INFORMATION TO USERS

W hile the most advanced technology has been used to

photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of
the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the material submitted. For example:

• Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such

cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

W
• M anuscripts may not always be complete. In such
cases, a note w ill indicate that it is not possible to
obtain m issing pages.
IE
• Copyrighted material may have been removed from
the manuscript. In such cases, a note w ill indicate the
deletion.
EV

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are

photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is
PR

also film ed as one exposure and is a va ila b le, for an

additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23”
black and white photographic print.

Most photographs reproduce acceptably on p ositive

microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic
copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge,
35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints
are available for any photographs or illustrations that
cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Order N um ber 8720639

The logic o f grace in Jo h n Owen, D JD.: A n analysis, exposition,

an d defense o f Jo h n Owen’s P u rita n theology o f grace

Eawkes, Richard Mitchell, Ph.D.

W
Westminster Theological Seminary, 1987
IE
EV
PR

C opyright © 1987 b y H aw kes, R ichard M itchell. A ll righ ts reserved.

SOON.ZesbRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material fits been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or pages______

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_______

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. illustrations are poor copy_______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ^

W
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e_______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages________

IE
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

EV

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

PR

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ^

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received_________

16. Other_____________________________________________________________________

University
Microfilms
International

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 THE LOGIC OF GRACE IN JOHN OWEN, D.D.:

AN ANALYSIS, EXPOSITION, AND DEFENSE

OF JOHN OWEN'S PURITAN

THEOLOGY OF GRACE

by

Richard M itch ell Hawkes

W
IE
A Thesis Submitted t o th e F a c u lty of
EV

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

in P a r t i a l F u lf il lm e n t o f th e
Requirements f o r th e Degree
PR

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

1987

F acu lty Advisor :

Sinclj iW.B. F£r§uson /

Second F acu lty Reader

D. ' S i a i r Davis

Chairman o f th e F ie ld Corranittee : ______ ~~ r '~

Robert D. Knudsen

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 To My Family

W
IE
EV
PR

© C o p y r ig h t by Richard M itchell Hawkes 1987

All R ights Reserved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CONTENTS

PREFACE vm

INTRODUCTION 1

Q. What i s t h e purpose o f t h i s study?

A. The purpose i s to provide a c l e a r r e p r e s e n t a tio n o f John Owen's
th e o lo g y o f g race , and, s u b o r d i n a t e d , to suggest t h a t t h i s theology
p ro vides a c a re fu l balance between th e p la ces of God and man in grace
which r e f l e c t s th e c e n t r a l emphases of h i s t o r i c a l Reformed d o c t r i n e .

1. Myths, Models, and Meaning

2. Mystery and Logic
3. Logic as Communication

PART ONE.
EW
THE MEANS OF GRACE: GOD'S COMMUNICATION OF HIS INTENTION

Chapter
I
I . GOD'S COMMUNICATION OF HIS INTENTION IN CREATION 21
EV

Q. What means has God provided in c r e a tio n to communicate h is gracious

i n t e n t i o n t o men?
A. He t y p o l o g i c a l l y p la c e s h is mark of a u t h o r i t y in th e design of a l l
c r e a t i o n , and he p la ces a n a tu re r e f l e c t i n g h is own, ab le to know him,
in man.
PR

1. The Mark of God on C reation

2. The Image of God in Man

II. THREE-FOLD HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 32

Q. How may t h e knowledge of grace reach and e x i s t in man?

A. I t comes through t h e channels provided by God f o r t h i s purpose and
r e s t s on man's re c o g n itio n o f h is c r e a t o r .

1. The Dependent Nature o f Knowledge

2. P hysical P ercep tio n and Truth
3. In n a te Knowledge
4. Knowledge by D iscu rsiv e Reason
5. Knowledge by Testimony

III. GOD'S COMMUNICATION OF HIS INTENTION IN PROVIDENCE ....................... 52

Q. What i s th e fundamental e x te r n a l means by which God r e g u la te s the

a d m in is tr a t io n of grace?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 A. God's sovereign a p p lic a tio n of grace works through th e channels of
h is r u l i n g providence in p r e s e r v a t io n , government, and concurrence. On
t h i s fo u nd ation of dependence, God i s y e t able to m aintain man as an
independent, v o l i t i o n a l , moral c r e a tu r e .

1. The Finger of God: Truth Perceived by Reason

2. P r e s e r v a tio n : E xistence and Common Grace
3. Government: Causes, Bounding, and T esting
4. Concurrence: God's Will in Our Will

IV. THE LAW ..................................................................................................................... 68

Q. How i s th e law a s e rv a n t o f grace?

A. The law gives man th e a u t h o r i t a t i v e stan d ard in h is moral l i f e by
which he may know how to p le a s e God. I t i s th e measure by which man
can match h is i n t e n ti o n to th e i n t e n ti o n and ends designed by God.

1. The Purpose o f th e Law

2. The S tr u c t u r e o f th e Law
3. The Functions o f th e Law

W
V. GOD'S COMMUNICATION OF HIS INTENTION IN SPECIAL REVELATION . . 80

Q. How i s God's gracio us i n t e n ti o n o f redemption and ren ovation

IE
e f f e c t e d through s p e c ia l r e v e la tio n ?
A. Excepting only C h r is t, S c r ip tu r e i s God's c l e a r e s t r e v e l a ti o n to
man. I t c a r r i e s and p re s e n ts C h r is t t o us through th e power o f th e
Holy S p i r i t and in human terms f o r th e r a t i o n a l c o n s id e ra tio n of men.
EV

1. I n te n tio n t o I n te n tio n by Covenant Words

2. The F a c u lty o f F aith
3. Human Reason and Special R evelation
4. The Theanthropic Glory o f C h r is t
5. The Word o f God in Human Language
PR

6. P la in Speech
7. 'The Holy S p i r i t in th e Conveying o f Special R ev elatio n :
P re s e rv a tio n
8. The Holy S p i r i t in th e Conveying o f Special R ev elatio n :
Illu m in a tio n
9. A u to p is tic R evelation
10. The Absolute and A r b itr a r y Nature o f th e Gospel Revelation

CONCLUSION OF PART I ............................................................................................... 129

PART TWO.
THE MATTER OF GRACE: GOD'S GRACIOUS INTENTION TOWARD US

I. THE IDEA OF COVENANT ................................................................................. 132

Q. Why i s th e id ea of covenant im portant in th e lo g ic of grace?

A. Because o f th e in t e n ti o n a l n a tu re of God and man, th e agreement
aimed a t in grace must ta k e th e form of a covenant in c o rp o ra tin g
promise and r u l e .

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1. Covenant: A Meeting of th e Minds in Union of I n t e n t
2. Owen's D e f in it io n : P re c e p t, Promise, and Agreement
3. Works Righteousness and th e Place of C onditions in th e Covenant
4 . Other C ritic is m s o f th e Covenant Theology
5. Grace Before Law or Law Before Grace
6. Agreement on Terms: Other Problems

II. THE COVENANT OF WORKS: CREATING GRACE ........................................... 168

Q. What p a r t does th e Covenant o f Works have in th e m a tte r of grace?

A. In c r e a t i o n , God e s ta b l is h e d a covenant between man and h im self
which may be c a l le d th e Covenant of Works. This r e l a t i o n s h i p serv es as
th e c o n te x t f o r t h e work o f C h r is t and our in c lu s io n under grace.

1. C re a tiv e Union: The Image o f God

2. The Place o f Works
3. The Promissory Nature o f th e Covenant o f Works

III. THE COVENANT OF THE REDEEMER: GOD'S INTENTION ACCOMPLISHED . . 182

' EW
Q. How i s grace founded in th e Covenant of th e Redeemer?
A. This covenant i s God's in te r p e r s o n a l p ro v is io n to d is p la y h is love
f o r C h r i s t , th e Son, and th e e l e c t in C h r is t, w hile showing a lso h is
immutable r ig h te o u s n e s s .

1. The Grace o f C h r i s t , th e Beloved Son

2. God's Glory as Final Cause
I
3. The Way o f M erit
EV

4. The Work o f th e T r i n i t y as Author and Agent

5. The M ed iato rial Union
6. The H yp ostatic and Carnal Union
7. The S u b s tit u tio n a r y Union
8. The F id u c ia ry or T h esauric Union
PR

IV. THE COVENANT OF GRACE: CHRIST THE COVENANT ................................... 216

Q. Why i s t h e r e a covenant t o a d m in iste r grace?

A. God p re s e n ts h is grace in th e form of a covenant in C h r is t to
acconmiodate s u re grace to man's n a tu re as a tem poral, r a t i o n a l , l e g a l ,
s o c i a l , and moral c r e a tu r e who i s , in C h r is t, ab le to engage God in
communion, ab le to honor a covenant.

1. The Way of Grace

2. The Federal Union: C h r is t Undertakes as th e Head o f th e Church
3. In C h r is to : Peace E s ta b lis h e d

V. OUR INDUCTION INTO THE COVENANT: GOD'S INTENTION APPLIED . . 231

Q. How a re we included in th e lo g ic of grace?

A. The in c o rp o ra tio n o f th e e l e c t in th e grace o f C h r is t i s an
i n t e g r a l p a r t of g ra c e . Every step in th e order of s a lv a tio n i s p a r t
of th e one in t e n t i o n o f grace.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1. The D ispensation of Anger
2. The Imputation of Ctr-is* and th e D ispensation of Love
3. Purchased Grace A pplied: The m ystical Union
4. Purchased Grace A pplied: R egeneration
5. The F id u c ia l Union: F a ith Approves th e Way of C h r is t
6. The F id u c ia l Union: F a ith th e S ub sisten ce of Mystery
7. The F id u c ia l Union: Jo in in g in th e Covenant by F a ith
8. J u s t i f i c a t i o n Completed: Acceptance w ith God through F aith
9. The P a t e r n a l / F r a t e r n a l Union
10. The P r a c ti c a l Union
11. The P e r f e c t Union: G l o r i f i c a t i o n

CONCLUSION OF PART I I ............................................................................................... 279

PART THREE.
THE MANNER OF GRACE: HOW WE RECEIVE THE GRACE TO LIVE UNTO GOD

I. THE SECOND CREATION AS THE LIFE OF THE COVENANT ...................... 283

W
Q. How does r e g e n e ra tio n change our in t e r n a l s ta t e ?
A. God changes us to be members of C h r is t in grace. Every p a r t and
as p e c t o f our humanity—our em otions, minds, w i l l s , i n c l i n a t i o n s ,
judgments—i s changed to a lig n w ith God as our u ltim a te goal and good.
IE
1. The S i t u a tio n o f Sin
2. The Second C reation
3. Knowledge Renewed: F a ith and Assurance
EV

4. Knowledge Renewed: The S p e c u la tiv e and th e P r a c ti c a l

5. Will Renewed: The E x tent o f th e Regeneration o f th e Will
6. Will Renewed: Owen A gainst P rep aratio n ism
7. Will Renewed: The P u r ita n s and P reparation ism

II. MOST SPECIAL PROVIDENCE: THE YEAR OF THE L0RD‘S FAVOR . . . 326
PR

Q. How i s providence concerned in th e manner of grace?

A. In p rov idence, we are reminded t h a t s a lv a t io n p la ces us in a new
r e l a t i o n s h i p no t only with God, b ut w ith circum stances and c r e a tio n as
th e y a r e d ir e c te d by God t o f u r t h e r h is work o f grace.

1. Government: N urture and Chastisem ent

2. Concurrence: I n te r n a l D ire c tio n in Actual Grace

III. SUBJECTIVE ASSURANCE: THE GOLDEN CHAIN .............................. 344

Q. How does th e manner o f grace shape th e c h a r a c te r o f assurance?

A. Because grace comes t o us as we a r e s e lf - c o n s c i o u s , moral
c r e a t u r e s , we n a t u r a l l y develop in our f a i t h and obedience a knowledge
and awareness o f th e presence and work o f grace in us and o f our
c e r t a i n s a lv a t io n as we a re in C h r i s t .

1. The S p ira l of Assurance

2. The Place of Assurance in F a ith

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3. The Evidence of Assurance
4. The Seal o f th e Holy S p i r i t

IV. PECCATOR ET SANCTUS ....................................................................................... 368

Q. How does God's grace provide f o r our s a n c t i f i c a t i o n ?

A. This s a n c t i f i c a t i o n i s worked out g r a d u a lly by th e power o f th e
S p i r i t , through our obedience in th e f a c e of in dw elling s in and
te m p ta tio n , and w ith in th e su re covenant o f C h r i s t ' s person and work.

1. A bsolute Personal H oliness: OldMan, New Man

2. R e la tiv e Personal H oliness: Outward Man, Inward Man
3. Duty and A b i l i t y
4. S i n c e r i t y and C h r is tia n P e r f e c tio n

V. THE RULE FOR LIVING IN GRACE ................................................................. 402

Q. In what manner does grace d i r e c t our d a i l y li v e s ?

A. C h r is t i s our end and example which we s e iz e through f a i t h . His
law i s a guide s u ite d t o d a i l y obedience. His Church i s th e h ig h e s t

W
p r e s e n t r e v e l a t i o n o f th e power o f h is love f o r u s .

1. By F a ith in C h r is t
2. Under th e Gospel Law
IE
3. In th e Church

FINAL CONCLUSIONS. A LIFE OF PEACE WITH GOD ........................................... 431

EV

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 440

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 442

PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PREFACE

1. The S tr u c t u r e o f This Study

A b ew ildering a r r a y of charges has been pressed a g a in s t th e English

P u rita n s. They a re s a id t o have preached s a lv a tio n through works,

p re s e n tin g th e Gospel as a quid pro quo c o n tr a c t arrangement. The

P u r ita n s a re m an-centered, some c r i t i c s say; th e y have no f r e e o f f e r of

grace but a t t r i b u t e t o man an a b i l i t y t o cooperate with God in h is

W
sa lv a tio n . In s te a d o f an assurance r e s t i n g in th e work o f C h r is t, the

P u r ita n s o f f e r a s u b je c t iv e assurance r e s t i n g on a p e r s o n 's good works.

IE
Others p r o t e s t t h a t th e P u r ita n s are too t i e d up with in tr o s p e c tio n and, in

t h e i r morbid s u b je c tiv is m , have l o s t th e o b je c tiv e r e a l i t y of a re c o n c ile d

EV

God. They are only l e g a l i s t s concerned with th e works of men, r e s t i n g in

th e ir se lf-rig h te o u sn e ss. On another ta c k , they are accused of being too

o th e r - w o r ld ly , unable t o fa c e th e r e a l world and i l l equipped to do so.

PR

Whether th e y a re p ic tu r e d as upper, middle, or lower c l a s s , th e P u rita n s

a re g e n e r a lly given th e c h a r a c te r o f, in one way or an o th er, h y p o crites who

t a l k a f i n e r e l i g i o n b ut use t h e i r theo logy merely as an excuse, a noble

end to j u s t i f y t h e i r p u r s u i t of w orldly advantage and g ain .

In th e way of d efen se, I would most p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e to answer th e

claim t h a t th e P u r ita n s have no adequate conception of f r e e grace, t h a t

th e y suspend s a lv a t io n and assurance merely on works, t h a t th ey encourage a

b arg ain w ith God, and t h a t th e y put too much stock in th e s u b je c tiv e

awareness of man. Beyond a d efense, however, I hope to o f f e r a system atic

a n a ly s is o f t h i s as p e c t o f P u rita n theo lo gy . To give th e reader an

vi i i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 understanding of why th e P u rita n says what he does, I seek to p re s e n t th e

m otivation and lo g ic of th e P u rita n theology of th e o p eratio n of grace. We

need t o understand not only what th e P u rita n a s s e r te d , but why he a s s e r te d

i t , what im pelled him to fo rm u late t h i s p a r t i c u l a r system, what was th e

d riv in g fo rc e of th e system.

My method w ill be to ta k e John Owen as th e r e p r e s e n t a tiv e proponent

of English P u rita n theolog y. I w ill examine h is lo g ic of th e working of

God's g race . I w ill seek t o dem onstrate t h a t th e v ariou s o b je c tio n s

brought a g a in s t t h i s theolog y simply do no t make sense when compared to th e

r e a l i t y of what Owen s a y s . We w ill f in d t h a t opponents of th e P u rita n

W
th eolog y of grace g e n e r a lly make two e r r o r s : 1) th e y grab onto one s id e of

th e theo lo gy ig no rin g o th e r balancin g statem en ts of th e P u rita n s who

IE
f r e q u e n t ly made use o f th e techniqu e o f paradox t o achieve a d e l i c a t e

b alan ce; 2) th e y a t t r i b u t e c e r t a i n concepts t o P u rita n innovation which are

EV

a c t u a l l y i n t e g r a l to Augustinian-Reformed theo log y.

The o v e r a ll s t r u c t u r e of my stu dy w ill simply be t h a t of a

s y ste m a tic survey of Owen's th e o lo g y o f g ra c e . This w ill f a l l i n t o th r e e

PR

p a rts. F i r s t , I w ill d iscu ss how i t i s p o s s i b le t h a t God's good w ill of

grace may be communicated to us. This is th e means o f grace. Second, I

w ill ask wherein grace c o n s i s t s . This is th e m a tter o f grace . T h ird , I

w ill examine how God's good grace i s rec e iv e d by u s. This is th e manner of

g ra c e . By looking a t th e means, m a tte r , and manner o f grace, I hope to

d is p la y th e lo g ic of Owen's th e o lo g y o f grace .

Within t h i s p o s i t i v e l i n e a r s t r u c t u r e , I w ill r e p e a te d ly go through

a t h r e e ste p c y c l e . F i r s t , a t d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s , I w ill e s t a b l i s h th e

c o n g ru ity of Owen with h is fe llo w P u rita n s as being o f one f a i r l y

harmonious school concerning th e lo g ic of g race . Second, also a t major way

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 s t a t i o n s , I w ill i l l u s t r a t e th e c o n s is te n c y of t h i s P u rita n theology in i t s

main p o in ts w ith th e stream of Augustinian-Reformed th e o lo g y . T hird, a t

key p o in t s , I w ill i l l u s t r a t e th e s o r t s of o b je c tio n s made to P u rita n

theo lo g y , keeping in view always th e primary o b je c tio n t h a t th e P u rita n

theolo gy o f grace compromises f r e e grace, i s too s u b j e c t i v e , gives man too

much p a r t .

The r e a d e r w ill come across fo u r ty p e s of evidence quoted: 1) Owen;

2) o th e rs g e n e r a lly counted as P u r ita n s ; 3) o th e r th e o lo g ia n s in th e

Reformed t r a d i t i o n ; 4) c r i t i c s o f th e P u r ita n s . The n a tu re o f each quote

should serv e t o remind th e re a d e r where he i s lo c ated in th e argument. He

W
i s e i t h e r in th e main stream o f development showing John Owen's lo g ic of

g ra c e , or he i s in one o f th e th r e e minor su b -cy cle s r e l a t i n g to o th e r

IE
P u r ita n s , th e broader Reformed t r a d i t i o n , or o b je c tio n s t o P u rita n

th e o lo g y . The main aim throughout w ill be to expound Owen's theology of

EV

grace and to show t h a t i t gives a c o n s i s t e n t and e x q u i s i t e l y balanced view

o f th e r o l e s o f God and man in th e realm o f grace.

I w ill co n sid e r my goals achieved under th e se c o n d itio n s : i f I

PR

e s t a b l i s h Owen's theolo gy o f grace and th e s e l f - c o n s is te n c y of i t s lo g ic ;

i f I show i t , in i t s main p o in t s , to be in agreement with th e stream o f

P u rita n th o u g h t; i f I dem onstrate t h i s theolo gy to be w ithin th e p rin c ip a l

stream of th e h i s t o r i c a l Reformed theology of grace; and i f I show i t to

well accord w ith th e B ib lic a l id e al of f r e e and sovereign grace , having a

w ell-b alan ced view o f th e r o l e s o f God and man in s a l v a t i o n , c o n tra r y to

th e charges o f some c r i t i c s .

To achieve an understanding of th e c o n s is te n c y of P u rita n th eolog y,

we must deal n o t only with th e s u p e r f i c i a l o b je c tio n s of c r i t i c s , but also

with th e deeper problems encountered in a l l C h ris tia n theology when we seek

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 to ex p la in th e c o n s is te n c y of sov ereig n grace and f r e e , r a t i o n a l men. I

hope t h a t in th e pages of t h i s stu d y , th e r e a d e r w ill fin d not only an

ex p lan atio n of Owen's th eolog y of g ra c e , b ut a ls o some p r a c t i c a l P u rita n

i n s i g h t which might r e l a t e to h is own s p i r i t u a l q u e s tio n s .

Indeed, i t w ill help in un derstanding th e succeeding e x p o s itio n i f

one keeps in mind th e s o r t s o f p r a c t i c a l q u e s tio n s th e P u r ita n s would be

attem p tin g to address in a th e o lo g y o f g ra c e . These might be div id ed in to

t h r e e types o f q u e s tio n s .

F i r s t , how do we come to know o f God's gracious i n t e n ti o n toward

us? How are we t o have a knowledge o f th e incomprehensible and i n f i n i t e

W
God? E s p e c i a ll y , how can we have an assurance concerning our s t a t e b efore

God i f he i s so f a r above us?

IE
Second, t h e r e i s a concern f o r th e n a tu re of God's g racious w i l l .

Every C h r is tia n must fa c e th e problem o f obedience in th e face of God's a l l

EV

powerful and determined w i l l . Does sovereign cau satio n lead t o f a t a l i s m or

lib ertin ism ? I f th e Gospel o f f e r i s f r e e , why are f u r t h e r works r e q ir e d o f

us a f t e r s a lv a t io n ? Can we r e s i s t h is w i l l , and, i f n o t, then how are we

PR

free? How i s God's w ill s e c r e t , how rev e a le d ? Has he more than one? Can

he change i t , o r are a l l our a c tio n s im material to God's w ill and,

t h e r e f o r e , hopeless? Can we obey s i n c e r e l y y e t not f u l f i l l h is s e c r e t

w ill? Can we s t r a y out o f th e p e r f e c t w ill o f God f o r us?

T h ird , th e P u r ita n s were very concerned with th e im p lic a tio n s of

s o v e re ig n , f r e e grace f o r th e C h r is ti a n l i f e . Does God s a n c t i f y us

s o v e re ig n ly , or must we a ls o do something? I f we must a c t in

s a n c t i f i c a t i o n , then how i s i t t h a t God i s not dependent on us? Are we

ob lig ed to f i n i s h our s a n c t i f i c a t i o n by l i v i n g out a p assiv e a b i l i t y t h a t

God has d e p o sited in us? Does he w ait f o r us to do our b e s t in obedience

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 and then does hr f i l l up what *•«? lack -for th e sake of C h ris t? If

s a n c t i f i c a t i o n i s coo peration between us and God, so t h a t we give our b e s t

and God* gives h is b e s t , then how can we say C h ris t i s s u f f i c i e n t ? I f we

a re made holy by C h r is t, why do we y e t sin ? What p la ce does in d w ellin g sin

have in our p o s iti o n b efo re God? I s repentance an other n ece ssary work we

need to f i n i s h th e work o f grace? Can we r e s i s t s in by th e power o f our

r e g e n e ra te n a tu re , and, i f n o t, then how i s s in charged to us? Indeed, i f

we a re j u s t i f i e d , what need have we t o deal w ith indw ellin g s in a t a l l ?

Will our s a lv a t io n f a i l i f we do not f i g h t ind w elling sin ? How hard must

we r e s i s t s in f o r our r e s i s t a n c e to be counted as rig h te o u s n e s s and n ot

la x ity ? Does God punish th e re g e n e ra te f o r

s a lv a t io n ?
I EW t h e i r s i n s , and, i f so , what is

th e purpo se, i f C h r is t bears a l l th e punishment nece ssary f o r our

2. Technical M atters
EV

We can see t h a t a host of q u e s tio n s a r i s e s about sov ereign g race in

th e l i f e o f th e b e l i e v e r . The English P u r ita n s dedicated them selves to

answering j u s t th e s e s o r t s of q u e s tio n s and t o doing i t th o ro u g h ly . They

PR

were a s e lf - c o n s c io u s community o f C h r is ti a n s in a s o c ie t y t h a t was l a r g e l y

h o s t i l e , y e t t h e i r primary th e o lo g ic a l occupation was not apology but th e

p u r s u i t o f h o li n e s s , a p u r s u i t t h a t extended in to every remote co rn er o f

l i f e and th o u g h t to claim i t f o r C h r is t and t o b ring i t under h is r u l e .

This stu d y , th e n , i s n ot merely e x p o s itio n but attem pts t o b rin g from th e

sto re h o u se o f th e P u r ita n s an und erstand ing t h a t w ill be useful in th e

r e a d e r 's C h r is tia n l i f e . I t i s h i s t o r i c a l theo lo g y , b ring ing to th e hand

o f l i v i n g re a d e rs th e e d ify in g in s i g h t s of t h e i r fo re b e a rs in th e f a i t h .

We cannot escape th e iro n y of so many, many books w r itte n about th e

P u r ita n s which pursue a h o st of f a c t s w ithout showing th e use or meaning of

x ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 th e s e f a c t s . T h e re fo re , I hope to convey, along with inform ation about th e

P u r ita n s , th e fo un dation and meaning behind everything s a id and done by th e

P u r ita n s , t h a t i s , th e Gospel.

Along w ith t h i s c a l l to u s e fu ln e s s , I t r y to uphold th e P u rita n s '

mandate o f s t y l e (in some m easure), and I fo r b e a r , when I can, from th e use

of high d i c t i o n , ta k in g th e advice of Owen to h e a r t: "Theology i t s e l f . . .

i s t r e a t e d in to o perplexed and i n t r i c a t e a manner to be of any r e a l and

general s e r v i c e ." ^

As t o my choice o f John Owen to r e p re s e n t th e b e st and most

complete spokesman f o r a P u rita n th eology of grace, th e re a d e r f a m i l i a r

W
w ith th e r e s p e c t accorded t o Owen by Reformed th e o lo g ian s throughout th e

c e n t u r ie s w ill r e q u ir e o f me l i t t l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Indeed, William Goold,

IE
Owen's b e s t e d i t o r , i n s i s t s , " I t would be presumption to e n te r upon any
2
commendation o f John Owen as an auth or and d iv in e ." I do wish to avoid
EV

presum ption, b u t t o f i l l up any o th e r q u e s tio n s , I o f f e r th e s e two comments

by o b se rv e rs o f Owen. F i r s t , Alexander M itchell in th e l a s t cen tu ry noted

3
t h a t Owen possessed "a genius and le a rn in g only second to C a l v in 's ."
PR

Second, a Quaker who was a p a r t i c u l a r enemy o f Owen's w r ite s in 1660 to th e

man h im se lf something he meant as no compliment, but which I ta k e as b e t t e r

than s ta c k s o f o th e r evidence: "I can sc a rc e v i s i t a Tavern, or Country

4
A le-house, bu t f o r t h comes some o f th e Learned Works of John Owen."

^10:492. All r e f e r e n c e s t o Owen's works are according to the

e d i t i o n done by William Goold, 1850-53. The pagination of volume s ix te e n
is given according to th e changes in th e Banner of Truth T ru st r e p r i n t .

% :v ii.
3
Alexander M itc h e ll, e d . , Minutes o f th e Sessions of th e
W estminster Assembly (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1874), p. xx.

^ P e te r Toon, e d . , The Correspondence of John Owen (1616-1683)

(Cambridge and London: James C larke, 1970), p. 117.

x iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I quote Owen so o fte n t h a t I ta k e th e l i b e r t y of o ften om ittin g h is

name before or in th e q u o ta tio n . The re a d e r w ill assume t h a t any

u n id e n tif i e d q u o ta tio n i s from Owen s in c e he i s th e s u b je c t of t h i s study,

and i s advised t o glance to th e n o tes i f confusion a r i s e s . I f th e re a d e r

wishes to g et a b e t t e r id e a of th e c o n te x t o f a q u o ta tio n from Owen, he may

note th e volume and page number c i t e d and r e f e r to th e Appendix t o lo c a te

th e t i t l e of th e work in which any p a r t i c u l a r q u o ta tio n appears.

When quoting from th e William Goold e d i t i o n o f Owen, I have t r i e d

t o modernize th e use o f i t a l i c type according t o th e moderation o f p re s e n t

sty le . The use of i t a l i c s had dropped out o f many e d i t i o n s o f Owen, and

W
Goold chose c e r t a i n o f Owen's works in which t o r e s t o r e , according to his
5
own t a s t e , some o f t h i s ty p e found in th e o ld e r e d i t i o n s . Since th e
IE
i t a l i c type in th e s e o ld e r e d i tio n s was o fte n used by th e p r i n t e r to

c l a r i f y s t y l e and lo g i c , we are doubly removed from th e p o s s i b i l i t y i t

EV

r e f l e c t s Owen's o r ig i n a l s t y l e . * T h e re fo re , I have chosen to s im p lif y the

usage so as n o t t o d i s t r a c t th e r e a d e r . I never add i t a l i c s w ith o u t note

but only d e l e t e i t where t h i s adds c l a r i t y .

PR

I a ls o quote f r e q u e n t ly from a number of o th e r P u rita n w r i t e r s whom

I judge to be sym pathetic with Owen on th e t o p i c a t hand. The actu al

h i s t o r y o f th e P u rita n th e o lo g ia n s shows many of them to be c lo s e personal

acq u a in ta n c e s, and among th e g r e a t m a jo r ity o f them, we f in d a s in c e r e

r e s p e c t and warm reg ard f o r t h e i r p re d e c e sso rs and co ntem poraries. What

d if f e r e n c e s we f in d are m ostly in e c c le s io l o g y , c r e a tin g g r e a t debates t h a t

were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y held on re a s o n a b ly good term s. I feel free,

t h e r e f o r e , to f i l l out th e meaning and in t e n ti o n of Owen's theo lo gy by

q u o ta tio n s from o th e r eminent th e o lo g ia n s who are g e n e r a lly recognized as

5, .
l:x iv .

xiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 sh arin g th e same system of b e l i e f s in th e Augustinian and Reformed

tra d itio n s.

Since I am attem p tin g to dem onstrate t h a t Owen does accord with th e

main stream of P uritanism and Reformed the o lo g y , t h i s approach to c i t a t i o n s

might be considered a p la in case o f p e t i t i o p r i n c i p i i . I proceed,

however, only as a l l dem onstration in r e a l l i f e must proceed, t h a t i s , in a

back and f o r t h comparison, g r a d u a lly b u ild in g a conclusion o f s i m i l a r i t y in

s p i r a l i n g fa s h io n . Where connections a t f i r s t appear to be h i s t o r i c a l long

s h o ts , th e y should, as th e lo g ic o f th e whole system o f Owen's theo log y of

grace emerges, be re v e a le d to be in c lo s e harmony. I do not b u ild my case

W
f o r s i m i l a r i t y on i d e n t i c a l q u o ta tio n s drawn from Owen and o th e r w r i t e r s ,

b u t on th e a b i l i t y o f th e id e as o f o th e r w r i t e r s to i n t e r lo c k w ith,
IE
e l u c i d a t e , and f i l l o u t th e id e as o f Owen. Owen's theolo gy o f grace i s th e

o b je c t of t h i s stu d y , but t h a t theo log y i s only understood in th e co ntext

EV

of o th e r t h e o lo g ie s . Concerning each q u o ta tio n o f o th e r P u r ita n s , th e

re a d e r should ask h im se lf, "Does t h i s r e a l l y complement th e lo g ic o f Owen?"

I f my s y stem a tic e x p o s itio n o f Owen's theology meshes e a s i l y and n a t u r a l l y

PR

with my c i t a t i o n s from th o s e w r i t e r s I a s s e r t as a l l i e s , and i f i t

c o n t r a d i c t s , n ot word f o r word, but in i t s e s s e n t i a l lo g i c , th e charges of

th o s e I la b el c r i t i c s , then I w ill f e e l t h a t I have la i d out a reaso nab le

case f o r my t h e s i s .

L i te r a r y comparisons t h a t proceed on a b a s is o f quote a g a in s t quote

are e a s i l y m anipulate t o give an im pression o f d e f i n i t i v e r e s u l t s .

Countless volumes of polemical th e o lo g y have proceeded on t h i s b a s i s . The

p r a c t i c e i s useful sometimes in d e a lin g w ith very s p e c i f i c is s u e s but is

e a s i l y tw is te d when l a r g e r themes and systems are co n sid ere d . We are

reminded o f ■'■he p o le m ic is t a g a in s t th e J e s u i t s who confessed t h a t he was

xv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 c o n t in u a ll y tro u b le d by th e thought t h a t , no m atter what d e f i n i t e

statem en ts he made w hile a l i v e , a f t e r h is d eath , th e J e s u i t s would prove

him t o be a s e c r e t s u p p o rte r.

The more e f f e c t i v e way to approach l a r g e r is s u e s i s th e way

follow ed in t h i s stu d y : t h a t o f developing a c o n s is te n t lo g ic a l model t h a t

makes sense out of a broad s e l e c t i o n o f eviden ce. I f we were to co n sid e r

only what Owen says about th e n a tu re o f g race , we could group h is words

in to any number of c o n f l i c t i n g c a t e g o r i e s . I f we can f in d why Owen says

what he does, i f we can f in d one lo g i c a l model t h a t e x p la in s a l l th e s e

d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s and concerns o f Owen, then we are onto something more

W
u s e f u l , more r e a d i l y in c o rp o ra te d i n t o our own und erstan d in g s, in to our own

l o g i c a l l y im pelled models o f r e a l i t y , than a s e t o f d i s j u n c t i v e a s s e r t i o n s .

IE
As an e x ten sio n o f t h i s s y ste m a tic approach (which i s nothing new,

but recommends i t s e l f t o th e purpose a t hand), I use r e f e r e n c e s to o th e r

EV

w r i t e r s , both th o s e f o r and a g a i n s t , as anchors to th e o v e ra ll c o n te x t of

C h r is tia n theo logy and th e ongoing arguments w ithin i t . I do not seek in

th e s e re f e r e n c e s to p la c e Owen in th e co n te x t of th e ev o lu tio n o f theolog y,

PR

f o r C h r is tia n theolog y does not evolve in th e sense o f moving to a higher

knowledge t h a t d is p la c e s previous knowledge or modes of knowledge.

C h ris tia n theo lo gy i s based on th e con stancy o f th e wisdom and knowledge

tr e a s u r e d up in C h r i s t . This t r e a s u r e i s never denied to any in C h r is t,

and i t was f i l l e d up with th e completion o f th e work of C h r i s t . In

C h r is tia n th e o lo g y , we may speak o f * r e f in e d a r t i c u l a t i o n of v arious p a r ts

of th e o lo g y , or of a new emphasis on an a re a of theo lo gy, or of an o rganic

p ro g re s s io n making more c l e a r th e essence o f an a r e a . This i s not

displacem ent by a new, though r e l a t e d , development; i t is not a new

s y n th e s is of two previous id e a s . I t i s an organic a r t i c u l a t i o n and

xv i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 e x p o s itio n o f God's f i n a l r e v e l a t i o n in C h r i s t . Thus, I hope to show t h a t

th e lo g ic o f Owen's th e o lo g y o f grace works in th e same ways as t h a t of

o th e r th e o lo g ia n s who have w r itt e n in th e same a re a .

Because I p r i n c i p a l l y attem pt to b u ild a p o s i t i v e model, th e re a d e r

w ill n o t f in d much c r i t i c i s m inv olv ed . N e ith e r w ill I dwell on th e

d if f e r e n c e s between Owen, h is fe llo w P u r ita n s , and o th e r Reformed

th e o lo g ia n s because th e y are m ostly beyond th e goals of t h i s stu d y . In

Owen, I search f o r t h a t r u l i n g and b a s ic lo g ic of a theology o f grace which

j o i n s th e P u r ita n s and o th e r Reformed th e o lo g ia n s , a lo g ic r e f l e c t i n g th e

B ib lic a l d e s c r ip t io n o f God's f r e e and sov ereign working with h is c r e a tu r e s

W
in g ra c e . I f I f a i l t o b u ild a model o f Owen's th e o lo g y t h a t has th e

proposed v i r t u e s , then I w ill f a i l in my defense o f Owen and P u rita n

IE
theo lo gy in g e n e r a l. The r e a d e r w ill have a te d io u s co m pilation of

u n r e la te d q u o ta tio n s and no b e t t e r und erstanding o f how to approach t h a t

EV

long l i s t o f q u e s tio n s proposed above. I b e l ie v e , however, t h a t th e re a d e r

w ill a t th e l e a s t fin d a sy stem a tic e x p o s itio n which, even i f he r e j e c t s

i t , w ill encourage him to expand h is own a n a ly s is of P u rita n theo lo g y ,

PR

giving i t a due p la c e of r e s p e c t in C h r is tia n the o lo g y .

I recommend th e r e a d e r approach t h i s stu dy with two th in g s in mind

i f he i s t o p r o f i t from i t . F i r s t , he does well t o approach i t with a

general knowledge of Reformed th e o lo g y and w ith a t l e a s t a passin g

knowledge o f s e v e ra l o f Owen's most im portant works. References to Owen

are meant m ostly t o b rin g t o mind th e co n te x t o f th e work in which they

o ccu r. I hope to re a rra n g e th o s e o b s e rv a tio n s a lre a d y in th e r e a d e r 's mind

in to a la r g e r and more c o h ere n t system. With a corpus of works th e s i z e of

Owen's, i t i s im p ossible to p rovide enough q u o ta tio n s to form th e b u ild in g

blocks of t h i s system unless th e re a d e r has had a previous t a s t e of Owen.

xv ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Second, th e r e a d e r must have a c e r t a i n co n fessio n al sympathy. Even i f he

d is a g r e e s with or d i s l i k e s P u rita n th e o lo g y , he must be w ill in g to

und erstand why Owen says what he does and why he saw h is own b e l i e f s as not

only s e l f - c o n s i s t e n t , but as a c c u ra te C h r is tia n theo logy . These two th in g s

w ill make t h i s e x p o s itio n of Owen more understandable and l i v e l y .

Within t h i s s tu d y of a h i s t o r i c a l theolog y, th e r e appears very

l i t t l e h i s t o r i c a l c o n te x t. Though I considered inclu ding a h i s t o r i c a l

development o f th e v ario u s f a c e t s o f Owen's lo g ic of g ra c e , th e work proved

o f im p o ssib le p ro p o rtio n s and was n o t, a f t e r a l l , n ece ssary to th e t h e s i s .

I am t r y i n g t o b u ild a simple e x p o s ito r y and e x e g e tic a l model o f Owen's

W
th e o lo g y o f grace to oppose a n o th er cornnon i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The h i s t o r i c a l

development and co n te x t o f t h i s th e o lo g y would make my development more

IE
p a l a t a b l e , b ut f o r th e sake o f s i m p l i c i t y , I have chosen t o examine Owen's

work as a f i n i s h e d product with o nly an occasional nod in th e d i r e c t i o n of

EV

h isto ry . Since t h e r e e x i s t s an e n d le s s supply of works d ea lin g with th e

E nglish P u r ita n s in t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n , I do not f e e l o b lig a te d in

th i s area.
PR

For th e purpose o f t h i s stu d y , I w ill r e l y la r g e ly on th e r e a d e r 's

g en eral knowledge of th e h i s t o r i c a l c o n te x t of English P u rita n theo lo gy.

John Owen was a t th e h e ig h t of h is powers during th e P u rita n r e v o lu tio n and

f o r two decades a fte rw a rd . He would have been f a m i l i a r w ith P erkins and

Ames b u t n o t Thomas Boston. The sense o f my ex p o sitio n and a n c i l l a r y

q u o ta tio n s w ill flow more smoothly i f th e read e r has in mind such

rela tio n sh ip s. As an a i d , th e re a d e r w ill f in d th e d a te s of th e p r in c ip a l

P u r ita n th e o lo g ia n s l i s t e d in t h e i r b ib lio g r a p h ic a l e n t r i e s . As f o r John

Owen's knowledge o f h is p re d e c e s s o r s , th e re a d e r should keep in mind t h a t

he i s a n e a r l y bottom less sp rin g o f both c l a s s i c a l and p a t r i s t i c le a rn in g

xvi i i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.