An Analysis of John Owen’s View of Prayer in His The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (1682)

John Owen considered prayer the heart of all religion: “All men will readily acknowledge that as without it [prayer] there can be no religion at all, so the life and exercise of all religion doth principally consist therein.”[1] Indeed, for Owen, prayer was an indispensable element of religion, as he again said: “without it there neither is nor can be the exercise of any religion in the world.”[2] It is then without surprise that Owen wrote on the subject of prayer, as he regarded it as extremely vital to religion. One significant treatise he penned about prayer is his The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer.[3] 

From this treatise, it can be observed that Owen typically thought and wrote inseparably as a pneumatologist, polemicist, Puritan Renaissance, and pastor.[4] Thus, it is important to study his view of prayer in these four contexts: (1) pneumatological; (2) polemical; (3) Puritan Renaissance; and (4) pastoral.  

       

Pneumatological Context

Owen did not really write a book on prayer per se. His Communion with God (1657),[5] which is often thought to be a work on prayer, is not really about prayer; it is rather a treatise on the Trinity. Timothy George states: Communion with God is Owen’s “classic study of Trinitarian spirituality.”[6] Moreover, Owen’s The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, while it deals with the subject of prayer, is not primarily a discourse on prayer, but on the Holy Spirit. William H. Goold, in his Prefatory Note to Owen’s treatise, points out: 

The treatise itself unfolds the evidence and nature of the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit in prayer, and would be esteemed meager and incomplete if it were regarded as a treatise on the whole subject of prayer. To understand its precise scope, it must be considered simply as another book in the general work of our author on the dispensation and operations of the Holy Spirit. Even the subsidiary discussions, on the mental prayer of the church of Rome, and the use of devotional formulas, are evidently connected with the peculiar and distinctive object of the treatise,—as designed to illustrate the operations of the Spirit in the devotional exercise of believers.[7]        

From Owen’s Preface to the Reader itself, it is clear that his purpose principally pertains to the subject of the Holy Spirit:

This is the design of the ensuing discourse. There is in the Scripture a promise of the Holy Ghost to be given unto the church as “a Spirit of grace and of supplications.” As such, also, there are particular operations ascribed unto him. Mention is likewise frequently made of the aids and assistances which he affords unto believers in and unto prayers. Hence they are said to “pray always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit.”[8]

Here it is noticeable that prayer is a secondary concern of Owen in his book. As he further explains: “The inquiries before us are concerning the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in the aids and assistances which he gives unto believers in and unto their prayers, according unto the mind of God.”[9] Again in the beginning of the body of his treatise, he says: “…my purpose is not to treat of the nature, necessity, properties, uses, effects, and advantages, of this gracious duty [i.e. prayer]….The interest of the Holy Spirit of God by his gracious operations in it is that alone which I shall inquire into.”[10]

Therefore to read Owen’s treatise and to understand his thoughts on prayer in a pneumatological context is essential. To do otherwise is to interpret Owen out of context which is a mistake. Goold is right to assert that this disquisition is part of Owen’s general work on pneumatology.[11] Sinclair Ferguson puts it this way: 

Owen gave the theme of prayer extended treatment in only one place, in the context of his work on the Holy Spirit. It is therefore concerned particularly with the work of the Spirit in prayer, and is characterized by the vigour and strength of the doctrine of prayer elucidated in the reformed tradition of the previous century.”[12]

Nevertheless, this treatise is what may be regarded as Owen’s most inclusive published work in regard to prayer.

Owen as a primary pneumatologist

Owen wrote on prayer as a primary pneumatologist. His concept of prayer is framed by his pneumatology. This should not, however, startle his readers, because Owen was a Puritan pneumatologist.[13] In fact, he is regarded as “a pioneer in the doctrine of the Spirit.”[14] Goold states: “It has sometimes been questioned if Owen, with all his excellencies and gifts, has any claim to be regarded as an original thinker [i.e. of the doctrine of the Spirit]. This treatise[15] of itself substantiates such a claim in his behalf.”[16] Owen himself seems to have claimed this title for himself: “I know not any who ever went before me in this design of representing the whole economy of the Holy Spirit, with all his adjuncts, operations, and effects….” [17] Geoffrey Nuttall gives an interesting annotation to this statement:   

When John Owen…declares, ‘I know not of any who ever went before me in this Design of representing the whole economy of the Holy Spirit’, he is neither ignorant of, nor antagonistic to, the work of the early Fathers… Neither Owen nor his any of his fellow authors is concerned to deny or to controvert the classic expositions of the doctrine. Their concern is rather to draw out its implications for faith and practice. What is new, and what justifies Owen in his claim to be among the pioneers, is the place given in Puritan exposition to experience, and its acceptance as a primary authority, in the way indicated in the passage just quoted. The interest is primarily not dogmatic, at least not in any theoretic sense, it is experimental. There is theology, but, in a way which has hardly been known since St. Augustine, it is a theologia pectoris.[18]  

Owen as a practical pneumatologist

From Nuttall’s assertion, what is fascinating about Owen as a pneumatologist is that he was not only concerned with the theology of the Holy Spirit, but also with the application of that theology in other dimensions of doctrine and life. Ferguson observes that it was Owen’s passion to translate “knowledge into experience.”[19] Owen did not only answer the inquiries about the person of the Spirit, but about His works as well; thus, his treatise—The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. Indeed, Owen was a practical or experiential pneumatologist. This is how he differed from other pneumatologists who had gone before him. As Ferguson says:

He was well aware that a number of the Church Fathers of the first five centuries had written on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Owen was familiar with the work of such great early luminaries as Cyprian, Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom, as well as others). But their chief concern was the Spirit’s divine identity. While Owen lays emphasis on this, he is also concerned to expound how the Spirit works.[20] 

Don M. Everson also stresses a similar point, comparing Owen with the French Reformer, John Calvin. “Calvin had a doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” says Everson, “but it was ‘…a necessity of thought rather than something known in experience.’ In Owen’s thought, the work of the Spirit of God touched and colored almost all of the Christian revelation and the Christian life.”[21] One may disagree with Everson that Calvin’s pneumatology was ‘…a necessity of thought rather than something known in experience.’ Roy Walter Williams, for instance, states that “Calvin had a distinctive doctrine of the Holy Spirit which included both objective theories and subjective experience; sometimes he combined both, as he did in his concept of the self-authentication of the Scripture through the indwelling Spirit in the Christian.”[22] However, one cannot deny that this experiential pneumatology already found in Calvin (and in other Reformers), did not reach its maturity until the time of the Puritans, who brought it to its pinnacle. As Williams avouches: “experiential pneumatology” is a “unique contribution of the Puritans.”[23] It was the Reformers who recovered “an understanding and experience of the role of the Holy Spirit in the church and in the individual,”[24] but it was the Puritans who developed it. Williams further claims that “the economy of the Holy Spirit in prayer was a central concept for both Puritan doctrine of the Christian life and the worship of the church.”[25] This special emphasis on the Spirit’s work in prayer is conspicuous in the treatise of Owen in whose writings the so-called experiential pneumatology “finds its culmination.”[26]

Going back to the Calvin-Owen comparison, unlike Owen, Calvin particularly devoted pages to the subject of prayer in his Institutes.[27] Yet as far as pneumatological emphasis on prayer is concerned, Owen undoubtedly surpassed Calvin.[28] But why did Owen especially place pneumatological accent on prayer? Owen writes: “…it cannot be denied but that the work and actings of the Spirit of grace in and towards believers with respect unto the duty of prayer are more frequently and expressly asserted in the Scripture than his operations with respect unto any other particular grace or duty whatever.”[29] Owen saw that the Scripture itself gives special emphasis on the Spirit’s role in prayer. For Owen, the Spirit was indispensable because without Him no person can pray: “Without this [i.e. the Spirit’s work]…it will be granted that no man can pray as he ought.”[30]  This is Owen’s solus Spiritus in prayer.

Polemical Context

Owen did not only write as a pneumatologist on the subject of prayer; he also wrote as a polemicist. One reason why Owen was concerned with the study of the operation of the Holy Spirit in prayer is that he wanted to provide biblical teachings which would refute erroneous persuasions and practices of prayer that he found rooted in unbiblical pneumatology. He was therefore writing apologetically against those whose perception of prayer was pneumatologically unscriptural.  Carl Trueman, in light of all of Owen’s writings, groups Owen’s theological opponents into three broad categories: Papists, Arminians, and Socinians. He says: “Of these three, the Papists were the least important to Owen and took up proportionately less of his time.”[31] Ferguson, on the other hand, in the context of Owen’s entire discourse on the Spirit, sees three polemical targets: “[1] Ritualism that retains a form of godliness but has no experience of its power; [2] rationalism that is rooted in man rather than in revelation; [3] spiritualism that placed its stress on the immediacy of experiences rather than on the already given revelation in Scripture.”[32] However, in Owen’s The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, his most polemical object was the Papists or Roman Catholic Church.[33] 

Owen’s polemical opponent: the Papists

Owen’s treatise is a rebuttal toward the Roman Catholic Church, which substitutes the Scripture for traditions. Owen is particularly concerned with the issue of the use of forms of prayer found in Roman liturgical books—the Roman Breviary and the Missal.[34] Owen’s last two chapters[35] are especially intended for this issue. To Owen, the use of these “set or humanly-devised forms of prayer”[36] is by implication a rejection of the aids and assistances of the Holy Spirit in prayer. Owen argues that nowhere in the Scripture are Christians commanded to compose prayer for others; they are commanded to pray for others, but not to make prayers for them.[37] But Owen is not completely against the utility of forms of prayer. He explains: “Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.”[38] So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set or written prayers, he exceptionally sanctions the use of prayers found in the Scripture (such as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David) as forms.

Owen’s principles in prayer

Owen has two rules of judgment that he uses in his treatise to address his polemical target: “Scripture revelation and spiritual experience of them that do believe.”[39]But along with these two, he adds what he calls “some generally-allowed principles.”[40] These three rules will be briefly discussed below. 

Scripture revelation

Owen, like the Reformers, held the sola scriptura principle, which states that the sacred Scripture is the only source for faith and practice. Owen applied this principle to his theology of prayer—that prayer must be regulated by Scripture alone. In his Preface to the Reader, he said: “All other reasonings, from customs, traditions, and feigned consequences, are here of no use.”[41] Owen was talking about the Roman Catholic Church, which reasoned from her traditions to justify her matter and manner of prayer. He also mentioned, in the context of forms of prayer found in the Roman Missal, that “common people, at least of the communion of the papal church, do believe it [Mass book] to be as much of a divine original as the Scripture….”[42] Owen, on the other hand, with his sola scriptura principle, based his reasoning on his exposition of the Scripture: “Wherefore, the foundation of the whole ensuing discourse is laid in the consideration and exposition of some of those texts of Scripture wherein these things are expressly revealed and proposed unto us….”[43] Owen put the Scripture above traditions. Owen’s regulative principle in prayer is also obvious in his frequent mention of praying “according to the mind of God,”[44] by which he means praying according to the word of God, as opposed to the traditions of men. 

 

 Spiritual experience   

Owen’s second rule of judgment is the ‘spiritual experience of them that do believe,’ which he did not elaborate well. However, aware of the tendency to spiritualism, he asserted that this spiritual experience “is to be regulated by the former [i.e. Scripture revelation].”[45] He went on to say that once this spiritual experience is regulated by the Scripture, “it is a safe rule unto them in whom it is.”[46] But the addition of this spiritual experience does not mean that Owen contradicts himself in his sola scriptura principle, he merely tries to avoid the other tendency, which is ritualism that robs experiential emphasis and places excessive emphasis on rituals. For Owen, prayer must be both scriptural and experiential.           

At the end of his discussion concerning these two rules of judgment, Owen concludes: “The substance of what we plead from Scripture and experience is only this, That whereas God hath graciously promised his Holy Spirit, as a Spirit of grace and supplications, unto them that do believe, enabling them to pray according to his mind and will, in all the circumstances and capacities wherein they are, or which they may be called unto, it is the duty of them who are enlightened with the truth hereof to expect those promised aids and assistances in and unto their prayers, and to pray according to the ability which they receive thereby.”[47]

This statement confirms that Owen is not promoting spiritualism in prayer; rather, he seeks to pursue a balanced approach in prayer—scriptural yet experiential.   

Some generally-allowed principles       

Besides the two rules of judgment mentioned already, Owen appends what he describes as ‘some generally-allowed principles’ in prayer: “But moreover, as was before intimated, there are some generally-allowed principles, which, though not always duly considered, yet cannot at any time be modestly denied, that give direction towards the right performance of our duty herein.”[48] Then he enumerates eight principles.

a. It is the duty of every man to pray for himself.

b. It is the duty of some, by virtue of natural relation or of office, to pray with and for others also.

c. Every one who prayeth, either by himself and for himself, or with others and for them, is obliged, as unto all the uses, properties, and circumstances of prayer, to pray as well as he is able….

d. In our reasonable service, the best wherewith we can serve God consists in the intense, sincere actings of the faculties and affections of our minds, according unto their respective powers, through the use of the best assistances we can attain.

e. There is no man but, in the use of the aids which God hath prepared for that purpose, is able to pray according to the will of God, and as he is in duty obliged, whether he pray by himself and for himself, or with others and for them also.

f. We are expressly commanded to pray, but are nowhere commanded to make prayers for ourselves, much less for others.

g. There is assistance promised unto believers to enable them to pray according unto the will of God; there is no assistance promised to enable any to make prayers for others.

h. Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.[49]  

These eight principles are what can be regarded as Owen’s abstract for his treatise on prayer.  

Puritan Renaissance Context

Owen was beyond doubt a Puritan. He was in fact born in a place “noted for its Puritan and Reformed sympathies.”[50] He was a Reformed Puritan. But Owen can also be called a Puritan Renaissance man, as Sebastian Rehnman says: “The plurality of influences present in Owen’s thought firmly establishes him as a typical Renaissance man.”[51] This plurality of influences includes patristic and medieval sways. In Owen’s The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, this is especially true where Owen cited church Fathers (Didymus the Blind, Chrysostom, Origen, and Augustine)[52] and medieval authorities (Bernard of Clairvaux, John Damascene, and Venerable Bede)[53] to strengthen his Reformed perspective on prayer. Interestingly, Owen did not refer to the Protestant Reformed writers in his treatise. One reason for this may be “the habit of seventeenth century authors of refraining from referring to contemporary authors because those of great antiquity were more fashionable.”[54]

Owen also quoted pagan authors (Livy, Virgil, and Cato the Elder)[55] for the same purpose—to fortify his theological argument in his discourse. The quoting of these pagan writers shows something about Owen’s character—that he would not hesitate to use pagan classical writings in support of his Reformed position.[56] Owen also dialogued with Plotinus[57] (a pagan philosopher, who had been influential to some of the church Fathers) and Cressey[58] (a seventeenth century writer and supporter of the pope). This proves Owen to be well-versed in both classical and contemporary writings of his day. His treatise is a masterpiece that reflects his scholarship as a Puritan Renaissance.     
           

Pastoral Context

Owen’s pastoral heart can be seen in his words when after surveying his polemical opponents, he says: “That which should principally guide us in the management of this inquiry is, that it be done unto spiritual advantage and edification, without strife or contention.”[59] So while writing as a theologian and apologist, Owen was very pastoral in his heart. He did not write to merely investigate the truth and refute errors, but to also promote spiritual growth. Ferguson testifies of this: “My own reading of Owen has convinced me that everything he wrote for his contemporaries had a practical and pastoral aim in view—the promotion of true Christian living.”[60]

Owen’s pastoral concern is also evident by the way he practically applies his teachings to church people. For instance, after he has given his point that “It is the duty of some, by virtue of natural relation or of office, to pray with and for others also,”[61] he addresses the parents: “So is it the duty of parents and masters of families to pray with and for their children and households.” He also addresses his fellow pastors, saying: “In the like manner it is the duty of ministers to pray with and for their flocks, by virtue of special institution.”[62] This is noteworthy because Owen’s book is theologically apologetic in nature. But as John Piper says: “He [Owen] was always essentially a pastor….All of his writing was done in the press of pastoral duties.”[63]

Hence, Owen as a pneumatologist probes the truth; as a polemicist protects the truth; as a Puritan Renaissance reinforces the truth with patristic, medieval, and even pagan sources; and as a pastor practices the truth.  

Owen’s practical thoughts on prayer

Despite all his heavy theological baggage in mind, Owen defines prayer in a very practical way: “a gift, ability, or spiritual faculty of exercising faith, love, reverence, fear, delight, and other graces, in a way of vocal requests, supplication, and praises unto God.”[64] Prayer is “the most natural and most eminent way and means of our converse with God….”[65] It is “the vital breath of our spiritual life unto God.”[66] It is a gracious duty of those who believe in God, as Owen says: “To own a Divine Being is to own that which is to be prayed for unto, and that it is our duty so to do.”[67] Prayer is an acknowledgment of the presence of God. Therefore, to neglect to pray is “a sufficient evidence of practical atheism (for he that prayeth not says in his heart, ‘There is no God’).”[68]  

Owen’s piety in prayer

One thing that deserves attention in Owen’s treatise is his emphasis on piety in connection to prayer. He calls prayer a “holy practice.”[69] Prayer, for Owen, is a “holy intercourse with God,” which includes a “holy delight in God.”[70] On one occasion, he said that to deny the peculiar aids and assistance of the Holy Spirit in prayer is “to overthrow the foundation of the holiness and comfort of all believers….”[71] Thus, to Owen, biblical prayer is foundational to Christian holiness. Owen explains to his readers that the Holy Spirit helps them to pray, “that the issue of their supplication may be the improvement of holiness in them, and thereby their conformity unto God, with their nearer access unto him.”[72] In short, prayer must be for the improvement of our piety. It must make us more and more godly. If this is not the case, says Owen, our prayer is “an abomination” to the Lord,[73] because our practice of prayer must produce progress in our personal piety. Indeed, this is Owen’s goal in life—personal piety! Piper says: “From his writings and from the testimony of others it seems fair to say that the aim of personal holiness in all of life, and the mortifying of all known sin, really was the labor not only of his teaching but of his personal life.”[74] 

It is not then an exaggeration when David Clarkson, during the funeral service of Owen, gave this address: “I need not to tell you of this who knew him, that it was his great Design to promote Holiness in the Life and Exercise of it among you….”[75]

Conclusion

Owen’s view of prayer can be best seen in The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. Though this book was written primarily as a treatise on the Spirit, it is here that Owen reveals his thoughts on prayer explicitly and extensively. One also finds here Owen writing on prayer simultaneously as a pneumatologist, polemist, Puritan Renaissance, and pastor. As a pneumatologist, he probes the theology of prayer pneumatologically; as a polemicist, he protects the biblical doctrine of prayer from his theological opponents; as a Puritan Renaissance, he props up his position with the use of patristic, medieval, and even pagan sources; and as a pastor, he puts this doctrine of prayer experientially into practical application.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis

        Battles. 2 vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2001.   

Everson, Don Marvin. “The Puritan Theology of John Owen” Th. D. diss., Southern

        Baptist Theological Seminary, 1959.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth

        Trust, 1987.

John Owen—the man and his theology. Edited by Robert W. Oliver. Phillipsburg, NJ: P

        & R Publishing Company, 2002.  

Nuttall, Geoffrey F. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. Chicago:

         University of Chicago Press, 1992. 

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 2. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The

        Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.

________. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 3. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The

        Banner of Truth Trust, 1966.

________. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 4. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The

        Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.

________. Communion With The Triune God. Edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin

        Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.

_________, and Sinclair B. Ferguson. The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. Fearn,

         Ross-shire Christian Heritage, 2004.

Piper, John. Contending for Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives

         of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen. Wheaton, IL:  Crossway

         Books, 2006. 

Reformation and Scholasticism. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker. Grand

        Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.

Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Cumbria,

        U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1998.   

________. John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Burlington, VT: Ashgate

        Publishing Company, 2007.

Williams, Roy Walter. “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer” Ph.D. diss.,

        University of London, 1982.

---

      [1] John Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” in The Works of John Owen, vol. 4, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 237.

      [2] Ibid., 251.

      [3] This discourse was first published in 1682, and its original edition is still in the public domain. It is Owen’s seventh treatise on his whole work on pneumatology in the edition of William H. Goold, volumes 3 & 4, first published by Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-53, then reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in 1967. 

      [4] Owen’s style in writing can be generally categorized into four: (1) exegesis; (2) systematic theology; (3) polemics; and (4) practical application. He would first exegete the text, then draw theology out of his exegesis, and once the doctrine had been drawn, he deduced some practical applications, and oftentimes dialogued polemically with others who had different views of the doctrine he was studying. Hence, he wrote as an exegete, systematic theologian, polemicist, and pastor. This style is also seen in other Puritans.  

      [5] John Owen, “Communion with God,” in The Works of John Owen, vol. 2, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 1-274. This treatise has been revised and edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor to make it accessible to modern readers. See John Owen, Communion With The Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007).      

      [6]Timothy George, Blurb in John Owen, Communion With The Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 8.      

      [7] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 236.

      [8] Ibid., 237. See also Ibid., 254.

      [9] Ibid., 238.

     [10] Ibid., 252.

     [11] Ibid., 236. For Owen’s other writings on pneumatology see his Works, vols. 3 & 4.      

     [12] Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 224.

     [13] For an in-depth study of Owen’s pneumatology, see Dale A. Stover, “The Pneumatology of John Owen: A Study of the Role of the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Shape of a Theology” (Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 1967). 

     [14] Don Marvin Everson, “The Puritan Theology of John Owen” (Th. D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1959), 12.

     [15] Goold is referring to Owen’s The Reason of Faith (1677), which is Owen’s sixth book in his entire work on pneumatology. 

     [16] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 4.

     [17] Owen, Works, III: 7.

     [18] Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 7.

     [19] John Owen and Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Heritage, 2004), 24.  

     [20] Ibid., 23. 

     [21] Everson, “The Puritan Theology of John Owen,” 12.

     [22] Roy Walter Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer” (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1982), 84.

      [23] Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer,” 81. 

      [24] Sinclair Ferguson, “John Owen and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in John Owen—the man and his theology, ed. Robert W. Oliver (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing Company, 2002), 103.  

      [25] Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer,” 94.

      [26] Ibid., 86. 

      [27] See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2001), II: 850-920.  

      [28] Calvin has a section called ‘The Holy Spirit aids right prayer’ in his treatise on prayer in the Institutes. But it only covers about one page of his 70-page treatise on prayer. See Ibid., 853-4.

      [29] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 253.

      [30] Ibid., 271. See also Ibid., 259 & 312.  

     [31] Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, UK.: Paternoster, 1998), 19.

     [32] Owen and Ferguson, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 23. 

     [33] Owen’s minor polemic objects include: the Jews (243); the orthodox and the Arians (243); and the Pelagians (249, 279).     

     [34] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 238, 241. 

     [35] Ibid., 328-50. 

     [36] Ibid., 248.

     [37] Ibid., 240.

     [38] Ibid., (italics his).

     [39] Ibid., 238. 

     [40] Ibid.

     [41] Ibid.

     [42] Ibid, 241.

     [43] Ibid, 238.

     [44] Ibid.

     [45] Ibid.

     [46] Ibid.

     [47] Ibid., 239 (italics his). 

     [48] Ibid.

     [49] Ibid, 239-40.

     [50] Sebastian Rehnman, “John Owen: A Reformed Scholastic at Oxford,” in Reformation and Scholasticism, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 181. 

     [51] Ibid., 186.

     [52] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 255, 268, 285, 330. 

     [53] Ibid., 281, 286, 330. 

     [54] Rehnman, “John Owen: A Reformed Scholastic at Oxford,” 185.

     [55] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 257, 258.

     [56] Carl Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007), 15. 

     [57] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 329.

     [58] Ibid., 247, 328.

     [59] Ibid., 238. 

     [60] Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, xi.

     [61] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 239.

     [62] Ibid. See also Ibid., 313.

     [63] John Piper, Contending for Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen (Wheaton, IL:  Crossway Books, 2006), 89.

     [64] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 271. 

     [65] Ibid, 252.

     [66] Ibid.

     [67] Ibid, 239.

     [68] Ibid.

     [69] Ibid.

     [70] Ibid., 291.

     [71] Ibid, 248.

     [72] Ibid., 286. Italics his.

     [73] Ibid.

     [74] Piper, Contending for Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen, 99.

     [75] Cited in Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, xiii. 

AN ANALYSIS OF JOHN OWEN’S VIEW OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

I. INTRODUCTION

In this paper, I will seek to examine John Owen’s thought on the Mosaic covenant, which is generally understood as a bilateral covenant between God and Israel at the time when Moses was the human leader of the Israelites, thus termed the Mosaic covenant. Sometimes it is called Sinaitic covenant because this covenant was given at Mount Sinai. Owen however calls this covenant the old covenant in contrast to the new or better covenant of Hebrews 8.[1] This sometimes confuses readers because Owen also uses the same term to refer to the covenant of works.[2] In this treatise, however, while the terms Mosaic, Sinaitic, and old covenants are synonymous, I will employ the former.

In understanding Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant, readers should humbly realize the presence of predicament. In the first place, Owen’s writings themselves are complicated to read and grasp. This is especially true for those who study him without proper knowledge of the historical background in which he penned his volumes. These people often end up with a wrong conclusion about Owen’s view of the Mosaic covenant. Hence, specialists of Owen strongly suggest scrutinizing Owen according to his historical context.[3] Richard C. Barcellos, in his article—“John Owen and New Covenant Theology,” states:

It must also be recognized that some things he [Owen] said are difficult to understand. Some statements may even appear to contradict other statements if he is not followed carefully and understood in light of his comprehensive thought and the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic world in which he wrote.

If one reads some of the difficult sections of Owen’s writings, either without understanding his comprehensive thought and in light of the theological world in which he wrote, or in a superficial manner, some statements can easily be taken to mean things they do not. When this is done, the result is that authors are misunderstood and sometimes, subsequent theological movements are aligned with major historical figures without substantial and objective warrant.[4]  

Then Barcellos cites John Reisinger as an example of one who has misinterpreted Owen’s understanding of the old covenant (i.e. Mosaic covenant). Remember that Reisinger is an advocate of the new covenant theology, and he believes that Owen also held his same view. But Barcellos has tried to disprove it in his article. Indeed, many writers have misconstrued Owen’s covenant theology; mostly the misapprehension arises from the question whether Owen’s Mosaic covenant falls under the covenant of works or under the covenant of grace, and how Owen understands the Mosaic covenant in relation to the covenant of works and grace.   

II. BRIEF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PURITAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT

Before I present Owen’s thought concerning the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenants of works and grace, I will first take an historical look at various views about this issue. As we shall see later, Puritans were divided on this matter. Listen to Edmund Calamy (1600-1666), a Puritan divine and active member of the Westminster assembly, who wrote a book on the subject of covenants in which he dialogued with other Puritans:

There be severall opinions about the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of grace, to the great disturbance of many Christians; some hold that there be foure Covenants, two of Works, and two of Grace; the two first, one with Adam before the fall, and the other with Israel at their returne out of AEgypt, and the Covenants of Grace the first to Abraham, and the other at the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; this M. Sympson affirmed before a Committee of the Assembly of Divines in my hearing.     2. Others hold that there is but three Covenants; the first with Adam, the second with Israel at their going out of AEgypt, and a third with Jesus Christ, the two first of Workes, and the last of Grace, and this M. Burroughes delivered in his Exposition Sermon in Cornhill in my hearing.     3. Others hold that there is but two Covenants, the one of Works, and the other of Grace; yet the first they hold was made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and no Covenant of workes before that, and now it is vanished away, and the other a Covenant of grace yet not made till the death of Christ the testator, and this is affirmed by James Pope, in a Book entituled, the unveiling of Antichrist.     4. Others hold that the Law at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace, implying that there is more then one Covenant of grace, and this is affirmed by Mr. Anthony Burgesse in his Vindication of the Morall Law the 24. Lecture, text the 4. of Deuteronomy.     5. Others with my selfe hold that there is but two Covenants, the one a Covenant of Workes, and the tree of life, was a Sacrament or signe and token of it, this was made with Adam before his fall…But then there was a Covenant of grace which God the Father made with Jesus Christ from all eternity to save some of the posterity of Adam….[5]

Calamy’s statement suggests that there are at least three views among the Puritans about the Mosaic covenant relating to the covenants of works and the covenant of grace.  The first view is that the Mosaic covenant belongs to the covenant of works. Observe what he says: “some hold that there be foure Covenants, two of Works, and two of Grace; the two first, one with Adam before the fall, and the other with Israel at their returne out of AEgypt.” Here he is telling his readers that those Puritans, who believed that there were four covenants, incorporated the Sinaitic covenant to the covenant of works. This is also his appeal in his second and third points. Puritans who held to this first view were Symson,[6] Jeremiah Burroughes, and James Pope.  The second view that we find in Calamy’s observation is that the Mosaic covenant is simply a covenant of grace. Notice what he mentions in his fourth point: “Others hold that the Law at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of grace,” which according to him was Anthony Burgesse’s position. The third view is that of Calamy itself who argued that there are only two covenants: works and grace, and believed that the Mosaic covenant did not belong to either the covenant of works or to the covenant of grace. He said: “Some object and say the Law at Mount Sinai was a covenant of grace, and others say it was a covenant of works, but I shall prove that it was neither.”[7] To him the Mosaic covenant was “only given to those that were in covenant as a rule of obedience.”[8] By this he means that the Sinaitic law was given to the Israelites who were already in God’s covenant, and was given to them as a rule of obedience. He explains it this way: 

Thus they were in covenant before the rule of obedience was given, for the Law is not of faith, but the man that doth them shall live in them, Gal. 3:12. that is, he that obeyeth that rule being in the new covenant by faith in Christ shall live, yet not for his doing but for his believing, Rev. 5:1, 2; Gal. 3:26. it was given as a glasse to see their sin, James 1:23, 24, 25. by the Law is the knowledge of sin, see Rom. 3:20; 7:7. it was given them as a schoolemaster to drive them to Christ, Gal. 3.24. as the pursuer of blood drove the murtherer to the City of refuge, Joshua 20:3. then the Law at Sinai cannot be a covenant of grace.[9]         

What I want to point out here is that the Puritans were not united in their understanding of the Mosaic covenant. We have seen three different positions so far: (1) the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works; (2) the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace; and (3) the Mosaic covenant as neither a covenant of works, nor a covenant of grace. This I call a ‘neither-nor position.’ Ferguson calls this third view a ‘mediating position,’ which, according to him is what Owen adopted.[10] To quote Ferguson: “In company with a number of others, he [Owen] adopted a third, mediating position.”[11] Ferguson’s statement suggests that there were other Puritans who adopted the same position that Owen did. But the problem in this statement is that it assumes that these ‘other Puritans’ had exactly the same view as Owen, which may not be absolutely true.[12] It appears that not all Puritans who held the mediating position had exactly the same perception concerning the Mosaic covenant. There were diversities of opinions even among those who favored the mediating position. Thus, this mediating position should be further classified. Ernest F. Kevan comments: “It is not possible to make an accurate classification of the Puritans on the basis of their views about the Mosaic Covenant, because many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations.”[13] In fact, in the writings of Anthony Burgess, there seems to be another view, that is, the Mosaic covenant is a “mixt covenant of works and grace,” which for Burgess, “is hardly to be understood as possible, much lesse as true.”[14] But this mixed view[15] may simply be another way of saying the ‘neither-nor position.’ Because even those who said that the Mosaic covenant was neither a covenant of works, nor a covenant of grace, found elements of truth from both the covenants of works and grace in the Mosaic covenant. In this sense, the Mosaic covenant is a mixed covenant of both works and grace.

I will not go further in elaborating the different views held by the Puritans, but rather address my main concern in this paper—how did Owen understand the Mosaic covenant in relationship to the covenants of work and grace?   

III. EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF OWEN’S MAJOR WRITING ON THE MOSAIC COVENANT

There is no better way to determine Owen’s thought on the Mosaic covenant than to peruse his writings themselves. Such a task requires great diligence, considering that Owen’s writings are voluminous. However, since this paper is not intended to be lengthy, what I will do as I investigate Owen’s view on the Mosaic covenant is to focus on Owen’s exposition of the epistle of Hebrews, particularly his exposition of Hebrews 8 where he extensively elucidates the Mosaic covenant.

Owen is convinced that the old covenant, which the author of Hebrews had in mind, refers to the Mosaic covenant: “The other covenant or testament here [i.e. in Heb 8:6] supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Jesus Christ was the mediator is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on mount Sinai.”[16] Previously, he has mentioned that this other covenant cannot be the covenant of works: “This is the covenant of works, absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not the covenant here intended [i.e. in Heb 8].”[17] And to him, the new or better covenant in Hebrews 8 belongs generally to the covenant of grace: “This [the better covenant] can be no other in general but that which we call ‘the covenant of grace’ And it is so called in opposition unto that of ‘works,’ which was made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, do divide the ways of our relation unto God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent...”[18]

Here we observe the following: first, Owen calls the covenant at Mount Sinai ‘the other covenant or testament.’ This may imply that besides the two covenants (works and grace) that he has touched on, there is yet another covenant, the Mosaic covenant. We find also from his writings that he believed in the idea of a covenant of redemption. In reference to the covenant of grace, he asserts: “it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of a promise.”[19] This is basically the notion of a covenant of redemption. Thus, Ferguson’s analysis that Owen has four covenants (redemption, works, Mosaic Covenant, and grace) is right.[20]

 Second, this Mosaic covenant cannot be a covenant of works, nor can it be a covenant of grace, since what Owen considers the covenant of grace[21] is the better or new covenant. Hence, Owen falls under the neither-nor position category. But this idea should be explained more fully. Third, as I have already mentioned in my introduction, Owen uses the term ‘old covenant’ for the covenant of works. This is somewhat perplexing, since in other pages he employs that same term for the Mosaic covenant.[22] However, we should not conclude that the Mosaic covenant is the old covenant of works, for Owen is very clear that it is not. How then does he understand the Mosaic covenant?

Owen notes that “the way of reconciliation with God, of justification and salvation, was always one and the same; and that from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved but by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator thereof.”[23] He adds: “the writings of the Old Testament, namely, the Law, Psalms, and Prophets, do contain and declare the doctrine of justification and salvation by Christ.”[24] To Owen then the Mosaic covenant cannot be a covenant of works, simply because in the Mosaic covenant salvation was through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ and not through the work of obedience of man as in the ‘do this and live’ principle of the covenant of works. The Mosaic covenant was not given for saving purposes. Owen asserts: “by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation unto the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved.”[25] He further explains: “This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally.”[26] In this way, Owen disagrees with other divines who regarded the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works.

Owen also states that “the use of all the institutions whereby the old covenant [i.e. Mosaic covenant] was administered was to present and direct unto Jesus Christ, and his mediation.”[27] Thus for Owen the Mosaic covenant was given to point sinners to Christ through all its institutions. He goes on to say: “That this other covenant [i.e. the Mosaic covenant], with all the worship contained in it or required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead unto, the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a covenant, by the ways mentioned.”[28] To put it this way, Owen understands the Mosaic covenant as a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace.[29] As such, he is with Samuel Bolton, who concludes “that there was no end or use for which the law was given, but such as was consistent with grace and serviceable to the advancement of the covenant of grace.”[30] 

Owen also does not favor the view of other divines that the Mosaic covenant was just a different administration of the covenant of grace. He argues: “But this [i.e. the Mosaic covenant] was so different from that which is established in the gospel after the coming of Christ, that it hath the appearance and name of another covenant.”[31] Then he concludes: “Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended.”[32] Owen therefore sees the Mosaic covenant as a separate covenant, “made with a particular design, and with respect unto particular ends.”[33] This Mosaic covenant is particular[34] because it “was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation unto the church.”[35] It is another covenant, with a particular design, which is to guide sinners to the new or gospel covenant, as Owen writes: “[it] was given of God for this very end, that it might lead and direct men unto Christ.”[36]

Concerning the Mosaic covenant’s relation to the covenant of works, Owen notes that “this covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that covenant [i.e. of works], nor any way fulfil it.”[37] However, he believes that the Mosaic covenant “re-enforced, established, and confirmed that covenant [of works].”[38] He explains it in three ways:

[1.] It revived, declared, and expressed all the commands of that covenant [of works] in the decalogue; for that is nothing but a divine summary of the law in the heart of man at his creation.

[2.] It revived the sanction of the first covenant, in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant: “In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.” And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this covenant was ratified, “Curse be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deut. Xxvii. 26; Gal. iii. 10.

[3.] It revived the promise of that covenant,—that of eternal life upon perfect obedience.[39]

Hence, later Owen speaks that in the Mosaic covenant there is a “revival and representation of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse;”[40] and that in connection to the covenant of grace, there is a “direction of the church unto the accomplishment of the promise.”[41]  

IV. CONCLUSION

Owen has a unique understanding of the Mosaic covenant. He calls it old covenant, in contrast to the new or better covenant, and that these two “differ in their substance and end.”[42] “The old covenant was typical, shadowy, and removal, Heb. X. 1. The new covenant is substantial and permanent, as containing the body, which is Christ.”[43] However, Owen sees a connection between these two covenants, that the old covenant functions as a subservient covenant to the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace, although not absolutely. Yet, one must understand that when Owen speaks of the Mosaic covenant as a serviceable covenant to the covenant of grace, what he means is not the covenant of grace promised after the fall, but the covenant of grace established in the death of Christ, which he sometimes calls the gospel covenant.[44] Therefore, to Owen, the Mosaic covenant is subservient to the gospel covenant; that is, this Mosaic covenant is another covenant whose ultimate end is to guide sinners to the gospel of Christ.      

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bolton, Samuel. The True Bonds of Christian Freedom, 1645; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of

        Truth Trust, 2001.      

Calamy, Edmund. Two Solemne Covenants Made between God and Man. London: Printed for

        Thomas Banks, 1647.

Coxe, Nehemiah, et al. Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. Palmdale, CA: Reformed

        Baptist Academic Press, 2005.  

Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.

Kevan, Ernest Frederick. The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker

        Book House, 1965.

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 22. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The

        Banner of Truth Trust, 1991.

                                                                                                                                                           

Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Cumbria, U.K.:

        Paternoster Press, 1998.   

                                                                                   

---

      [1] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), XXII: 49, 61.  

      [2] Ibid., 61. 

      [3] See “Owen in Context” of Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1998), 1-44.  

      [4] Richard C. Barcellos, “John Owen and New Covenant Theology: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective” in Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ ed. Roland D. Miller, et al. (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 1.

     [5] Edmund Calamy, Two Solemne Covenants Made between God and Man (London: Printed for Thomas Banks, 1647), 1 (italics his). 

     [6] Calamy has not specified whether this Symson is Archibald or Patrick.  

     [7] Calamy, 8 (italics his).

     [8] Ibid.

      [9] Ibid.

     [10] Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 28.

     [11] Ibid.

     [12] Ferguson gives one Puritan example, Samuel Bolton, who had the same basic view of Owen. But strictly speaking, the two differ in so far as their understanding of the covenant of grace and its relationship to the Mosaic covenant (see footnotes 20 & 27). Nevertheless, Ferguson’s statement would have been stronger if he had given more than one example.     

     [13] Ernest Frederick Kevan, The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 113.

     [14] Cited in E. F. Kevan, The Grace of Law, 113.  

     [15] Samuel Bolton also mentions the mixed view: “For the clearing of these difficulties, let it be said that divines have distinguished between various kinds of covenants. Some of them have set down these three: a covenant of nature [i.e. works], a covenant of grace, a mixed kind of covenant consisting of nature and grace.” Samuel Bolton, The True Bonds of Christian Freedom, 1645; reprint, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 89.    

     [16] Owen, Works, XXII: 63.

     [17] Ibid., 61. 

     [18] Ibid. (italics his). 

     [19] Ibid., 64.

     [20] Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 22. I am aware that I have not really proven that Owen believes in the covenants of redemption, works and grace. I have intentionally refrained from discussing this matter, since this is not my main purpose in this treatise. See Ferguson’s John Owen on the Christian Life, pp. 22-25.

     [21] Owen further regards this better covenant “not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs unto it” (XXII: 69,). Owen then makes a distinction between the covenant of grace and the better or new covenant. He asserts: “When we speak of the ‘new covenant,’ we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in being and efficacy, before the introduction of that which is promised in this place” (XII: 74; italics his). Ferguson explains this: “He [Owen] argues for a distinction to be made between the covenant of grace and the new covenant, in terms of salvation in Christ as a principle and a promise, and salvation in Christ established in historical redemption” (Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 30; italic his).  

     [22] Ibid., 49, 64, 70. Owen, however, clarifies, in the context of Hebrews 8, that he does not use the term old covenant to mean the covenant of works. He says: “When we speak of the ‘old covenant,’ we intend not the covenant of works made with Adam, and his whole posterity in him” (XII: 74; italics his).     

     [23] Ibid., 71 (italics his).

     [24] Ibid., (italics his).  

     [25] Ibid.

     [26] Ibid., 85.

     [27] Ibid.

     [28] Ibid., 75 (italics his). The ‘promise’ Owen has in mind is the one “given unto our first parents immediately after the entrance of sin” (Ibid., 78). 

     [29] But one needs to remember that when Owen speaks of the covenant of grace in the context of Hebrews 8, he means not the covenant of grace absolutely, but that which was established in the death of Christ, which he also calls the gospel covenant (XXII: 76). In this sense, Owen differs from Bolton, who makes no distinction between the covenant of grace and the new or better covenant in connection to the Mosaic covenant. See footnote 21. 

     [30] Bolton, 109.

     [31] Owen, XXII: 71.

     [32] Ibid., 76 (italics his).

     [33] Ibid., 77.

     [34] Owen employs the word ‘particular’ to mean that the Mosaic covenant was not given as a general rule to the church (XXII: 77). 

     [35] Ibid.

     [36] Ibid., 81.

     [37] Ibid., 77.

     [38] Ibid.

     [39] Ibid., 77-78 (italics his).

     [40] Ibid., 80.

     [41] Ibid.

     [42] Ibid., 96. 

     [43] Ibid.

     [44] See footnotes 21 and 29.

The Lord’s Prayer: A Set Form or a Pattern or Both? A Brief Look at the Attitude of the Puritans toward this Issue (outline)

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Panorama of the Lord’s Prayer from Church Fathers to Puritans

III. Puritan Perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer

     A. The Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form

     B. The Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only

     C. The Lord’s Prayer as an exceptionally God-given form

IV. Conclusion

      Bibliography

(To read the entire article, click this.) 

The Lord’s Prayer: A Set Form or a Pattern or Both? A Brief Look at the Attitude of the Puritans toward this Issue

I. Introduction

When Jesus says, “After this manner therefore pray ye,” what does he mean? Is he telling his disciples to pray the exact words of the Lord’s Prayer, or is he telling them to just use this Prayer as a pattern, or perhaps both? Is the Lord’s Prayer a set form (an order of words to pray) or a pattern (a sample of prayer) or both? I will deal with these questions in this article, particularly focusing on how the Puritans understood those words of Jesus. In the first part of this treatise, I will briefly survey some works on the Lord’s Prayer from church fathers to Puritans, and in the second part, I will address my main objective—to see how the Puritans interpreted this Prayer insofar as the questions that I have mentioned are concerned. At the end, I will briefly state my personal perspective regarding this controversy, and give some practical implications of this study.    

II. Panorama of the Lord’s Prayer from Church Fathers to Puritans

In his article, The Lord’s Prayer in the First Century, Simon J. Kistemaker observes: “Admittedly the evidence relating to the Lord’s prayer in the first centuries of the Christian era is sparse. Yet valuable background information may be gleaned from sources including Qumran, Judaism, and even Scripture itself. Source material from the early Church is very limited. Besides the evidence in the Didache and references in the writings of the apostolic fathers, virtually no information is available.”[1] However, as D. Richard Stuckwisch says: “Treatises on the Our Father [i.e. the Lord’s Prayer] – whether in the form of catecheses, sermons, lectures, or written commentaries – are not uncommon in the history of the church, especially after the fourth century.”[2] Church father Tertullian, for example, wrote a tract called On Prayer[3] (circa A. D. 192), where he expounded the Lord’s Prayer. Origen’s On Prayer[4] (circa A. D. 233) also contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. Likewise, Cyprian had a treatise On the Lord’s Prayer[5] (circa A. D. 252). And as it has been pointed out already, other church fathers touched on the Lord’s Prayer in their catechetical lectures, sermons, and commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.[6] Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas also devoted pages on this Prayer.[7] Similarly, the Reformers treated it in their writings. Luther elucidated it in his An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen[8] (1519), Personal Prayer Book[9] (1522), Large and Small Catechisms (1530), and A Simple Way to Pray[10] (1535). Calvin discussed it in his Institute of the Christian Religion[11], and gave comments on it in his Harmony of the Gospels.[12]

References to the Lord’s Prayer are also scattered in the writings of the Puritans. The Westminster Assembly’s Larger[13] and Shorter[14] Catechisms, which were composed by Westminster Divines, have sections on it. And some Puritan works on the Lord’s Prayer available today were products of an exposition of that Shorter Catechism. Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Prayer[15] is an example of this. John Flavel also spelled it out in his An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism.[16] Similarly, William Fenner,[17] Richard Baker,[18] and Robert Hill[19] did treatises on it in the form of catechism. John Dod[20] and Lancelot Andrewes[21] had preached on it, and later their sermons were published.  And Puritan commentators like Matthew Henry[22] and Matthew Poole[23] gave notes on it in their commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

This brief survey shows that the Lord’s Prayer was not ignored among church fathers, medieval theologians, Reformers, and Puritans. I will now go to my main mission in this paper—to analyze how the Puritans understood this Prayer. But again it is not my purpose to expound this Prayer; rather, my intention is just to know how these Puritans interpreted the Lord’s Prayer’s preface:[24] “After this manner therefore pray ye.”[25]   

  

III. Puritan Perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer

Puritans were not united in their understanding of the Lord’s Prayer. Some would say that this Prayer is only a pattern or a model that needs not to be repeated. Others would claim that while it is a pattern, it is also a form, and thus can be recited as a prayer itself to God. Basically, there are three Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer.

A. The Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks: “What rule hath God given for our direction in prayer?” Then it answers: “The whole word of God is of use to direct us in prayer; but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer.”[26]  Here it is suggested that the Lord’s Prayer is both a pattern (“special rule of direction”) and a form (“form of prayer”). It is important to note that not all Puritans were against the use of forms of prayer. Richard Baxter, for instance, published written prayers called Forms of Prayer and Praises, for the use of Ignorant Families that need them.[27] Similarly, Matthew Henry wrote “Some short Forms of Prayer, for the use of those who may not be able to collect for themselves out of the foregoing Materials.”[28] But it needs to be said that Baxter and Henry were not part of the Westminster Assembly. However, since most of the members of this Assembly were Presbyterians, it is not a surprise that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form; because, even if the Presbyterian Divines believed this Prayer to be a pattern, they used it as a form in their public worship.[29] Though, Edmund Calamy tells us that in the early eighteenth century, not all Presbyterians employed this Prayer in public worship:[30]

‘Some ministers use the Lord’s Prayer constantly, others frequently, others seldom or never, as reckoning it rather given for a Directory, than to be used as a Form.’[31] 

The Larger Catechism further confirms our point that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as not only a pattern, but also a form:

How is the Lord’s prayer to be used? The Lord’s prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern, according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer.[32]

While the Larger Catechism does not explicitly proclaim that the Lord’s Prayer is a form, it permits the use of this Prayer as a prayer itself. This point is also seen in The Directory for the Public Worship of God of the Westminster Assembly:

And because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church.[33]

It now becomes clearer that the Westminster Divines understood the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form. The use of this Prayer as a form, though not commanded, is commended, and even recommended.  However, aware of the danger of its use as a form, Puritan Divines[34] like John Flavel warns:

That form of words may be lawfully used, but it is plain its intention was to regulate our petitions by it; and therefore they that use it in spells and charms, as the Papist; or those that think nothing is prayer, but that form of words; abuse Christ’s intention in it.[35]

Flavel is convinced that the Lord’s Prayer is a pattern; however, he is not totally against its use as a form so long that it is not abused. This is also the position of Matthew Poole:  

Not always in these words [of the Lord’s Prayer], but always to this sense, and in this manner. None ever thought Christians obliged to use no other words than these in prayer, though none must deny the lawfulness of using those words which Christ hath sanctified.[36]

Here two things can be detected. First, the Westminster Divines not only allow the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, but recommend it also. Second, other Puritan Divines, such as Flavel and Poole, while persuaded that this Prayer is a pattern, permit its use as a form, given that it is not abused. Nevertheless, what is important to know here is that some Puritans regarded the Lord’s Prayer not only as a pattern but also as a form.

B. The Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only  

While some Puritans approved the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, others did not. John Bunyan, for example, argues:

As to that called a form, I cannot think that Christ intended it [the Lord’s Prayer] as a stinted form of prayer. He himself lays it down diversely, as is to be seen, if you compare Matt. 6 with Luke 11. Whereas, if he intended it as a set form, it would not have been so laid down, for a set form is so many words and no more. We do not find that the apostles ever observed it as such; neither did they admonish others to do so…. Christ by those words, ‘Our Father, &c.’, instructs his people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God…[37]

So for Bunyan, the Lord’s Prayer is just a pattern given to instruct “his [Christ’s] people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God.”[38] Bunyan strongly rejects any forms of prayer. In fact, his treatise—I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also is an attack on the use of any set of prayer, especially the forms found in the Book of Common Prayer. Bunyan insists that prayer should be spontaneous from the heart. It is also worth mentioning that his total rejection of the use of any forms is a result of his pneumatological emphasis on prayer. For him to pray with these forms is to tie up the Holy Spirit to them: 

We ought to prompt one another to prayer, though we ought not to make forms of prayer for each other. To exhort to pray with Christian direction is one thing, and to make stinted forms for tying up the Spirit of God to them is another thing. The apostle gives Christians no form in which to pray, yet directs to prayer (Eph. 6.8; Rom. 15. 30-32). Let no man therefore conclude, that because we may give instructions and directions to pray, therefore it is lawful to make forms of prayer for each other.[39]  

Bunyan therefore disagrees with the Westminster Divines’ view on the Lord’s Prayer. In addition to his disagreement with the Westminster Divines, he also differs from the position of Flavel and Poole who tolerate the practice of this Prayer as a set form. Bunyan is convinced that this Prayer is only a pattern. William Fenner shares Bunyan’s sentiment, but he is not as strict as Bunyan as we can see later. Fenner gives six reasons why this Prayer should not be taken as a set form:  

First, because the Apostles prayed in other words, and did more specialize their Petition, Act.1.24.

Secondly, this prayer is diversly set downe by the Evangelists, one way in one, Math.6.11. another way in Luke, Luke.11.3. one way in one, Math.6.12. another way in the other, Luke 11.4.

Thirdly, who knowes this is all that Christ uttered, John.21.25. we see plainely Mathew sets down more, than Luke doth; it may be Christ spake more that either hath expressed, Math.6.13.

Fourthly, Christ himself did not use these very words ever, when he would pray Lazarus alive, he did not say the Lords prayer over the grave, Joh.11.41. when he would pray for his Apostles, he did not say the Lords prayer over them, John.17.1.

Fiftly, our speciall sinnes and wants, doe require that we should pray more specially then so, 2 Kings.19.15.

Sixtly, we read of praying all night, we cannot think that the Lords prayer was said over and over againe and againe Luke.6.12. we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col.4.2. neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this, Act.4.30. and yet we may if we will, Luke.11.2. neither is there any thing against it. No, though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of a man, Psal.90.12.[40]     

In Fenner’s sixth point it is noticeable that he does not strictly or completely prohibit the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Listen to him again:

we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col.4.2. neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this, Act.4.30. and yet we may if we will, Luke.11.2. neither is there any thing against it. No, though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of a man, Psal.90.12. [41]

Thus while Fenner does not concur with the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, he does not see anything wrong if one concludes his prayer with it. Though he argues that ending our prayer with this Prayer is not necessary, and yet we may if we will; and then, he gives a supporting verse—Luke 11: 2: “When ye pray, say….” Citing this verse implies that Fenner takes the Lord’s Prayer in Luke as a form. This interpretation is also held by John Dod, who believes that the Lord’s Prayer is both a form and a pattern. But this is how he justifies his view:  

The Evangelist Mathew being to set down the holy Prayer, saith after this manner, Therefore pray you: but in Luke it is, when you pray, say The difference  betweene the Evangelists is thus reconciled, that St. Mathew makes it a forme[42] or patterne according to which all our prayers and praises are to bee directed: and St. Luke proposes it as an excellent and heavenly prayer to be used by all Gods servants. Whence we learne that the Lord’s prayer, is both a forme and patterne to guide us in prayer, and a prayer itselfe.[43]    

Dod then understands the Lord’s Prayer in two ways—in Luke it is a form, while in Matthew it is a pattern. So both Fenner and Dod take the Prayer in Luke as a form, an argument that Fenner himself uses to open the door for the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Moreover, Fenner allows the utterance of this Prayer, because for him there is not anything against it. Then, he explains why: “Though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of man, Psal.90.12.” His point is that we can pray this Prayer, and make it our own prayer. It is just like quoting other Bible verses in our prayer. But again as Fenner appeals: “neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this.”[44] Robert Hill puts it this way:

Is it necessary ever to repeat all this prayer? It is surely a good conclusio[n] for our ordinary course of praying both publikely and privatly, because those things which we cannot at such times crave, or give thanks for in particular, are all contained in this platforme: but that every petition should ever be used, it is not necessary.[45]

Hence, while Fenner and Hill admit that nothing is wrong in the use of this Prayer as a form, for them, to do so is not necessary. This presupposes that Puritans who take the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only, can be further  narrowly categorized into two: one who is extreme (Bunyan), and other who is moderate (Fenner). The former will prohibit absolutely the use of the Prayer as a form, while the latter will make arguments against, but are tolerant.    

C. The Lord’s Prayer as an exceptionally God-given form

One unique Puritan perspective on the Lord’s Prayer is that of John Owen, who like Bunyan, gave a strong pneumatological emphasis on prayer. In fact, Owen’s treatise, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (1682), is similar in nature to Bunyan’s I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also (1662). Like Bunyan, Owen also defended the practice of free, or extemporaneous, prayers: “We are expressly commanded to pray, but are nowhere commanded to make prayers for ourselves, much less for others.”[46] Owen adds:

There is assistance promised unto believers to enable them to pray according unto the will of God; there is no assistance promised to enable any to make prayers for others.[47]

However, Owen, who differs on this point from Bunyan, considers the Lord’s Prayer an exception. For him this Prayer is a God-given form and therefore can be used by the church:

Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.[48]

So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set prayers, he sanctions, as an exception the use of the Lord’s Prayer (along with the Psalms or Prayers of David) as a form.   

IV. Conclusion

So far we have looked at three primary Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer: (1) that it is both a pattern and a form, which the Westminster Divines hold;[49] (2) that it is only a pattern. But as we have noted, this second position can be further boiled down into two classifications: extreme (Bunyan) and moderate (Fenner); and (3) that it is an exceptionally God-given form, held uniquely by Owen.

These various views imply that the subject of prayer is important for the Puritans. This issue that we have been studying may appear insignificant for us, but for the Puritans it is crucial. It is vital for them because of their remarkable concern to fashion their prayer after the Bible. These different views are a result of their struggle to have a ‘perfect’ or scripturally based prayer. How sad it is that today prayer has become less important in the lives of many believers. Many are indifferent about the manner and matter of their prayers. But let us be challenged to really think about our prayers.

What view then do I hold? I personally uphold Fenner’s position. I believe that the Lord’s Prayer (both in Matthew and Luke) is to be taken as a pattern; however, like Fenner, I do not see anything wrong if one uses it as a form in prayer, given that it is not ritually abused. I will also suggest that our prayers ought to be indeed modeled after this Prayer. Doing so provides us two benefits, as Watson beautifully states:  

Let us have a great esteem of the Lord’s prayer; let it be the model and pattern of all our prayers. There is a double benefit arising from framing our petitions suitably to this prayer. Hereby error in prayers is prevented. It is not easy to write wrong after this copy; we cannot easily err when we have our pattern before us. Hereby mercies requested are obtained; for the apostle assures us that God will hear us when we pray ‘according to his will.’ I John V 14. And sure we pray according to his will when we pray according to the pattern he has set us. So much for the introduction to the Lord’s prayer, ‘After this manner pray ye.’[50]

“Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1).

Bibliography

Andrews, Lancelot. The Morall Law Expounded, 1. Largely, 2. Learnedly, 3. Orthodoxl.

        London: Printed for Sparke, Robert Milbourne, Richard Cotes, and Andrew Crooke, 1642.

Baker, Richard. Meditations and Disquisitions upon the Lords Prayer. London: Printed by Anne

         Griffin.

Baxter, Richard. The Poor Man’s Family Book. London: Printed by R. W. for Nevill Simmons,

        1674.

Bunyan, John. Prayer. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005.

Davies, Horton. The Worship of the Puritans. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997.

Dod, John. A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer. London: Printed by M. D.,

        1635.

Flavel, John. The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6. Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint

        1997.

  

Fennor, William The Spirituall Mans Directory. London: Printed by T. F. for John Rothwell,

        1651.

Henry, Matthew. A Method for Prayer. Edited by Ligon Duncan. Greenville, SC: Reformed

        Academic Press, 1994.

________. Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Matthew to John. Vol. 5. Hendrickson

        Publishers, Inc., 2003.  

Hill, Robert. The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie. London: Printed by Richard Hodgkinsonne,

        1641.   

Kistemaker, Simon, J. “The Lord Prayer in the First Century,” Journal of the Evangelical

        Theological Society 21 (1978) : 323.   

Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vo. 4. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.

Poole, Matthew. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: Matthew to Revelation. Vol.

        3. Hendrickson Publishers.

Stuckwisch, D. Richard. “Principles of Christian Prayer from the Third Century: A Brief Look at

        Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian With Some Comments on Their Meaning for Today,”

        Worship 71 (1997) : 2.

Watson, Thomas. The Lord’s Prayer. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972. 

Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001.

---

      [1] Simon J. Kistemaker, “The Lord’s Prayer in the First Century,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978) : 323.  

      [2] D. Richard Stuckwisch, “Principles of Christian Prayer from the Third Century: A Brief Look at Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian With Some Comments on Their Meaning for Today,” Worship 71 (1997) : 2.

      [3] Tertullian, “On Prayer,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint, 1989), 681-91.   

      [4] Origen, “On Prayer,” trans. Rowan A. Greer in Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 81-170.

      [5] Cyprian, “On the Lord’s Prayer,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint, 1989), 447-57.  

      [6] For the definitive list of all extant patristic writings on the Lord’s Prayer, see Appendix of Robert L. Simpson, The Interpretation of Prayer in the Early Church (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), 175-77. 

      [7] Thomas Aquinas, “Whether the Seven Petitions of the Lord’s Prayer are Fittingly Assigned?” in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, part II, LXXX-C, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD., 1922), 47-50. 

      [8] Martin Luther, “An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 1, vol. 42, ed. Martin O. Dietrich, trans. Martin H. Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 19-81.   

      [9] Martin Luther, “Personal Prayer Book,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 2, vol. 43, ed. Gustav K. Wiencke, trans. Martin H.  Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 29-38.  

     [10] Martin Luther, “A Simple Way to Pray,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 2, vol. 43, ed. Gustav K. Wiencke, trans. Carl J. Schindler (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 187-211. 

     [11] John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Book 3, chapter 20, sections 34-49.   

     [12] John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. A. W. Morrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 204-13. 

     [13] “The Larger Catechism,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001), Questions & Answers 186-196 [hereafter LC Q & A 186-196]. 

     [14] “The Shorter Catechism,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian, 2001), Questions & Answers 99-107 [hereafter SC Q & A 99-107].  

     [15] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (1692; reprint, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972).

     [16] John Flavel, “An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism,” in The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6, (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1997), 293-317.  

     [17] William Fennor, The Spirituall Mans Directory (London: Printed by T. F. for John Rothwell, 1651), 66-106. 

     [18] Richard Baker, Meditations and Disquisitions upon the Lords Prayer (London: Printed by Anne Griffin).

     [19] Robert Hill, The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie (London: Printed by Richard Hodgkinsonne, 1641), 1-212.   

     [20] John Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer (London: Printed by M. D., 1635)1-234.

     [21] Lancelot Andrews, “Nineteen Sermons of His, upon Prayer in Generall, and upon the Lords Prayer in Particular,” in The Morall Law Expounded, 1. Largely, 2. Learnedly, 3. Orthodoxly (London: Printed for Sparke, Robert Milbourne, Richard Cotes, and Andrew Crooke, 1642), 39-136.

     [22] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Matthew to John, vol. 5 (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 59-62.

     [23] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: Matthew to Revelation, vol. 3 (Hendrickson Publishers), 27-28. 

     [24] The Larger and the Shorter Catechisms consider the preface to be “contained in these words, Our Father which art in heaven,” see LC Q & A 189 and SC Q & A 100. However, in this paper, I employ the term ‘preface’ to refer to “After this manner therefore pray ye.”  

     [25] This is the preface found in Matthew 6:9, and I am aware that Luke has a different wording: “When ye pray, say.” Later we will find out that John Dod  interpreted the preface in Luke to mean that the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer is a form, while the Matthean version is a pattern. Therefore, according him, this Prayer is both a patter and a form.

     [26] SC Q & A 99 (italics mine except for The Lord’s Prayer). 

     [27] Richard Baxter, The Poor Man’s Family Book (London: Printed by R. W. for Nevill Simmons, 1674), 346 ff.

     [28] Matthew Henry, A Method for Prayer, ed. Ligon Duncan (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 209-49.

     [29] Horton Davies, in his book—The Worship of the Puritans, gives a summary of the history of the controversy concerning the use of the Lord’s Prayer: “The History of the discussion tends to show that the more radical Puritans and Separatist regarded the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern and held that it was not intended that it should be repeated. The Anglicans interpreted it as a literal command for the repetition of that particular prayer. The Presbyterians combined both views and therefore held themselves free to repeat it and to model their extemporary prayers on it.” See Horton Davies, The Worship of the Puritans (1948; reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), 99.        

     [30] Ibid., 101.

     [31] Cited in Ibid.

     [32] LC Q & A 187 (italics mine).

     [33] “The Directory for the Public Worship of God,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001), 382.  

     [34] To avoid confusion, in this paper, I use the term ‘Puritan Divines’ to refer to Puritans who were not part of the Westminster Assembly. 

     [35] John Flavel, Works, 295.

     [36] Matthew Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 27. 

     [37] John Bunyan, “I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also,” in Prayer (1662; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 46.  

     [38] Ibid.  

     [39] Bunyan, Prayer, 44-45.

     [40] William Fennor, The Spirituall Mans Directory, 67. 

     [41] Ibid.

     [42] Dod uses the words ‘form’ and ‘pattern’ synonymously.

     [43] John Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer, 5.

     [44] Fennor, 67.

     [45] Robert Hill, The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie, 5.  

     [46] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), IV: 240 (italics his).

     [47] Ibid (italics his).

     [48] Ibid (italics his). 

     [49] Matthew Henry also affirms this view: “The Lord’s prayer being intended not only for a form of prayer itself, but a rule of direction, a plan or model in little, by which we may frame our prayers;” see Matthew Henry, A Method for Prayer, 189.  

     [50] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer, 2.

Erasmus and His Relation to the Reformation (outline)

Table of Contents

I.                   Introduction

II.                Erasmus’ Character as a ‘Reformer’

III.             Erasmus’ Concern for Reform

IV.            Erasmus’ Concept of Reform

V.               Erasmus’ Contribution to the Reformation

VI.            Concluding Challenge

               Bibliography

 

 

 

(To view the entire article, click this.) 

Erasmus and His Relation to the Reformation

I. Introduction

This paper seeks to present Erasmus’ connection to the Protestant Reformation. In particular, the following subjects will be considered: First, his character as a reformer; second, his concern for reform; third, his concept of reform; and fourth, his contribution to this reform movement. Then this article will conclude with some challenges. Extensive bibliography will also be provided at the end of this treatise designed for further studies.

II. Erasmus’ Character as a ‘Reformer’

“Erasmus laid the egg, but Luther hatched it.” This is what the monks of the day said of Erasmus in his relation to the Protestant Reformation.[1] And the egg that Erasmus had laid that Luther hatched became contributive to the birth of the Reformation. Thus, some historians consider Erasmus a Reformer[2], though it is doubtful if Erasmus would call himself a Reformer in its strict sense, as he said: “the egg I laid was a hen, and Luther hatched a gamecock.”[3] Erasmus did not want to identify himself with the Protestant Reformation, despite the fact that he was seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church. His unwillingness to be identified with the Reformation could be explained by his disagreement with some of Luther’s reforms, especially the idea of predestination in the doctrine of justification, which Erasmus believed was a monstrous idea.[4]  Moreover, Erasmus preferred to live a life of independence. When Luther invited him to join his movement, Erasmus refused, “arguing that to do so would endanger his position as a leader in the movement for pure scholarship which he regarded as his purpose in life. Only as an independent scholar could he hope to influence the reform of religion.”[5] Consequently, “Luther felt that Erasmus was avoiding the responsibility due either to cowardice or a lack of purpose.”[6] Similarly, William Farel, a French Reformer who took refuge in Switzerland “because of the controversy that was aroused by his writings against the use of images in Christian worship”[7] in France, was also upset with Erasmus, because Erasmus “was not willing to cast his lot whole-heartedly with the reformers.”[8] Charles A. Nash comments: “The self-centered and petty humanist seized upon the situation [to remain distant from the Reformers] as an opportunity to clear himself in the eyes of the Romanists from all suspicion of heresy.”[9] Erasmus had really no plan to leave the Church; his loyalty was still in his Church.

Moreover, Erasmus as a reformer was “pictured as unable to accomplish what he undertook, while Luther is set forth as doing what Erasmus was impotent to do.”[10] “Erasmus desired reform within the Church, but he was not the man to lead in accomplishing the reform. He was not a leader of men; his influence is to be found elsewhere.”[11] Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Erasmus contributed to the birth of the Reformation. One has put it this way: “It is, perhaps, difficult to determine the extent of the influence of Erasmus in preparing the way for the movement for reform in the Church, but it is an acknowledged fact that he did in some measure influence the movement in its initial period.”[12]  

III. Erasmus’ Concern for Reform

Erasmus was born in 1466 at Rotterdam, the Netherlands. At the age of nine, he was already exposed to humanism under the teaching of the famous humanist Hegius at Denventer. Sadly, at the age of thirteen, his parents died. In 1486, his guardians forced him to enter the monastery of Emmaus, but because his interest was in humanistic studies, he did not stay long in that monastery. However, due to his extraordinary gift in language, the Bishop of Cambrai appointed him to be his secretary and later ordained him priest in 1492.[13] But since his inclination was in classical literatures, he did not really practice his priesthood. In 1495 he studied at the University of Paris, but again he did not enjoy his stay there, because this university was the seat of scholastic learning, even if at that time it was coming under the influence of humanism.[14]  Erasmus also had the opportunity to visit England (1498-99) where he met some renowned humanists such as Thomas More and John Colet, who “showed him how to reconcile the ancient faith with humanism by abandoning the scholastic method and devoting himself to a thorough study of the Scriptures.”[15] Tammy Graham said that “during these years [of Erasmus’ stay in Europe,] Erasmus developed his philosophy of Christ that led him to criticize his Church.”[16]  This so-called ‘philosophy of Christ’ is seen in Erasmus’ Enchiridion Militis Christiani, which he wrote in 1501. Brian Midmore says: “Erasmus set out his ‘philosophy of Christ’ with its central theme to ‘make Christ your goal’. It was an appeal to a Scriptural practice of the Christian life, exhorting the reader to: believe God and his Word; take the way of virtue which is the way of Christ; express your faith in moral behaviour; resist sin manfully and then go on the offensive against Satan; and compare the rewards offered by God and Satan.”[17]

As Erasmus delved into the Scripture, he began to see more and more the impurity within his church which created a concern in his heart to reform the Church. He started to become unsatisfied with the moral condition of his Church. Graham says: “Luther was not the first to challenge the leaders of the Catholic Church, for in the early sixteenth century, Erasmus led a movement to reform the Church. Although Erasmus laid the foundations for Luther's Reformation, he did not break with the Church because he would not sacrifice his belief for changes in doctrine and practice.”[18]  

IV. Erasmus’ Concept of Reform

Undoubtedly, Erasmus was concerned to reform the church, but his concept of reform was only moral and not really doctrinal. This truth can be proven from his writings themselves. In his book, The Praise of Folly (written in 1509), he criticizes the corrupt system of his Church, and attacks those religious leaders who abuse their authority. He even questions the sale of indulgences which damaged the image of the church. Likewise, in his Sileni Alcibiadis (written in 1515), which is “one of his most direct assessments of the need for Church reform,”[19] Erasmus “criticizes those that spend the Church’s riches at the people’s expense. Riches should not be held above everything else. The true point of the Church is to help people lead Christian lives. Priests are supposed to be pure, though when they stray away, no one condemns them. He critiques the riches of the Popes, believing that it would be better for the Gospel to be most important. Furthermore, the Word of God should be most important for people.”[20]  Erasmus really desired to change the Church, but only in a moral sense. This is how he differs from Luther, whose concern was not only moral but also doctrinal as well. When Luther nailed his 95 Thesis, he was not just calling for a moral change within the Church; he was also calling for a doctrinal change. Though at this time Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone was not yet very clear, and yet this doctrine was the ground of his call for a moral innovation. Midmore states:

 “In his ninety-five theses Luther echoes Erasmus’ appeal for a change in religious practice. The essential difference is that Luther’s appeal is underpinned by a change in doctrine. Erasmus initially supported Luther when the issue was religious practice. When doctrinal issues surfaced, however, Erasmus broke with Luther. Erasmus believed the church alone had the right to change doctrine and that the existing doctrines of the church should be purified. Luther, however, eventually took the opinion that if the church rejected true doctrine, especially a central one (in his view) such as justification by faith, then it had lost its right to be called the church.”[21]  

Robert G. Kleinhans, in his article—“Luther and Erasmus, Another Perspective,” asserts that though “both Erasmus and Luther were concerned with restoring Christianity and reforming the church; they differed in their interpretations of the essence of Christianity and the manner of reform.”[22] He adds: “The only [crucial] difference between the Roman Catholics and the theologians of Wittenberg rested in the doctrine of justification by faith alone.”[23]    

Furthermore, Erasmus’ concept of reform was not founded on the sola scriptura principle. While he acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and gave it primacy, he still held to the authority of the Church. Luther, on the other hand, appealed for reform on the basis of the Scripture alone. To quote Midmore again: “Erasmus, though he believed the Scriptures and the Fathers, was always constrained from adopting the radical position of Luther by his concern for unity and his honouring of the Church.”[24] It should also be remembered that Erasmus by nature was not a theologian; he was “a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.”[25]

Finally, Erasmus’ idea of reform was not rooted in the experiential conversion. This statement implies that Erasmus was not truly saved which, of course, is difficult to sustain. However, the fact that he was unwilling to accept the doctrine of justification by faith alone suggests that he was not saved. But one must be careful to say that Erasmus was not saved at all, for later he held to the doctrine of justification by faith. Kleinhans argues: “The evidence strongly suggests that Erasmus’ theology was considerably altered during the years 1522-23. This change consisted primarily in the incorporation of a new theme into his theology, the theme of justification by faith.”[26] However, in Erasmus’ understanding of justification, the word ‘alone’ is missing, which is extremely important to this doctrine. This again raises doubt to Erasmus’ conversion. Luther himself, in his The Bondage of the Will (1525), asserts that Erasmus was a supporter of Pelagians who denied the total depravity of man in salvation and believed in the freedom of the will. Though not stated explicitly, in that book, Luther almost called him an unbeliever because of Erasmus’ view of salvation. Erasmus’ own writing itself, Diatribe (1524), as it reveals his soteriological doctrine, will put his own conversion into question.

If Luther’s assessment of Erasmus was true, then Erasmus’ reform was not true at all, for there would be no real reformation without biblical regeneration. This is where Erasmus greatly differs from the Reformers. He was seeking for a greater piety within the Church but outside the experience of salvation. This also explains why Erasmus’ reform was corporate, rather than personal or individual. Midmore puts it this way: “Erasmus promoted the corporate renewal of the church, but Luther promoted the salvation of the individual.”[27]

V. Erasmus’ Contribution to the Reformation

“In writing of the influence of Erasmus on the Reformation, D’Aubigne said that it had been overrated by some and underrated by others. Erasmus never was and never could have been a reformer; but he prepared the way for others.”[28] To understand Erasmus’ contribution to the reform movement, it is important to keep in mind that Erasmus belonged to the Renaissance humanists who created “an intellectual atmosphere which fostered certain Reformation movements such as a revival of biblical studies, the rejection of scholasticism, and the undermining of the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman church.”[29] In this section, Erasmus’ contribution to the Reformation will be considered.  

Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (1516) can be considered his greatest contribution to the Reform movement. This work was a result of his being a biblical humanist who not only sought a revival of classical but of Christian antiquity as well.[30] He wanted to go back to the Scripture and to its original language, as he was convinced that one could not study well the Scripture without knowing the original language.[31] This is the Christian Humanist cry ad fontes (to the sources). Later, Luther used this Greek New Testament for his German translation, and so did William Tyndale for his English version.  

Erasmus’ moral concern for reform may also be regarded as his contribution to the Reformation. Abraham Friesen states: “This attempt to ‘reform the morals of men’ is certainly a if not the central thrust of Christian Humanism.”[32] His writings especially The Praise of Folly added fire in the belly of the Reformers. Nash says: “One cannot doubt that his [Erasmus’] condemnation and ridicule of religion as he found it prepared the way for more ardent and heart-felt spirit of Luther’s reform movement.”[33] He goes on to say: “If we consider the great revolution that somewhat later renewed the Church, we cannot help acknowledging that Erasmus served as a bridge to many minds.”[34] For this reason many historians call Erasmus the intellectual father of the Reformation. Be that as it may, his relation to the Reformation “is in no way comparable to that of Luther, Zwingli, Farel, Calvin, Knox, and others of lesser importance.”[35] One historian suggests that “the most important relation of Erasmus to the Reformation is seen in the influence he exerted as a preparation for its coming.”[36] Erasmus was the “John the Baptist” of the Reformers who prepared their way. Nevertheless, as Nash says: “We cannot maintain the position taken by some, that without Erasmus Luther would have been impossible. The Reformation did not inhere in, nor proceed from Erasmus.”[37]    

VI. Concluding Challenge

What challenges or lessons can be drawn from this study? What is the implication of these fifteenth or sixteenth century events to twenty first century people?

First, a reformer should have courage to stand for the truth. Erasmus knew how corrupt the Church leaders were, but he had no courage to challenge them in such a way that Luther did. He challenged them to some degree through his writings, but was not brave enough to leave his Church. One has rightly said: “Erasmus sought peace and unity if necessary by compromise, Luther sought the truth if necessary at the price of peace.” It can also be added that a reformer should not only have courage but also leadership. Erasmus was reforming the Church, but he was not willing to take a lead for this reform. He was playing safe.

Many churches today need to be reformed and these churches need reformers who, like Luther, are willing to stand for the truth at whatever cost. In this post-modern world, churches desperately need pastors who can say Luther’s words: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”    

Second, real reformation comes from the Scripture. Thus, there will be no reformation without the Scripture. Even Erasmus’ concern for reform came from his understanding of God’s Word. His philosophy of Christ that led him to criticize the Church was a product of his knowledge of the Bible. But a more accurate example would be the reform of Luther. How did Luther have a burden to reform the Church? It was through the Scripture. It was through the eyes of the Bible that he saw the need for reformation. How sad it is that many pastors today seek to reform their churches without the use of the Scripture. Influenced by post-modernists, these pastors have begun to lose their confidence in the Bible, doubting its sufficiency and relevance to bring real reformation in this twenty first century era. But the Scripture that Luther used that brought Reformation is the same Scripture that we have today.  

Finally, real reformation is rooted in experiential regeneration. That is, there will be no true reformation without biblical regeneration. Erasmus’ concern to change the Church was commendable, but it did not succeed. Why? Was it because of his lack of courage and leadership? Or was it because his reform was not grounded on experiential regeneration? The latter explains the reason well. It is impossible to have real reformation without real regeneration, and that this real regeneration is in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Since Erasmus rejected this doctrine of sola fide, his reform cannot be considered a true one. Many preachers today sincerely seek reformation, but like Erasmus they just end up with a moral reform, because there is no preaching and teaching on the justification by faith alone. If true reformation is desired, there must be a Reformed teaching on justification. This is what Luther did! Nevertheless, it is important to say in conclusion that providentially, it pleased God to use Erasmus despite his weaknesses to lay the foundation of the Protestant Reformation for the realization of the redemptive plan of God in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. This shows that God is in control even in the Reformation.

 

---

      [1] Charles A. Nash, “The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 95, no. 380 (1938): 446.

      [2] see Dickens, A. G., and Whitney R. D. Jones. Erasmus the Reformer. London: Methuen, 1994. ; Elliott-Binns, Leonard Elliott. Erasmus the Reformer, A Study in Restatement; Being the Hulsean Lectures Delivered Before the University of Cambridge for 1921-1922. London: Methuen & co., ltd, 1923. ; Bentley-Taylor, David. My Dear Erasmus: The Forgotten Reformer. Fearn: Christian Focus, 2002. ; Sloan, Karin Ramspeck. Beyond Dogma and Controversy: Erasmus As a Reformer. 1977. ; Hall, B. Erasmus: Biblical Scholar and Reformer. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1900s.

      [3] Quoted in Charles A. Nash, “The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 95.  

      [4] Brian Midmore, “The Differences between Erasmus and Luther in their approach to Reform” available from  http://www.passionforgrace.org.uk/Erasluther.html ; Internet; accessed 17 April 2007.

      [5] “Desiderius Erasmus” in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia [encyclopedia on-line]; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus ; Internet; accessed 17 April 2007.  

      [6] Ibid.

      [7] William Farel in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia [encyclopedia on-line]; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farel ; Internet; accessed 26 May 2007.

      [8] Charles A. Nash, “The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 96, no. 381 (1939): 54.

      [9] Ibid.

      [10] Charles A. Nash, “The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 95, 447.

      [11] Ibid.

      [12] Ibid, 446.  

      [13] “Desiderius Erasmus” in Catholic Encyclopedia; available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm ; internet; accessed 28 May 2007. 

      [14] “Desiderius Erasmus” in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.

      [15] “Desiderius Erasmus” in Catholic Encyclopedia.

      [16] Tammy Graham, “Erasmus: Peace Makes No Reformation” ; available from http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_3.html ; internet; accessed 28 May 2007.

      [17] Brian Midmore, “The Differences between Erasmus and Luther in their approach to Reform.”

      [18] Tammy Graham, “Erasmus: Peace Makes No Reformation.”

      [19] “Desiderius Erasmus” in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.

      [20] Ibid.

      [21] Brian Midmore.

      [22] Robert G. Kleinhans, “Luther and Erasmus, Another Perspective,” Church History 39, (1970) : 460.

      [23] Ibid, 460.

      [24] Brian Midmore.

      [25]  Garrett J. Eriks, “Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will” ; available from http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr99.html ; internet; accessed 30 May 2007.

      [26] Robert G. Kleinhans, “Luther and Erasmus, Another Perspective,” 469.

      [27] Brian Midmore.

      [28] Charles A. Nash, “The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 95, 449.

      [29] Robert G. Kleinhans, “Luther and Erasmus, Another Perspective,” Church History 39, (1970) : 459.

      [30] Donald K. McKim, ed., Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1998), 184.   

      [31] Ibid, 185.                                       

      [32] Abraham Friesen, “Impulse Toward Restitutionist Thought in Christian Humanism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44 (1976) : 34.

      [33]  Bibliotheca Sacra 95, 449.

      [34] Ibid.

      [35] Charles A. Nash, “The Relation of Erasmus to the Reformation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 96, 66. 

      [36] Ibid.

      [37] Ibid.

Significance of Suffering in the Study of First Peter (outline)

Table of Contents

I. Significance of Suffering in First Peter

     A. Historical Setting

     B. Theme

II. Significant Relation of Suffering to Christian Doctrines in First Peter

     A. Suffering and Christology

     B. Suffering and Eschatology

III. Significant Relation of Suffering to Christian Living in First Peter

     A. Suffering and Government

     B. Suffering and Work

     C. Suffering and Family

IV. Conclusion

        Bibliography