The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen's Theology

Kelly M. Kapic, Mark Jones, Kelly M. Kapic, Mark Jones

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781472466969
• eBook ISBN: 9781351894340
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

John Owen (1616-1683) is regarded as one of the greatest theologians Britain ever produced. Owen has had an important historical and theological influence, and his significance is widely recognized today. As a revival in Owen studies and reprints has taken place, this much-needed companion by an international group of leading scholars, helpfully explores key questions related to Owen's method, theology, and pastoral practice. Examining his thought through such topics as his epic work on the Holy Spirit, his developed view of faith and reason, and his contribution to the place of toleration, this book offers an authoritative exploration of one of Britain's greatest theologians.

SECTION I: METHOD

1
Reformed or Reforming? John Owen and the Complexity of Theological Codification for Mid-Seventeenth-Century England

Ryan Kelly

Introduction

The movement of Protestant Orthodoxy, of which John Owen was a leading figure, is defined by Richard Muller as “the codification and institutionalization of the Reformation … consisting in the confessional character of its theology and piety … in continuity and also discontinuity with strands in the religious past, all with elements of response and adaptation to the changing political, social, and intellectual contexts of Protestantism.”¹ In other words, a right understanding of the unity and diversity of the early generations of the Reformed tradition significantly rests upon a right understanding of their use of confessions and intentions for confessionalization.² Muller argues that between the standard Reformation and Orthodox confessions there emerges an understood essential Reformed confessional identity. Nevertheless, each confessional atempt clearly had its own distinctiveness: its own perceived need, assembly, doctrinal emphases, polemical aims, politico-ecclesiastical relationship, and intended use and boundaries.³ Thus, however doctrinally similar the early Reformed confessions might be, the truth remains that, many times over, a new confession was writen or a current one revised. To beter understand why, more investigation of individual confessions and their respective contexts is needed.

An excellent example of this is Chad Van Dixhoorn’s 2004 Cambridge PhD thesis on the meetings of the Westminster Assembly.⁴ From his discovery of the missing pages of John Lightfoot’s journal, Van Dixhoorn demonstrates that the longest-running debate of the Assembly was not on church government, as basically all of the previous research on the Assembly has suggested, but on the nature of creed-making itself.⁵ The study provides a clear window into the complexities for the codification of Reformed theology in the seventeenth century. The dilemmas and debates (most not unique to the Westminster Assembly) are worth listing: What significance should be given to the ancient creeds (e.g., the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds)? Should they be included; can they be altered? What is the relationship between a creed and Scripture, and how should that relationship be communicated in the creed, if at all? Should the confession provide proof-texts? Should a confessional need be met with an altogether new confession or with a revision of a current (or ancient) one? How theologically specific should a confession be—should it be the fullest confession possible, just fundamental articles, or something in between? What are the fundamental articles? What are the ministerial and political intentions for the confession? How shall the codification of orthodoxy, the limiting of heresy, and the growing concern for liberty and toleration be negotiated?⁶

Throughout the English Revolution these confessional questions continued to receive much debate and give birth to new experiments, particularly, and once again officially, in the several atempts at a Cromwellian church setlement in the 1650s. The Commonwealth and Protectorate periods have always garnered scholarly interest for their political oddity and chaotic times. More recent historiography of the decade, however, has gone a long way to demonstrate the intrinsic religious connections to the political debates.⁷ A growing appreciation for the role of liberty/toleration has been vitally important to understanding the contours of the religious/political relationship in the Interregnum.⁸ Yet, more work is needed on the actual basis for and process of creed-making in the 1650s. However unsuccessful the atempts to finalize the Cromwellian church might seem to some historians,⁹ there were indeed several atempts at a new national confession, and hence several examples of confessionalization that could be examined. Unfortunately, in some of the most significant works on the history of confessionalization and confessional subscription, 1650s England is completely omited.

In what follows, then, I will scratch the surface of some neglected and perhaps surprising issues of creed-making and confessionalization in the work of John Owen and the “Dissenting Brethren” in the 1650s.¹⁰ The majority of atention will be given to the last of their confessional efforts in the Savoy Assembly (1658), which produced The Savoy Declaration of Faith (hereafter SDF) and Church Order, along with a lengthy Preface. However, first, an overview of three earlier legislative-confessional atempts is necessary.

The Proposals for Church Settlement Preceding Savoy

After Parliament’s war with and execution of King Charles I, England was in disarray. A new government and a new church would need to be constituted. With the religious Independents now in power, there would be a departure from the strict conformity to and persecution for maters of ecclesiastical practice (church government and worship). Indeed, they believed it was the Magistrate’s duty to protect such religious liberties. Yet, like their Presbyterian brethren, they too believed that the Magistrate had a responsibility to maintain godly civility, to expose and limit heresies, to promote and teach sound orthodoxy, and to provide for the examination and maintenance of England’s ministers. On the one hand, such ideals were, in theory, readily agreed upon by a significant majority of those now with sway. On the other hand, there were many different opinions as to how to best accomplish and balance these ideals in the State and its church. Like pieces of a pie, as one piece is made bigger, the others are inevitably made smaller. So it was with the concerns for liberty, civility, orthodoxy, purity, and unity, which were seen to be necessary, and yet in frequent tension. The precarious balance of these ideals and differing opinions about them has to be, at least, part of the explanation for the multiple confessional atempts of the 1650s.

The Humble Proposals (1652)

On February 10, 1652 the House of Commons passed the Act of Oblivion, and John Biddle was set free from prison. Perhaps not coincidentally, on the same day, Owen and other ministers presented the House with a petition, a copy of a warrant, and a book.¹¹ The book was the Socinian Racovian Catechism and the warrant was likely that which had been issued for the book by the Council of State two weeks earlier.¹² It is clear from the Commons Journal that the petition was calling for not only an examination and suppression of the book,¹³ but a commitee to be formed for “such proposals as shall be offered for the beter propagation of the Gospel.”¹⁴ By the very next day, 15 such proposals had been prepared and presented to the House: The Humble Proposals of Mr. Owen, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Sympson, and other Ministers. In it they proposed that no one be required to receive the sacrament against their conscience, and that church atendance be required, except for those whose conscience would keep them from such assemblies. Yet, any meetings outside of the public churches would need to give notice of their doings to a magistrate. Dissent from “the doctrine and way of worship owned by the State” was permissible; so, presumably, there was to be no punishment for holding to heretical or non-Christian beliefs.¹⁵ But, in the same breath, it is made clear that such are not “to preach or promulgate anything in opposition” to the “principles of Christian Religion.” Assumed throughout is the Magistrate’s role in maters of religion.¹⁶

Perhaps most remarkable though is the way Owen et al. took advantage of this open door with the Commons by essentially proposing a whole new church setlement.¹⁷ The first nine proposals relate to the approbation and maintenance of able and godly ministers, which implied the retaining of tithes. Though lacking clear and specific detail on several points, it was to be a system of ministerial veting based on national and local commitees and examiners. Formal ordination was not required for such an appointment. These proposals provided the ground work for what would become known as the systems of “triers” and “ejecters” in 1654.¹⁸ But neither the Proposals, nor the “triers” or “ejecters” systems, had a formal doctrinal standard for ministerial examination such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter WCF) and Thirty Nine Articles had previously served. For beter or worse, ministerial approbation would be more dependent on the orthodoxy of those doing the examination than on a writen confessional standard.¹⁹

The ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• SECTION I METHOD
• PART II Theology
• PART III Practise
• A John Owen Bibliography
• Index