geneva, not knowing that

they would be defeated in six years’ time. For the moment, it seemed
that everything in his life was crashing down upon him. The city ap-
peared to be rejecting him, his reforms were failing, and his precious
wife was dying. Yet, through it all, God sustained His servant.
Idelette’s last earthly concern was for her children. Calvin prom-
ised to treat them as his own, to which she replied, “I have already
commended them to the Lord, but I know well that thou wilt not
abandon those whom I have confided in the Lord.”26
“This greatness of soul,” Calvin later wrote, “will influence me
more powerfully than a hundred commendations would have done.”27
At the close of her earthly life, Idelette prayed, “O God of Abra-
ham and of all our fathers, the faithful in all generations have trusted
in Thee, and none have ever been confounded. I also will hope.”28
She passed on to glory April 5, 1549. Calvin was at her side, speaking
to her of the happiness they had enjoyed for nine years and about the
joy she would soon have in “exchanging an abode on earth for her
Father’s house above.”29
Lesson #10: Learn from Idelette that those who, by grace, live
well, usually die well. Idelette had a sweet, submissive death,
despite the pain that preceded it. When we surrender everything
to God, both in life and death, we will not only worry less in this
life, but we will also not be confounded even when difficulties
loom before us. Our comfort in Christ and His salvation is good
for both life and death, and for all eternity.
Calvin’s letters shortly after Idelette’s death expressed his grief over
losing his dearest companion, who he said was a rare woman without
equal.30 Even on her deathbed “she was never troublesome to me,” he
26. James I. Good, Famous Women of the Reformed Church (repr., Birmingham:
Solid Ground Christian books, 2002), 29.
28. Good, Famous Women of the Reformed Church, 29.
30. Michael Haykin, “Christian Marriage in the 21st Century: Listening to
John Calvin on the Purpose of Marriage,” in Calvin for the 21st Century (Grand Rap-
ids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009), forthcoming—page 13 of manuscript of
wrote.31 That made Calvin’s sorrow even more profound. This trial
shows us that submitting ourselves to the will of God does not excuse
us from hardship.
Calvin was only forty when Idelette died. Like Hezekiah, fifteen
years would be added to his life, but they would be years without his
precious wife. He wrote to his friends that he could scarcely continue
with his work, yet he steeled himself to do so. His enemies charged
Calvin with being heartless for working so diligently, but Calvin was
anything but heartless. He wrote to a friend, “I do what I can that I
may not be altogether consumed with grief. I have been bereaved of
the best companion of my life; she was the faithful helper of my min-
istry…. My friends leave nothing undone to lighten, in some degree,
the sorrow of my soul…. May the Lord Jesus confirm you by His
Spirit, and me also under this great affliction, which certainly would
have crushed me had not He whose office it is to raise up the pros-
trate, to strengthen the weak, and to revive the faint, extended help to
me from heaven.”32
Conclusion
Our culture has a cynical view of marriage and promiscuity. A recent
report on the rising rate of divorce shows that it is highest among peo-
ple ages twenty-five to thirty-five. While some of this rise in divorce
may be due to the economy, one contributing factor is the wedding
day itself. So much time and money are spent planning for the wed-
ding day that little time is spent preparing for the marriage! A society
that emphasizes only the wedding day can only breed cynicism about
marriage.
The biblical view of marriage is quite different. Scripture teaches
us that sin has deeply disfigured God’s intentions for marriage, but
Christ has lovingly restored it.33 True joy in marriage results when
a husband strives to love his wife the way Christ loves the church
and when the wife strives to respect her husband the way the church
respects Jesus Christ. John and Idelette Calvin knew that joy. One of
address given at the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary Conference, Grand

Rapids, August 2009.
33. Haykin, “Christian Marriage in the 21st Century: Listening to John Calvin
on the Purpose of Marriage,” 15.
the most amazing things about their relationship is that they exuded
joy even in the most traumatic circumstances. They knew what it
meant to rejoice in God in the midst of persecution. They found joy
in the fear of God as they strove to glorify Him. They found joy in
their salvation, joy in their fidelity to each other, joy in each other’s
love and companionship, and joy in service to their neighbor. In short,
Idelette was a genuine, joyous helpmate to her husband.
true joy is not found in living for one’s self; it is only found in
serving God as number one, serving our spouse as number two,
and serving ourselves as number three. That is the essence of
the blueprint for a truly joyous marriage and joyous life that
Paul has outlined for us in Colossians 3:12–17.
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 342 –353
The “Little Church”:

Raising a Spiritual Family with
Jonathan Edwards
peter beck
q
Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church, consecrated to

Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rules.
The spiritual nurture of the family, God’s “little church,” Jonathan Ed-
wards reminded his auditors on his last day as their pastor, is of greater
import than even the ministry of the local church. “Family education
and order,” he told the rebellious parishioners in Northampton, “are
some of the chief means of grace.” Failure to raise one’s children in
the grace and admonition of the Lord tends toward weakened spiri-
tual efforts on all fronts. Faithful diligence, however, feeds greater
works of grace in every other area of life.
Today, Edwards is known for many things. Commonly recog-
nized as America’s greatest philosopher, his reputation as an exemplar
theologian is well deserved. Likewise, his acclaim as a preacher and
promoter of piety is well founded. Over the 250 years since his prema-
ture death, much has been said about Edwards’s thought. Thousands
of books and articles of varying lengths have seemingly touched upon
every conceivable area of his life and thought. Yet, much remains left
untouched, just below the surface of an overwhelming sea of sermon
manuscripts and unpublished material. One such piece of the Ed-
wardsean puzzle that has been heretofore glossed over is his views on
the family and the spiritual role of the family unit.
. Jonathan Edwards, “A Farewell Sermon,” in Sermons and Discourses: 1743–1758,

in The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Works], ed. Wilson H. Kimnach (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2006), 25:484.
. Ibid.
. Very little has been written concerning life in the Edwards family home.
Elisabeth Dodds’s Marriage to a Difficult Man: The “Uncommon Union” of Jonathan and
Raising a Spiritual Family with Jonathan Edwards 343
This essay will attempt to unlock some of the treasures of Ed-

wards’s theology of the family for the purpose of teaching another
generation that which the great Puritan knew so well: the parent’s
greatest duty is to seek and promote the salvation of his child. Said
Edwards, “If you love your children, it concerns you a great deal more
to take care and pains that they may be safe in Christ and have God’s
seal set upon them, than to provide earthly things for ’em.”
Spiritual Life in the “Little Church”

A Christian family is as it were a little church and commonwealth
by itself, and the head of the family has more advantage in his little
community to promote religion than ministers have in congregations.
In the Edwards home, the birth of every child was marked carefully
in the family Bible, a wedding gift to Jonathan and Sarah. Every child
was thus, from birth, dedicated to the cause of Christ, to the worship
of the one and true living God. In Edwards’s mind things should be
no other way. “’Tis most suitable that men should begin their lives
with God and dedicate the first of their time to him.” “Hereby,” he
continued, “the whole life is given to God.”
Using the church as his model, Edwards saw the spiritual func-
tions of the “little church,” the family, in terms of the same purposes
assigned by God to the larger gathering of the saints. According to
Edwards’s model, those things that God has ordained for His honor
on Sunday are to be done for His honor the other six days of the
week at home. The duties and the chief office of this intimate gather-
ing were those of the greater assemblage of God’s people. Under the
headship of God’s appointed leaders, the church, both the large and
Sarah Edwards (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) and Edna Gerstner’s Jonathan and
Sarah: An Uncommon Union (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996) both do so by look-
ing primarily at the marriage relationship of the Edwardses, the former from a his-
torical perspective, the latter from fiction. Likewise, every major biography written
in the last 120 years has spoken briefly of the Edwards home. It was the early wit-
nesses to that home life that spoke most often of the relationship between father and
children. For example, see Samuel Hopkins’s The Life and Character of the Late Rever-
end, Learned, and Pious Mr. Jonathan Edwards (Northampton: Andrew Wright, 1804).
. Edwards, “God’s Care in Time of Public Commotions,” in Sermons and Dis-
courses, 1739–1742, eds. Harry S. Stout, Nathan O. Hatch, Works 22 (2003):363.
. Edwards, “Living to Christ,” in Sermons and Discourses, 1720–1723, ed. Wil-
son H. Kimnach, Works 10 (1992):577.
. Edwards, “The Beauty of Piety in Youth,” Works 25:106.
the small, was to be dedicated to the making of disciples and the wor-
ship of their God.
The Parent as Pastor

While it is well attested that Sarah managed the household finances
and daily operations of the home, the mantle of spiritual leadership
of the Edwards family rested on the shoulders of the father. As such,
Edwards shepherded his family in the same way that he shepherded
his church, with an eye ever toward the glory of God and the good
of those children entrusted to him by the heavenly Father. Yet, in
his household, both parents bore the responsibility of their children’s
spiritual well-being. Hand-in-hand, Jonathan and Sarah worked to-
ward one common, greater goal—the salvation of their children.
Edwards expected no less from the other parents in his parish.
Fulfilling the office of pastor in the “little church,” he told them in the
sermon “Living to Christ,” parents, both father and mother, enjoy the
opportunity to do “a great deal for Jesus Christ.” Parents faithful in
this charge “are under the greatest advantages” to make an eternal dif-
ference in the lives of those “under their roof.” The reason, Edwards
posited, is that parents are “always with [their children], having them
at continual command, and having always opportunities of instruct-
ing them.” Thus, Christian parents operate with advantages greater
than even those enjoyed by the most profound theologians and most
powerful preachers. Their children are theirs and under their direct
supervision and influence. If only parents would capitalize on this
gift, Edwards concluded, “multitudes of souls,” the souls of their
loved ones, “might be saved by their means.”
Yet, before the parent impresses upon his or her child the advan-
tages of the gospel, he must ensure that the gospel has had its effect on
his own heart. As Edwards argued in “Importance of Revival Among
Heads of Families,” before God brings revival to the home, or the
church, he must bring revival to the parents. “After a dead time in
religion, ’tis very requisite,” said Edwards, “that religion should revive
in heads of families and those that have care of children.” If not, all
. Edwards, “Living to Christ,” Works 10:577.

. Edwards, “The Importance of Revival Among Heads of Families,” Works
22:451.
that the parents do brings great offense to God. Parents who wish
to influence their children positively for eternity must first “seek a
revival of religion in their own souls.” They must, as pastors of the
“little flock,” lead by example. Those who don’t are guilty of the worst
kind of child abuse. “Those that [haven’t been] lively in religion, they
will neglect the souls of their children.”10
Worse yet, parents who neglect their own souls may find them-
selves guilty of leading their children to hell with them. Children,
Edwards contended, are easily molded, taking the shape of those that
exert the most influence on their minds. As he warned in the sermon
“Don’t Lead Others into Sin”:
As an infant sucks its mothers breasts, the child is, as it were,
naturally molded and fashioned by beholding its parents, by what
it sees them do from time to time and hears them say, by seeing
what they like and what they dislike. By being constantly under
the influence of their judgment, inclinations, and ways, the child
grows up from a state of nonentity under these things, and un-
der the influence of them conforms naturally to them like wax
to the seal, as it were; they naturally grow into such a shape and
are cast into that mold.11
Parents, because of the impressionable nature of children, lead
those children one way or another by their own example. Thus, a
Christian example becomes the duty of Christian parents. They hold
the eternal destiny of their children potentially in their hands. Ed-
wards writes:
It may be that your children are yet unconverted and unawak-
ened. Might it not probably have been otherwise, at least some of
them, if you had done your duty towards them?
It may be that some of your children are dead, and they died
without giving any probable signs of conversion. And you have
reason to be afraid whether or not they have gone to hell. And if
it is so, haven’t you reason to accuse yourself for having a great
hand in it? Or, if your children should die in a Christless state
and condition, and so be damned to all eternity, would there not
. Ibid., 452.
10. Ibid., 453.
11. Edwards, “Don’t Lead Others into Sin,” in To the Rising Generation (Or-
lando: Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 127–128.
be reason for you to condemn yourself in that you and the devil
joined together to forward your children’s damnation?12
Or, as Edwards said on another occasion:
There are many that contribute to their own children’s dam-
nation, by neglecting their education and setting them bad
examples, and bringing them up in sinful ways: they take some
care of their bodies, but take but little care of their poor souls;
they provide for them bread to eat, but deny them the bread of
life that their famishing souls stand in need of.… Seeing there-
fore you have had no more regard to others’ salvation, and have
promoted their damnation, how justly might God leave you to
perish yourself?13
Those who neglect to care for the souls of those in their care do so to
their own peril.
The Parent as Evangelist

Having attended to the needs of their own souls, parents must turn
to the spiritual nurture of their children. Such care begins with the
process of making disciples, calling their children to the Savior. The
process, however, does not stop with conversion. The parent as a
maker of disciples—by the blessing of the Holy Spirit—must also
tend to the cultivation of those tender hearts, seeing that they become
ever more like the Savior.
It is most reasonable, Edwards believed, that those parents who
love their children would long to see them converted. While Edwards
himself believed baptism to be a means of grace for those children who
receive it, something to which he called all godly parents, conversion
came only by means of evangelism, through the faithful efforts of
the parents and the Spirit’s application of God-appointed means. He
writes: “Let parents be hence exhorted to be very painful and diligent
in instructing and educating your children, that they may be some of
God’s sealed ones.… If you love your children, it concerns you a great
deal more to take care and pains that they may be safe in Christ and
have God’s seal set upon them, than to provide earthly things.”14
12. Ibid., 129.

13. Edwards, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” in Sermons and
Discourses, 1739–1742, ed. M. X. Lesser, Works 19 (2001):370.
14. Edwards, “God’s Care in Time of Public Commotions,” Works 22:363.
The evangelistic process, according to Edwards, begins with the

parents’ tender hearts, hearts broken over the condition of their chil-
dren’s young souls. Rather than being a singular effort to share an
over-simplified plan of the gospel, some theologically starved cure
all, the evangelization of children takes on many forms in Edwards’s
estimation. To William Pepperrell, Edwards wrote that “in order to
promote the salvation” of children, several key means of grace were
available. The first of those relates to the function of the larger church,
the community of saints that gathered on Sunday: public worship.
The others, family worship and catechizing, are the province of the
“little church.”
Family worship, Edwards felt, plays a crucial role in the spiri-
tual vitality of the home and the church. Spiritual deadness, he said,
can be traced directly to the lack thereof, for such robs “God of that
honor he expects.”15 On the other hand, family worship strictly prac-
ticed honors God and adorns the family.16 Modern readers are not left
without Edwards’s example when it comes to family worship. Samuel
Hopkins helpfully described worship in the Edwards home as he ob-
served it during his own stays there. On Saturday evenings, once the
business of the day was complete and the distractions minimal, the
Edwards family would gather together. There they would sing a song
of worship, drawing upon the book of Psalms. Together the family
would pray. “Care and exactness,” Hopkins noted, were applied to
this “holy time,” as the Edwardses set the eyes of their hearts on the
day of worship ahead.17 For, in Edwards’s mind, the life of the “little
church” touches upon the life of the big church, working together in
God’s economy for the salvation of the saints.
Thus, corporate worship was seen to function in tandem with
family worship. Hearts prepared on Saturday were tender to the gospel
preached on Sunday. There, in his powerful and blunt sermons on the
nature of the human soul and their future estate, Edwards reminded
them that “God don’t excuse ’em because they were in their youth.”18
There he would call them “to seek earnestly that they may be con-
15. Edwards, Letter “To the Rev. Thomas Prince of Boston,” in The Great
Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen, Works 4 (1972):553.
16. Edwards, “A City on a Hill,” Works 19:558.
17. Hopkins, The Life and Character of the Late Reverend, Learned, and Pious Mr.
Jonathan Edwards, 47.
18. Edwards, “The Beauty of Piety in Youth,” Works 25:107.
verted and that God would fill their hearts with love to Christ now
while they are young.”19 In this matter, he exhorted, they were to be
very earnest.20 While their parents longed for their salvation, Edwards
warned the youth, the day would come when they would “praise God
for His justice in your damnation,” if they continued living in their
sinful ways.21 A personal interest in the Savior was paramount.
Worship alone, however, was not to be seen as the sole means of
evangelism. Another important foundational step in this process of
raising up another generation of Christians is education, the introduc-
tion of biblical truths that change young lives. “Family education and
order are some of the chief of the means of grace,” Edwards counseled
parents. “If these fail, all other measures are like to prove ineffectual.
If these are duly maintained, all means of grace will be like to prosper
and be successful.”22 Such education seeks to inform the child’s mind,
influence his heart, and direct his practice.23
The family education for which Edwards advocated includes sev-
eral didactic methods. The teaching of children to read is one such
approach. They should be taught, he argued, their mother tongue
that they might read the Bible and “learn [the Christian] religion.”24
Edwards also felt that teaching of stories from the Bible and church
history could prove very beneficial to children as they learn of God’s
gracious works throughout history.25 On any given day, before the
Edwards family attended to the tasks of the day ahead, the great pas-
tor would read a chapter from the Bible for his children and then ask
the “children questions according to their age and capacity.” Explain-
ing the greater truths of the text, Edwards challenged his children to
apply those principles to their lives.26
The use of catechisms, however, stands chief among efforts to
raise Christian children. “Let us endeavor to retrieve…the ancient
19. Edwards, “Children Ought to Love the Lord Jesus Christ,” Works 22:177.
20. Ibid., 180.
21. Edwards, “God Is Very Angry at the Sins of Children,” in To the Rising Genera-
tion, 59.
22. Edwards, “A Farewell Sermon,” Works 25:484.
23. Edwards, Letter “To Sir William Pepperrell,” in Letters and Personal Writings,
ed. George S. Claghorn, Works 16:409.
24. Edwards, “The Things That Belong to True Religion,” Works 25:574.
25. Edwards, Letter “To Sir William Pepperrell,” Works 16:409–410.
good practice of catechizing,” Edwards once appealed to his Scot-

tish friend James Robe.27 Of Edwards’s own family practice, Hopkins
observed, “He took much pains to instruct them in the principles
of religion; in which he made use of the [Westminster] Assembly’s
Shorter Catechism.” Great care was taken, he further remarked, to
make certain that the child did not merely learn the answer by rote.
Rather, the children were questioned to make certain they understood
the biblical concepts, Edwards taking time to explain the matter more
clearly, if needed. This was done typically the night before the weekly
gathering of the church to prepare his children for the day of worship
ahead, thus “sanctifying the Sabbath.”28
Because Edwards was convinced that “there is no other way by
which any means of grace whatsoever can be of any benefit, but by
knowledge,” he called all parents to join him in training their children,
preparing them for future gifts of God’s saving grace by educating
them in the ways of the Lord.29 He encouraged parents to be “very
assiduous in instructing the principal means of grace,” teaching them
the gospel, the necessity of faith, and the reality of the new birth. 30
Such teaching, aided by good counsel, might just result in their sal-
vation. Edwards’s parental advice, however, didn’t end there because
he knew that true conversion did not end there. Yet one more vital
element was needed, something for which Edwards never tired of
reminding them. They needed to pray for God’s merciful grace.
Let heads of families earnestly cry to God for this blessing. Let
concern for yourselves and compassion for your poor children,
that you have been the instruments of bringing into the world,
stir you up. If God should not any more remarkably pour out his
Spirit upon us, in all likelihood most of your poor children, the
bigger part of the rising generation, will burn in hell to all eter-
nity. Consider [that] you have been the instruments of bringing
27. Edwards, Letter “To the Reverend James Robe,” Works 16:280.
29. Edwards, “The Importance and Advantage of a Thorough Knowledge of
Divine Truth,” in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader, eds. Wilson H. Kim
nach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1999), 31.
30. Edwards, “Importance of Revival Among Heads of Families,” Works
22:454.
children into the world in a miserable state and condition, under

wrath, and will you not earnestly seek a blessing by which they
may be saved?31
So, pray, he told his parental peers, “travail for them.”32 “Pray to
God to give ’em new hearts and make ’em truly religious.”33 The con-
version of their children, he firmly believed, is the greatest task to
which parents are called. Theirs is the “little church” and salvation
their great concern.
The Parent as Shepherd

The final piece in Edwards’s family plan, one that both precedes and
follows the conversion of children, was that of discipline. “Every
Christian family ought to be as it were a little church, consecrated to
Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rules,” Edwards
preached.34 Thus, parents are to shepherd his or her little flock, to
preserve order and to promote piety. Done well, discipline might lead
a child to Christ. Done faithfully, discipline would help a child to
become more like Christ.
Heads of the family, Edwards preached, were to dedicate them-
selves to “teaching, warning, and directing their children; bringing
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” This process
was to be begun early and practiced with due diligence and resolve.
While the task could be expected to be difficult, those that do so guard
“the religion and morals of the family.”35 Godly discipline promotes
the gospel and protects the “little church.”
Family discipline also touched upon church discipline at large.
As Edwards knew from personal experience gained so painfully dur-
ing the Bad Book Affair, the discipline of children impacts everyone
in the community. In that instance a number of young boys had
acquired a midwife’s manual, using their newfound knowledge to ha-
rass the girls of Northampton and, ultimately, to question the pastor’s
authority. For that reason, Edwards called on parents to join him in
31. Edwards, “Praying for the Spirit,” Works 22:222.

32. Edwards, “Importance of Revival Among Heads of Families,” Works
22:454.
33. Edwards, “The Things That Belong to True Religion,” Works 25:574.
34. Edwards, “A Farewell Sermon,” Works 25:484.
35. Ibid.
disciplining the youth for the benefit of all involved, to “not allow of
those things that directly tend to frustrate the most faithful labors
and endeavors of a minister.”36 Here, too, one sees the close affinity
between family worship and public worship as Edwards encouraged
his flock to guard their family gatherings for the betterment of the
communal. “I would therefore earnestly entreat parents,” he begged,
“to restrain their children from improving the Sabbath evenings after
such a manner, and not suffer them to make it a time of going abroad,
and diverting, and company-keeping.”37 Such was the duty of the par-
ents. Such Edwards expected from them.
As Hopkins observed firsthand, strict discipline was practiced in
the Edwards home. He remarked, however, that such careful gover-
nance was not a burden for the Edwards children but the source of
their respect for their father. Discipline was administered in accor-
dance with each child’s age and ability to learn the lesson taught. The
lesson would be applied until such a time as the child learned it and
his willful disobedience broken. Done with prudence and calmness,
corporal punishment was rarely needed in the Edwards home. In-
stead, with tenderness and resolve, Edwards established “his parental
authority” while producing “cheerful obedience.”38
While the good folks of Northampton eventually questioned
their pastor’s integrity in matters of church discipline, they could not
impugn his preaching of family discipline. That which he called them
to do concerning the late night escapades of the town’s youth, he exer-
cised in his own home. “He allowed not his children to be from home
after nine o’clock at night,” Hopkins noted. Likewise, Jonathan and
Sarah did not permit their children to have company in their home
past that hour. In the case of the older children, when suitors came
calling upon the Edwards girls, the male guests were to introduce
themselves “handsomely” to her parents, consult with them, and were
then provided a comfortable place in the family home for a social
visit. However, even these adult-like visits were constrained so as to
“not intrude on the proper hours of rest and sleep, nor the religion
36. Edwards, “Heeding the Word, and Losing It,” Works 19:54.
37. Ibid.
and order of the family.” The spiritual health of the child and the fam-
ily always trumped every other concern.39
Conclusion
Every Christian family is a little church.... 40
Christians, Edwards taught, are to “use all possible endeavors and
improve all opportunities God puts into [their] hands for promoting
the kingdom and interest of Jesus Christ amongst men.”41 The “little
church,” the family with Christian parents, has a unique opportunity.
The godly parent, he continued, enjoys the great responsibility and
blessed hope of fulfilling this ministry in his or her home. Doing so,
he argued, allows them to do a “great deal for Jesus Christ.” Their
children, their little flock, dwells with them, ever present and ever
ready to be instructed, raised in the way of the Lord. Doing so, he
said, was beneficial for the family and for the renown of the Savior. “If
parents did what they might do this way,” he believed, “multitudes of
souls might be saved by their means, and a great increase and addition
might be made to the kingdom of Jesus Christ.”42
Edwards believed these things and acted upon his convictions in
his own family. While one might debate the relative spiritual merit of
the individual members of Edwards’s household and his descendants,
one cannot discount the impact that this one godly parent had on his
children and succeeding generations. As Samuel Hopkins observed in
the family home, thanks to Edwards’s “careful and thorough govern-
ment of his children,” his children “reverenced, esteemed, and loved
him.”43 Better yet, Samuel Miller noted, “Almost all his children
manifested the fruit of his pious fidelity by consecrating themselves
in heart and life to the God of their fathers.”44 Thus, in Edwards’s
“little church,” “heaven and earth were near together.”45
39. Ibid., 48.

40. Edwards, Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival, Works 4:487.
41. Edwards, “Living to Christ,” Works 10:576.
42. Ibid., 577.
44. Quoted in Iain H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 446.
45. Dodds, Marriage to a Difficult Man, 214.
As Gilbert Tennent noted on the occasion of Edwards’s passing,

“Though dead, [Edwards still] speaks with wisdom and warmth, in
favour of truth and holiness.”46 The question that begs to be asked of
this generation is this: Are we listening?
46. Quoted in Iain H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards, 447.

REFORMATION HERITAGE BOOKS
2965 Leonard Street, NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525
An Exposition of the
Apostles’ Creed
Caspar Olevianus
Translated by Lyle D. Bierma
Introduced by R. Scott Clark
ISBN 978-1-60178-074-4
An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed is a collection of sermons preached by

Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587) on the basic articles of the Christian faith. It
serves as a reminder that the Reformed tradition did not see itself as sepa-
rate from the universal church, though it was principally opposed to Rome.
Rather, Olevianus and his tradition argue for a Reformed catholicity rooted
in the ancient confession of the church.
This new translation by Lyle D. Bierma, along with R. Scott Clark’s
historical introduction, will benefit both scholarly and general readers.
Charged with federal language, An Exposition explains the Christian faith
as the believer’s fellowship with God in the covenant of grace. Thus, it is
significant for its contribution to the development of Reformed covenantal
theology. In addition to exhibiting its historical value within the Reformed
tradition, readers will be “directed,” as Olevianus had intended, “toward
edification in true and sound piety.”
“Although the Apostles’ Creed is ancient, its relevance and sim-
plicity make it a most helpful tool for learning and imparting our
faith today. And though the early and illustrious German Reformed
theologian, Caspar Olevianius, has been largely eclipsed by the Re-
formed worthies of the ensuing centuries, his erudition and pastoral
skill make his exposition of the Apostles’ Creed a timeless jewel
in the pedagogy of the New Covenant in the Kingdom of Christ.
Bierma and Clark have richly blessed the Church by bringing back
to life Olevianus’s mini theological masterpiece on the heart of the
Christian faith.”
—Peter A. Lillback, President, Westminster Theological Seminary
Hardcover, 192 pages Retail Price: $40.00

6” x 9” page size RHB Price: $30.00
616-977-0599 • Fax: 616-285-3246

e-mail: orders@heritagebooks.org • website: www.heritagebooks.org
Book Reviews
q
PRJ 2-1 (2010): 357 – 379
Book Reviews
q
Anderson, Mary Elizabeth. Gustaf Wingren and the Swedish Luther Re-
naissance (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), 171 pp.
Although the twentieth-century’s Swedish Luther Renaissance is
a topic likely unfamiliar to laymen and scholars alike, Mary Eliza-
beth Anderson shows in this book that the topic holds great value
for both groups. Anderson, who earned her Ph.D. in church history
from Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and teaches at Saint
Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota, argues that each generation
of the Swedish Luther Renaissance used Luther’s thought to address
a contemporary theological dilemma. In the process, she provides
case studies of how historical theology can help the church deal
with doctrinal challenges. The first generation—comprised of Na-
than Söderblom and Einar Billing—appropriated Luther to maintain
confidence in the Bible in the face of the historical critical method
of reading Scripture (pp. 27–42). Second-generation scholars Gustaf
Aulén, Anders Nygren, and Herbert Olsson used Luther to combat
the excessive importation of philosophy into theology (pp. 49–68),
and third-generation thinker Gustaf Wingren drew from Luther to
establish a connection between faith and life (pp. 73–92). The book
concludes with two chapters arguing that Wingren “presented both a
faithful and a misleading description of Luther’s views” (p. 143).
Anderson makes a significant contribution to the study of Swed-
ish theology by weighting her book with the largely unexplored third
generation of the Swedish Luther Renaissance, devoting three chap-
ters to Wingren. Her broad knowledge of primary sources from both
twentieth-century Sweden and the Reformation helps Anderson
“demonstrate that the need to respond to the theological challenges
presented by contemporary contexts was a central aspect of the Luther
research of each generation” (pp. 1–2). In addition, a helpful first chapter

introduces readers to the division between liberals and traditionalists
within Lutheran theology at the turn of the twentieth century.
The book’s greatest weakness is its failure to interact with sec-
ondary sources despite Anderson’s obvious knowledge of those
sources, demonstrated in the endnotes (pp. 3–4) and bibliography
(pp. 157–166). A confusing combination of endnotes and parenthetical
references may prevent readers at times from identifying Anderson’s
sources, while occasional misspellings and grammatical inconsisten-
cies cause the reader to unnecessarily question Anderson’s expertise.
To be sure, Anderson brings a compelling topic to light in this
book, which will hopefully provoke further research. Scholars would
do well to build on Anderson’s accomplishment and pursue critical
work on the Swedish Luther Renaissance.
— David Roach
q
Berkley, David. Travel Through Cambridge: City of Beauty, Reformation

and Pioneering Research (Day One Publications, 2008), 128 pp.
It is a bit unusual to find a review of a travel guide in a semi-
nary journal, but Travel Through Cambridge is an unusual travel guide,
offering the reader a guide to Cambridge that goes beyond typical
tourist attractions. This one provides a brief but substantial glimpse
at the history of this 800-year-old university—begun in 1209 and
officially chartered in 1318 —and its city. In particular, it highlights
the dynamic relationship between theology and science, noting the
initially supportive but later antagonistic perspective of science to-
wards theology. Berkley notes that the University of Cambridge was
put on the map for theology with its prominent place in the English
Reformation and the rise of Puritanism. In addition, its significance
for scientific research and discoveries, beginning with Isaac Newton,
made Cambridge a world-famous university.
Berkley succinctly describes the profound theological and ec-
clesiological significance of Cambridge from at least the sixteenth
century, through the influence of people like Erasmus, Barnes,
Latimer, Ridley, Tyndale, Cranmer, Bucer, Sibbes, Cromwell, Wil-
berforce, Simeon, Martyn, and, more recently, C. S. Lewis (who left
Book Reviews 359
Oxford and finished his career at Cambridge) and Stott, to name a

few. Despite a relatively modest status during its first three centuries,
Cambridge was especially significant for the English Reformation
and for Puritanism.
Reasons for its prominence in the English Reformation are many
(chps. 2–3). Situated in a quiet location sixty miles to the north of
London, the writings of continental Reformers often arrived unde-
tected in Cambridge via waterway from the North Sea. Further, it
had an Augustinian monastery with scholars particularly interested
in Luther’s writings. More particularly, the first Reformation sermon
in England was preached by Robert Barnes at St. Edward’s Church in
Cambridge on Christmas Eve, 1524. Barnes also led the “Little Ger-
many” group, which met at the White Horse Inn and included Hugh
Latimer and Nicholas Ridley (both martyred by Queen Mary in 1555
in Oxford), and likely William Tyndale. The English Reformation
was also influenced by Erasmus of Rotterdam, Professor of Theology
at Cambridge from 1510–1514, whose work is said to have “laid the
egg that the Reformers hatched.”
The significance of Cambridge for Puritanism is just as strong
(chps. 4–5): some of its scholars and students were on the front line of
those who resisted the Elizabethan Settlement and called for a com-
plete reform of the church. Two Cambridge colleges were founded as
Puritan colleges: Emmanuel in 1584 and Sidney Sussex in 1596. In
addition, among the well-educated emigrants to New England be-
tween 1628 and 1640, a full 100 of the first 132 graduates came from
Cambridge University. Perhaps of special interest, John Harvard of
Emmanuel College, at his death in 1638, left his library and half his
estate for the college that became Harvard University in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Berkley keenly notes other Christian influences worth mention-
ing. Through Simeon and Martyn and others, Cambridge played
a major role in the great missionary movement of the eighteenth
century and beyond. In people like Clarkson and Wilberforce, Cam-
bridge produced social reformers that put an end to slavery and other
evils. Scholars like Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort sought to push
back against the growing anti-supernaturalism spurred on by a new
philosophy of science. In addition, the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate
Christian Union (CICCU), founded in 1877 as the first of its kind
in the world, influenced the growth of similar unions worldwide.
It continues to this day and, with a remarkable 130-year history of

evangelical commitment, it is one of the reasons that Cambridge has
several influential evangelical churches and well above average church
attendance relative to the UK in general.
Space and purpose do not permit a lengthy summary of a simi-
larly remarkable influence in the field of science by Cambridge
scholars, but a few names are worth mentioning (chps. 6–8): Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking (the cosmologist who
was appointed to Newton’s chair), James Clerk Maxwell (upon whose
shoulders Einstein claimed to have stood), Cockroft and Walton (who
in 1932 first split the atom intentionally), Francis Crick and James
Watson (who “discovered” DNA), the British Antarctic Survey (where
the hole in the ozone layer was first discovered), and a total of 81 No-
bel Prize winners as of 2008 (which, if Cambridge were a country,
would place it third in the number of Nobel Prizes—second, if its
numbers are removed from the UK total!).
Of course, Berkley discusses many other notable people, places,
and things related to the university and the city of Cambridge. This
book has few weaknesses, given its length and purpose. It could have
a better and more complete index and more detailed maps. But it is an
inspiring introduction to Cambridge, a guidebook that is well worth
getting just to read, and a must for those who will visit Cambridge.
—Kenneth Magnuson
q
Duriez, Colin. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Wheaton, IL: Cross-

way, 2008), hard cover, 240 pp.
One of the most important figures in the areas of theology, apolo-
getics, and culture of the last century is Francis Schaeffer. Yet, until
now, there was no solid biographical work dealing with the life of
this important figure. Colin Duriez, who knew Schaeffer personally,
has helped to fill this great need by providing a look at the life of this
great man. With an analysis of his books, interviews with his family,
friends, colleagues, and people who studied at L’Abri, as well as with
Schaeffer himself before he died, Duriez offers a volume on the man
that essentially comes from the very heart of Schaeffer himself.
Francis Schaeffer was born in 1912 and lived quite a tumultuous
Book Reviews 361
life until 1984, when the Lord took him through cancer. Growing
up poor in Pennsylvania, he studied hard in school and sensed the
call to pastoral ministry. He studied at Hampden-Sydney College and
then Westminster Theological Seminary; he then finished at the new
Faith Theological Seminary, which was formed out of controversy at
Westminster. Much of Schaeffer’s apologetical thinking was devel-
oped under the Father of Presuppositional Apologetics, Cornelius van
Til—although he departed from Van Til in some key areas.
Schaeffer saw how Christianity affected all of life. This think-
ing is what began his great cultural studies and how he developed
the premise that we can see where we are and where we are going
by studying the development of cultural expression in previous years
(areas of art, music, philosophy, etc.). Serving as a Presbyterian pastor
for a number of years, he convinced the denominational body that
sending him on a survey trip of post-war Europe was necessary to
see how the New Theology there had affected the churches. The trip
changed his thinking and he developed a new approach to ministry
as he sought to intellectually address issues in the growing modernist
and soon-to-be postmodernist society. This resulted in the founding
of L’Abri (The Shelter) in Switzerland, where Schaeffer could meet
with those who were searching and talk openly about how Christi-
anity was relevant and address issues of culture, the arts, and much
more. Through Schaeffer’s speaking and writing, vast amounts of be-
lievers became attuned to what was going on around them and were
more willing to present Christianity as culturally relevant and intel-
lectually responsible.
There was much controversy and pain in the life of Francis
Schaeffer and his wife, Edith. People did not understand their new
approach to ministry by interacting with people on this kind of casual
level at L’Abri. The schedule was intense and having people living
with the family often took tolls on their family relationships and their
health. But Schaeffer saw himself as a defender of Christianity by
presenting the Christ of the Scriptures and how all men everywhere
need to be transformed by Him. Schaeffer’s unique approach allowed
him to reach people who were not being reached by the church. Many
intellectuals of the world turned to Schaeffer as the central figure of
a culturally relevant Christianity. To this end he was greatly used of
the Lord.
Duriez traces all the events of the life of Schaeffer from birth to
death in a very readable way. This is a solid contribution to the history

of evangelicalism in the last decade, to the history of apologetics, and
ultimately, to the life of this man, so often misunderstood in his own
life and today. The only real weakness is that Duriez does not interact
with his theology as much as would be helpful. He admits in the be-
ginning that this is not a theological biography, but one is necessary.
This book is highly recommended as a well-written account
(from the very mouths of Schaeffer and those who knew him best) of
the life of this pastor, denominational leader, missionary, prophet, and
apologist. May all of us have the dedication that Schaeffer did for the
cause of Christ today in our ministries. Read, and be challenged and
encouraged by the work of God in the life of His servant.
—Allen R. Mickle, Jr.
q
Edwards, Jonathan. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, narrated by

Max McLean (CD, Morristown, New Jersey: Fellowship for the Per-
forming Arts, 2004).
A stone marker marks the spot in Enfield, Connecticut, where
what is probably the most famous sermon in American history was
preached on July 8, 1741: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It was
the time of the First Great Awakening in America, when the Spirit of
God was converting literally thousands and transforming communi-
ties on both sides of the Atlantic. The Enfield church, though, was
seemingly oblivious to the revival, and the members generally had
little or no concern for spiritual things. But the response that Sunday
was dramatic.
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) had been invited to preach. His
text was Deuteronomy 32:35–36, which speaks of the imminence of
divine judgment. Before Edwards was finished preaching that eve-
ning, there “was a great moaning & crying out” as people cried out
for mercy and asked what they were to do to be saved. Though not
an overly emotional discourse, Edwards, like other great preachers
of that revival, minced no words when it came to sin. “Every uncon-
verted man properly belongs to hell,” he told the congregation. In
very pointed language, he urged upon his hearers the truth that those
who have no interest in Jesus, the only mediator between God and
Book Reviews 363
fallen humanity, have absolutely “nothing to lay hold to save them-

selves” and “nothing to keep off the flames of wrath.” All who have
“never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of
the Spirit of God” are under God’s wrath—they “are in the hands of
an angry God.”
This sermon has long been available in print form. This CD now
makes it available in audio. Max McLean, the President of the Fellow-
ship for the Performing Arts, described by some as having “a clarion
voice,” does a superb job in narrating the sermon. The narration is
taken from a modern-language adaptation of Edwards’s sermon, that
of John Jeffery Fanella. Some purists might object to using such an
edition, but surely Edwards, who longed to reach sinners with the
gospel, would approve. An introduction by R.C. Sproul is also in-
cluded. Highly recommended.
—Michael A. G. Haykin
q
Flew, Antony. There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist
Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), cloth, 222 pp.
For the greater part of his life, Antony Flew was known as the
world’s most renowned atheist. His philosophical critiques of religion
and the being of God are known throughout the humanities. Much
of Flew’s fame originates in his weekly meetings at C. S. Lewis’s
Socratic Club at Oxford. Flew never bought into Lewis’s rational ar-
guments for the existence of God and went on to an illustrious career
in philosophy, producing such books as God and Philosophy (1966) and
The Presumption of Atheism (1984). Both books argued that one should
presume atheism, at least until compelling evidence surfaces to prove
otherwise.
The philosophical world was shocked when, in 2004, Flew pub-
licly changed his mind. Persuaded by the new evidence presented in
the field of biochemistry, he saw for the first time intelligence in the
. See, for instance, Jonathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
(Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 1992).
. See www.listenersbible.com/meet_max.
. Jonathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Made Easier to Read
(Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R Publishing, 1996).
universe. The laws of nature with its teleological organization and the
existence of a universe so suited for human life “can only be explained
in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and
that of the world” (p. 155). Thus, Flew confesses, “I have followed
the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the
existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and
omniscient Being” (p. 155).
There Is a God is Flew’s own story of his conversion to theism.
It reveals in popular prose what persuaded him to see intelligence
in the universe and to embrace a personal God. Of course, Flew has
only embraced theism, and a bare one at that; he has not embraced
the claims of Christianity about Christ or redemption. But he writes
favorably of Christianity, even stating, “If you’re wanting omnipo-
tence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!”
(p. 157). He confesses he is open to learning more.
The book is divided into two main sections: “My Denial of the
Divine” and “My Discovery of the Divine.” The first section re-
counts Flew’s progression to atheism and the reasons he once found
so compelling; the second section illustrates the persuasive evidence
for intelligence gleaned from the infant field of intelligent design.
Both sections tell the story of someone who is seeking answers in
a universe of meaning. While Flew’s story is not one of a genuine
Christian conversion (at least, not yet), it nevertheless illustrates the
potency of rational argument for and against belief in God. Further, it
shows that denial of the divine can only go so far. When the pressures
of life and the day of our demise loom over us, atheism proves to be
hollow ground.
Even though There Is a God is written for a more popular audi-
ence, it will still prove useful to seminarians and their professors as a
window into the powerful influence the field of intelligent design has
gained. Often ridiculed by atheists, intelligent design has persuaded
some of the most prominent atheists to embrace theism, and, in the
case of Francis S. Collins, former director of the Human Genome
Project, Christian Theism (see Collins, The Language of God). The
book is also useful as a case-study of the persuasiveness of rational
argument and the need for Christians to present intelligent answers
to the challenges of atheism. Further, it may prove useful to compare
this work with Stan W. Wallace, ed., Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew
Debate (2003), in which Flew presents his argumentation for athe-
Book Reviews 365
ism against one of the world’s leading evidentialist apologists. This

comparison reveals how the world’s most notorious atheist changed
his mind.
There is a God also shows, quite inadvertently, the faults of intel-
ligent design as a field. While many (if not, most) of the promoters of
design are confessing Christians, the conclusions of biochemistry can
only lead to one conclusion: that there is an intelligent Being govern-
ing the universe. And while that is good (it is better to believe in God
than not), it says nothing about who this Being is. So, while science
and philosophy can be useful tools in the apologist’s arsenal, they are
never definitive weapons against unbelief—they are only part of the
equation. Natural revelation can only go so far; the Scriptures, on the
other hand, are a powerful testimony not only to the Being of God,
but to His character, attributes, and demands. Intelligent design can
never, will never, lead one to embrace Jesus Christ—only God’s own
testimony in His Word can do that. Therefore, the Bible, not science,
must be the preeminent tool in the apologist’s cabinet.
—Randall J. Pederson
q
Hankins, Barry G. Francis Schaeffer: Fundamentalist Warrior, Evangelical

Prophet (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 265 pp.
Barry Hankins’ Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical Amer-
ica covers the span of Schaeffer’s life, thought, and influence among
evangelicals and fundamentalists. Hankins describes Schaeffer’s in-
fluence on America as much as he describes the various influences
that shaped the “evangelical guru.” Hankins traces Schaeffer’s life in
its many stages. He begins with his conversion and his work as a lead-
ing fundamentalist pastor who wanted to bring the gospel to Europe
by establishing the ICCC. He then describes the founding of L’Abri
and how this ministry transformed Schaeffer so that he eventually
became one of the leading evangelical influences in America. When
he came back to America, Schaeffer’s ministry became evangelical
because he encouraged Christians to stop fighting with one another
and engage the culture. It is in the last half of Schaeffer’s life, when
he was adamantly arguing for the inerrancy of the Bible and oppos-
ing abortion, that Hankins proposes that Schaeffer went back to his
fundamentalist ways because he reverted back to fighting with those

within the church.
Hankins exhibits great skill in providing valuable background
information so that the reader understands the culture and difficul-
ties that Schaeffer faced in his various stages of life. The different
people, organizations, and philosophical ideas Schaeffer encountered
are well described and defined. This allows the reader to appreciate
and understand the world that influenced Schaeffer and the context
in which he evolved into one of the leading evangelical intellectuals.
The people that would either influence or be influenced by Schaef-
fer include fundamentalists figures (Carl McIntyre), the evangelicals
who made their way out to L’Abri (Harold O.J. Brown, Nancy Pearcy,
and Harold Ockenga, to mention but a few), and those Schaeffer saw
as dangerous to the gospel (Karl Barth). It is impossible to read this
book without being overwhelmed by the great influence of Schaeffer
in almost all the major Christian movements and organizations.
The historical background is coupled with the ability to describe
the major theological works of Schaeffer and how his thought in-
fluenced Christians in America and Europe. The main message of
Schaeffer is highlighted by Hankins. The care that the Schaeffer’s
showed to strangers at L’Abri, the constant challenge of presupposi-
tions related to how ideas have consequences, and the central message
of the gospel are constantly emphasized by Hankins. His complete
ministry is given a fair description and assessment. Hankins exempli-
fies this in describing the family life of the Schaeffers—in particular,
the role Franky played in the home and in the later years of ministry.
This aspect of the book was handled with grace and honesty so that
both the good and the bad are portrayed.
Hankins’s end assessment would be the only possible weakness
of the book. Hankins establishes the greatness of the man and the
ministry and provides the possible trajectories by which he is judged.
He does not give a clear opinion as to whether Schaeffer’s works and
arguments are still effective for the postmodern world even though
he describes a variety of opinions. He is clear that Schaeffer was un-
able to completely remove himself from his fundamentalist past. The
evidence for Hankins of his fundamentalism was his fighting over
inerrancy and abortion. The apparent criticism of reverting back to
his fundamentalist ways seems to downplay the importance of these
two issues in the theology of a man who is presupposing the God who
Book Reviews 367
speaks and whose main apologetic is based upon Christianity being

the only worldview that provides real meaning to life. Hankins does
not take into account the importance of these issues for Schaeffer (and
more importantly the church), and the fact that evangelicals must also
be on guard against theological ideas that can hinder and undermine
the truth of the gospel.
—Keith Goad
q
Hyde, Daniel R. God With Us: Knowing the Mystery of Who Jesus Is
(Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007), 157 pp.
Evangelicalism in recent years often has drawn a false dichotomy
between doctrine and practical Christian living. However, in God
With Us, Daniel R. Hyde shows that, in the area of Christology, doc-
trine about Jesus and practically serving Jesus go together. Hyde, who
earned his master of divinity from Wesminster Seminary California
and pastors Oceanside United Reformed Church in Oceanside, Cali-
fornia, argues that in order to lead a thriving Christian life, one must
understand the doctrine of the incarnation as revealed in Scripture
and believed by generations of faithful Christ followers. In the pro-
cess, he explains in common language several important aspects of
the person of Christ.
The book opens with a chapter arguing that the incarnation was
the climax of history and the event upon which all Christianity rests
(pp. 15–40). The next four chapters explain the fact that Jesus has
two natures in one person, examining both the divine and human
natures and refuting common Christological errors (pp. 29–87). Af-
ter a chapter explaining how the doctrine of the incarnation is vital to
our salvation and knowledge of God (pp. 89–101), the book concludes
with a chapter showing that the Christ of the Bible is different from
the false Christ of Islam (pp. 103–116). Appendices provide important
confessional statements from church history detailing the doctrine of
the person of Christ.
Hyde makes a valuable contribution to Christian theology by ex-
plaining a complex doctrine in comprehensible and captivating terms.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is that it shows the close link
between Scripture, patristic church writings, and historic confessions
of faith, noting that “as pilgrims seeking to know the mysteries about
the Lord Jesus Christ as best we can this side of glory, we join that
great host in the wilderness throughout the ages, the one true people
of God” (p. 12). In addition, Hyde demonstrates that Christology is
not just an intellectual exercise, but an essential piece of knowledge
for salvation. He also helpfully details prominent Christological er-
rors in simple terms.
If one had to point out a weakness in this book, it would be that
at times Hyde appeals to significant church documents or positions as
though they are absolute truth without showing how they reflect the
teaching of Scripture. For example, to combat the error that Christ
has only one will rather than a human will and a divine will, Hyde
appeals only to the Council of Constantinople rather than the Bible
(p. 72).
In the end, Hyde elucidates a compelling topic in this book,
which hopefully will be read in both the academy and local church
discipleship groups. God With Us should prove useful for the layman
and scholar alike.
—David Roach
q
Jue, Jeffrey K. Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586–1638) and the
Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006), 281 pp.
The concern of recent scholarship with the social, political, eco-
nomic, and ecclesiastical history of early modern Britain provides
Jeffrey K. Jue, Professor of Church History at Westminster Semi-
nary (Philadelphia), with the necessary historiographical details that
facilitate a fresh assessment of British apocalyptic thought in the
early seventeenth century with particular reference to Joseph Mede.
Previous studies understood British Apocalyptic thought, especially
millenarianism, as a “convenient theological rationale which sup-
ported a revolutionary agenda in early Modern England” (p. 3). The
strength of Jue’s study lies in his placement of Mede in his seven-
teenth-century context.
In the first part, then, Jue deals with whether Mede’s mil-
lenarianism acted as theological motivation for radical activism,
leading ultimately to the regicide of Charles I. His conclusion is
Book Reviews 369
that Mede’s “[m]illenarianism did not necessarily lead to radical

activism” (p. 33) because, for example, Mede “did not conform to
the radical changes demanded by the puritans” (p. 22). Moreover,
his ecclesiology remained Episcopalian and he rejected the doctrine
of absolute reprobation, which was a fundamental tenet of Calvin-
ism; thus he aligned himself closer to Arminianism. All of this is to
show that Mede defended, rather than attacked, the “practices, pol-
ity, and theological sympathies of the Church of England” (p. 35).
This trajectory of argument is the sort of thing that permeates the
first part of Jue’s study; namely, challenging the assumptions of
earlier historiography.
In Part Two, Jue looks at the roots of Mede’s apocalyptic thought
and identifies the underlying hermeneutical assumptions in Mede’s
writings. By interpreting the Apocalypse through synchronisms, Mede
felt he was able to unlock the chronological sequence of the visions,
“which ultimately placed the millennium of chapter 20 in the future”
(p. 107). Mede’s “historicist” eschatology, to use a modern-day phrase,
was the careful outworking of his exegetical method and was not, then,
the result of external religio-political factors, though “when applied to
external events, they [i.e., the synchronisms] fitted...marvellously”
(p. 107). Besides the exegetical evidence, Mede sought confirma-
tion of his Apocalyptic thought in the Patristic teachings of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Justin Martyr, and even Jewish Rabbis, “in order to
supplement his millenarian conclusions” (p. 136).
Part Three looks at the enduring legacy of Mede’s eschatology in
England, North America, and the Continent. For example, even with
the disappointment of defeat during the Restoration (1660), many
of the English Puritans continued to study biblical prophecy in the
Mede tradition, thus showing that his “legacy sustained apocalyptic
interest in England long after 1660” (p. 174). In fact, even in 1754,
Charles Wesley could commend Mede’s commentary on Revelation
as coming “very near to the truth” (p. 248). Besides the historical
interest of this work on Mede, Jue suggests that there remains a need
for “comparative studies of the relationship between Mede and the
millenarian legacy that continued into the nineteenth and twentieth
century, especially the millenarian legacy of dispensationalism intro-
duced by John Nelson Darby and C. I. Scofield in the nineteenth
century,” both of whom departed from Mede’s exegesis in several sig-
nificant areas. Jue’s book provides a thoroughly researched study in
the area of seventeenth-century eschatology and so lays a new foun-

dation for further studies in Apocalyptic thought.
—Mark Jones
q
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Living Water. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,

2009), 727 pp.
These fifty-six sermons are based on John 4 and are some of
the last sermons that Lloyd-Jones preached at Westminster Chapel
(1967–1968). While Lloyd-Jones provides a thorough and satisfying
exposition of the chapter, these sermons include a wide range of topi-
cal material that is related to the text. For instance, when preaching
on or near an ecclesiastical holiday, he wove the theme of the occa-
sion into the sermon, providing a good model for those who observe
church holy days by preaching messages appropriate to the occasion
without breaking his series.
Some important emphases of this volume include the nature and
importance of revival, the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer,
how the gospel is the only message which satisfies the entire man, the
self-evincing authority of the gospel, and the contrast between Chris-
tianity and mere religion. Sermons 7–8 provide nine characteristics of
“praying in the Spirit” that are of immense practical value, since they
connect what is commonly a purely subjective topic with objective
biblical criteria.
Those who are familiar with Lloyd-Jones will recognize the oft-
repeated emphasis on the importance of the gospel penetrating the
mind, then the heart, and finally the will. This theme plays a promi-
nent role in this book. In sermons 16–18, Lloyd-Jones introduces this
important theme and argues that Christ alone is able to quench the
longings of the human soul because He alone satisfies every aspect of
the image of God in man. Sermons 19–26 are a masterful presenta-
tion of how the gospel provides intellectual satisfaction from every
possible angle. Sermons 27–35 demonstrate how Christ satisfies our
emotional nature. Finally, sermons 36–38 show that the highest pro-
vision for satisfaction to believers given by Christ is the Lord’s ability
to sustain them in joy through trials and tribulation.
Some of the most notable sermons in this volume are “Guidance,”
Book Reviews 371
“In Trials and Tribulations,” and “More than Conquerors.” The last
of these is Lloyd-Jones’s last Sunday morning sermon at Westmin-
ster Chapel. The most valuable insight of this volume is the author’s
continual assertion that God always deals with our personal problems
indirectly rather than directly. It is as we focus on the glory of Christ
Himself in His person and work alone, and as our problems become
of secondary importance, that Christ truly begins to minister to us
in all of our trials and tribulations. This book is of high value to pro-
duce a joyful, vibrant Christian life, and reading it will go a long way
to increase the fervor of preachers in setting forth the unsearchable
riches of Christ.
—Ryan M. McGraw
q
Mohler, R. Albert Jr. He is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World

(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2008), hard cover, 208 pp.
Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Semi-
nary in Louisville, Kentucky, is one of the clearest, most thoughtful,
engaging voices in evangelicalism today. A scholar who writes clearly
and addresses issues affecting people in the pew, Mohler contributes
to the discussion in any area in which he is writing. He is Not Silent is
no exception. In a day when expository preaching is falling on hard
times, Mohler’s book is a necessary antidote.
The structure of Mohler’s book is helpful as it provides a progres-
sive, logical treatment of the issue of preaching. The preface of the book
identifies issues facing preaching and areas where preaching is suffer-
ing today. This sets the stage for identifying the need in churches, and
the rest of the book provides the cure: expository preaching. Mohler’s
first chapter outlines preaching as the heart of worship. Mohler writes,
“If we as pastors are truly serious about giving our people a true vision
of God, showing them their own sinfulness, proclaiming to them the
gospel of Jesus Christ, and encouraging them to obedient service in
response to that gospel, then we will devote our lives to preaching the
Word” (p. 38). Preaching is the hallmark and capstone of the evangeli-
cal worship service.
Mohler next grounds preaching in the nature of the Triune God.
God is a speaking God who has communicated to His people in
propositional revelation. Preaching’s ground and power is from God’s

revelation ultimately of His Son, who through the cross saves men
for God. The Holy Spirit is the internal minister of the Word of God
who applies it to the hearers’ hearts. “The preacher is a commissioned
agent whose task is to speak because God has spoken, because the
preacher has been entrusted with the telling of the gospel of the Son
who saves, and because God has promised the power of the Spirit as
the seal and efficacy of the preacher’s calling” (p. 48).
In chapter 3, Mohler develops a theology of exposition. He argues
authentic preaching is expository in nature. He looks at Deuteron-
omy 4 and the example of the preaching and hearing of the Word of
God changing the lives of people. God speaks, and His people hear
Him and depend for their lives on that Word expounded to them
(pp. 63–64).
The next chapter deals with defining expository preaching.
Mohler defines expository preaching as “that mode of Christian
preaching that takes as its central purpose the presentation and ap-
plication of the text of the Bible.... All other issues and concerns
are subordinated to the central task of presenting the biblical text.”
(p. 66). This kind of preaching is characterized by authority, creates a
sense of reverence among God’s people, and is at the center of Chris-
tian worship. “Worship is not something we do before we settle down
for the Word of God; it is the act through which the people of God
direct all their attentiveness to hearing the one true and living God
speak to His people and receive their praises. God is most beautifully
praised when His people hear His Word, love His Word, and obey
His Word” (p. 75).
Chapter 5 delves into issues of the preacher’s authority and pur-
pose. Mohler highlights the Word of God as the preacher’s authority
and the preacher’s main responsibility. “The preacher’s authority lies
not in profession, not in position, and not in personality. It lies in the
Word of God alone” (p. 81). Colossians 1:28 reveals the preacher’s
purpose in presenting every Christian mature in Christ. Thus, the
preacher proclaims Christ, warning and teaching with the purpose of
bringing his hearers into maturity in Christ Jesus. “How are Chris-
tians going to grow? How are they going to be matured? How is the
process of Holy Spirit-directed sanctification going to be seen in
them? All by the preaching of the Word” (p. 86).
Chapter 6 deals most decisively with the issues for preaching
Book Reviews 373
rising from postmodernism, emphasizing “big story” preaching.

Postmodernism rejects the idea of a “metanarrative” or a “big story.”
Christianity, Mohler argues, is the big story that explains all other sto-
ries. “As Christians, we actually claim that we are possessed by the one
story to which all other stories are accountable” (p. 92). Mohler argues
that the beginning of the Christian metanarrative is creation, followed
by fall, followed by redemption, and concluded with consummation.
This is to be the content of our preaching. “As we preach, we need to
bring every text into accountability with the big story of Scripture”
(p. 102).
Chapter 7 stresses that every pastor is called to be a theologian.
“In far too many cases, the pastor’s ministry has been evacuated of
serious doctrinal content, and many pastors seem to have little con-
nection to any sense of theological vocation” (p. 106). Mohler then
highlights the theological nature of the pastor’s ministry and calling.
Preaching is theological in nature and therefore the pastor’s convic-
tion needs to be theologically driven. “All Christian preaching is
experiential preaching, set before the congregation by a man who is
possessed by deep theological passion, specific theological conviction,
and an eagerness to see these convictions shared by his congregation”
(p. 113).
In chapter 8, Mohler returns specifically to postmodernism and
addresses preaching to this culture. He discusses the deconstruction
of truth, the death of the metanarrative, the demise of the text, the
dominion of therapy, the decline of authority, and the displacement
of morality. Looking at how Paul responded to the minds of Ath-
ens (Acts 17:16–34), Mohler forms an approach to dealing with our
people today. “What is needed is a generation of bold and courageous
preacher-apologists for the twenty-first century—men who will be
witnesses to the whole world of the power of the gospel and who will
proclaim the whole counsel of God” (p. 131).
Chapter 9 deals with the urgency of preaching. We must preach
with urgency because sinners need to be saved because the gospel
saves and because people will not believe unless we preach. “This is
not an option for us or for the church. It is our commission” (p. 144).
Chapter 10 is an encouragement for preachers. Preaching often
seems ineffectual. But instead of giving up, we need to continue
to pursue the preaching task as dying men speaking to our fellow
dying men. Using Ezekiel 37 and the dry bones, Mohler offers an
encouragement for preaching. It is not the preacher who brings about

change, but God. God calls Ezekiel to prophesy to the dead, and God
uses the message of Ezekiel to bring new life. This is encouraging to
the preacher: God uses us to effect change. “No doubt, the challenges
are great, and the frustrations are sometimes even greater. But we
do not preach because we thought it would be easy. We preach be-
cause our hearts are broken by the spiritual death and destruction all
around us—and because we see the spark of hope in the question our
sovereign, life-giving God put to Ezekiel and now puts to us: ‘Son of
man, can these bones live?’” (p. 158).
Finally, Mohler uses the life of C. H. Spurgeon as an example of a
passionate pastor-theologian used by God as an expositional preacher
of the Scriptures. “In our era, distanced by more than a century from
Charles Spurgeon, we would do well to remember this great man and
the impact of his ministry. Beyond this, we should be reminded of
the centrality of biblical confidence and theological conviction to the
preaching task” (p. 169).
This book is not a “how-to” book for preaching or sermon con-
struction. This book presents the biblical and theological foundation
for preaching and should be the beginning of the study of preaching.
Before we ever start diagramming a passage of Scripture or deriving a
“big idea” for a sermon, we should seek to understand the biblical and
theological foundation for expository preaching. This is what Mohler
does for us so clearly and so ably. He studies the Scriptures and the
culture around us and shows us that, in this day and age, we need
more clear expository preaching of the Word of God. We need men
who know the Word and proclaim it and teach it faithfully. Mohler’s
book will rekindle the fire in your heart as a preacher of the Word
of God—or may just motivate you to pick up that most noble call-
ing and serve Christ as a preacher of the Word of God! Every pastor
and non-pastor alike should read this book and be challenged and
encouraged.
Book Reviews 375
Nichols, Stephen J. For Us and For Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in
the Early Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), paper back, 172 pp.
Stephen Nichols is fast becoming one of my favorite authors.
Nichols (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is Research
Professor of Christianity and Culture at Lancaster Bible College in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a number of
books. He has the uncanny ability to turn difficult theological and
historical issues into things interesting and even exciting for the aver-
age Christian reader. His book on the doctrine of Christ in the early
church is no exception.
We live in a day of historical anemia. People have absolutely no
historical context in which to understand the theological trends of
the day. Little do most know that much of what is considered “new”
in theological trends and fads is hardly new but usually has been
dealt with before by the church, simply under different names. That
is where looking at the person and work of Christ as discussed by
the early church fathers is so important. Much of what we consider
orthodox Christology was developed in the early church. The early
church fathers had to deal with heresy as they attempted to under-
stand issues like the divine and human natures in Christ and other
theological issues. The title of the book presents the reason why this is
important. The true biblical nature of Christ is the basis for our salva-
tion. Without a true picture of Christ, how can one truly be saved?
Nichols addresses the importance of studying the fathers on these
issues when he writes:
The early church fathers wrestled with the same problems
presented by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon and its fanciful
speculations about Jesus. They wrestled with the same prob-
lems presented by Islam and its adamant denial of the deity of
Christ. And they wrestled with the same problems presented by
the scholars working in the Jesus Seminar or in Gnostic texts
like the Gospel of Judas who quickly dismiss the four canonical
Gospels as God’s true revelation to humanity. In the days of the
early church, the names of the opponents were different from
those faced by us today, but the underlying issues bear a strik-
ing resemblance. When the church fathers responded with the
orthodox view of Christ, they did the church of all ages a great
service (p. 14).
Nichols looks at the early church debates over the person and
work of Christ. These are not trivial debates but are at the heart of
our very relationship with God and our salvation. While looking at a
number of church fathers, he addresses the importance of the debates
over Christ at the Councils of Nicea and Chaledon and the work of
the great Athanasius and Leo. He looks at the theology of the oppo-
nents of the orthodox picture of Christ presented in the creeds that
developed at the councils, the historical context in which these de-
bates occurred, and the major orthodox players who helped to shape
what evangelicals today consider the true picture of Christ.
The biggest strength of the volume is that, as a historian, Nichols
realizes that we cannot simply focus on secondary sources or his own
analysis to sufficiently understanding these issues. We must look to
the original sources. To that end, Nichols offers the original writings
of those on both sides of the debates. You will read excerpts from
the works of Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Tertullian, but also from the
Gnostic texts and Arius. It is important to look at both sides to see
how the church ultimately came to the expression of Christology that
we consider orthodox today as expressed in the Nicene and Chalece-
donian creeds. No one can truly understand the issues unless they
look at the writings of the times to put the debates in historical con-
text and see the importance for us today.
These issues are not dead. We are facing the same issues today
under new names. Neither are these issues tangential to the Christian
life. Without an orthodox view of the person and work of Christ, our
salvation has no foundation. Only the God-man, Jesus Christ, fully
divine and fully human, has the power to forgive sin and restore fel-
lowship with the Father. Nichols’s book is a clarion call to all believers
today to know “in whom they have believed,” and be “persuaded that
he is able to keep that which they have committed unto him against
that day.” May we shake off our theological and historical confusion
and look to the Scriptures and the work of those who have gone be-
fore us as we seek to live our life for the one that came to save us,
Christ Jesus our Lord. This book is highly recommended to that end
for everyone who names the name of Christ.
Book Reviews 377
Smith, Morton H. Systematic Theology. (Greenville, SC: GPTS Press,

1994), 2 vols., 850 pp.
This is not a recent work (1994), but it deserves a much wider
readership than it has received. Countless times I have met people
who simultaneously did not know that Dr. Smith had written a Sys-
tematic Theology, and then did not know where to find a copy. The
only places where I have seen these volumes for sale is from Green-
ville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, which also published the
work, and from Reformation Heritage Books. This means that a large
portion of the Reformed church has bypassed a great treasure that
ought to commend itself both by the quality of its contents as well as
of its author.
Dr. Morton Howison Smith is one of the patriarchs of the Pres-
byterian Church in America. He has spent most of his adult life
laboring to maintain and promote “old school” Southern Presbyterian
theology. He studied for the ministry at Westminster Theologi-
cal Seminary under such great men as John Murray and Cornelius
Van Til, whose influence is readily apparent in Smith’s teaching. He
earned his ThD in Southern Presbyterian Theology at the Free Uni-
versity of Amsterdam under G. C. Berkouwer. In class he recounted
that he was required to read Berkouwer’s studies in Dogmatics as
they were published, and that the most refreshing part of his course
was reading Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (on one occasion,
Dr. Smith noted that it was worth learning the Dutch language if
only to read Bavinck in the original, but now it is finally available in
English!). This background placed Dr. Smith in a unique position to
combine the best of American Presbyterianism and Dutch Reformed
Theology in his teaching and writing. In one lecture he noted that
John Murray served as his model for teaching Systematic Theology,
since Professor Murray would always begin by asking, “What does
the Bible say?” before he turned to the Reformed creeds, confessions,
and catechisms.
These two volumes follow the standard major divisions found in
most works on Systematic Theology. In each chapter, Smith ordinar-
ily begins with the Scriptural terms related to his topic. His work is
filled with significant exegesis of vital passages of Scripture relating
to the subject at hand. After making a sound biblical case for each
doctrine, Smith turns to the Reformed standards. He displays a thor-
ough familiarity with the Reformed confessional tradition beyond his
own ecclesiastical context. One of the best features of the work is

that it serves as a compendium of the best Presbyterian and Dutch
Reformed literature. This provides the introductory student or lay
reader with a window into a broad range of Reformed authors and
theological positions.
The greatest strength of Dr. Smith’s work does not lie in original
or new theological formulations, but in collecting and synthesizing
the best of historic Reformed theology and in presenting the doc-
trines of the Reformed confessions that have both stood the test and
benefited from the refinements of time. Smith intended his work to
be an introduction to students that would serve as a popular and read-
able resource for church members as well.
In addition to its general features, this work has many particular
strengths. The “Prolegomena” section includes a careful analysis of
what Scripture itself says about its own authority and the manner in
which that authority should be defended and established. Smith’s ex-
perience in teaching Apologetics shines through in this section, which
reflects a combination of the influence of Bavinck’s theology as well as
Van Til’s transcendental argument for the Christian worldview. The
section on communion with each Person of the Godhead in prayer,
which is a distillation of B. M. Palmer’s Theology of Prayer, is highly
useful for its devotional quality (pp. 707–719). As a rule, Smith also
preferred to avoid speculation in favor of biblical simplicity, which is
evident in his discussion of supra and infralapsarianism (pp. 173–175).
The work as a whole is not as rigidly logical and systematized in struc-
ture as it is textual and exegetical. This adds to the simplicity of the
work and its resultant accessibility to readers of every level.
The only “complaint” that I have about this work is the section
treating the Ten Commandments (pp. 617–653). It is not that Smith’s
conclusions are unsound or unorthodox, but that his argumentation
is not developed as thoroughly as in other portions of the work. With
few exceptions, the Westminster Shorter Catechism is virtually the
only secondary source cited in this section. However, to be fair, Dr.
Smith wrote these lectures for use in his classes at Greenville Pres-
byterian Theological Seminary under the assumption that the Ten
Commandments would be expounded at great length in the Ethics
course via the Westminster Larger Catechism.
God has used Dr. Smith to disciple pastors, professors, students,
and even seminary presidents. Smith’s loyalty to Jesus Christ and to
Book Reviews 379
His Word is evident on every page of his Systematic Theology, which

makes his wholehearted commitment to the Westminster Standards
stand forth more powerfully and convincingly. Read this book with
delight and spread the word that it exists.
—Ryan McGraw
q
Van Valen, L. J. Constrained By His Love (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus,

2002), hardcover, 491 pp.
Any new biography on the saintly Robert Murray M‘Cheyne
should be welcomed by those who admire his faith and practice.
Constrained By His Love, a panoramic study of one of the kingdom’s
godliest servants, is an English translation of Van Valen’s Dutch origi-
nal (1993) and is written by one with an obvious love for his subject.
Robert Murray M‘Cheyne (1813–1843) was blessed with zeal and
holiness in an era of lukewarmness and worldliness. Van Valen pro-
vides an excellent historical backdrop to M‘Cheyne’s life by discussing
the effects of the Enlightenment, the Napoleonic Wars, and the stag-
nant state of the Scottish Kirk. In mapping the life of M‘Cheyne, Van
Valen pays particular attention to spiritual realities. Detailed attention
is given to topics ranging from M‘Cheyne’s discipline of prayer to his
views on church discipline. Especially noteworthy are the relation-
ships that M‘Cheyne had with mentors, peers, and parishioners. In
the truest sense, M‘Cheyne was a spiritual friend to many.
One small criticism of the book concerns the decision to exclude
footnotes. Those who are familiar with M‘Cheyne will be frustrated
in their attempts to sort out the sources of Van Valen’s insights.
The life of M‘Cheyne exemplified Christ-centered holiness, lived
out in the context of a turbulent era not unlike our own. As such,
Constrained by His Love deserves a wide reading.
—Clint Humfrey
q
Book Endorsements
Joel R. Beeke
Princeton Sermons: Chapel Addresses from 1891–1892

Charles A. Aiken, John D. Davis, William H. Green, Caspar W. Hodge, James
O. Murray, Francis L. Patton, William M. Paxton, Benjamin B. Warfield
(PB, Solid Ground Christian Books, 352 pages)
Princeton Sermons is a treasure-trove of practical Christianity deliv-
ered by some of the greatest preachers and seminary teachers America
has ever known. Here is Princeton in its glory days still reaching out
to us today in biblical, doctrinal, experiential truth that is angels’ food
for those who want to live contagious Christian lives of holiness.
Thoughts on Preaching:
Classic Contributions to Homiletics
James W. Alexander
Dr. James W. Alexander’s Thoughts on Preaching is the best daily de-
votional on preaching ever written. To read a section or two of his
poignant and savory thoughts contained in “Homiletical Paragraphs”
every day would greatly instruct, convict, encourage, and re-energize
any true minister of the gospel. And his “Letters to Young Ministers”
is a masterpiece in itself; particularly the sections on maintaining de-
votion and happiness in the ministry.
The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers,

Ordinances, Discipline and Government of the Christian
Church, Volumes 1 & 2
James Bannerman
James Bannerman’s The Church of Christ is the most extensive, stan-
dard, solid, Reformed treatment of the doctrine of the church that
has ever been written. It is indisputably the classic in its field. Every
minister and elder should own a copy, and church members would
also be much better informed if they perused it carefully. How many
church problems would be alleviated if churches used Bannerman as
Book Reviews 381
their primary textbook for their understanding of what the church is

and for their modus operandi!
The Infinite Merit of Christ: The Glory of Christ’s

Obedience in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards
Craig Biehl
(PB, Reformed Academic Press, 271 pages)
While setting the record straight on Edwards’ theology through lean-
ing heavily on his own writings (800 quotes from Edwards!), Biehl’s
work is also a tour de force for the confirmation of Reformed orthodoxy
in the midst of ongoing debates about justification today.
Life Lessons from a Calloused Christian:

A Practical Study of Jonah with Questions
William Boekestein
(PB, Covenant Reformed Church, 76 pages)
Bill Boekestein’s little book on Jonah is everything that an introduc-
tory Bible Study guide should be: exegetically faithful, doctrinally
sound, practically helpful, experientially warm, and colorfully writ-
ten—all accompanied by prompting study questions. With the Spirit’s
blessing, Life Lessons from a Calloused Christian will “decallous” those
who use it diligently and prayerfully, and make them pliant in the
hands of the Sovereign God.
The Christian Warfare Against the Devil, World and Flesh

John Downame
The Christian’s Warfare, with the possible exception of Gurnall’s Chris-
tian Armour, is the finest Puritan work on the theme of Christian
warfare. It is also Downame’s best work. Each of the book’s four parts
was published separately between 1609 and 1618. (This reprint con-
tains the 1609 edition of Warfare, containing the first three books). The
first part is about the threat of the devil, the second and third parts,
the threat of the world, and the final part, the threat of the flesh. Sev-
eral editions of the book were printed in London, culminating in the
definitive four-book edition of 1634, which contains one of the most
extensive Scripture and subject indices of the period. The entire work
contains 1,164 pages (plus the indices) in double-columned print.
As noted by the printer of the 1634 edition, the intent of The
Christian Warfare was to “instruct...in military discipline for [the]

better enabling to stand in the day of battle as a valiant soldier.” Dow-
name himself said the book aimed to do three things: to “relieve and
comfort those who are poor in spirit and humbled in the sight of sin”;
to “lead the Christian in an even course, unto the haven of eternal
happiness”; and “to give solid and substantial consolations, which are
firmly grounded upon God’s undoubted truth.”
An interesting story is told about Downame’s book. In 1637, John
Harvard moved from England to Charlestown, Massachusetts. Har-
vard died a year later and donated all his books to Harvard College,
the newly founded college named after him. Downame’s The Chris-
tian Warfare was one of the few books that survived a massive fire that
destroyed most of Harvard’s library in 1763. Apparently, the book had
been checked out of the library on October 14, 1763 for three weeks
and was long overdue. Ephraim Briggs, a senior at the college, had the
book. Unintentionally, he had preserved Downame’s book for future
generations of readers.
Loving Christ and Fleeing Temptation

Andrew Gray
(HC, Reformation Heritage Books, 617 pages)
Loving Christ and Fleeing Temptation was first published in 1765 as Se-
lect Sermons from handwritten manuscripts obtained by Gray’s widow
from a friend in northern Scotland. The present edition is freshly
typeset and edited from the 1792 edition.
These fifty sermons show why Gray was so popular as a preacher.
They make doctrine intelligible and practical. They powerfully speak
to the mind and the conscience, comforting the regenerate, arresting
the backslider, inviting the unsaved, and unmasking the hypocrite.
Above all, they seek to win souls to Christ. As William Tweedie
wrote, “Christ was the beginning, the middle, and the end of all his
sermons.”
Gray’s profound insights, poignant statements, and succinct sum-
maries on the preciousness of Christ, resisting the devil, spiritual
pride, temptation, prayer, and many other truths are priceless. Gray
is a master at presenting “old truth” in fresh ways. With the Spirit’s
blessing, let Gray’s sermons lead you to Christ, convict you of sloth-
fulness, prick your conscience, and urge you to godliness.
Book Reviews 383
The Irish Puritans: James Ussher

and the Reformation of the Church
Crawford Gribben
(PB, Evangelical Press, 148 pages)
In this work, Dr. Crawford Gribben offers a succinct, much-needed
history of Archbishop James Ussher and the Irish Puritans, and, by
extension, Irish Christianity. This colorful and, at times, sad history
is explained along with major events transpiring simultaneously in
England and Scotland. It shows the insights and flaws of some of the
greatest church leaders in Ireland and provides valuable lessons for
the worldwide church today. A compelling and informative read, this
book convinces us that God is not done with Ireland.
Living the Christian Life

William Grimshaw
(HC, Publishing With a Mission, 87 pages)
Although regarded as one of the great evangelical leaders of the 18th
century, William Grimshaw’s writings have been inaccessible to
successive generations. Paul and Faith Cook are to be greatly com-
mended for presenting today’s readers with a sampling of what made
Grimshaw the important leader he was. The brief biographical in-
troduction, coupled with selections from Grimshaw’s previously
unpublished manuscripts, make a perfect introduction to him. Living
the Christian Life will not only teach you about this important minis-
ter historically, but will also benefit you spiritually as you imbibe his
practical and experiential emphases.
Preaching with Biblical Passion:

A Scriptural and Historical Study
Gabriel Grossi
(PB, G.P.S. Printing Service, 174 pages)
Mr. Grossi’s book is a timely call to return to biblical, Spirit-anointed
preaching, akin to what the Puritans called “plain preaching.” Such
preaching does justice to the glory of God, the centrality of Christ,
the saving ministry of the Holy Spirit, the depravity of man, and the
invitations of the Gospel! Tolle Lege! (Take up and read!)
The Life of J. W. Alexander:

Forty Years of Familiar Letters, Volumes 1 & 2
Edited by John Hall, D.D.
(PB, Audubon Press, 774 pages)
Forty Year’s Familiar Letters contains fascinating autobiographical re-
flections of James Waddell Alexander, the oldest son of Archibald
Alexander, and a well-known pastor for a quarter century before be-
coming professor of ecclesiastical history at Princeton Seminary in
1849. This book is teeming with historical, practical, and experiential
insights growing out of nineteenth-century American Presbyterianism
seen through the lenses of James W. Alexander’s own experiences.
Where is God in All of This?

Finding God’s Purpose in our Suffering
Deborah Howard
(PB, P & R Publishing, 155 pages)
Where is God in All of This? is just what suffering people need: thir-
teen simple yet profound biblical reasons why God brings suffering
our way for our profit and His glory. Deborah Howard lifts us above
our self-centered murmuring to focus on God and our real spiritual
profit. Read this remarkable book as a preventative measure before a
fresh round of suffering crosses your path.
The Redeemer’s Tears Wept Over Lost Souls:

A Puritan View of Our Lord’s Weeping over Jerusalem
John Howe
This classic volume will be of interest to all who recognize the imper-
ative of winning souls for Christ. Here is a fine biblical exposition of
Luke 19:41, 42 (Jesus weeping over Jerusalem), with appropriate ap-
plication that is as suitable today as when Howe wrote it in 1684. The
first part portrays the Savior as He looked down upon Jerusalem—a
stirring scene filled with divine pathos. Then follows a series of ex-
planations and admonitions, all breathing a compassionate anxiety to
win the lost for Christ.
The Redeemer’s Tears is Howe’s most searching and compelling
book for wooing a sinner to Christ. He stresses the responsibility of
man within the framework of divine sovereignty. It makes for a com-
pelling read.
Book Reviews 385
The Believer’s Experience: Maintaining the

Scriptural Balance Between Experience and Truth
Erroll Hulse
(PB, Audubon Press and Christian Book Service, 176 pages)
The Believer’s Experience, which presents a clear biblical treatment of
Christian experience and a helpful refutation of charismatic empha-
ses on experience, is more needed today than when it was originally
published. The chapters on experiencing justifying joy, adoptive love,
patience in affliction, the baptism of the Spirit, and communion with
Christ, are an outstanding treatment suitable both for beginners in
grace and mature saints. Use Hulse’s sterling exposé of experiential
religion to gain clarity about your own spiritual experience and to
stimulate growth in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus.
In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace

Daniel R. Hyde
(PB, Reformed Fellowship Inc, 192 pages)
In these pages, Danny Hyde argues with great clarity against all im-
ages of Jesus as man-made media. He shows that all such images are
abominated in Scripture and roundly rejected by the Reformed con-
fessional heritage without exception. Hyde goes on to argue, however,
that God does provide us with His “media”—the preaching of His
Word and the administration of His sacraments.
A Token for Children

James Janeway and Cotton Mather
(HC, Soli Deo Gloria, 170 pages)
James Janeway (1636–1674) compiled numerous accounts of the con-
versions of young children and their testimonies prior to their early
deaths to serve the spiritual well-being of children. Next to the Scrip-
tures and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Janeway’s book was the most
widely read children’s book in the seventeenth century.
Cotton Mather (1663–1728), a Puritan pastor in New England,
wrote his own account of children converted by God. That book, plus
Janeway’s, are printed together in this volume. They not only show
how Puritan parents evangelized their children in the home, but still
today, can assist you in parenting and assist your children who may
read them for great profit to their own souls.
Heaven upon Earth: Jesus, the Best Friend

in the Worst Times
James Janeway
In this little masterpiece based on Job 22:21, Janeway earnestly ex-
horts us to a growing and varied acquaintance with God, so that we
might be at peace with Him. He argues for a real, vital, experiential
knowledge of God by which a believer, like Moses, might “speak with
God face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.” In typical Puritan
fashion, the book is packed with practical uses, exhortations, and mo-
tives that flow out of acquainting one’s self with God. This book is a
masterful treatment of spiritual divinity—an invaluable handbook on
how to grow in intimacy with God through His Son.
An Exposition upon the Epistle of Jude:

A Classic Puritan Commentary
William Jenkyn
(HC, Solid Ground Christian Books, 367 pages)
Jenkyn’s Exposition of Jude remains unsurpassed today. It powerfully
exhibits Jenkyn’s piety and learning. Spurgeon says of it: “Earnest
and popular, but very full, and profoundly learned. A treasure-house
of good things.” Thomas Manton said that the “elaborate commen-
tary of [the] revered, Mr. William Jenkyn” was done so well, that for
some time he regarded the publication of his own work on Jude as
unnecessary.
George Whitefield: A Definitive Biography, Volumes 1 & 2

E. A. Johnston
(HC, Tentmaker Publications, 1115 pages)
In this massive biography of George Whitefield, preacher par excel-
lence of the Great Awakening who travelled thousands of miles to
preach thousands of sermons to thousands of people, we find im-
mense stimulation to rekindle the psalmist’s prayer, “It is time, Lord,
for thee to work.” O that God would raise such men of godly zeal and
endurance in our day!
This massive work contains much that is not in Arnold Dalli-
more’s classic, but, given its length, will only be appreciated by those
who want to pursue an in-depth study of all things Whitefieldian!
Book Reviews 387
Communion with God: The Divine and

the Human in the Theology of John Owen
Kelly M. Kapic
(PB, Baker Academic, 285 pages)
This book, which draws from an impressive array of sources, is a
marvelously rich, full, and systematic treatment of Owen’s focus on
communion with God. It will enhance our understanding and ap-
preciation of Owen and, most importantly, of personal communion
with the Triune God.
The Travels of True Godliness: From the Beginning of the

World to this Present Day in an Apt and Pleasant Allegory
Benjamin Keach
After defining godliness and showing its worthy pedigree and an-
tiquity, “the excellent Benjamin Keach” (as he was fondly called),
allegorically personifies “Godliness,” much as Bunyan did “Chris-
tian.” He introduces us to more than two dozen enemies of godliness,
then details Godliness’s encounters with several of them, including
apostasy, hypocrisy, legalism, antinomianism, worldliness, and Satan.
We meet in graphic detail the temptations of youth and old age, of
riches and poverty, as well as the joys of contentment, thoughtfulness,
kindness, and love. This is a fascinating read by the most important
Baptist thinker of his day, designed to stir us up to a greater pursuit
of godliness.
The Expository Genius of John Calvin

Steven J. Lawson
(HC, Reformation Trust Publishing, 142 pages)
Through an introductory study of John Calvin’s preaching, Steve
Lawson provides a practical Homiletics I refresher course that can
be read in one evening, but should be read annually for lifelong im-
pact. Factual yet stimulating, simple yet penetrating, The Expository
Genius of John Calvin contains many scriptural and theocentric golden
nuggets and hands-on practical tips for beginning expositors and sea-
soned preachers alike. May God use it to revitalize Christ-centered
and Spirit-empowered applicatory preaching in our needy day.
The Genius of Puritanism

Peter Lewis
(PB, Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 144 pages)
This is an excellent introduction to the Puritans, their writings, and
their pastoral work. It examines their role as pastors, counselors, and
theologians, as well as private people. The detailed section on spiri-
tual depression is especially helpful.
Reaching the Ear of God

Wayne A. Mack
(PB, P & R Publishing, 284 pages)
Dr. Mack’s contemporary treatment of prayer through the lens of the
Lord’s Prayer is packed with theological and practical content that
sure-footedly promotes a Christ-centered and intimate approach to
the throne of grace. The numerous “application questions” inter-
spersed throughout each chapter help make this book one of the best
practical manuals on prayer ever written. With the Spirit’s blessing,
its prayerful reading will rejuvenate your prayer life and enable you to
more habitually reach the ear of God.
Christianity and Its Competitors:

The New Faces of Old Heresy
James McGoldrick
(PB, Christian Focus, 198 pages)
Dr. McGoldrick draws provocative, daring lines from the ancient
errors of the Ebionites and Judaizing Christianity, Montanism, Ari-
anism, and Pelagianism to the contemporary errors that plague the
theology and/or practical teachings of Roman Catholicism, Mor-
monism, Socinianism, Unitarianism, Universalism, Arminianism,
Semi-Pelagianism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, funda-
mentalism, and various charismatic movements.
An Account of the Life and Death of Mrs. Elizabeth Bury

Edited by Kevin McGrane
(PB, Reformation Heritage Books, 359 pages)
Elizabeth Bury stands at the head of a class of later, great female de-
votional writers including Anne Dutton, Mary Winslow, and Ruth
Bryan, whose Christ-centered writings have helped hundreds of
Book Reviews 389
God’s people drink more deeply of the wells of salvation. This book
conveys mature, experiential, and practical divinity on nearly every
page, still meeting the needs of believers today. Oh, for more of this
godly spirit in daily living in our spiritually bankrupt age!
Would you like guidance in learning how to live more closely to
Christ, how to be submissive under the loss of a loved one, and how
to lay hold of God in prayer? Read The Life and Death of Mrs. Elizabeth
Bury prayerfully, preferably as a daily devotional, and let her be your
spiritual mentor. Remember, however, that mentoring is not synony-
mous with comparing. Don’t compare her level of spirituality with
your own lest you become discouraged, but use her spiritual instruc-
tion and example to help you forward in your walk with God.
Lectures on the Book of Esther

Thomas M’Crie
Best known for his biography on John Knox and ever the consummate
church historian, Thomas M’Crie (1772–1835), shows in his lectures
on Esther that he is an astute biblical historian as well. These eigh-
teen messages are packed with solid exegetical and practical material.
Highly recommended for both the minister and the educated layman,
this reliable guide to Esther remains unsurpassed until today.
Catch the Vision: Roots of the Reformed Recovery.

The men and movements in the mid 20th century
John J. Murray
(PB, Evangelical Press, 181 pages)
Catch the Vision is a fascinating read about D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
Geoffrey Williams, J. I. Packer, Iain Murray, John Murray, and other
notable leaders who were used mightily by God to revive Reformed,
Puritan, experiential truth in the mid-twentieth century United
Kingdom, which, in turn, had far-reaching ramifications for much of
the English-speaking world and beyond. With profound insight and
warm zeal, John J. Murray writes of this Spirit-anointed movement as
an intimate participant, a quiet leader, and an astute observer.
This is a must read for all who are concerned about the revival
and maintenance of true religion in our days of ungodly compromise
with, and complacency about, scriptural truth.
The Earnest Communicant: Blessed Preparation

for the Lord’s Supper
Ashton Oxenden
Through warm meditations, searching examinations, heartfelt reso-
lutions, and moving prayers, Ashton Oxenden presents us with just
what we need as earnest communicants to seek God’s face in Christ
with passion for each day of the week preparatory to Communion.
Sermons for Christian Families

Edward Payson
Sermons for Christian Families is Edward Payson at his best—full of wis-
dom and practicality, majoring in the majors, and warmly devotional
in spirit. With this reprint, Payson will again be recognized as being
on par with William Jay and J. C. Ryle as among the best of former
preachers who unabashedly proclaimed the whole counsel of God to
families in an eminently charitable, challenging, and convicting man-
ner. As parents, read these sermons for your own edification, then
read the aloud with passion to your teenagers and older children.
Communion with God:

A Guide to the Devotional Spirit
Robert Philip
In this reprint, Communion with God: A Guide to the Devotional Spirit,
Philip underscores the importance of appreciating and utilizing the
believer’s gracious access to God; he aims to cultivate a devotional
spirit among the people of God so that their joy may be full. He
brings tender encouragement to the faint of heart, yet assures the
presumptuous that holiness is essential to true fellowship with God.
Whether you are seeking to lay hold of God’s promises, struggling
with assurance, enduring trials, lacking zeal, or simply desiring fur-
ther encouragement in your prayer life, reading Philips’s Communion
with God prayerfully will be a blessing to your soul and a sure “guide
to the devotional spirit.”
Book Reviews 391
Forget Not all His Benefits

Frances Blok Popovich
For a book of stories that provides good spiritual counsel, practical
life wisdom, and authentic mission field experience with all its joys
and challenges, I suggest Forget Not All His Benefits, by a veteran Bible
translator, Dr. Fran Popovich. It is a real page-turner, highly recom-
mended for all age groups.
The Happiness of Heaven

Maurice Roberts
I have seldom heard a minister preach with more relish, glow, and
frequency about heaven than Rev. Maurice Roberts. In The Happiness
of Heaven, Roberts shows that same giftedness in writing about the
glorious state of eternal bliss. He writes with warmth, conviction, and
longing, while not fearing to address biblically the difficult questions
in masterful chapters such as “Children and Heaven” and “The Dark
Side of Heaven.” This is one of the author’s best books yet. If you’re a
believer, it will move you deeply and make you more homesick. Read
it repeatedly to lift your soul up above the sin and mundane triviali-
ties of this world and to set your affections on the Triune God and
things above.
John Rogers: Sealed with Blood

Tim Shenton
(PB, Day One, 144 pages)
Tim Shenton has produced yet another well documented, gripping
biography of a real hero of faith—John Rogers (d. 1555), renowned
biblical editor and first Marian martyr. Follow Rogers’s fascinating
career from Antwerp to Germany, and back again to England, where
he was arrested, remained steadfast under intense interrogation, and
paid the ultimate price for confessing Christ. This is a great book
about an important epigone; hopefully, Rogers will no longer be mar-
ginalized! Highly recommended for teenagers and adults.
The Life of Rowland Hill ‘The Second Whitefield’

Tim Shenton
(HB, Evangelical Press, 702 pages)
This is a large and great book on a larger-than-life and great preacher of
two centuries ago. Tim Shenton shows that Rowland Hill (1744–1833)
was a kind of Luther figure in his own day—spiritual yet earthy, prac-
tical yet eccentric, energetic yet controversial, colorful yet black and
white in so many of his convictions, profoundly loved and admired
yet despised and hated, kind yet frequently sharp with his tongue.
Here is biography at its best. Shenton marvelously brings Rowland
Hill to life in a balanced and objective way, neither minimizing his
remarkable set of gifts nor hiding his destructive blemishes.
The Life and Times of Gardiner Spring, Volumes 1 & 2

Gardiner Spring
(PB, Audubon Press, 641 pages)
Gardiner Spring (1785-1873), a prolific writer and Presbyterian min-
ister who served the Brick Church (old First Presbyterian Church)
in New York City for sixty-three years, led a full and fascinating life.
The autobiographical reflections in his Life and Times are a gold mine
of historical, practical, and personal insights. His chapters on Hop-
kinsianism and New Haven Theology are particularly enlightening.
The Power of the Pulpit: Thoughts Addressed to

Christian Ministers and Those Who Hear Them
Gardiner Spring
Gardiner Spring’s The Power of the Pulpit is an old classic on preaching
that truly believes in the pulpit. It deserves to stand on every minister’s
bookshelf beside Spurgeon’s Lectures to my Students’ and Lloyd-Jones’s
Preaching. I’ll never forget the first time I read Spring’s chapter on a
minister’s personal piety; it overwhelmed me, and moved me to tears,
to silence, to confession, and to prayer for mercy and help. This is a
great book which every minister should read and re-read, if he re-
ally wants to get a sense of the magnitude, awesomeness, power, and
beauty of his calling.
Book Reviews 393
Light at Evening Time: A Book of Support

and Comfort for the Aged
Edited by John Stanford Holme
Light at Evening Time is a practical handbook that provides biblical
counsel on virtually every area that concerns the elderly. Written by
the cream of our church fathers and Reformed forebears, this book is
an outstanding collection of treasures for those facing the challenges
of senior years. Seniors would profit greatly by reading it once a year.
The Church’s Book of Comfort

Edited by Willem van ’t Spijker
Translated by Gerrit Bilkes
(HC, Reformation Heritage Books, 300 pages)
The Church’s Book of Comfort sheds new light on the historical milieu,
composition, authorship, and production of the Heidelberg Catechism.
The chapter that summarizes the theological dimensions of the cat-
echism is itself worth the price of the book. The histories provided of
the Reformation in the Low Countries and of Reformed catechetical
literature fill major lacunae in English literature. The history of cat-
echism preaching over the centuries follows many fascinating twists
and turns. Scores of pertinent illustrations bring color and light to
the whole. This is an indispensable tool for anyone interested in the
Heidelberg Catechism.
The Afflicted Man’s Companion: A Directory for Persons

and Families Afflicted with Sickness or any Other Distress
John Willison
John Willison (1680–1750), an influential evangelical minister of the
Church of Scotland, was renowned as a prolific writer of practical
Christian literature. The Afflicted Man’s Companion, a veritable trea-
sure-house on coping with sickness, dying, and other afflictions, was
one of his most frequently reprinted titles. While being led through
the valley of affliction some years ago, I frequently perused this vol-
ume with great profit. I know of no book so biblical, God-honoring,
and practical for times of suffering, for the believer and the uncon-
verted alike. Here is practical theology at its best.
The 17:18 Series, 6 volumes

Rob Wynalda
(HC, Reformation Heritage Books, 150 to 300 pages per volume)
Rob Wynalda’s The 17:18 Series encapsulates the biblical mandate to
write Scripture on the tables of our hearts. By writing out Scripture
ourselves and buttressing that with answering questions and taking
notes about the texts, we will grow immensely in hiding the Word
in our hearts and exemplifying it in our lives. This series of books is
suitable for children and adults, for lay people and ministers, for Bible
study classes and private devotions. The six volumes presently avail-
able include (1) Provers, (2) John, (3) Romans, (4) Galations through
2 Thessalonians, (5) 1 Timothy through Hebrews, and (6) James
through Jude. More volumes are forthcoming. Try a volume your-
self. By the Spirit’s grace, your soul will prosper, and you will want to
write out the whole of Scripture.
Contributors
q
Robert Arnold is a Ph.D. student at Southern Baptist Seminary, who is
doing his dissertation on Samuel Rutherford. He is currently pastoring a
Southern Baptist congregation in Orlando.
Peter Beck holds a Ph.D. in Church History and is Assistant Professor
of Religion at Charleston Southern University.
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.
Craig Biehl is a business consultant and independent writer. He is the
author of The Infinite Merit of Christ. He holds a Ph.D. in Systematic The-
ology from Westminster Theological Seminary.
Jerry Bilkes is Professor of Old and New Testament at Puritan Re-
formed Theological Seminary and an elder and ordained minister of the
Free Reformed Church.
Michael G. Brown is pastor of Christ United Reformed Church in
Santee, California. He holds a Master of Divinity and a Master of Arts in
Historical Theology, both from Westminster Seminary in California.
Ian Hugh Clary is a member of Grace Baptist Church of Essex, holds
an M.Div. from Toronto Baptist Seminary, and is currently working on
his Th.M. in post-Reformation History.
James Davison is visiting lecturer in Church History at Belfast Bible
College and the Irish Baptist College, and a member of the Irish Bap-
tist Historical Society and of Great Victoria Street Baptist Church in
Belfast.
Pieter DeVries is the pastor of the Reformed Church of Waarde, the
Netherlands, and a lecturer of Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, and Apol-
ogetics at the Seminary of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands.
Timothy J. Gwin is a minister in the Presbyterian Church of America;
he holds an M.Div. from Reformed Theological Seminary and is cur-
rently completing his Th.M. thesis.
Michael A. G. Haykin is a professor of church history at Southern Bap-

tist Theological Seminary and a lecturer at Puritan Reformed Theological
Seminary.
Maarten Kuivenhoven is an M.Div. graduate of Puritan Reformed
Theological Seminary, and is presently pursuing his Th.M. degree at
PRTS.
Donald John MacLean is a member of Cambridge Presbyterian Church
and a postgraduate student at Wales Evangelical School of Theology.
Ryan M. McGraw is the pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Con-
way, South Carolina.
David Murray is Professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
Jennifer C. Neimeyer is a recent graduate of Southern Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary and resides in Louisville, Kentucky.
John E. Skidmore holds a Master of Arts in Religion from Westmin-
ster Theological Seminary and is pursuing a Th.M. degree at Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary.
Karin Spiecker Stetina is a part-time faculty member at Wheaton Col-
lege, Illinois, and an associate editor for Luther Digest.
Geoff Thomas is Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at PRTS.
He has served as minister of Alfred Place Baptist Church in Aberyst-
wyth, Wales, since 1965.
Stephen Yuille is pastor of Grace Community Church, Glen Rose,
Texas.

Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2010.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Puritan Reformed Journal PRJ 2010.1

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 2010.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Puritan Reformed Journal

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Joel R. Beeke, Editor

Puritan Reformed Journal is published semi-annually. The subscription price per

Please address all PRJ communication as follows:

© Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. For a free seminary catalog and

POSTMASTER: SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO: Puritan Reformed Journal,

SYSTEMATIC AND Historical Theology

Pastoral theology and missions

A Pastor’s Analysis of Emphases in preaching: Two False Dichotomies

CONTEMPORARY AND CULTURAL ISSUES

BOOK ENDORSEMENTS — Joel R. Beeke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

much to teach this generation of Christians—in the thought of Thomas

The Jews’ View of the

In previous articles we have examined Christ’s view of the Old Testa-

1. The Spirit is more glorious than the letter

2. Life is more glorious than death

. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster

the previous letter-killeth/spirit-gives-life contrast—so much so, that

. W. W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Logos Library System,

3. Righteousness is more glorious than condemnation

verse dashes this interpretation by confirming that it is a contrast be-

4. Plainness is more glorious than obscurity

. Hodge, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, 64 – 65.

5. Permanence is more glorious than transience

• There is a veil on the Jews’ hearts (v. 15)

. Hodge, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, 69.

• Turning to Christ opens everything up (v. 17)

• Christ transforms us from glory into glory (v. 18)

10. Ibid., 73.

Great care must be taken to establish the difference between a

Second Samuel 7 offers a view of the covenant of grace being expanded

David’s Purpose (vv. 1–3)

Yahweh’s Promise (vv. 4–17)

David’s Prayer (vv. 18–29)

. Paul William Tigchelaar Verhoef, “The compositional structure, canonical

. Jean Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel: Chapters 1–13 (Edinburgh: Banner of

such an important endeavor, since Nathan operates based on “his own

12. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 120.

were humbled by Satan, though it likely refers to the Israelites enter-

15. Keil & Delitzsch, 1 and 2 Samuel, 344.

21. Ibid., 240.

22. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 126.

In the context of the covenant that Yahweh makes with David,

32. Goodwin, The Works, 9:268.

the contrast is highlighted between David’s initial purpose of building

Applying Christ’s Supremacy:

many, no singular devotion could be required. Now that His person is

salvation.” As salvation comes from Christ and is revealed in the gos-

Second, he expatiates upon the comprehensive aspects of this call:

rituals. While the Old Testament ceremonies were restrictive, now

Hot Protestants: A Taxonomy

The terms “Puritan” and “Puritanism,” like any other socio-historical

. Glenn Miller, “Puritanism: A Survey,” in Union Seminary Quarterly Review

the variegated nature of Puritanism tends to be downplayed as certain

Reasons for the Difficulty

ism was a monolithic movement distinguished by its piety, Calvinism,

. Ibid., 12–13. Lewis refers to Puritanism as a “cuckoo in the Anglican nest”

imputed righteousness, or with that which is inherent: both these,