i

Bible University

John Owen – The Defender of the Jesus Christ

and the Nonconformist Way

Gary Hill

Professor/Vice President Bill Carnagey

ii

To fulfill the requirements of the

Bachelor of Biblical Science Degree

13 October 2013

© Gary Hill 2013

Acknowledgement

A project of this magnitude is impossible to complete

without the assistance of many others along the way. In this

regard, I am eternally grateful to God, His Son Jesus Christ and

the Holy Spirit. I am also indebted to my advisor, Dr. Bill

Carnagey, without his constant support I could not graduate.

Bible University is a small island in a sea of sharks, and I

thank everyone at Bible University with my sincere gratitude and

appreciation for the job each one does so efficiently. It is my

pleasure and honor to be a small part of this university.

I am deeply grateful for the support of my wife, Judy Ann.

Without her invaluable help in time staking proof-reading of the

essays, the papers would not be in as rapidly, or as accurately.

On a personal level, Bible University has renewed my assurance

and hope though the ever present power of the Holy Spirit there

is a way to educate those trapped in the Humanist Manifesto, the

iii

state religion of the United States. Humanism practiced with the

bible of Political Correctness that stands in direct

contradiction to the precious Word of God.

While there are many who have provided help, from the

inception of this project to its completion, no one could have

been blessed with more devoted personal support from friends and

family. These friends provided constant support and

encouragement, and our association with them is one of the

highlights of our years in Madawaska; we are thankful that many

of these relationships still continue. Then finally the staff at

the Madawaska Public Library were always willing to assist in

helping to find that hard to find book.

Dedication

I would like to dedicate the fulfillment of the requirement

of the Bachelor of Biblical Science degree to some who have

refocused my passion to serve God in avenues and doors that God

iv

has yet to open. I dedicate this thesis to the Lord Jesus Christ,

the Great I AM – God Almighty, and the Holy Spirit He used to

convince me I was a sinner in need of salvation. I would also

like to dedicate this thesis to my advisor, Dr. Bill Carnagey,

without his continuing support and advice, I could not have

accomplished this lifetime goal. I also dedicate this to my wife

Judy Ann; without her help and time consuming proof-reading, the

thesis would have never been completed. My mother, the late

Margaret Louise “Pearl” Hill, who instilled in me never to give

up nor turn my back on the giver of life, the Lord Jesus Christ.

v

About the Author

Born August 25, 1948, to a godly mother who throughout her

life taught me about Jesus Christ and God, Margaret Louise, and

career Navy father, Hal W. Hill, who was overseas more than at

home. I moved with the family wherever the Navy moved my father.

That included Mobile, AL, San Diego, CA, Pensacola and

Jacksonville, FL. In 1968, awarded an Associate of Science

degree in Communications, from Jones College, Jacksonville, FL, a

then 2 year college. Jones College was a member of the

Florida/Georgia Junior College Athletic Association at that time.

Recruited by several schools on an athletic scholarship, I chose

to play basketball, football and baseball closer to home.

After graduation, I had a 15 year radio career which

produced national awards of Music Director of the Year in 1978,

79, and Program Director of the Year in 1979, as well. The awards

given by the Radio and Records Magazine and Convention, Los

Angeles, and the Pocat Awards in Philadelphia. In addition, I

vi

officiated high school baseball, football and basketball, college

baseball, basketball and football, and minor league baseball and

football.

After radio, I worked as Director of the U.S. Army Summer

Faculty Research and Engineering and High School Science and

Mathematics Faculty Programs for 14 years at Battelle RTP. Next I

flew for U.S. Airways Express, domiciled in Charlotte, NC, making

an average of 1,200 flights per year for 5 years.

Although raised in the Baptist Church by my Christian

mother, I had years after college and following where I drifted,

and it took years, and two divorces to come to an understanding

of what it took indeed to be a true Christian. I became born

again and baptized. One year later, I was preaching the Gospel of

Jesus Christ on college campuses for Maranatha Campus Ministries.

This included the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,

North Carolina State University, University of Georgia, and the

University of Virginia.

I had ministerial training in a different month long

conferences at the University of Georgia, Ohio State University

and the University of Virginia. I and others have street preached

vii

in the Pit at UNC, the strip at NC State, on Franklin Street on

Friday nights and other locations around the country. After Bob

Weiner’s decision to close the campus phase of the ministry, I

started a small fellowship with 8 other families in Hillsbourgh,

NC that eventually grew to over 10,000 members, Abundant Life

Church and Schools (Elementary only currently).

Since leaving Abundant Life, I helped launch two more home

churches that have succeeded in growing and spreading the Gospel.

At the current home church, Waters of Life Christian Fellowship,

we are currently replacing a roof on the 4,000 plus square foot

church and parsonage, library and fellowship center which should

be repaired, open and running before winter sets.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which centered Paul’s message,

started the Church Age with 14 known churches and probably many

more. We know there were believers who met in Athens, more than

one house church at Philippi, Ephesus, Cyprus (the first

missionary journey); more than one in Galatia and from Romans

15.19 there is Illyricum. It is with a little application we can

choose, as Paul, to spread the Gospel of Christ where He leads us

to do so.

viii

My passion lies in teaching those I meet to enjoy learning

the Word of God. My interests include Eschatology, Ecclesiology

and Apologetics of the most limitless Word of God. One lifetime

is just not long enough to scratch the surface of the depth of

God’s Word.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement..................................................

.................................................................

....... ii

Dedication………....................................................

.................................................................

......iii

About the

Author…..........................................................

..............................................................iv

Table of

Contents.........................................................

ix

.................................................................

..vi

List of

Tables…..........................................................

.................................................................

..vii

List of

Figures..........................................................

.................................................................

....viii

Chapter 1

Introduction.....................................................

..............................................................1

Chapter 2 England’s Stormy

Future…..........................................................

................................4

Chapter 3 the Early

Years…...........................................................

...............................................8

x

Chapter 4 John Owen 1635-

1650.............................................................

....................................13

Chapter 5 John Owen 1651-

1683.............................................................

....................................59

Chapter 6 Conclusions on John

Owen.............................................................

.............................95

Works

Cited……………………....................................................

..............................................98

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 - A Timeline 1616 –

1634.............................................................

.........................8

Table 2 - A Timeline 1635 –

1650.............................................................

.......................13

Table 3 – Calvinism vs.

Arminianism .....................................................

.........................21

Table 4 – A Timeline 1651-

1683.............................................................

.........................59

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1 – John Owen by John

Greenhill........................................................

.......................ix

Figure 2 – Oliver Crowell

Statue………........................................................

.........................7

xiii

Figure 1

xiv

John Owen painted by John Greenhill, 1668 (1649-1676)

Painting credited to National Portrait Gallery, London

(Greenhill, National Portrait Gallery)

Hill 1

Gary Hill

Professor Bill Carnagey

BBS 110 – A Survey of the Old Testament

13 October 2013

Word Count: 31,181

John Owen – The Defender of the Jesus Christ and the

Nonconformist Way

Chapter 1

Introduction

What is the value of a man? Albert Einstein once said, “The

value of a man is what he gives and not in what he is capable of

receiving.” (Frank, Rosen and Kusaka 251)

John Owen gave his entire life for the Gospel of Jesus

Christ. Within that context, his life long fight for Toleration

finally occurred, but after his death. John also fought for the

right of the church to be governed by the Holy Spirit and those

led by Him.

With that in mind, John Owen is a saint. Let me state here

that it is my desire not to elevate a person unnecessarily or

untruthfully. However when compared with the men of God today, it

Hill 2

can be derived from both his criticizers and admirers alike,

before and after becoming born again, John Owen lived the life he

preached every second. John Owen’s spiritual theology was

Puritan. John Owen’s birthdate remains unknown. However, his

birth year is 1616, to devout Puritan parents in the town of

Stradhampton, in Oxfordshire. It is not clear that his parents

were as John practiced, Congregationalist, however, eventually

they enthusiastically supported John in his pursuits of cleaning

up the Church of England morally, spiritually and theologically,

even to leaving the church and starting a new one.

Many Christians of the day, including Puritans, were members

of the Church of England in both the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries. However, the Puritans were the ones who called for

purification of the churches morals, worship and theology along

the lines of those established at Geneva, Switzerland by John

Calvin (1509-1564) and his followers. The trend gained momentum

among scholars in the 1570s at Cambridge University while

encountering the persecution by the House of Stuarts at the

beginning of the seventeenth century.

Hill 3

The House of Stuarts is where the kings of the monarchy and

United Kingdom became ascendant from 1603 to 1714. More on the

Stuarts will result in the history of the United Kingdom prior to

the birth of John Owen, but first let me state what the Thesis

will develop in the forthcoming chapters.

1. I will expound on the historical context of England

before and at the era of Owen’s life.

2. I will report on everything Owen; his birth, early

childhood, schooling, his Christian and professional

life.

3. I will report on the highlights of the many writings of

John Owen as we encounter them.

4. I will report on the roots of the Puritan movement and

Owen’s Congregational roots.

5. Finally, any conclusions drawn from the investigation and

any final thoughts.

When kings became reinstituted in the United Kingdom, the

Stuarts held the upper hand. The only question was, who would

take the post. James the 1st of England who had the honor of

being the first Stuart king, as was also a Stuart King James VI

Hill 4

of Scotland, which combined the two thrones for the first time.

From 1603 to 1714 the Stuart House dominated the thrones of both

countries. However, the chaos and persecution of Christians, of

plague, fire and war also dominated this period of history. It

was a period of intense theological debate, harassment and

threats on the Christians and Jews, producing sharp political

change. All of this led to a bloody civil war between the

supporters of the Crown (King Charles the 1st) and Parliament,

whose participants became known as Cavaliers and Roundheads, out

of which Oliver Cromwell engineered the execution of King Charles

the 1st.

God being behind the movement away from the Catholic Church

of England and the monarchy, the Puritan movement emerged as

momentarily influential during the English Civil War and

Interregnum (1643-1660) after John Owen’s inspiring sermons

before Parliament.

There was a momentary republic free from the Stuarts, an

occurrence that had never happened before.

The Restoration of the Crown quickly produced the British

'Glorious' Revolution. William and Mary of Orange ascended to the

Hill 5

throne as joint monarchs and defenders of Protestantism, followed

by Queen Anne, the second of James II's daughters. The end of the

Stuart line with the death of Queen Anne led to the drawing up of

the Act of Settlement in 1701, which provided that only

Protestants could occupy the throne. The next in line according

to the provisions of the Act of Settlement was George of Hanover,

yet Stuart princes remained in the wings. The Stuart effect was

to linger on in the benefit of claimants to the Crown for another

century. (Brooke, “The Stuarts”)

Chapter 2

England’s Stormy Future

England, during the start of the Elizabethan period, at the

beginning of 1600 was about 4 million souls but exploded by the

beginning of 1700 to over 5.5 million. During the upheaval that

the 1600s brought, the trade and commerce were exploding with the

Hill 6

growth of the population. Merchants began to gain some respect

even though political power and influence remained in the hands

of the rich and lavish land owners. From the “Evolution of

Culinary Techniques in the Medieval Era”, “By the end of the

1600s, 30 percent of the population considered poor could afford

to eat meat 2 to 6 meals a week. The rich and landowners, about

50 percent of the population, were eating meat, a sign of

affluence, daily.” (Santich 61)

An event that played a prominent role in John Owen’s life

was the 1642-1646 bloody Civil War between Parliament and the

rule of King Charles the 1st. From the “English Civil War, The

Essential Reading”, we learn:

To the Parliamentarians, the Royalists were 'Cavaliers'

- a term derived from the

Spanish word 'Caballeros', meaning armed troopers or

horsemen. To the Royalists, the Parliamentarians were

'Roundheads' - a reference to the shaved heads of the

London apprentices who had been so active in

demonstrating their support for Parliament during the

months before the fighting began. Both terms reveal a

Hill 7

lot about what the two sides thought of each other. In

Parliamentarian eyes, the typical Royalist was a

dissolute gentleman, possessed of a suspiciously

foreign air and prone to acts of sudden violence. As

far as the Royalists were concerned, the typical

Parliamentarian was a 'base mechanic': a low-born,

lumpen townsman, inexperienced in judgment and

inelegant in appearance. There was more than a grain of

truth in these stereotypes, but it would be wrong to

conclude from them that the Civil War was primarily a

class war, a punch up between 'toffs' and 'toughs'. The

considerations which prompted men and women to choose

the sides they did between 1642 and 1646 were

infinitely more varied and subtle than the two-party

labels suggest. (Gaunt 123)

Outside of the larger towns, agriculture made up the largest

segment of the economy. The largest commercial product and

export, cloth, while usually produced in a factory, hand woven in

homes. Doctors and hospitals had not made their appearance in the

beginning phase of the modern period, and as a consequence,

Hill 8

disease was rampant. The Plague was endemic and hit towns

particularly severely: there was high mortality in London in

1603, 1625, 1665.

Within this setting, the Puritans of England were either a

member of the Church of England trying to rebuild her, or

independently trying to decide how to establish what was to

become the Congregationalist undertaking in England. Both the

Puritans and the Congregationalist both believed in the absolute

autonomy of the local congregation. The Anabaptist developed the

“independence movement” which evolved easily among the Separatist

crusade away from the Church of England in the late Sixteenth

century. From the Harper-Collins Dictionary of Religion, “The

first Congregational Church was established in 1567 in London.”

(Smith, Green and Buckley 285)

The Puritan movement began to fracture with the calling of

the Westminster Assembly in 1643. Whereas previously, the Puritan

movement was associated with Presbyterians and others that sought

further reforms in the Church of England, at the Westminster

Assembly, it became necessary to work out the details.

Doctrinally, the Assembly was able to agree to the Westminster

Hill 9

Confession of Faith (which thus provides a good overview of the

Puritan theological position, although some Puritans would reject

portions of it, e.g. the Baptists rejected its teaching on infant

baptism).

Both the Puritans and the Congregationalist remained a small

but moving segment of Protestantism within both Wales and

England. The winds of change blew into Scotland and large

metropolitan areas of all three. Puritan and Congregationalist

remain in England, Scotland and Wales to this day. It was in this

era of England and the United Kingdom that John Owen’s birth

occurred sometime during the year 1616. Thus, one of the greatest

defenders of the deity of Jesus Christ and the Congregational way

during the modern era began his life. John had no idea at the

time, but Oliver Cromwell would be a key individual in his

future.

Hill 10

Figure 2

Oliver

Cromwell statue

at the Houses

of Parliament,

London

Hill 11

www.London-GB.com

Chapter 3

The Early Years of John Owen

Table 1 - A Timeline 1616 – 1634

National Personal – John Owen1616 William Shakespeare dies 1616 John Owen’s born1617 Raleigh’s expedition to

Guiana1620 Pilgrims sail to New

England1625 King Charles the 1st

marries Henrietta Maria1628 Enters Oxford University

1630 Laud becomes Chancellorof Oxford

1632 Graduates with B.A.1633 Laud named Archbishop

Canterbury

In the thirteenth year of the reign of King James1st, happens

to be the same year William Shakespeare died, and John Owen’s

life began. He was much too young to know that Great Britain was

not a happy country, either politically or religiously. Five

years before Owen’s birth in February 1611, public affairs had

Hill 12

remained abandoned to the monarchy, which morally had proved to

be just the opposite, immoral. The bottom line on the issue with

the monarchy was trying to govern without the people having a

voice through their Parliament.

Both James 1st and Charles1st both tried to govern without the

cooperation of Parliament, catering only to the whims of the

wealthy and the large property owners. This practice led directly

to the bloody Civil War between Charles the 1st and Parliament.

After the Civil War, it would be another century before the

tables became turned, and Parliament would decide.

John Owen’s father, The Reverend Henry Owen, had grave

misgivings about King James 1st and his chief adviser’s unethical

behavior. Reverend Henry and his wife Hester were staunch

Puritans who desired to see the countries return to the

righteousness of Jesus Christ. Henry became the curate at

Chislehampton. From “God’s Statesman: The Life and Works of John

Owen”:

Within the parsonage, the children were taught to pray,

to read the Bible and to obey the commandments. Each

day they sat with servants listening to their father

Hill 13

expound a portion of Holy Scripture and pray for the

country, the parish and for each of them individually.

At their mother's knee, they learn psalms and other

portions of the Bible. As each Lord’s Day came along

they knew that it was a day of rest and worship for the

whole community, the squire, the yeomen and the

labourers. Religious observance, though important, was

not the only activity of the parsonage. The children

had to learn to read and write as well as help with the

manual chores. (Toon 1)

John Owen makes a reference to his Father, whom he clearly

admired. “I was bred up from my infancy under the care of my

father, who was a Nonconformist all his days, and a painful

labourer in the vineyard of the Lord.” (Toon 3)

Henry and Hester sent their oldest son and John Owen when he

was nine years old to a grammar school in a house on the campus

of Oxford run by Edward Sylvester in the parish of All Saints,

Oxford. Here, he and his brother took courses in preparation for

the undergraduate school of the university, including Latin,

Hill 14

calculus and literature. His towering intellect was evident when

his parents entered him in Queen’s College at twelve years old.

Was this an early age for a young boy to enter college? All

we have to do is compare his entry with other contemporary

Puritans. Bishop Hall, for example, enrolled himself at Cambridge

at fifteen, while his great Puritan contemporary, John Howe, did

not enter Oxford until he had reached the riper age of seventeen.

So John, often called a genius by his brother, was early when

compared to others.

Why Queen’s College at Oxford University? Perhaps it was the

fact Henry Owen knew the Provost, Christopher Potter, was a

Puritan. Perhaps Henry or relative had attended there. In any

event, the boys went to Queen’s College at Oxford University.

John’s agenda at Queens was daunting. Here is a typical day

for a twelve year old:

1. At 6 a.m. He attended a Latin Chapel,

2. Then breakfast next.

3. Then at 10 a.m. There were lectures, tutorials and

disputations all conducted in Latin.

Hill 15

4. Lunch is then at noon, with time for relaxation

afterwards.

5. Afternoons began with another Chapel at 1 p.m.

6. Then more lectures and disputations held.

7. Then the next Chapel, time with their personal

trainer, or private study.

8. Next there was the evening meal, time for study,

then off to bed by 8 p.m.

9. Many notable occasions during the year included

parents and relatives visiting, along with former

students known as the Acts of July or Comitia, the

end of the academic year. Finally, greeting the

new and returning students and the professors

coming back at the Founders Day in late August.

Quite a schedule for any 21 year old to keep, but what we

are talking about here is a twelve year old. One aspect of the

day for John Owen deserves further explanation. The disputations

part of John’s education is something that would be rare today,

however, highly beneficial. This mental exercise became central

to Oxford’s intention for all students to be well-rounded in all

Hill 16

disciplines. Disputations, or endorsed organized debates, became

a regular part of universities of that era, to resolve questions

arising on philosophy, logic or theology from authorities and

reconciling conflicting opinions. The procedure for disputations

divided into three stages, which follows.

1. Stage one consisted of a participant called the

respondent who offered a response or interpretation

of the question of the day.

2. Stage two included several opponents stating

contradictory propositions to the question. They

attacked any flaws in the respondent’s argument.

3. Stage three had the moderator who presided over the

debate conclude the arguments of each side, giving

the weakness and strengths, then thought to the

subject overlooked, giving his selection as to the

winner of the debate. John Owen and his brother got

to listen to the disputations while they were in

their first two years, but participated later.

Peter Noon states on disputations,

Hill 17

John and William would have watched disputations in

their first two years, but in the junior and senior

years they would have taken part in them. The purpose

of these exercises was to improve the art of thinking

logically and exploring all sides of a problem. In John

Owen's case, the university certainly succeeded in

doing this. (Toon 5)

In addition to exceeding the standard in academics, which

John Owen did not think to be over demanding, he found time for

bodily exercise, which included throwing the javelin and doing

the long jump. From the history book, “The Queen’s College”,

“This suggest that John Owen was a well-rounded individual, which

later portraits confirm.” (Magrath 270)

It is necessary to note that the degree of Bachelor of Arts

did not matter then the same as it does now, a full line of

liberal education. Instead, it signaled the end of an attainment

of a recognized training qualifying one to go on to higher

studies and earn the Master of Arts, in the 1630s a more

difficult level.

Hill 18

John was extremely fortunate to have the brilliant

Aristotelian scholar John Barlow as a tutor, who took an interest

in the youthful genius that began a life-long friendship. Mark

Curtis, a prominent Oxford and Cambridge expert states, “From

John Barlow he received a full draught of Oxford learning at a

time when the streams of controversy were in tumultuous conflict.

The work of the college tutor was definitively in the seventeenth

century the most crucial part of a junior scholar’s education.”

(Curtis 107)

John awarded his B.A. at age fifteen. The Master’s degree

was a three year course and included geometry, metaphysics,

ancient history, Greek, Hebrew and astronomy, together with

disputations which helped prepare John for defending the faith.

Owen’s works then would reveal his knowledge, although not always

to the comfort of his readers the training he received in ancient

languages, literature and philosophy. John had a passion for

learning which often left him only 4 hours of sleep, something he

later regretted with illness leaving him with guilt for the

missed sleep of his youth.

Hill 19

As a side note, John Owen learned to play flute

proficiently. Owen instructed to play the flute by Thomas Wilson,

who some twenty years later, John would appoint him to the

position of Oxford professor of Music. John and William both

received their Masters of Art degree. John Owen was nineteen

years old at the 27 April 1635 graduation activities.

Chapter 4

John Owen 1635-1650

Table 2 - A Timeline 1635 – 1650

National Personal – John Owen1635 Graduates with M.A.

1637 Charles the 1st Pray Bookin Scotland

1637 Becomes a private tutor

1640 Short Parliament meets,Long Parliament (1640-53)

convenes1641 Irish Rebellion Grand

Remonstrance1642 Civil War begins 1642 London move/assurance of

Salvation1643 Westminister Assemblymeets/Solemn League and

Covenant signed

1643 1st book published, ADisplay of

Arminianism/Minister atFordham and marries Mary Rooke

1644 Battles of MarstonMoor/Newbury

1644 Son John was baptized 20December

1645 Laud executed/New ModelArmy formed

1646 End of 1st Civil War 1646 Parliamentpreaching/moves to Coggeshall

Hill 20

as minister/becomesCongregationalist, daughter

Mary born?1648 Colchester siege in 2nd

Civil War1648 Chaplain at Colchester

siege, son Thomas dies.1649 Charles the 1st

executed/Cromwell expeditionto Ireland

1649 Accompanies Cromwell toIreland

1650 Cromwell invades Scotland 1650 Appointed preacher toCouncil of State/Chaplain to

Cromwell to Scotland

Shortly after graduating from Oxford University in 1635,

John and his brother became ordained deacons by the Bishop of

Oxford, John Bancroft, in Christ Church. One important item that

I need to mention now, John Owen’s Welsh uncle John had been

giving both John and his brother a stipend during their seven

years of schooling. This continued as John continued his

education by enrolling in a seven year degree program at Oxford

University leading to a Bachelor of Divinity. This gave John an

opportunity to explore both British and Continental writers which

he continued reading until his death. His areas of interest in

Divinity School were “a continuing dispute between Protestants

and Roman Catholics and the rise of the Arminian doctrine in

Holland and the Church of England”. (Toon 6)

Hill 21

Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), of Holland, was the person

credited with the creation of the doctrine of Arminianism with

the major tenets of the theology being the rejection of

predestination, and the self-determination of the human will in

salvation. Shortly after Jacob’s death, his followers codified

the 5 principles of Arminianism which are:

1. That the divine decree of predestination is

conditional, not absolute;

2. That Atonement is universal;

3. That man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith, but

requires God's help to achieve this faith;

4. That through the grace of God is a necessary condition

of human effort it does not act irresistibly in people;

5. That believers are able to resist evil but are not

beyond the risk of falling from grace.

John Owen wrote an article in 1643 to address the

Arminianism principle introduced at Oxford University by the

Chancellor William Laud in 1630, this occurring when he was 24

years old. Many of the theological trappings of the Arminian

practices that had infiltrated the Church of England were now

Hill 22

beginning to be introduced on the campus. Peter Toon states,

“Provost Potter revived practices in the College Chapel that many

considered being papistical. At Christ Church, Brian Duppa, began

unnecessary renovations and singing of the Venite, Te Deum and

Benedictus and many other “high Church” influences introduced.”

(Toon 7)

Some of the papistical practices included an emphasis on

sacraments as the primary source of grace, ceremonial worship as

an expression of beauty and serenity, a need to kneel at a holy

table, ecclesiastical robes, standing at the recital of the Creed

and Gospel. Examples of the influences introduced by Laud are

the scents, Latin music, singing of grace at meals, hats for

worship and prayers to Mary.

At the same time the discussion of issues affecting the

university became restricted by Charles the 1st, effectively

stopping theological debate on divine election and

predestination. However, John Owen, in a sermon before Parliament

made the case for the Puritans against the invading Arminianism.

He attacked their theology on two main points in his first book,

“A Display of Arminianism” formally published in 1643:

Hill 23

First, to exempt themselves from God's sovereignty, --

to free themselves from the supreme dominion of his

all-ruling providence; not to live and move in him, but

to have an absolute independent power in all their

actions, so that the event of all things wherein they

have any interest might have a considerable relation to

nothing but chance, contingency, and their own wills;

-- a most nefarious, sacrilegious attempt! To this end,

they deny the eternity and unchangeableness of God's

decrees; for these being established, they fear they

should be kept within bounds from doing anything but

what his counsel hath determined should be done. If the

purposes of the strength of Israel be eternal and

immutable, their idol free-will must be limited, their

independency prejudiced; wherefore they choose instead

to affirm that his decrees are temporary and

changeable, yea, that he doth actually change them

according to the several mutations he sees in us:

which, how wild a conceit it is, how contrary to the

pure nature of God, how destructive to his attributes,

Hill 24

I shall show in the second chapter. Secondly, they

question the prescience or foreknowledge of God; for if

known unto God are all his works from the beginning, if

he certainly foreknew all things that shall hereafter

come to pass, it seems to cast an infallibility of

event upon all their actions, which encroaches upon the

large territory of their new goddess, contingency; nay,

it would quite dethrone the queen of heaven, and induce

a kind of necessity of our doing all, and nothing but

what God foreknows. Now, that to deny this prescience

is destructive to the very essence of the Deity, and

plain atheism, shall be declared. Thirdly, they depose

the all-governing providence of this King of nations,

denying its energetically, effectual power, in turning

the hearts, ruling the thoughts, determining the wills,

and disposing the actions of men, by granting nothing

unto it but a general power and influence, to be

limited and used according to the inclination and will

of every particular agent; so making Almighty God a

desire that many things were otherwise than they are,

Hill 25

and an idle spectator of most things that are done in

the world: the falseness of which assertions shall be

proved. Fourthly, they deny the irresistibility and

uncontrollable power of God's will, affirming that

oftentimes he seriously willeth and intendeth what he

cannot accomplish, and so is deceived of his aim; nay,

whereas he desireth, and really intendeth, to save

every man, it is wholly in their own power whether he

shall save any one or no; otherwise their idol free-

will should have but a poor deity, if God could, how

and when he would, cross and resist him in his

dominion. "His gradibus itur in coelum." Corrupted

nature is still ready, either nefariously, with Adam,

to attempt to be like God, or to think foolishly that

he is altogether like unto us, Psalm. l.; one of which

inconveniences all men run into, who have not learned

to submit their frail wills to the almighty will of

God, and captivate their understandings to the

obedience of faith.

(Owen, Burder 25-27)

Hill 26

John obviously knew his audience well. His frontal attack

calling Arminianism and the Dutch Remonstrant both Pelagianism,

which horrified Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century,

is as candid as one can be. There were many Protestant members of

Parliament who shared his stance against the Church of England.

One also cannot miss the enthusiasm with which Owen states his

case, and admire him for standing up for what he sees is just.

Today, hardly anyone bats an eye at the Bible, much less a

theological debate on man’s free will and God’s predestination

which case still is still debated today. I wonder how many

millions will be eager to get a Bible after they understand the

rapture occurred, and they did not believe. Then the dust will

come flying off millions of Bibles when the world realizes that

the Word of God was right, after all.

Let us further investigate John Owen’s denunciation of

Arminianism:

Secondly, the second end at which the new doctrine of

the Arminians aimeth is, to clear human nature from the

heavy imputation of being sinful, corrupted, wise to do

evil but unable to do good; and so to vindicate unto

Hill 27

themselves a power and ability of doing all that good

which God can justly require to be done by them in the

state wherein they are, of making themselves differ

from others who will not make so good use of the

endowments of their natures; that so the first and

chiefest part in the work of their salvation may be

ascribed unto themselves; a proud Luciferian endeavour!

To this end, first, They deny that doctrine of

predestination whereby God is affirmed to have chosen

certain men before the foundation of the world that

they should be holy, and obtain everlasting life by the

merit of Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace,

any such predestination which may be the fountain and

cause of grace or glory, determining the persons,

according to God's good pleasure, on whom they shall be

bestowed: for this doctrine would make the special

grace of God to be the sole cause of all the good that

is in the elect more than [in] the reprobates; would

make faith the work and gift of God, with divers other

things, which would show their idol to be nothing, of

Hill 28

no value. Wherefore, what a corrupt heresy they have

substituted into the place thereof. Secondly, They deny

original sin and its demerit; which being rightly

understood, would easily demonstrate that,

notwithstanding all the labour of the smith, the

carpenter, and the painter, yet their idol is of its

own nature but an unprofitable block; it will discover

not only the impotency of doing good which is in our

nature, but show also whence we have it. Thirdly, if ye

will charge our human nature with a repugnancy to the

law of God, they will maintain that it was also in Adam

when he was first created, and so comes from God

himself. Fourthly, They deny the efficacy of the merit

of the death of Christ; both that God intended by his

death to redeem his church, or to obtain unto himself a

holy people; as also, that Christ by his death hath

merited and procured for us grace, faith, or

righteousness, and power to obey God, in fulfilling the

condition of the new covenant. Nay, this were plainly

to set up an ark to break their Dagon's neck; for,

Hill 29

"what praise," say they, "can be due to ourselves for

believing, if the blood of Christ hath procured God to

bestow faith upon us?" "Increpet te Deus, O Satan!"

Fifthly, If Christ will claim such a share in saving of

his people, of them that believe in him, they will

grant some to have salvation quite without him, that

never heard so much as a report of a Saviour; and,

indeed, in nothing do they advance their idol nearer

the throne of God than in this blasphemy. Sixthly,

having thus robbed God, Christ, and his grace, they

adorn their idol free-will with many glorious

properties no way due unto it, where you shall

discovery how, "movet cornicula risum, furtivis nudata

coloribus." Seventhly, they do not only claim to their

new-made deity a saving power, but also affirm that he

is very active and operative in the great work of

saving our souls. First, in fitly preparing us for the

grace of God, and so disposing of ourselves that it

becomes due unto us. Secondly, In the effectual

working of our conversion together with it and so at

Hill 30

length, with much toil and labour, they have placed an

altar for their idol in the holy temple, on the right

hand of the altar of God, and on it offer sacrifice to

their own net and drag; at least, "nec Deo, nec libero

arbitrio, sed dividatur," not all to God, nor all to

free-will, but let the sacrifice of praise, for all

good things, be divided between them. (Owen, Burder 27-

30)

In a magnificent defense of Calvin Theology before

Parliament, it was almost impossible to imagine that John Owen

recently graduated from Oxford University. After reading John

Owen’s defense of the Gospel and Calvinism in his first book, I

have come to a few conclusions.

1. Like Stephen of Acts 7, John Owen was 24 years

young when he made this speech at an extremely young

age.

2. One of the most salient points he makes about

Arminianism is that it is a theology that Owens states

appeals to the flesh.

Hill 31

3. That being the case and it is still highly

debatable, we are all born with a man-centric approach

to life to the exclusion of God.

4. God helps one to learn the truth and shows His

love and mercy towards us (Romans 5:8) by sending the

Holy Spirit to give us the gift of a spirit of

repentance and a heart for salvation.

John Owen did not mix words. John Owen rather pointedly

calls Arminianism Theology “Luciferian”. John’s argument stands

fully articulated, however prejudiced by a basic misunderstanding

of the theology as it stands today. Andrew Thomson states this

thought in his book of the history of John Owen.

In all likelihood he had been silently laboring at this

work while in the families of Sir Philip Dormer and

Lord Lovelace; more especially as his mental distress

may have had some connection with a misunderstanding of

certain of those points of which the Arminian

controversy touches, and have led to their more full

examination. But we may discover the principal occasion

of the work in the ecclesiastical policy of the period,

Hill 32

and in the strain of doctrinal sentiment which that

policy had long aimed to foster and to propagate. Laud

and his party had shown themselves as zealous for the

peculiar dogmas of Arminianism, as for Romish rites and

vestment and for passive obedience; and the dogmas had

been received into royal favour because of their

association with the advocacy of superstitious

ceremonies and the defense of despotic rule. (Thomson

13)

Thompson’s point is well taken. John was more against the

staunch formalities of rote for mere appearance of Laudism, than

he was with the Church of England’s theological leanings which he

later in life would attempt to change, and make peace. But on the

Toleration issue, this would not be settled in his lifetime, but

it would be a constant theme of his.

To inspect the line by line key tenets of each Theology I

have prepared a simple table of the 5 points of both Calvinism

and Arminianism.

Table 3

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Hill 33

Calvinism Theology The Five Points of Arminianism

Original Sin - Mankind after the fall was born into Sin. Mankind is spiritually dead and with the Holy Spirit is blind. Obeying God is not in his thoughts and actions. Sin is natural to the flesh and toGod he is evil.

Free Will -Sin does not control a man’s will. Sick from birth and spiritual near-sighted, can obey, can believeand finally repent. Does not sin continually and not whollyevil.

Unconditional Election – Free grace from God is how He chooses the elect. Each personcomes to God by the Holy Spirit with nothing to give. The rest to be damned for their sins.

Conditional Election – For seen faith is how God chooses the elect. His creation He loves equally. No one is passed over by God, and everyone has an equal opportunity for salvation.

Limited Atonement – The elect are who Christ died for, and paid the price for sin giving those who believe in and live for him salvation.

Universal Atonement – The death of Christ paid a provisional price for all men,but did not guarantee it for anyone. Only those that would believe in Him.

Irresistible Grace - Saving grace is irresistible, for theHoly Spirit in invincible and intervenes in man’s heart. TheHoly Spirit’s sovereignty gives repentance, new birth and faith to the elect who believe.

Resistible Grace – Man can resist saving grace because God does not challenge man’s free will. When a man believeshe is born-again, faith and repentance come from free willand not from God.

Perseverance of the Saints - God protects his own and freely gives faith to those who ask with the Holy Spirit helping the elect to be obedient to the end. Even the

Falling from Grace – Very few Christians make it to the deadline in faith and by beingobedient. (The final thought for Arminians on one losing his salvation is still not

Hill 34

back-sliders can come back to Him.

settled).

The fact is that Arminianism, firmly established in the

world, is a growing theology in the United States, as well. The

following denominations practice Arminianism compiled in a list

by Roger Olson, a leading Arminian theologian:

1. Fellowship of Evangelical Churches

2. Mennonite Church

3. Brethren Church

4. Evangelical Covenant Church

5. Evangelical Free Church of America

6. American Baptist Churches, U.S.A.

7. Baptist General Convention of Texas

8. Conservative Baptist Association of America

9. Baptist General Conference/Converge Worldwide

10. Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

11. General Association of General Baptists

12. National Association of Free Will Baptists

13. National Baptist Convention

14. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A.

Hill 35

15. North American Baptist Conference

16. Original Free Will Baptist Convention

17. United American Free Will Baptist Church

18. African Methodist Episcopal Church

19. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

20. Congregational Methodist Church

21. Evangelical Methodist Church

22. The Christian and Missionary Alliance

23. Church of Christ

24. Church of the Nazarene

25. Churches of God

26. The Wesleyan Church

27. Christian and Restorations’ Churches (Stone-Campbellite

Tradition)

28. Adventist: Advent Christian Church General Conference

29. Grace Communion International (before the Worldwide

Church of God)

30. Assemblies of God

31. Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)

32. Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God

Hill 36

33. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

34. United Holy Church of God,

35. Vineyard Churches International (Olsen 226)

Now a caveat. There are denominations listed above which

clearly do not practice Arminian Theology altogether, but may

share some of the components while mixing them with Calvinist

Theology. Therein lies a paradox. Paul, speaking of what he

learned by the Apostles from Jesus Christ said, “Your boasting is

not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole

lump?” (1 Corinthians 5.6)

The Calvinist doctrine teaches predestination while

Arminianism teaches free will, with the later teaching without

God doing the work or choosing. The Theology of a denomination is

extremely crucial if one is going to go under the teaching of a

pastor. Preaching any theology may or probably may not be

recognized by the average Christian who may be more influenced by

friends in the church, the warmth of the people in the

congregation, proximity to their home of the church and other

factors.

Hill 37

The social factors mentioned above sadly often have much

higher weight in the decision to attend a church than the

Theology practiced and preached today. While I do not believe

that most preachers are deliberately misleading their flocks, the

teaching they received in university or college is often not

rock-solid Biblical based theology either. Without doing Holy

Spirit lead independent enquiry into what the Bible says about

the theology taught, any inaccuracy of such will go unchallenged

by the preacher and certainly not by the average Christian.

Another dividing point between the Calvinist (John Owen) and

the Arminian (Jacob Arminius) is the Word of God. It is hard to

generalize any large body of churches with accurateness because

there are always many exceptions. However, typically the

Calvinist believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, and many of the

Arminian Theology group does not. Here is a quote on the subject

from the Arminian.com with the author failing to identify

themselves, “I am sad to say that most Arminian churches do not

have written into their articles of faith a statement about the

inerrancy of Scripture. While many may, in fact, hold to

inerrancy, most Arminian denominations do not have a statement

Hill 38

about inerrancy written into their doctrinal convictions. I was

raised in the Assemblies of God and while I believe that the vast

majority of Assemblies of God pastors and Bible teachers do hold

to inerrancy, the Assemblies of God does not have an affirmation

of inerrancy written into their fundamental truths.” (The Seeking

Disciple “Inerrancy”)

Let me state clearly that there are many reputable

academians on each side of the issues surrounding Calvinism and

Arminianism. One of my former teachers, Dr. Chuck Missler,

succinctly states the issue,

Predestination vs. Free Will is one of the classic

debates throughout the entire history of both

philosophy and theology. The doctrine of election also

lies at the root of the traditional debate between

Calvinism and Arminianism. When the Lord Himself

touched on this issue in Nazareth, they attempted to

throw Him off a cliff! (Luke 4:25-30) The "Once Saved

Always Saved" view is still an extremely controversial

topic among those grappling with the apparent paradoxes

emerging from this issue. Our own view is that both

Hill 39

views - Calvinism and Arminianism - are correct in what

they assert, but both are wrong in what they deny. This

classic debate, we believe, can only be resolved by

recognizing that God is outside our domain of time. The

great insight of modern physics is the discovery that

time is a physical property. Since God is not bound by

the restrictions of our physical existence, He is not

someone who has "lots of time," but rather One who is

outside our domain of time altogether. While we have

complete freedom of choice - within our dimensionality

of time - He is outside of that domain and He alone

knows the end from the beginning. Thus, it is a

courtship between two sovereignties. It is His

faithfulness and unconditional love that we have the

opportunity to receive. (Missler “Armor of God”)

John Owen’s Christianity was all embracing, nearly Jewish

and penetrated his entire life. William Laud’s embracing of Roman

Catholicism and Arminianism, is reflected in the release in 1631

of the “Articles of Religion” by the university, and immediately

caused John to consider leaving the university the best choice.

Hill 40

This was because staying at Oxford would be considered by God

that he was compromising Laud’s beliefs. Owen resigned after a

visit by King Charles the 1st and the royal couple lodging in

Christ Church Deanery. From “God’s Statesman, the Life and Works

of John Owen”, we pick up where John Owen went after leaving

Oxford in late 1636.

Owen did not go far from Oxford. Probably through his

father’s help, he became chaplain and tutor in the

household of Sir Robert Dormer in 1637 at the Manor

House in the hamlet of Ascot in the parish of Great

Milton. Taking a chaplaincy was of course a common

Puritan way of avoiding clashes with the hierarchy of

the Church and of continuing theological reading. John

did not stay long in the Dormer house. He moved twenty

miles nearer to London to be the chaplain in the home

of John, Lord Lovelace, the second Baron, and his wife

Anne, the daughter and heiress of Thomas Wentworth,

first Earl of Cleveland. Why he left Ascot for Hurley,

is not clear. Perhaps pressure from the Bishop of

Oxford upon Sir Robert, who was not legally entitled to

Hill 41

have a chaplain, or even economic factors played some

part in the decision. (Toon 10)

John had security with the Wentworth’s that he lacked at

Great Milton. Lord Lovelace had permission from the Bishop to

maintain a chaplain. Lord Lovelace was more than likely a

Protestant. If so, he harbored no love for Archbishop Laud and

his religious practices. Presumably Owen read services and

preached in non-ecclesiastical dress. Lord Lovelace was more

interested in John’s character and chaplain abilities than in his

attire. John Owen passed on both accounts with his unblemished

character and ability to handle the Word of God. John stayed

with Lord Lovelace even though his employer came out for the

King, although maintaining his Protestant faith, and had those

around him prepare for war with Parliament which started less

than 2 years later in 1642.

Lord Lovelace began to follow the example of other noblemen

and tell his tenants and neighbors to prepare for fighting for

the King in what should be a short conflict. By June 1642, Lord

Lovelace signed a declaration supporting King Charles. After the

war had begun, John Owen during this period remained silent

Hill 42

giving him time for the task of theological studying and

gathering what information he could of the war without CNN. He

learned of the King’s attack on Nottingham in August and

proclaiming the Commons and its army traitors. Then came the

October news of the battle of Edgehill between the King and the

Earl of Essex. Next came the expected announcement that Oxford

University welcomed the King onto the campus.

By October of 1642, both Lord Lovelace and John Owen came

to the realization that this was not going to be a short lived

war. With Lord Lovelace’s sympathies being with the King, and

those of Owen wholly behind the objectives of Parliament, his

religious convictions at last motivated him to move. John Owen’s

sympathies clearly were behind the cause of the Presbyterian

preachers of London who supported Parliament. The Grand

Remonstrance stated objectives and demands of Parliament

delivered to King Charles the 1st in November 1641. Here is a

summary of demands to avoid the coming conflict.

1. We, your most humble and obedient subjects, do with

all faithfulness and humility beseech your Majesty,

that you will be graciously pleased to concur with

Hill 43

the humble desires of your people in a parliamentary

way, for the preserving the peace and safety of the

kingdom from the malicious designs of the Popish

party for depriving the Bishops of their votes in

Parliament, and abridging their immoderate power

usurped over the Clergy, and other your good

subjects, which they have perniciously abused to the

hazard of religion, and great prejudice and

oppression to the laws of the kingdom, and just

liberty of your people. For the taking away such

oppressions in religion, Church government and

discipline, as have been brought in and fomented by

them for uniting all such your loyal subjects

together as join in the same fundamental truths

against the Papists, by removing some oppressive and

unnecessary ceremonies by which divers weak

consciences have been scrupled, and seem to be

divided from the rest, and for the due execution of

those good laws which have been made for securing

the liberty of your subjects.

Hill 44

2. That your Majesty will likewise be pleased to remove

from your council all such as persist to favour and

promote any of those pressures and corruptions where

with your people have been grieved; and that for the

future your Majesty will vouchsafe to employ such

persons in your great and public affairs, and to

take such to be near you in places of trust, as your

Parliament may have cause to confide in; that in

your princely goodness to your people you will

reject and refuse all mediation and solicitation to

the contrary, how powerful and near so ever.

3. That you will be pleased to forbear to alienate any

of the forfeited and escheated lands in Ireland

which shall accrue to your Crown by reason of this

rebellion, that out of them the Crown may be the

better supported, and some satisfaction made to your

subjects of this kingdom for the great expenses they

are like to undergo [in] this war. Which humble

desires of ours being graciously fulfilled by your

Majesty, we will, by the blessing and favour of God,

Hill 45

most cheerfully undergo the hazard and expenses of

this war, and apply ourselves to such other courses

and counsels as may support your real estate with

honour and plenty at home, with power and reputation

abroad, and by our loyal affections, obedience and

service, lay a sure and lasting foundation of the

greatness and prosperity of your Majesty, and your

fantastic posterity in future times. Of course, King

Charles the 1st rejected the demands of Parliament,

and went to war. (Forester 271)

This document was clearly Parliament’s way of avoided the

bloodshed of war. John Owen would have clearly been behind

Parliament’s position, however there is no indication in his

writings that he supported this document, even though his

attitude of nonviolence with those that share a different

theology is confirmed by Parliamentary historian Pauline Gregg,

There is no historical indication that John Owen

supported this document, although his later actions and

attitude would seem to indicate he would. His

independent leanings are a strong predictive that he

Hill 46

would be wholeheartedly in favor of the petition. He

was in favor of the later Westminster declaration made

27 May 1642 stating that the King, seduced by wicked

counsellors, was making war on Parliament.” (Gregg 88-

90)

John made a deliberate decision to go to London and stay

with relatives. His financial support and his friendship, from

his uncle came to an end on the move to London. However, Owen

came to understand that his move to London was God’s will. The

move brought him in contact with the leading London clerical

defenders of Parliament who was either Protestant or Puritan.

Peter Toon says about the move to London, “He soon learned that

Puritan preachers who believed the war between Parliament and the

King were in the terms of the battle of Christ against Antichrist

portrayed in vivid terms and symbols in the book of Revelation.”

(Toon 12)

It was also at this time that John Owen came to a conclusion

that would guide his thought through the rest of his life. His

point of and faith in the Word of God and the writers prevailed.

Hill 47

By November 1642 he was convinced that the only source

of authority in religion was the Holy Scripture; he

wholeheartedly accepted the doctrines of orthodox

Calvinism and knew how and why these differed from the

doctrines of Lutheranism, Arminianism and Roman

Catholicism; but he had not yet experienced that

personal, spiritual assurance of the Holy Spirit

witnessing to his own spirit that he was a child of

God. He knew that much of the literature of the Puritan

brotherhood of preachers had concerned itself with the

need for this sense of the reality of salvation.

Happily, Owen found what his soul desired in St. Mary’s

Church, Aldermanbury. (Haller 83)

It happened on a Sunday. John Owen, and his cousin went to

church to hear the famous Presbyterian, Edmund Calamy, the rector

of the parish. However, Calamy was not to be there, replaced by

someone whose name Owen could not determine. His cousin urged him

to leave and go try Arthur Jackson at St. Michaels nearby. Owen

decided to stay at St. Mary. Matthew 8.26 was the theme that the

preacher used, “Why are you fearful, you of little faith?” It was

Hill 48

God’s content directly to the heart of John Owen, and the Holy

Spirit entered him. All doubts, any fears and worries vanished,

and John Owen knew he was a child of God. God had used an novel

preacher to talk to Owen. He now knew God chose him before the

foundation of the world, and had a loving plan for him and his

life. The reality of the Holy Spirit entering him, he now would

take everything that happened to him in a different light,

especially with Jesus Christ being in control of the church and

God in charge of the world. Never again would there ever be a

matter of where foresight and predestination of God occurred. It

also meant that not only would he preach receiving the Gospel,

but the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, as well.

John Owen was working on his first book both before and

after the Holy Spirit encounter him. However, he now was writing

inspired through the Holy Spirit. A Display of Arminianism,

which I have already addressed, was published in 1643. His

efforts at criticism of Arminianism were not written elegance,

but more of scoring a polemical effort to prove his academic

position than a fair evaluation of a doctrine. On July 16th of

that same year, He also became the pastor at Fordham, after

Hill 49

turning down a parish offered by Sir Edward. Later, it happened

either in November or December 1643, he married Mary Rooke.

The parish records contain a record of baptism of their

first child, John Jr., the son of John Owens and his wife Mary on

20 December 1644. Also of importance, the previous rector at

Fordam since 1633, John Alsop had the parish well versed in

Laudism. John Owen’s position had come from Parliament and not

Bishop Laud. To rectify Laudism, John went house to house in the

parish teaching Protestantism through two catechisms penned by

himself. One for the young of the parish, and the other for the

adults. No everyone in the parish took to this new Gospel; there

were those who “walked disorderly…little laboring to acquaint

themselves with the mystery of godliness.” (Toon 18)

It was these that John Owen tried to turn. For the faithful

hearers John wrote a book entitled, “The Duty of Pastors and

People Distinguished” in late 1644. Many insights into John

Owen’s preferences on how church should be conducted and

attitudes towards him and worship are in this book. I have

summarized these from the Life and Work of John Owen:

Hill 50

1. The writing of this book was “for increasing of

divine wisdom in themselves and others”.

2. His advice included explanations of the attitude

they should adopt toward their minister.

3. Gain insight into the way they should approach

Christian worship.

4. He was in favor of adopting a policy of Presbyterian

or Synodical, in opposition to Laudism, prelatical

or diocesan.

5. He was at that time an independent church government

proponent. (Toon 18b)

God had brought him to London so that he would be there for

the release of the Root and Branch petition which he believed to

be entirely contrary to the Word of God. At the same time, Owen

feared the democracy, or majority rule, of Congregationalism. His

desire was to have something in between the two. One of his

contemporaries stated that John Owen is a, “moderate and learned

Presbyterian.” (Bartlet 118)

That being the case his days of being a moderate

Presbyterian were about to come to an end. The governing body of

Hill 51

the Presbyterian faith was the Westminster Assembly of divines in

London. This organization’s learned membership had many different

opinions over church legislation voiced. About the time that John

Owen was writing the “Duty for Pastors”, five of the divines whom

he soon befriended published “An Apologetic Narration” in

December 1643, explaining their adherence to the Congregational

way. By this, they were advocating authority for:

1. The local officers would assign officers, instead of the

Bishop.

2. These officers would have the right to accept and ban

members.

Even more importantly, “This proclamation also gave their reasons

for dissenting from the Presbyterian views of the majority of the

members of the Assembly.” (Toon 19)

Another couple of dissenting brethren purchased a copy of

the book “Keys of the Kingdom”, by John Cotton, which had a

tremendous impact on their views of church polity. Cotton was

also pastor of First Church of Boson, Massachusetts. John

acquired a copy of both books and devoured them.

Hill 52

Situations began to follow one after another for John Owen

in late 1645. They include:

1. Rumors reached John Owen about the death in America

of John Alsop.

2. Sir John Lucas, the owner of the Manor of Great

Fordham and a 12 year old named William Abell now

had the right to choose a successor.

3. John Owen, ready to go, made preparations. Baptism

records indicate he officiated the ceremony 28

December 1645. There are indications that he did not

abandon the parsonage until Easter 1646.

John Owen directly, by prayer, sought God’s direction as to

his next service to Him. Within a month, he received an

invitation to preach before the House of Commons on April 29th,

1646. His friends from the past, Sir Peter Wentworth and Thomas

Westrow, were the ones who put his name out. The Long Parliament

had a fast day on the last Wednesday of each month. During these

tough times, it was prayer and the preaching of the Word of God

that formed an important part of renewing hope and confidence

that God was on their side. The side of Parliament almost

Hill 53

unanimously felt that God was on their side against the King and

his evil advisers. John’s sermon had a much larger audience than

just the Parliament and St. Margaret’s Church combined. His

sermon was printed and distributed to all of England.

There were five major themes that John Owen preached during

the years 1643-1646:

1. God is in control and governs the fate of

individuals and nations.

2. With God being in control of England, she was an

“elect nation.”

3. With the Solemn League and Covenant, England is in

covenant relationship with both Scotland and God.

They must repent and reform the church.

4. The current civil war is like a measure of God’s

shaking what can be shaken leading either to a

glorious reformation, or, more Divine judgment.

5. God has a glorious future for His Church

unrestricted by the Turks, Papacy and all Antichrist

doctrines. (Owen, Goold, vol. VIII, 88)

Hill 54

To explain the thought processes of John Owen at the time

he made the presentation to Parliament, several events were

coming together. There was a significant victory by General

Fairfax at Cornwall and they were soon to get Oxford, as well.

The new model Army of Parliament had effectively defeated the

troops of King Charles the 1st. To John Owen and the divines,

the victories by the new model Army existed inspired and

predestined by God. The Independents now had standing in

Parliament, but not a majority. What this meant in practical

terms, the Independents were invited to speak more in the fast-

days event. John’s appearance was part of this hard fought new

phase. John Owen had declared his allegiance to the aims of the

Independents in the Commons and the dissidents in the Assembly of

divines. This becomes much clearer when one examines the theme of

John Owen’s speech.

Released in tracts in 1646, “A Vision of Unchangeable Free

Mercy”, John Owen’s theological doctrine and the way he ties this

to events, government policies and religious Toleration becomes

clear. I have read the entire sermon. He does not mention

specific battles in war or politics, but, in generalities and

Hill 55

basic principles. But, what he shows is God sovereignty has acted

throughout history in war and politics, allowing the growth of

the Gospel in some lands, but not others. Thus, from the title

of the sermon, “The Sending of the Gospel to any Nation is of the

Free Grace and Good Pleasure of God.” (Toon 20)

Did John Owen go too far in stating that the success of the

victors in any war or the sovereignty of spreading the Gospel is

the direct result of the favor of God? Maybe so. Much later in

life, in 1670, he wrote the following in his more mature and

later considered thoughts on success in war and God’s involvement

in the affairs of government,

A cause is good or bad before it hath success one way

or another; and that which hath not warrant in itself

can never obtain any from its success. The rule of the

goodness of any public cause is the eternal law of

reason, with the just legal rights and interests of

men. If these make not a end good, success will never

mend it. But when a cause on these grounds is so

indeed, or is really judged such by them that are

engaged in it, not to take notice of the providence of

Hill 56

God in prospering men in pursuit of it, is to exclude

all thoughts of Him and His providence from having any

concern in the government of the world.” (Owen, Goold,

vol. XVI, 279)

John Owen wrote “A Short Defensative about Church

Government, Toleration, and

Petitions about These Things” in late 1646. His treatise on

church government is a heartfelt try to be a peacemaker in the

Puritan movement, with such a proud history, fragmented by the

pressures of war and the independence that comes with it. So much

of the infighting then and now does much to show dishonor to

Christ. Owen’s essay was written to appease the warring brethren.

With the external pressures on the church, Owen believed that the

internal pressure, was brought on by Presbyterians, to produce

signatures for petitions to be sent to Westminister was not just.

These petitions called for full implementation of Presbyterian

discipline on the parish level by the guidelines set forth by the

Presbyterian National Church.

From a “History of the English Church” we find, “Meantime,

and more to the structural change needed in the church by John

Hill 57

Owen, the Westminister Assembly, and the City authorities had

petitioned Parliament to authorize church discipline in parishes

be totally administered by the minister and lay elders that was

already being done in Scotland or Geneva. They were already doing

this in defiance of the Bishop and without help or interference

of a group of lay commissioners appointed by Parliament.” (Shaw

292)

Owen refused to sign any of the petitions, applying four

reasons to justify his refusal.

1. He was convinced that honest civil rights in the

parishes could not be explained by a lack of strong

Presbyterian discipline.

2. In August 1645 Parliament had already established

the English Church as Presbyterian, and this was

crucial because it allowed a degree of freedom at

the local level.

3. Because the petitions and drafting of them came from

unknown writers, they gave the impression that it

over-ruled “our noble Parliament”.

Hill 58

4. It was only a rehash of the Solemn League and

Covenant from 1643 that bound England and Scotland

together into a civil and spiritual relationship.

Negotiators had already persuaded the Scots to add the words,

“according to the Word of God”, to the Solemn League and Covenant

that more than quantified the kind of church organization. (Toon

23)

The purpose of Owen’s “Country Essay” was to move into

agreement the divergent and often warring Presbyterians,

Independents and others within the framework of existing

ecclesiastical law. Owen was a relatively minor and young

preacher making what would be perceived as an audacious move. He

states “Essex has a rich supply of able-bodied, godly, orthodox,

peace-loving pastors and many pew sitters who know nothing of the

power of godliness, and a few souls in most parishes who were

inclined to separation because of the unsatisfactory state of

parish churches.” (Toon 23b)

In the first part of the essay Owen proposed that each

parish pastor should do what is expected, make the rounds of

preaching and catechizing, doing their best to make needed

Hill 59

reformation to each parish. In an unheard of proposition, Owen

proposed that real born-again saints from each parish within

areas of no more than 100 square miles to gather at least each

month and build within themselves a new formed church.

Within each new church they should elect local qualified

pastors, teachers and ruling elders, independent of the Popery.

Speaking on the individual congregation and their membership in

the new gathered church John Own states:

Let the rules of admission into this society and

fellowship be scriptural, and the things required in

the members only such as all godly men affirm to be

necessary for everyone that will partake of the

ordinances with profit and comfort with special care

being taken that none be excluded who have the least

breathings of soul in sincerity after Jesus Christ.

(Toon 24)

John Owen always has always stated that members of any

church should always attend in their own parishes. In the second

part of the essay Owen opens the lifelong subject of Toleration.

To Owen, what this term intended varied widely among its users.

Hill 60

When it came to the Presbyterians, as well as to Independents and

Congregationalist, it meant the unrestricted license to teach and

preach whatever the Holy Spirit led them within morals and

religion. Owen believed something different form the

Presbyterians on the left and the Separatists and Sectarians on

the right. To quote Peter Toon, “Owen’s own position was firmly

of the opinion that heretics as well as dissenters from the

Church of England should not be punished merely because they were

so, but only if they caused a public disturbance or were openly

licentious.” (Toon 24b)

Instead of using the sword, their doctrinal errors must be

countered by the reasonable argument and through spiritual

persuasion. After all, the persecution and punishment of heretics

by the Church of England had not produced no lasting good, but

rather only tyranny. This stance is an effort by Owen to restrain

both the Parliament and the Church from launching into a

persecution of anyone simply because of erroneous theology

without causing any civil disturbance. After all, doctrine based

on salvation through Christ Jesus otherwise different through

hermeneutics could be corrected with reason.

Hill 61

In my research on Essex, it appears that Owen’s initial

proposals for a peaceful solution never got off the ground. What

the proposals did is give us insight to Owen’s spiritual maturity

and the way he was applying the Bible to the situation. We can

also clearly discern that from the 1644 paper, “The Duty of

Pastors”, when Owen called himself a Presbyterian, he clearly was

rapidly moving in the direction of the Congregational way. This

directional change occurred because of the influence of Owen’s

study of John Cotton’s book, and his own critical analysis of

what hard-liner Presbyterianism had created and unfortunately

would continue to encourage.

A couple of observations of John Owen through 1646. One of

these is that although he highly encourages gathering of the real

saints, he has yet to do that in the parish he preaches.

Secondly, Owen is quietly gaining respect and confidence from his

peers and is encouraged that what he is saying is valuable. I

would even go so far to say that his publications to date have

had a positive effect on the future of England and Scotland.

Gleaming information from the title-page of his May 1646

book, “The Vision of Unchangeable Free Mercy”, we find that he is

Hill 62

at the end of 1646 the pastor of the Gospel at Coggeshall.

Situated about halfway between Braintree to the west and

Colchester to the east it is a small town on the banks of River

Blackwater on the old Roman Military Road called Stane Street.

Owen believed that he was “directed by the providence of the Most

High” to Coggeshall where, we learn, he had been “sought by the

people of God.” (Owen, Goold, vol. X, 140)

Owen uses his next publication to thank the Lord and the

Earl who appointed him to this post at Colchester. The

publication, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”,

published in 1647, is a theological text book, but somewhat hard

to read because of the heavy style of Owen and his Aristotelian

methodology. In this book, Owen defends orthodox Calvinism and

the deity of Jesus Christ and the price he paid for the elect on

the cross. Christ’s death was God’s sovereign will, to save those

that would believe through the substitutional sacrifice of a

spotless lamb. The Earl, who was a noted opponent of Arminianism

of both the Dutch and English, was a huge fan of both his

preaching and writing.

Hill 63

By the way, the people of Colchester responded well to

Owen’s preaching, packing the church on most Sunday mornings with

as many as 2,000 trying to get into the building. Owen modeled

worship based entirely on the Word of God and free prayer. This

is possible because of the action of Parliament which had removed

the requirement of the use of the Book of Common Prayer in 1644.

The Earl approved tremendously of John Owen’s preaching and

leadership abilities. He also agreed with Owen’s attack on the

new doctrines coming out of the Protestant Academy of Saumur. The

writings from this institution included those of Cameron, Amyraut

and Daille. This new doctrine was a combined of orthodox

Calvinism and Arminianism although it claimed to be a

continuation of restoring the original emphasis and principles of

the Reformed Faith.

Their new theology was known by the term “Socinianism”, of

which Owen had a clear stance against any new innovative

theology. Here is a short example of his opinion on the new

theology and those who practiced it.

Theology is the “wisdom that is from above,” a habit of

grace and spiritual gifts, the manifestation of the

Hill 64

Spirit, reporting what is conducive to happiness. It is

not a science to be learned from the precepts of man,

or from the rules of arts, or method of other sciences,

as those represent it who also maintain that a “natural

man” may attain all that artificial and methodical

theology, even though, in the matters of God and

mysteries of the gospel, he be blinder than a mole.

What a distinguished theologian must he be “who

receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God!” But

again, having sailed through this sea of troubles and

being ready to launch out upon the subject, that

gigantic spectre, “It is everywhere spoken against,”

should have occasioned me no delay, had it not come

forth inscribed with the mighty names of Augustine,

Calvin, Musculus, Twisse, and Vossius. And although I

could not but entertain for these divines that honour

and respect which is due to such great names, yet,

partly by considering myself as entitled to that

“freedom wherewith Christ hath made us free,” and

Hill 65

partly by opposing to these the names of other very

learned theologians, namely, Paræus, Piscator,

Molinæus, Lubbertus, Rivetus, Cameron, Maccovius,

Junius, the professors at the college of Saumur, and

others, who, after the spreading of the poison of

Socinianism, have with great accuracy and caution

investigated and cleared up this truth, I easily got

rid of any uneasiness from that quarter. (Owen, Divine

Justice 15)

Matt Slick has an excellent description of what Socinianism

includes, and is indicative of Owen’s strong objections:

Socinianism is a heresy concerning the nature of God.

It is derived from two brothers of the surname Sozinni

who lived in the 1500's in Poland. Socinianism denies

the doctrine of the Trinity claiming it denies the

simplicity of God's unity. Instead, God is a single

person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God. Since

it emphasizes the unity of God, there could be no

divine and human union in a single person as Christ.

Therefore, Socinianism denies the incarnation and deity

Hill 66

of Christ as well as Christ's pre-existence. It

teaches that Jesus was only a man. However, as is

separate from the Unitarians, it taught that Jesus was

a deified man and was to be adored as such.

Nevertheless, since Jesus is not divine by nature, His

sacrifice was not efficacious; that is, it did not

result in the redemption of people who would trust in

it. Instead it was an example of self-sacrifice. The

followers of Socinianism also rejected infant baptism,

hell, and taught the annihilation of the wicked. The

Bible was authoritative but was only properly

understood through rationalism. Of course, this system

of belief is wrong since it denies the doctrine of the

Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ. (Slick,

“Socinianism”)

Just before the publication of John’s themed book on limited

atonement of Christ, Owen is now firmly in the camp of the

Congregational way. Another somewhat pivotal moment for Owen and

his spiritual maturity: he immediately establishes a

Hill 67

Congregational church based on his newly adopted principles at

St. Peter’s, Coggeshall.

Practically this means Owen’s new standing in the Parish

allows him to have a regular Sunday morning service as he had

always done. Then a gathered church for visible saints who

together would have received Holy Communion, fellowship and

praise in a service together. John, to explain his new

Congregational way in simple terms, wrote a book of explanation,

“Eschol, a Cluster of the Fruits of Canaan, or Rules of Direction

for the walking of the Saints” in 1648. (Owen, Goold, vol. XIII

52)

This included 15 points that allow the Holy Spirit to keep

fellowship live among the saints.

1. Affectionate, sincere love in all things, without

dissimulation towards one another, like that which

Christ did for His Church.

2. Keep continual prayer going for the prosperous state

of the Church and ask for God’s protection.

3. Strive earnestly and compete lawfully, by doing and

suffering, for the sheer righteousness by obeying

Hill 68

ordinances, honor, liberty, and privileges of the

congregation, being jointly assistant to all

opposers and global adversaries.

4. Everyone must take meticulous care and endeavor for

the preservation of unity.

5. Separation and sequestration from the world and men

of the world, with all ways of false worship, until

we have God’s family home together, not reckoned

among the nations.

6. Frequent spiritual connections for edification

according to gifts received.

7. Mutually bearing each other’s infirmities,

weaknesses, tenderness, and failings in meekness,

patience, pity, and with support.

8. Tender and thoughtful collaboration with one another

in their respective states and conditions bearing

one another’s burdens.

9. A gift and distribution of temporal things to them

that are poor indeed, suited to their necessities,

wants and afflictions.

Hill 69

10. One must strive diligently to avoid all causes and

those that cause divisions between God’s people.

Shun seducers, false teachers, and those that

promote heresies and errors, contrary to the kind

and encouraging words.

11. Cheerfully to endure individually for the whole

church in wealth and suffering and not to turn one's

back on any occasion whatever.

12. In church affairs make no distinction of persons,

but respect those that have resources and services

for the use of the brethren.

13. If anyone is in danger, persecutions, or

affliction the whole church is to be humbled and be

honest in prayer on their behalf.

14. Vigilant watchfulness over each other’s

conversation, attended with shared admonition in

case of uncontainable walking, with rendering an

account to the church if the offending party

persists.

Hill 70

15. Exemplary walking in all holiness and godliness of

speaking to the glory of the Gospel, edification of

the body of believers and also look after those that

do not believe. (Toon 28, 29)

What an impressive list of Biblically sound ways to maintain

fellowship living among the saints. If followed, this would

surpass denominational lines, and heal the rifts between brethren

within families. His passion for separation and sequestration

from the world is something that real Christians, or visible

saints as Owen classified them, may have to face in the near

future. I heard it said today as the world becomes darker and

darker that Christians must be brighter and brighter in the light

of Jesus Christ. They must come out and be separate to allow the

Holy Spirit the freedom to operate with the church.

Late in March 1648, Owen attended a ministerial meeting in

Colchester. Ralph Josselin, minister at Earls Colne, wrote in his

diary of that day about John, “We had much discourse concerning

falling into practice, by whom it shall be done; the Parliament

proposeth by the people who have taken the Covenant; others, as

Mr. Owen, conceived this too broad, and would have first a

Hill 71

distinction made in our parishes, and that by the minister and

those godly that join unto him, and proceed to choosing.”

(Hockliffe 48)

John Owen was making a valiant effort towards inserting the

Congregational way into mainstream Presbyterianism. The

beneficial news is that the Presbyterian National Church never

materialized. Thus, he avoided any issue of reconciling his views

with such a national organization. Owen firmly in his soul

believed the Congregational way was much more than a new church

government. He and the dissenting brethren of the Westminister

Assembly and the divines of Massachusetts with the Congregational

way gathered churches of visible saints were both an act of

obedience to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, and also an

expression of hope for the future.

That the future for those on the Congregational way like

Owen included the Millennium where the purified church, the

gathered churches, would enjoy fellowship with each other and the

Lord Jesus Christ. Other Congregationalist had differing views on

aspects of the Millennium, but not on whether it would happen or

not. Soon after the ministerial meeting at Colchester, the second

Hill 72

civil war broke out. The particulars of this second civil war are

not applicable to this paper except as it relates to John Owen.

It gave Owen the opportunity to have extended conversations with

officers and men alike that forged friendships that would last

for years.

Owen continued to preach to the victorious troops in the

Colchester thanksgiving dinner. He did the same thing at Romford

some two weeks later. His sermons centered on Habakkuk 3.1-9 from

“Ebenezer: a Memorial of Deliverance of Essex County and

Committee.” These verses from Habakkuk are a prayer which begins

with asking God for mercy when He visits the earth in judgment.

From this prayer, Owen developed 21 principles that Parliament

could observe and take to heart. They contain detailed

information of God’s disciplining in those he loves, prayer, and

matters of faith tied to the events at Colchester, the distinct

providence of God.

Owen is probably walking on shaky ground by tying God’s

providence to current events around him. For example, the

royalist leaders loss being a victory for the Gospel which united

the saints to the common cause. His bias on this issue does not

Hill 73

take into consideration important secondary issues like excessive

taxation, patriotism and fear of how things are going to turn

out. However, who of us have not done the same thing in the

passion of the moment? I do not want to create any doubt on

John’s spirituality, hermeneutic, or his eschatology. It just

seems to me that

perhaps John may not be on solid ground with these type

statements.

Commander Fairfax, victorious at both Kent and Essex, with

other commanders doing the same over the rest of England, left

the royalists utterly defeated. The Parliament made efforts to

make headway with demands to Charles the 1st at Newport, Isle of

Wright and failed miserably. According to S.A. Gardiner hearing

of this, “The army rose up in a crescendo of calls for ‘impartial

justice’ on all the offenders. So in November of 1648 the victors

‘A Humble Remonstrance’ presented to Parliament in the Commons.

The Commons members, rather tactlessly, laid it aside.”

(Gardiner, History Vol. 3, 508)

The army clearly warned Parliament that any further

negotiation with the King would be inadequate and that he should

Hill 74

be brought swiftly to trial. The document presented to the full

Commons, penned by Henry Ireton as I have noted, who was a close

friend of John Owen. Is it possible that Owen had discussed this

document with Ireton and some of the ideas within might have come

from him? About two weeks later in December 1648 Colonel Pride’s

troops moved in surrounding the castle at Westminister, guarding

the entrance to the Commons. Anyone having royalist tendencies

could not go into the Commons.

After this time, things began to flow swiftly. They arrested

the King and brought him to Windsor for the early trial. That

trial occurred on 1 January 1649, the Commons declaring the

King’s levying war on Parliament and the Kingdom a treason. A

high Court of Justice was quickly setup. Only thirty days

following, an exceptionally small minority of powerful men,

without the will of the rest of the nation, found King Charles

the 1st guilty of treason, and he was executed in Whitehall

outside Inigo Jones large Banqueting Hall.

John Owen was one of two invited to speak at the next fast-

day delayed by one day because of the execution of the King. Owen

was in London and saw the execution of the King. Toon relates

Hill 75

about the incident: “He probably had been back in London from 28-

30 January 1649, because in his sermon, he mentions it ‘a hasty

conception, and like Jonah’s gourd the child of a night or two.’

Perhaps hurried however, it contained the sentiments of a number

of year’s thoughts, observations, and voluntary acting for the

Independent cause. The sermon he preached on Jeremiah 15.19-20

called ‘Righteous Zeal encouraged by Divine Protection.’” (Toon

33)

The sermon compared Judah in Jeremiah’s life with England in

the 17th century. In these passages, King Manasseh, Judah and

Jerusalem destroyed just as the Northern Kingdom had been.

However, unlike the Northern Kingdom, Judah will not be dispersed

as they were. Owen preached that God judged England in the civil

wars, and by the execution of the King. In obtaining God’s favor

in the future, those in power in England must:

1. Remove from England all traces of false idols and

worship.

2. Remove superstition and tyranny.

3. Wholeheartedly support Christianity based on the

Holy Word of God.

Hill 76

Owen’s sermon, dedicated to the right honorable, the Commons

of England. John clearly understood the removal of Charles the

1st in eschatological and apocalyptic terms. 19th century

Nonconformists often ask questions as to whether Owen condoned

the execution or whether he was able to refuse preaching. Both

contentions are mute when one carefully consider the facts. If

John did not want to preach, he could have just turned them down.

His actions after the execution and subject matter of the sermons

make it clear that he believed that God condemned the House of

Stuart, and not the kingship as such, for supporting false

religion and tyranny. On this basis, John Owen saw the execution

as part of God’s righteous judgment.

Continuing the arguments that had dominated his sermons for

the last three years, Owen had attached to his sermons the

section titled “Of Toleration: the Duty of the Magistrate about

Religion.” Owen felt that magistrates and churches had the power

as defenders of the truth of God and dispute errors by the

spiritual sword and hammer of the Word of God. John also

advocated the proper use of church discipline. Owen would not be

politically correct today because he advocated the role of

Hill 77

Parliament to provide for the preaching of the Gospel in the

whole of England to challenge all non-Christian worship.

This would allow the National Council group another year,

but let ministers at the parish level with differing views of

church polity to serve God’s people in harmony. Owen ended with a

suggestion that Parliament should organize and listen to a debate

on Toleration. Having done this, Parliament would then be able to

make up its own position on the subject. Although Owen never

said, it would seem that he would be more than willing to

participate in the debate. London is next for Owen. He is there

to preach to the Commons. His text for the sermon is Hebrews

12.26, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also

heaven.” (Owen, Goold, vol. VIII 244)

Owen’s eschatology continued tying prophetic statements in

the Word of God and relating them locally to both England and

individual events. His themes in this sermon were the coming

Kingdom of Christ, the fall of Babylon, and the overthrow of the

religious power of the Papacy, which he believed prophesied in

Revelation 17. At this time, the Roman Catholic Church still

extended its influence over most all of the European nations both

Hill 78

spiritual and in temporal powers. Owen believed Revelation 17

spoke of breaking the grip of Rome and the removal of all

antichristian tyranny. In fact, during Owen’s time, revolutions

were increasing in this period all over Europe against Roman

control, which may have influenced his and other Independents’

thoughts.

It is evident from Owen’s preaching that his mind became

excited by the prospect the events occurring around him were part

of God’s working in the last days. Fortunately Owen’s

eschatological views did not overpower his understanding to the

extent of becoming branded a Fifth Monarchist. A brief

explanation of what defines a Fifth Monarchist, established

loosely on Daniel 2.44 where Daniel, a young Jewish boy at the

time perhaps 16 or 17 years old, interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s

dream. Daniel spoke directly through a night vision prophetically

about the course of world empires, and their destruction during

the period termed “the time of the Gentiles” (Luke 21.24;

Revelation 16.19).

Let’s take a look at the fifth kingdom of Daniel 2.44:

Hill 79

And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will

set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and

the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall

break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it

shall stand forever.

The Fifth Monarchist was a fringe Puritan sect in England.

This group’s eschatology included the precise timing of Daniel

9.44, succeeding the Biblical and historical kingdoms of Assyria,

Persian, Greek and Roman Empires, was at hand. According to the

book of Revelation, Jesus Christ would come back with his saints

to establish the 1000 year Millennium Kingdom. (Encyclopaedia

Britannica 9:227)

The extent of John Owen’s association with the Fifth

Monarchy is reflective in that the group of the 1650s accused him

of deserting the cause, suggesting his early views may have been

embraced by this fringe Puritan sect. Sitting in the audience of

the Commons preaching on the predicted future events in the

kingdom was Oliver Cromwell. Oliver was particularly interested

in the interpretation of prophecy having written John Cotton

about the subject recently. So naturally, Oliver was extremely

Hill 80

attentive and deeply impressed with Owen’s ability to relate to

events in which he had such a substantial stake to the will of

God and future of Christianity in Europe.

Providentially both Cromwell and Owen were to meet the next

day. Owen had gone to Queen Street to drop in on to pay respects

to General Fairfax. As he was waiting to see him, Oliver Cromwell

sees Owen and walks up to him and asks him to join in a

forthcoming expedition to Ireland to put down a rebellion there.

Not ready to accept the offer, Owen asks Crowell for time to

think it over. Owen makes his way back to Coggeshall and is there

only a short time when a letter arrives at the church asking for

his release. Owen’s brother, Captain Philemon Owen, arrives to

persuade John on Cromwell’s behalf to accompany him to Ireland.

The suggestion he go to Ireland had now turned from a request

into a virtual command.

After conferring with local ministers, Owen now agrees to

go. This intensely painful decision would have momentous

consequences not only for him but many others for the future.

Owen preached another sermon in Christ Church before leaving,

with Cromwell that is eventful only for the six spiritual

Hill 81

principles on how any government can be sure it is not destroyed

in God’s shaking and changing the nations.

1. God will not overthrow a government if He has

honored its undertakings for Him.

2. If its members devote themselves to His cause.

3. If the government subjects their power to the power

of Jesus Christ.

4. If the government has the prayers of God’s elect.

5. If the government fulfills the work of the Christian

magistracy.

6. If the government does not have the qualifications

of the power of Roman Catholicism, which God has

promised to destroy.

What he did not say: because England in 1649 had done just

that, then England could expect the continued blessings of God.

After the Christ Church sermon, there was a large feast in

Grocers’ Hall. This a farewell dinner for the departing troops

before leaving for Ireland. Owen and Goodwin were thanked for the

sermons and offered to have the sermon printed out which both

declined. It was also at this time there were proposals put forth

Hill 82

mentioning John Owen to be Head at Oxford University. Peter Toon

relates, “By the time of the discussion of his future Owen was

heading back to Coggeshall to get things in order for his travel

to Ireland. He had to arrange for care of his family and the

preaching at St. Peter.” (Toon 38)

11 July 1649, Owen and Cromwell, both were in London at

Whitehall in a prayer meeting asking God’s favor before the

departure of the army to Ireland. Cromwell, Colonels Goffe and

Harrison all quoted scriptures of God’s judgment on the enemies

of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They implored God’s protection on

their cause and the troops. Owen thoughts turned to his task

during the turmoil. That would be to see that the training of

preaching ministers at Trinity College did not cease.

The army, Owen and Cromwell, are all in Bristol by 15 July

1649, facing a long wait till the 15 August deployment date. The

time finally comes, and as the troops are boarding ships at

Milford Haven news arrives of a victory in Ireland. Colonel

Michael Jones had routed the Earl of Ormonde, a royalist

adversary, at Rathmines. As any strategists knows, at a time when

one needs to be at their strongest to fight Cromwell’s troops, it

Hill 83

is extraordinarily hard to do so when your largest army has just

been routed. The royalists held Drogheda, an important town on

the Boyne river and strategic on the Dublin to Ulster road.

Owen and the troops sail on 13 August 1649, arriving in

Dublin two days later to a roaring cannon and masses of cheering

people. All Roman Catholics forced to flee from the city by

Colonel Jones. Ireton and 84 ships of soldiers arrive in Dublin

one week after Cromwell. They grouped together organizing

everything required for the assault on the north. Peter Toon

tells us what their first step must be. “Their first task was to

take Drogheda, some thirty miles to the north of Dublin. Owen

stayed behind in the first military assault, Cromwell’s taking of

Drogheda and the execution of those that sought to defend it for

the royalists.” (Toon 39)

I have found no evidence that John Owen made any written

comment about the massacre at Drogheda. However, it can be

assumed that as Cromwell saw it, Owen would describe it much the

same. It was necessary to instill fear that might prevent further

conflict. Owen lived in Dublin castle and concerned himself with

Hill 84

preaching the Gospel, apparently received well by the locals.

(Rogers 654)

According to “An Epoch in Irish History, Trinity College”,

He also surveyed Trinity College, which was in poor

repair with a small group of teachers and students.

Some of the famous students that Owen knew who

graduated there included Walter Travers and Archbishop

James Usher. Owen would have a healthy respect and

longing for its return to its former academic and

spiritual strength. (Mahaffy 203)

Apart from the preaching and saving of souls and

administrative duties, Owen had time to finish the rewrite of

“The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. This, one of his

most difficult books to read, a response to criticism of John’s

earlier “Salus Electroum” by one Richard Baxter, known as a

reformed pastor of Kidderminster, whose view on the atonement of

Christ Jesus is known as Amyraldianism. From “The Dictionary of

Historical Theology” we find the meaning of the theology:

Amyraldianism implies a twofold will of God, whereby

he wills the salvation of all humankind on condition of

Hill 85

faith but wills the salvation of the elect specifically

and unconditionally. The theological difficulty of

God's will having been frustrated by the fact that not

all are saved is met by the argument that God only

willed their salvation on the condition of faith. Where

an individual has no faith, then God has not willed the

salvation of that person? (McGowan 12)

From the standpoint of John Owen, any compromise with

Arminianism, and that is what he felt Baxter’s views were closest

to, were unacceptable. John finished this book by the 20th

December 1649, as Cromwell’s forces captured Wexford, Cork and

the troop’s setup staying in Youghal for the winter. Owen

returned to London, not staying for the spring offensive in 1650.

The first job upon returning was promote to the Council of State

the urgency for the orderly preaching of the Gospel of Jesus

Christ in all of Ireland. Owen once again preached before the

Commons on the last Friday of February 1650, making the deity of

Christ and his saving power the priority for Ireland. The duty of

the British government stands highlighted in the mind of John

Owen in his sermon:

Hill 86

God’s work, where unto you are engaged, is the

propagating of the kingdom of Christ, and the setting

up of the standard of the gospel. So far as you find

God going on with your work, go you on with his. How is

it that Jesus Christ is in Ireland only as a lion

staining all his garments with the blood of his

enemies; and none to hold him out as a lamb sprinkled

with his own blood to his friends? Is it

the sovereignty and interest of England that is alone

to be there transacted? For my part, I see no farther

into the mystery of these things, but that I could

heartily rejoice, that, innocent blood being expiated,

the Irish might enjoy Ireland so long as the moon

endureth so that Jesus Christ might possess the Irish.

But God having suffered those sworn vassals of the man

of sin to break out into such ways of villainy as

render them obnoxious unto vengeance, upon such rules

of government amongst men as he hath appointed; is

there, therefore, nothing to be done but to give a cup

of blood into their hands? Doubtless the way whereby

Hill 87

God will bring the followers after the beast to condign

destruction for all their enmity to the Lord Jesus,

will be by suffering them to run into such practices

against men as shall righteously expose them to

vengeance, according to acknowledged

principles among the sons of men. But is this all? Hath

he no farther aim? Is not all this to make way for the

Lord Jesus to take possession of his long since

promised inheritance? And shall we stop at the first

part? Is this to deal fairly with the Lord Jesus? Call

him out to the battle, and then keep away his crown?

God hath been faithful in doing great things for you;

be faithful in this one, do your utmost for the

preaching of the gospel in Ireland. I would that there

were for the present one Gospel preacher for every

walled town in the English possession in Ireland. The

tears and cries of the inhabitants of Dublin after the

manifestations of Christ are in my view. If their being

less the Gospel move, not our hearts, it is hoped their

importunate cries will disquiet our rest, and wrest

Hill 88

help as a beggar doth an alms. (Owen, Goold, vol. VIII

208ff)

Some present in the Commons probably recalled how Owen had

made a similar plea for the outposts of England and Wales. The

true spirituality of John Owen is evident in his heart and great

concern that people hear and know that God walked among us in

Jesus Christ. When the battle was at his highest moment, John’s

first thoughts were to see the growth of the Kingdom of Christ

was not ignored. Owen may or may not have been consulted on a

proposal that went through the Commons on 8 March 1650 entitled,

“Act for the Better Advancement of the Gospel and Learning in

Ireland”. (Firth and Rait 355)

Several things came out of this legislation that involved

Owen that God may have been involved with that would affect his

future directly. The highlights of the legislation that may

affect John I have summarized:

1. The home and lands of the passed Archbishop of

Dublin and also Dean and Chapter of St. Patrick’s

Cathedral became entrusted to 15 trustees which

included John Owen.

Hill 89

2. The Act provided for the maintenance and upkeep of

Trinity College.

3. It called for the erecting of a new College and a

Free School.

4. Parliament was to acquire and finance 6 able

ministers to go to Ireland.

5. The Council of State would hire John Owen to join

four other preachers to officiate at Whitehall at

the income of 200 pounds yearly each.

John was being hired away from his first love, preaching the

deity of Jesus Christ. John was provided with lodging, probably

the one occupied by the late Archbishop Laud, and his job was to

offer prayers and Bible readings at the start of each Council and

preach a sermon each Friday in the Whitehall Chapel. John was now

in a unique position around the very center of the Commonwealth

and this assured he knew that men that were deciding the fate,

under God, of England and Wales. With the acceptance of this

position he was now firmly committed to the New Republic and

believed he could ultimately influence decisions and polices to

embrace the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hill 90

On 20 June 1650, one of the new decisions made clear that

England should enter Scotland to prevent a Scottish invasion of

England. This occurred just as Cromwell had been back in England

with his troops less than 3 weeks. The real fear was that

Scotland would seek to put the young Charles 2nd in power, and

thereby reestablish the Presbyterian and Stuart line of monarchy.

Fairfax, who had been the first in command in Ireland, was

also asked to also lead this invasion, but declined, citing

“disabilities of both body and mind.” This excuse could be

interpreted in various ways, however, the fact that he was a

moderate Presbyterian probably was the main reason. They instead

asked Oliver Cromwell to head up the Scottish invasion.

Cromwell invaded Scotland on 28 June 1650, with Owen along

as Chaplin alongside William Goode again. The route took them

through Cambridge, York, Durham and Newcastle. Owen in Newcastle

had the opportunity to visit the Congregational church and was

able to give them some practical guidance. (Cromwell, vol. 2,

260)

Beside the river Tyne, the Army kept a fast and called upon

God to support its endeavors on His behalf. Owen was there, and

Hill 91

he and four others ministers helped with the devotions. While

Cromwell and the troops were at Newcastle, he and a group

including Owen composed a plea to Scotland Christians not to

oppose them. This document went ahead of the assault on Edinburgh

in an effort to minimize the bloodshed. The document, “A

Declaration of the Army of England”, was to all the saints and

partakers of the faith of God’s elect in Scotland. Peter Toon

states, “It explained the English government’s interpretation of

the Solemn League and Covenant, the multiple civil wars, and

execution of Charles the 1st and the action of the young Charles

2nd.” (Toon 43)

It is clear that the English troops, Chaplains and others

supporting the English troops believed their cause was just and

righteous before God. Cromwell states in “Oliver Cromwell”, “Our

vindication before God is evident in our next document at the

halting place at Berwick, which is called ‘Vindication of the

Declaration’. This document was composed by Owen and the other

ministers. In the Scottish town of Berwick, Owen preached a

Lord’s Day sermon on 20 July 1650.” (Cromwell, vol. 2, 302)

Hill 92

This service is followed by the English troops making its

way northward encountering little resistance to the outskirts of

Edinburgh. The war continued with Owen leaving to return to his

duties to the Council of State. With Owen back in London,

Cromwell achieved his greatest achievement in battle. On 3

September 1650 at Dunbar, English troops under Cromwell wrecked

the Covenanters, severely weakening the forces of Charles 2nd in

Scotland and ensured the continued independency in England.

From the 6th volume of the House of Commons Journal we find

the history of Crowell’s penetration into Edinburgh.

The English Army has now made its way into Edinburgh

engaging in a hotly contested war of words with

Presbyterians. Cromwell wanted fresh supplies of every

kind for the troops and divines to counter the

spiritual propaganda from the Scottish Kirk. The

Commons on 13 September 1650, ordered three ministers

including Joseph Caryl, Edward Bowles and John Owen

that all three should go to Scotland. ("House of

Commons Journal”, vol. 6 468)

Hill 93

Owen and Caryl, by the 20 October 1650, were in Edinburgh,

with Caryl preaching a sermon before Cromwell and his officers.

Some days after arriving, Owen had the same opportunity to preach

before Cromwell and his officers. The subject of his sermon once

more expounded the New Testament model of the Body of Christ.

Owen states from his Works about the sermon, “It combined the two

sermons preached in Scotland into a short treatise, “The Branch

of the Lord of Beauty of Zion”. Then they published it so that it

could be distributed to both sides of the conflict.” Attached to

the end of the document was a dedicatory letter to Oliver

Cromwell dated 20 November 1650. (Owen, Goold, vol. VIII 283)

In this letter Owen made it clear why he agreed to join the

army effort “to pour out a savior of the Gospel upon the sons of

peace” for the troops in Scotland. In his note to Cromwell Owen

from Works stated:

I do present them to your Excellency, not only because

the rise of my call to this service, under God, was

from you; but also, because in the carrying on of it. I

have received from you, in the weakness and temptations

wherewith I am encompassed that daily spiritual

Hill 94

refreshment and support, by inquiry into and discovery

of the deep and hidden dispensations of God towards his

secret ones, which my spirit is taught to value. (Toon

46)

It is rather obvious from this text that John Owen and

Oliver Cromwell has spent at great deal of time getting into the

deeper things of God. There is within his comments lies a deep

respect of Crowell’s character, of which Oliver had the same

respect for Owen, that would be a part of their relationship for

the next six or more years.

Much of the rest of Owen’s time in Scotland was spent trying

to convince the Scottish of their folly in supporting the son of

Charles the 1st, and reestablishment of the Papacy. He also

encouraged them to establish Protestant churches thereby giving a

measure of freedom for those that wanted to worship God

differently could serve the Lord in harmony. One of those he

talked to was Alexander Jaffray, the Provost of Aberdeen. Jaffray

wrote in his diary about Owen,

During the time of my being a prisoner, I had good

opportunity of frequent conference with the Lord

Hill 95

General, Lieutenant-General and Owen; by occasion of

whose company, I had made out to me, not only some

clear evidences of the Lord’s controversy with the

family and person of our King, but more particularly,

the sinful mistake of the good men of this nation about

the knowledge and mind of God as to the exercise of the

magistrate’s power in the matters of religion, what the

due bounds and limits of it are. The mistakes and

ignorance of the mind of God in this matter – what evil

hath it occasioned! Fearful scandals and blasphemies on

the one hand and cruel persecutions and bitterness

among brethren on the other! (Barclay 58-59)

Jaffray was one of the conversions, taken prisoner at

Dunbar, eventually becoming a Quaker, a fact not pleasing to Owen

because he considered this sect with horror. One note that is

worth mentioning. Robert Lilburne, the commander at Hamilton

wrote to Cromwell asking for some of Mr. Owen’s sermons to give

to the Scottish who had expressed an interest in reading them.

(Nickolls 48-49)

Hill 96

The English took Edinburgh Castle by surrender on Christmas

Eve 1650. This did not mean that Cromwell and forces had won,

they still had not captured Charles 2nd. It was during this time

that Owen began the long journey back to London.

Chapter 5

John Owen 1651-1683

Table 4 - A Timeline 1651 – 1683

National Personal – John Owen1651 Battle of Worcester 1651 Appointed Dean Christ

Church1652 War with the Dutch 1652 Appointed Vice-Chancellor

1653 Rump of Long Parliamentexpelled. Barebone’s

Parliament, Cromwell becomesProtector

1653 Awarded Doctorate ofDivinity

1654 Cromwell’s firstParliament

1654 Appointed a Trier inCromwellian State Church

1655 Rule of Major-Generals.Penruddock’s rising

1655 Prepares the defense ofOxford

1656 Cromwell’s secondParliament

1657 Opposes move to makeCromwell King.

No longer the Vice-Chancellor1658 Crowell dies/Son Richard

becomes Protector1658 Takes prominent part in

Savoy Assembly1659 Richard abdicates,

General Monck marches fromScotland.

1659 Forms a gathered churchof officers in London.

1660 Convention Parliament,Charles 2nd returns. Act of

Indemnity

1660 Removed from ChristChurch Deanery, lives quietly

at Stadhampton

Hill 97

1661 Cavalier Parliamentbegins long sitting.

Corporation Act1662 Act of Uniformity1664 Conventicle Act 1664 Family moves to Hartopp’s

home in Stoke Newington1665 Five Mile Act. The plague

in London1667 Fall of Clarendon. Milton

publishes Paradise Lost1667 Active in promoting the

Toleration Act1670 Secret treaty of Doverconcluded by Charles 2nd

1670 Discusses NonconformistUnity with Richard Baxter

1672 Declaration of Indulgence 1672 Personally thanks theKing for Indulgence

1673 Test Act 1673 Union of Caryl’s churchwith that of Owen’s under

latter’s ministry1674 Death of Milton 1674 First volumes Doctrine of

the Holy Spirit and Epistle ofHebrews appears

1675 First wife Mary dies1676 Marries Dorothy D’Oyley

1678 Popish plot1679 Cavalier Parliament

dissolved. First ExclusionParliament

1680 Second ExclusionParliament

1680 Controversy with DeanStillingfleet

1683 Rye House Plot 1683 Owen dies at Ealing

Owen and I share several characteristics. One of these

is we are probably the most established apolitical persons as one

can be. However, it was through posturing and political back-

rooming that John Owen became appointed Dean of the Christ Church

Hill 98

at Oxford University. Owen had just taken a six week vacation

away from everything in the country. He had already heard before

he left that Oliver Cromwell had accepted the position of

Chancellor of Oxford. His relationship with Cromwell and the

story gave him the impression that only pleasant things were in

store for Oxford. After returning from his six week break, he

learned that his own election came out to be approved by the

slimmest of margins. On the 24 of March 1651, Owen is proclaimed

officially as the Dean of Christ Church of Oxford. It was Ralph

Josselin who wrote in his diary about Owen, “Mr. Owen hath a

place of great profit given unto him, viz. Dean of Christ

Church.” (Barclay 84)

The actual pay for this position was about 800 pound per

year, an enormous amount of money. The Office of Dean of Christ

Church involved in it the responsibility of presiding at all

meetings of the college, and delivering lectures in divinity;

while that of Vice-Chancellor all but given to Owen the

management of university government. Owen’s actions remained an

inconsistency by some over time, his being an Independent, in

taking the helm of such an outstanding institution, especially

Hill 99

that of Dean; and even some sentences of Milton presented to show

sanction to the complaint. However, I believe these charges seem

to be a mistake of perception.

One must remember Oxford University, when in the

Commonwealth years, existed with the same changes that many

institutions slipped into, not just a fixture or fortress of the

Papacy. The office, as held by Owen, did not neglect the

spiritual side of the position, it was his high regard for

traditional learning and a much more conservative approach to

daily life. It is absolutely true that the payments for his

considerable labor came from the same power that it always had,

but John, being the quintessential Independent and as all the

true religious of that period, were not in principle against

support of teachers of religion from federal funds. One thing is

for sure, Owen determined that his career at Christ Church and

the university are to make it a center of strong Calvinist

theological education with God as his helper.

Owen would not be the first reformer to be the Dean at

Christ Church. From the past 16 Deans, Peter Martyr was a well-

known as reformer whom was not only Dean but also Regis Professor

Hill 100

of Divinity. Ten years after Martyr another Puritan was the Dean.

Thomas Sampson, in exile during the reign of Queen Mary, was to

lose the job because of non-conformity during the years of Queen

Elizabeth. Then there are Brian Duppa and Sam Fell, the Deans

before Reynolds, whom Owen replaced. Both Duppa and Fell are

disciples of the religious policies of Archbishop Laud. Reynolds,

his immediate predecessor, a professional who held the Calvinist

view, and well respected by most all, and even participated in

the Westminister Assembly.

As to an analysis on what Owen did from day to day while the

Dean of Christ Church is difficult to reach due to a lack of

information from him. John wrote almost nothing about his time at

Christ Church, and there are only eight letters of correspondence

relating to his time there. What he did do is find the time to

produce two new books while working at both Christ Church and as

Vice Chancellor of Oxford University. One was “On the

Mortification of Sin” in 1656, and the other, “Of the Nature and

Power of Temptation” in 1658, both published by the Oxford

University press.

His aim in both his writing and sermons are crystal clear,

Hill 101

I hope I may own in sincerity that my heart’s desire

unto God, and the chief design of my life in the

station wherein the good providence of God hath placed

me, are, that mortification and universal holiness may

be promoted in my own and in the hearts and ways of

others, to the glory of God, that so the Gospel of our

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be adorned in all

things. (Owen, Overcome Sin 102)

The sermon stood on Romans 8.13, “For if you live according

to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death

the deeds of the body, you will live.” John Owen believed the

doctrine of mortification spoken of by the Apostle Paul was the

way to stay. John’s book of sermons on temptation, came from the

impression that most people get tempted to think flawed and

strange philosophies, concerning God’s providence in man’s

affairs.

Owen felt that people were backsliding in the 1650s like

never before, which former ages never knew. We obviously feel the

same about our time as well. There are a couple of books that

give us some information about his academic years that include

Hill 102

Latin disputations and some of his lectures. A serious

theological movement, “Socinianism”, brought out one of Owen’s

best books “A Dissertation on Divine Justice” which we have

already mentioned previously. The question that John was

defending; is it necessary for God to punish sin? Obviously this

is a theological question that is still separating people today.

From “the works of John Owen” we see the depth of the problem:

“Owen held that God, by virtue of His holy and righteous nature,

could not forgive guilty sinners without an atonement being made

for their sins. Other divines within the university argued that

God, being God, could forgive, if He so desired, without the

atonement of Christ. (Owen, Goold, vol. XVII 1ff)

I would argue that if one carefully reads Owen’s works

previously on the subject of atonement, this treatise is at a

minimum an expansion of his earlier works if not a reversal. I do

not read Latin well and to my knowledge there is not a complete

translation of this work in English. However, one has to remember

that Owen is a dyed in the wool Calvinist and that any theology

has to be based on Calvin orthodoxy. The fact that there is no

complete translation of “Diatriba De Divina Justitia” leaves me

Hill 103

wondering why some academic graduate student hasn’t already done

just that. This particular document was highly valued by

dissenting academics in the 18th century and afterwards. (Owen,

Goold, vol. I p. x)

There was an order from the Parliament that anyone with at

least a Masters of Art and others suitable should preach each

Sunday in a neighboring vacant pulpit. One of these associates of

Owen’s was a fellow we may not recognize, Philip Henry; however,

we will all recognize his son Matthew Henry. Philip wrote in his

diary about the order to preach:

On the 2nd of June 1651 it was ordered by the Chapter

that glass pictures representing God or angels should

be taken out of the former Cathedral and the glass used

to repair broken windows in other parts of the

foundation. To have allowed such pictures to remain

would have appeared to John Owen and his brethren as an

open violation of the commandment to make no graven

images. In June 1651 it also required that all scholars

give a report to their tutors of the sermons they heard

each Sunday. (Henry, Matthew Henry Lee 15)

Hill 104

Another caveat, in 1651 Owen required that all young

scholars keep a report of preaching they heard each Sunday. This

requirement assisted the student to be a careful listener and

assured that each of them would not miss the opportunity of

becoming born-again, if in fact they were not. So far there has

been no contrary comments about Owen, except for academic papers

which countered his position on theology. I could find only one

external comment which could be considered criticism from a

surprising source.

From the “History of Rothwell” comes a report on Owen.

A pastor at a Congregational Church in Rothwell located

in Northamptonshire, John Beverly, criticized John Owen

about how he used his time. He stated that John had all

but forgotten the visible saints. Does this mean that

John had spent time on a gathered saint’s church? This

may also indicate that John was busy with University

business or government affairs, so he did not have time

to give the Congregational churches? There is a

positive side to Beverly’s comments. He did talk of

John Owen as a highly valued Congregationist. He also

Hill 105

indicated that Owen’s advice was highly beneficial,

even if distracted. (Cypher 55)

However, after he has been in the position of Dean for a

time, attacks starting coming from the former members of the

House. From one of them, a report that John Owen had even put on

his hat before the preacher (the preacher was he) ended the

service by asking everyone to recite the Lord’s Prayer. However,

when Owen heard of this he vehemently denied the report and

stated emphatically that he had no issues with the Lord’s Prayer,

in fact, it was a faithful prayer. He almost immediately wrote a

faith statement in both French and English denying that he had

any problem with the Holy Lord’s Prayer. (Owen, Goold, vol. XVI

278)

After all, rumors are subtle, and they were to be with him

for the rest of his career. Gossip continued and could not be

stopped by denial, written or spoken. Ten years later the same

charge continued to be brought before John Owen, this time by an

Anglican rector. In reply, Owen affirmed that all his life he had

held the Lord’s Prayer in high reverence. It was sanctioned

Scripture composed by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. However, it

Hill 106

was not required to repeat it in every time they meet, or have a

scheduled written liturgy for he believed that doing so “quenched

the Spirit of God”.

Then there was disagreement with Henry Hammond, a former

Canon and University lecturer, and a leader in the high-churchmen

movement. Owen met with Hammond personally on several occasions,

by letters and printed documents countering him on two matters.

First, there was the discourse of whether the supposed letters of

Ignatius of Antioch were true. Second, to what extent if any,

Hugo Grotius, an academic Dutch writer, was promoting Socinianism

theology in his Biblical commentaries. (J.I. Packer 45, 96-97)

Ignatius letters remained and considered vital to the

creation and development of Episcopalian theology. That Hammond,

a committed Episcopalian, would have differing views from Owen

should be obvious. After all Hammond was probably extremely upset

that the exact position that should be a supporter of Diocesan

episcopacy, in its place administrated by someone like Owen who

believed the exactly the opposite.

If I’m giving one the impression that things were not

picture-perfect during Owen’s tenure at Christ Church, I have no

Hill 107

apologies. Owen was a reformer, not a conformer. He stepped on

religious toes and did things differently that made many stoic’s

decidedly uncomfortable. The Catholic liturgy did not require one

to let the Holy Spirit’s charisma to obstruct the way things have

always been practiced.

Before I forget to mention it, Daniel Greenwald on the 26th

of September 1652 handed a letter from Lord General Cromwell to

senior Protector, Francis Howell so he could take it to the

assembled Convocation. This letter he read placed John Owen as

the new Vice-Chancellor for the years 1652-53. The Convocation

agreed. Greenwald turned his keys, the ensign of authority, the

statute-book over to the Proctors, who then asked Owen to accept

them and the position. The first thing Owen did after accepting

the job was to pray to God about his inadequacy without the

powerful ally, the Holy Spirit.

He would want it. The usually difficult situation anytime

was extremely difficult in 1652 when Owen assumed the

responsibility. Post war rebuild, sectarian antagonism between

Independents, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and even less

orthodox sects. The deplorable behavior of some of the scholars

Hill 108

made the task even more difficult. Some names of people we know

came out of Westminster to Oxford under Owen’s leadership. One of

these is John Locke. Owen placed Locke under the attention of one

Thomas Cole who gave Locke the rudiments of principle and

forbearance which helped establish his Independent roots and

belief in the independent churches. (Bourne 72-79)

From the “Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature”

we find other names that graduated at Westminster and Oxford

during John Owen’s tenure were Jonathan Edwards, Henry Stubbe,

Cyril Wyche and Nathaniel Hodges. Edwards was a controversialist

who was a critic of Socinianism and Antinomian theologies. Wyche

named the Patriarch of Constantinople while Hodges is noted as a

doctor who worked tirelessly during the great plague of London in

1659. (Toon 63)

Without getting too specific, Owen made vast improvements in

Oxford during the years 1652-1657.

1. He made substantial improvements in the Visitor’s

Program. This committee of people gave impartial

decisions on administrative, scholar requests,

disciplinary policy within the Colleges and Halls,

Hill 109

appoint tutors, approved expenditures, the selection

of Fellows and Chaplains, and much more.

2. Owen made advancement in and made sure the

Chancellor’s Court worked together properly.

3. He attended the Delegates of Convocation presiding

at meetings of Congregation and Convocation.

4. He made improvements in the Vesperia and Comitia at

the close of the academic year.

A lot of what went on in this committees and institutions

were an exercise in politics of the scholarly form which is

prominent in religious affiliations, theology and hermeneutics.

There is also the good old boy ideas which is immoral at least

and unsightly at best. John Owen added an impressive

organizational backbone, a genuine godly attitude and a desire to

keep the school out of the hands of royalist.

The debates raged over the academics available at the two

leading universities, Oxford and Cambridge. The battles included

wars within and without the universities. The Barebones

Parliament came to an end, with radicals attacking the

universities over their issuing Doctor of Divinity degrees. As if

Hill 110

to answer their critics, Oxford University awards D.D. degrees on

Thomas Goodwin, Peter French and John Owen. John’s perspective

when one cuts through the Old English are “freed from that

obligation he would never have used the title.” (Toon, “Oxford

Orations” 229)

John also did not do as other people who were in an

important position at a university. Anthony Wood has the

following description of John,

While he did undergo the said office, he, instead of

being a grave example to the university, scorned all

formality, undervalued his office by going in quidpro

like a young scholar, with powdered hair, snake bone

band strings (or band strings with very large tassels)

lawn band, a large set of ribbons pointed, at his

knees, and Spanish leather boots, with large lawn tops,

and his liat (blazing star) typically cocked. (Wood,

vol. IV col. 98)

From the History of University, Volume II, “John Owen, the

Puritan, regarded anything Roman Empire like the level cap and

hood (which are still a part of academic dress), a part of Popery

Hill 111

which he found disgusting. In a Convocation meeting in 1656 he

tried to persuade his fellow delegates to make the wearing of the

Roman Empire habits optional.” (Wood, “History” vol. II 668)

They rejected his proposal along with several others that

day striking a note of conformity for Oxford against his

nonconformity. When the news of Owens loss of his proposals

reached his old friend Ralph Josselin, he exclaimed, “Heard how

Dr. Owen endeavored to lay down all the badges of scholar’s

distinction in the Universities; hood, caps, gown, degrees. . .

He is become a great scorn. The Lord keep him from temptations.”

(Hockliffe 116)

What they did agree to do is to provide some new exercises

in divinity and the removal of promissory oaths taken. While the

Convocation stood motivated to agree to some reforms Dr. Owen was

not the type to take in part, but it was all or nothing. To

eliminate the frivolities that went on at the end of the academic

year was much more relevant to him, and this they rejected. Owen

was extremely upset that the Convocation had rejected what he

believed to be the things that God wanted eliminated from the

university. From the History of University, Volume II, a

Hill 112

statement about the defeat, “I think that we may well say that

there was more of a real public reformation voted in one

Convocation than there had been before by the Visitors since

their first meeting.” (Wood, “History” vol. II 671)

The end of Owen’s term as Vice-Chancellor in October 1657.

John’s fate was sealed when Oliver Cromwell, his greatest ally,

resigned 3 July 1657. Convocation invited Cromwell’s son,

Richard, to be the one to succeed his Father. The younger

Cromwell, sworn in on the 29th of July 1657. After his swearing

in, John Owen persuaded Richard Cromwell that he should get

another person to handle the Vice-Chancellor position. Cromwell

agreed, with John Conan, the Rector of Exeter College, sworn in

on the 9th of October. Dr. John Owen delivered his final speech

at Oxford.

I rejoice that the university is safe and once more a

revered Centre of learning. Behold your ship, the

University, tossed by mountainous billows, is now safe

and sound, even beyond the expectations of almost all

hope. Stronger than she normally is when fitted with

all her trimmings, very soon to be entrusted to the

Hill 113

hand of a skilled captain while fortune smiles and the

sea are calm. To God alone be the praise for the

settled state of things. Professors’ salaries lost for

many years have been maintained; the rights and

privileges of the University have been defended against

all the efforts of its enemies; the treasury is tenfold

increased; many of every rank in the University have

been promoted to various honors and benefices; new

exercises have been introduced and established; old

ones have been duly performed; reformation of manners

has been diligently studied despite the grumbling of

profligate brawlers; labors have been numberless;

besides submitting to enormous expense, often when

brought to the brink of death on your account, I have

hated these limbs and their feeble body which was ready

to desert my mind; the reproaches of the vulgar have

been disregarded; the envy of others has been overcome;

in these circumstances I wish you all prosperity and

bid you farewell.

Hill 114

John Owen had completed his work at Oxford University at a

time in the history of England and the world when there was a war

of philosophies going on as primordial as life itself. There were

those, like John Owen and others, who did everything in the

context of furthering the Kingdom of God. The opposition led by

the same serpent that deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden. The

Enlightenment movement and the politically correct thinking

movement, each have a goal - a world without God. This fire is

alive and well in the English aristocracy, royalists and others

that the ideas of John Owen contradicted, and thus was an enemy

of darkness.

This is reflected in a discourse that Owen made in 1654 to

his colleagues and associates.

The whole of your employment, I confess, both in the

general intendment of it for promoting and diffusing of

light, knowledge and truth in every kind whatever, and

in the more special design thereof, for the defense,

furtherance, and propagation of the ancient,

inviolable, unchangeable truth of the Gospel of Jesus

Christ, is in the days wherein we live exposed to a

Hill 115

claim with as much opposition, contempt, scorn, hatred

and reproach as every any such undertaking was, in any

place in the world wherein men pretended to love light

more than darkness.” (Owen, Goold, vol. XI 8)

Their stated goal unashamedly was the expansion of the

Calvinistic view of the living God and His salvation, and to this

point I think they were victorious against all the odds. John

Owen stayed on as Dean of Christ Church some 2 years after his

resignation as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford. During this time, he

did not attend the Convocation on the 12th of April 1659. An

eminent and learned Puritan and Congregationalist left the

academic world. Owen and the other divines stood misfits in the

academic environment at Oxford. The University prior to their

arrival was a mainstay of Anglicanism and royalism all the way

back to Henry VIII and would continue to be so after 1660. The

Chancellorship of two Cromwell’s and their Vice-Chancellors, were

but a brief pause in the liberal history of Oxford University.

Now that the Oxford chapter of John Owen’s life is over,

what is next? Everything prior to, and during Oxford, John based

on forwarding the kingdom of God. There is no reason to believe,

Hill 116

unless there is a downturn in his health there will any change in

his overall goal.

With Oliver Cromwell’s death, Charles 2nd emerged into power

restoring the status quo which others had given their lives to

impede. He and his advisers deeply engrossed with the Cavalier

Parliament to restore the Church of England to where it was prior

to 1640. This began on 8 May 1661, and to assure the consistency

of worship between churches, the debunked Book of Common Prayer

was back on the table. I can just imagine John Owen saying

something like “over my dead body”. Owen decided immediately that

he wanted to compete against this move, but first he must seek

what God’s intention was in the situation.

This one can count on. Unlike his Presbyterian friends, John

would not preach in a church with a prescribed liturgy and ruled

by Popery. In fact, he wrote an article on it, “A Discourse

concerning Liturgies and their Imposition” in 1662. Its

publication coincided with the debate going on in Parliament on

the Act of Uniformity, which received royal assent the 19th of

May 1662. What this Act required was totally unacceptable to John

Owen, Puritans, Independent and other divines and would

Hill 117

inevitably lead to persecution. Here is a summary of what the Act

of Uniformity stated:

1. The Act required all ministers to be ordained by the

Episcopacy.

2. Each minister would be required to build a public

disclosure of their inevitable agreement and

agreement to use of the Prayer Book.

3. Each minister would have to meet the requirements of

the Act by the Feast of St. Bartholomew, the 24th of

August 1662.

The government knew that the Puritans would not submit to

the requirements of the Act. The current Nonconformity movement

is now officially birthed in England and Wales. The Cromwell

proposal of a National Church ended with his death, and the seeds

of what became the denominationalism of today became scattered.

(Toon 124)

The possibilities of Owen’s response to this Act can be

summed up in the following:

1. He could immigrate to New England.

Hill 118

2. There were several Dutch universities that John

could get a position as Professor of Theology

because of their familiarity with his many writings.

3. An invitation from a Massachusetts church came, and

they would be honored to have Owen in New England

and be their minister at First Church of Boston.

This is the church were John Cotton had been from 1633 to

1652, the divine whose writings were crucial in convincing John

Owen to join in the Congregational way. John seemed ready to go

to New England, however, events of one form or another made that

move impossible, and he stayed in England. (Wood, “History” vol.

IV 98)

John, with the decision to stay in England, felt there were

two ways that he could work for both God and the saints in

Britain.

First – This is the greatest way John could help. He

would continue to support the true worship of the

living God, in the practice of the Congregational way.

After all, John’s conviction was the Word of God

condemned the papistical prelates, ecclesiastical

Hill 119

courts, and the Prayer Book ceremonies. The New

Testament contained the exact way to handle church

polity (policy) and worship, and the application

thereof in the local communities which did not restrict

the ability of the Holy Spirit. This belief led Owen,

in his position against the Roman Catholic control, to

preach within gathered churches. Owen’s ministry would

be this way for the rest of his life within this

framework.

Secondly – It was a strong position for John Owen that

the King must be persuaded and understand the election

by God to preserve and protect the Christian religion.

However, this could not be achieved by an enforcement

of uniformity and the strict religious tradition which

exists in the Clarendon Code. This was referring to

four Acts of the Cavalier Parliament,

a) The Corporation Act (1661), which required all who

held municipal positions to renounce the Covenant, and,

to take sacraments by the rites of the restored Church

of England.

Hill 120

b) The Act of Uniformity (1662) which required

episcopal ordination of all ministers with full assent

to the Prayer Book.

c) The Conventicle Act (1664) made unlawful all

assemblies of five or more persons in a religious

situation to take place in a home or property.

d) The Five Mile Act (1665) which required a preacher

or teacher who had failed to repeat the oaths in the

Act of Uniformity to come within five miles of a

corporate town or the community where they had

previously taught.

It is quite obvious John Owen came through the upheaval

created by the King and the Cavalier Parliament, the restoring of

the Church of England, Prayer Book and persecutions virtually

untouched. This begs a question, why? It is clear to me, although

documentation is sparse that John Owen had powerful friends who

shielded him. In the book “Athenae Oxon” speaking of John Owen

Anthony Wood states, “It was said of John Owen, he was not

accepted from the act of oblivion, which was much wondered at and

desired by the Roman Catholic Church.” (Wood, “History” vol. IV

Hill 121

100)

In finding the political friends of Owen, those I could

research were Roger Boyle (1621-1679), the first Earl of Orrery.

The details of the relationship and how they met was not mention

in the historical document, “A Complete Collection of the Sermons

by Dr. John Owen.” What the book does mention is Owen’s

relationship with Arthur Annesley (1614-1686). Annesley was the

Earl of Anglesey who apparently did what was right and required

of the law by attending services in the parish church, he also

kept Nonconformist chaplains in his home. From Annesley’s diary,

“he invited Owen and his wife on numerous occasions during the

1670s. Politically Annesley defended the rights of Protestant

Dissenters. Interestingly, the Countess herself became a member

of Owen’s gathered church which met in Leadenhall Street, London,

from 1673 till Owen’s death.” (Owen, Toon, “Correspondence” 155)

Additional intervention may have come from Baron Wharton

(1613-1696), a determined opponent of the Clarendon Code; George

Berkeley (1628-1698), educated at Christ Church, and many others

that cannot be recounted in a publication of this size. Suffice

it to say that John Owen, protected first by God, and then many

Hill 122

He sent into his life. Owen continued to push for Toleration

throughout his post-Oxford days. Little did he know that it would

be for himself and other Nonconformist? In 1667, John wrote “A

Peace-Offering in an Apology and Humble Plea for Indulgence and

Liberty of Conscience.” (Owen, Goold, vol. XIII 542)

Owen was active during the 1665 plague which killed over

70,000 souls in London when the total population was only

500,000. During the plague, Nonconformist prayed for the

stricken. Owen was probably staying at Stroke Newington away from

the plague stricken area. After the great fire, which followed

closely on the heels of the plague, he and other key

Nonconformist ministers prepared a place where they could assist

those affected by the fire. They also assembled a gathered

congregation, primarily of Commonwealth officers making a

majority of the members. John Owen was constantly putting his

thoughts on paper. In 1667, his Catechism ensues and is

published, leading to Baxter’s plan for unification.

Various papers passed, and after a year the effort closed by

the following laconic annotation from John: “I am still a well-

wisher to these mathematics.” During that same time, John

Hill 123

finished and published a large part of the Epistle to the

Hebrews. From “Comprehension and Indulgence”, “There was a shift

in Parliament to repeal the Act of Uniformity which never got to

a vote after John Birch and other opponents of Toleration went on

the attack.” (Nuttall, Chadwick 107)

The opponents of Toleration published several tracts to

spread their ideology. A friend of Owen sent him some of the

tracts, perhaps a colleague being from the House of Lords. This

friend asked Owen to publish his thoughts on the tracts. He did

that anonymously in a paper, “Indulgence and Toleration

Considered”. In this paper Owen without using his name accused

those against Toleration of using harsh language, and the

similarities between the laws of ancient Rome in which they

persecuted the early Christians and church. He compared Rome with

the laws of England and the Clarendon Code against Nonconformist.

(Owen, Goold, vol. VIII 518)

Of course, Toleration has been a subject of Owen for over 20

years. The urgent need for Toleration in the article previously

mentioned in the late months of 1667, “A Peace Offering in an

Apology and Humble Pleas for Indulgence and Liberty of

Hill 124

Conscience.” One of Johns most profound and sincere papers, yet

softer in tone, it displayed his common sense, his human side

since birth and of course Biblical insight and knowledge to

determine violence as an unacceptable choice for a Christian

against another Christian. If those who were against the

Congregational way of Biblically based organization and worship

could produce any error from Scripture, Owen would listen. (Owen,

Goold, vol. XIII 542)

Just before Christmas on 21 December 1667 from the Diary of

Pepys, he writes:

The Nonconformists are mighty high, and their meetings

frequented and connived at; and they do expect to have

their day now soon; for my Lord of Buckingham is a

declared friend to them, and even to the Quakers, who

had very good words the

other day from the King himself: and, what is more, the

Archbishop of Canterbury is called no more to the

Cabal, nor, by the way, Sir W. Coventry; which I am

sorry for, the Cabal at present being, as he says, the

King, and Duke of Buckingham, and Lord Keeper, the Duke

Hill 125

of Albemarle, and Privy Seale. The Bishops, differing

from the King in the late business in the House of

Lords, having caused this and what is like to follow,

for everybody is encouraged nowadays to speak, and even

to preach, as I have heard one of them, as bad things

against them as ever in the year 1640; which is a

strange change. (Wheatley 1042)

By way of explanation, the Cabal is a five man band so named

above who are the principal advisers to young Charles 2nd. To

give an idea of the behind the scene maneuvers going on here is a

brief summary before the 10th of February 1668 meeting of

Parliament.

1. A series of conferences took place between the

Lord’s keeper representatives, Bishop John Wilkins

and Hezekiah Burton, on one hand. On the other hand

Thomas Manton, William Bates and Richard Baxter.

2. Richard Baxter, given the task of informing John

Owen of the progress of talks.

Hill 126

3. In London, it was common knowledge that John Owen

and his Congregational brethren preferred getting

their information from the Duke of Buckingham.

4. Many Catholic and Presbyterian members of Parliament

dead set against legalizing the Dissenters. Some

remained distraught with John Owen and his

Toleration proposal.

To maintain the mood, the next February the 1668 Parliament

started stacked against Toleration and the Dissenters is an

understatement. Richard Baxter had settled into an overly

confident unity spirit. He had heard that Owen had proposed an

alliance between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Baxter

told Owen,

I told him that I must deal freely with him; that when

I thought of what he had done formerly, I was much

afraid lest on that had been so great a breaker would

not be made an instrument of healing. But in other

respects I thought him the fittest man in England for

the work; partly because he could understand the case,

and partly because his experience of the humors of men,

Hill 127

and of the mischiefs of dividing principles and

practices, had been so very great, that if experience

should make any man wise and fit for a healing work it

should be him. (Baxter 61)

Richard Baxter began to create a series of proposals for

Parliament to consider. It was his belief that it would encourage

discussion of Toleration. These proposals Baxter gave John Owen

to see and make comments. However, there was a problem. Baxter’s

goal was to create an opportunity for Protestant Nonconformists

to express their God enabled desire to the King’s leadership.

Then they could make inroads into the Church of England. Owen, on

the other hand, believed in the unity of the Protestant

Dissenters. However, Owen wanted them outside the Church of

England because they had too many “marks of the beast”.

(Revelation 13)

Owen’s dream had not changed; he wanted the

Congregationalists to be the National Church. Realistically,

their effort was as doomed from the start as the result of the

reaction of Parliament to the proposal. From “Correspondence”

comes this nugget of truth.

Hill 128

This exchange of proposals went on for over fifteen

months which I’ve already mentioned. What he meant by

the mathematics remark was they both wanted unity, but

not in the Baxter way. One could say that the doctrine

that separated the two men in 1654, the same principles

and fundamentals separated them in 1669. (Owen, Toon,

“Correspondence” 136)

Baxter informed Owen that Samuel Parker, one of John’s

former students at Oxford from 1657 to 1660, had initiated a

violent attack on Nonconformists called, “A Discourse of

Ecclesiastical Polite”, issued in 1669. Baxter challenged Owen

again to meet this attack. Owen did in late 1669 with the

publication, “Truth and Innocence Vindicated”. (Owen, Goold, vol.

XIII 344)

The Archbishop of the Church of England, Gilbert Sheldon

(1598-1677), had encouraged Mr. Parker in his writings, and

maintained that numerous mischiefs arise from religious liberty.

Their position was that kingly and ecclesiastical powers ended

with Constantine, and then that power rested with the state. They

believed that the civil magistrate’s office existed because of

Hill 129

divine will (Romans 13.1) the government could regulate morality

as long as it did not oppose the moral law of God.

Parker’s paper stated:

1. The individual had a right to believe what they

liked, their conscience being their own.

2. However, the King and Parliament had a divine right

to prosecute their approved religious tradition with

the worship based on their Book of Common Prayer,

which did not contradict or distort the true

doctrine of God.

3. Toleration by its exact nature is unwelcome because

it did not promote national unity and strength.

4. Toleration by its nature allowed the opportunity for

unscrupulous men to cause problems like overthrowing

of the monarchy and the republic.

The state had the right to restrict Nonconformists with the

Clarendon Code did just that. Their appeal to obey God instead of

men and worship God in the Congregational way based on a

misunderstanding of basic principles and beliefs was just a cover

Hill 130

for sedition and anarchy. Obliviously Parker did not have even

the slightest clue of what Nonconformists believed.

Owen’s Biblical answer maintained that the Holy Spirit has

final authority from God. It is the final authority through the

Word of God to man. He also stated:

1. The Church should remain unpolluted in matters of

faith and worship, and she is subject only to Christ

the King.

2. Liberty to worship God according to the New

Testament pattern for those accused who feel

rejected for the glory of Jesus Christ, and discard

the liturgy and the Popery.

3. The worship of God was the highest goal of man, and

this could not be determined by any governmental

entity.

4. Nonconformists were not in the mold believed by the

government, Parker and the Archbishop and the powers

they claimed were opposite of Biblical principles.

Former student Parker would not be silenced by the truth and

issued another report in 1671, “A Defense and Continuation of the

Hill 131

Ecclesiastical Polite”. Owen refused to continue the dialogue

going thus allowing Andrew Marvell, the poet, to answer Parker in

a torrent of wit. His paper, “the Rehearsal Transposed”, released

in 1673, it was Owen who read the proofs for Marvell. (Grosart

212)

As Owen became older, there were further attacks from the

religious authorities who were enforcing the Act of Conformity.

However, none that were not exactly defended by his friends who

always made it clear that the attacks were politically motivated.

One such was George Vernon who accused Owen of various crimes and

misdemeanors during the 1650s. He also accused John of being a

“libeler of authority” during the restoration. Owen replied in a

paper, “Reflections on a Slanderous Libel”. An anonymous friend

of Owen, incensed by the accusations, defended him in a paper,

“An Expostulatory Letter to the Author of the Slanderous Libel

against Dr. Owen in 1671”. Owens next project in regard to

Toleration came as a result of Parliament tightening the

regulations of the Clarendon Code with the Bill against

Conventicles. (Owen, Goold, vol. XIII 583)

Hill 132

From the Works of John Owen, we understand “Owen sent a

letter for Parliament against the terms of this legislation

through Lord Wharton. It stated that all was well with peace and

quietness with people working with the bill if passed, only

causing a ruckus over all of England with innocent people harmed.

Of course, Owen ended with a moving plea for Toleration of

Nonconformist. (Owen, Goold, vol. XIII 576)

It was all in vain. The bill passed and to add injury to

insult, Owen found out that the bill exempted Roman Catholics. As

a result, John wrote another article, “The Grounds and Reasons on

which Protestant Dissenters desire their Liberty”. He argued that

Congregationalists and Presbyterians were Protestants, who were

following the dictates of the Thirty-Nine Articles. As a result,

they should not be subject to pernicious laws and penalties.

Instead, given the legal right to worship God peacefully in their

own assemblies. (Owen, Goold, vol. XIII 601)

However, Owen and Parliament were in for a surprise from an

unlikely individual that would soon happen. Charles 2nd in June

1670, surprised everyone with two announcements. First, he had

made a secret agreement to assist France in their war with the

Hill 133

Dutch. Secondly, he made known his intention to reveal himself a

Roman Catholic as soon as possible. To say the least, this is one

of the most despicable treaties in the history of diplomacy, and

was an attempt by the young King to satisfy both Protestant and

Catholic Dissenters. He knew a war with the Dutch would not make

the City of London and its merchants supremely happy, even though

many merchants had Nonconformists sympathies. From the Calendar

of State Papers we find, “a number from the King’s administration

began to visit John Owen in August 1671.” (Daniell, Bickley,

“1671” 264)

From British History Online at the University of London, we

learn, “The result of these talks, both with Owen representing

the Congregationalist and even tougher negotiations with

Presbyterians, resulted in the now famous Declaration of

Indulgence issued in March 1672, on the eve of war with the

Dutch.” (Daniell, Bickley, “1672” 347)

On 28th of March at Lord Arlington’s lodgings, two groups of

Nonconformists thanked the King. John Owen led four

Congregational ministers to thank King Charles 2nd. John also

gave a short speech, with the Presbyterians coming in the

Hill 134

afternoon led by Thomas Manton. Concerning the Declaration of

Indulgence, King Charles the 2nd would remove all penal laws

against Nonconformists. Roman Catholics were also permitted to

worship freely in their homes, however, Protestants could meet in

public as long as they secured the proper licenses. The

government required licenses for both the minister and the

location of worship. The Lord of Arlington issued the proper

licenses. From “Original Records, III”, “In all some 416

Congregational ministers and 642 households successfully

petitioned for licenses.” (Turner, “Records III” 727, 734)

Digging into “Original Records, II”, I found the following

information, “It appears that John Owen was never granted a

license, even though an effort was made by someone on his behalf.

A large number of licenses were issued to both the Presbyterians

and Baptists There is an indication that a large number of

Congregational ministers never tried to make an application for a

license. Owen, with permission from the Society of

Leathersellers, preached in the hall that did not have a license

either from Arlington.” (Turner, “Records II” 980)

Hill 135

Although John never received a license to preach, for

unknown reasons, he acted as a go-between Arlington and

applicants who applied for a permit. He also stored the licenses

issued for those that lived out of London, so that the next time

the applicants were in town the license would be available for

them. The sad fact of the matter is that the Indulgence Act

lasted for only one year. However, in this year Congregational

Churches made significant inroads in homes and buildings

throughout England, especially London. (Turner, “Records III”

479)

The merchants and ministers of London felt Protestant

Nonconformist should be more forward and present a united front.

The result was the Ancient Merchants Series. At noon, each

Tuesday six invited speakers would teach and preach. The first

six were a who’s who of preaching including William Bates,

William Jenkyn, Thomas Manton, Richard Baxter, John Collins and

John Owen. Peter Toon tells us where this happened, “They

preached at Pinners Hall, so named after the Pin and Needle

Company, the owner. This continued until 1694 when doctrinal

differences caused the Presbyterians to produce and setup their

Hill 136

own presentation series. The differences were Calvinism versus

Arminianism.” (Toon, “Hyper-Calvinism 49)

The theology problem started in 1674 as the full effect of

the Declaration of Indulgence was taking place. The

Congregational Church had “thankfully accepted and made use of

the royal favor” although his action had been strictly designed

only for peace and prosperity in England. Besides the whole

episode was eventually to be settled in Parliament. (Owen, Goold,

vol. XV 190)

The settlement in Parliament would not occur until 1689,

some six years after the death of Dr. John Owen. With this in

mind, Dr. Owen had to continue the fight for changing attitudes

between different theologies and hermeneutics in each as they

studied the Word of God. There is nothing about John Owen’s

political life from this point onward. Others, like the Duke of

Buckingham, who took the fight to Parliament in the autumn of

1675, with a bill for the reconciliation and protection of

Dissenters.

Owen meantime tried to make friends with the Duke of York, a

Roman Catholic he spent time with explaining his position with

Hill 137

respect to Protestant Nonconformity and its need for freedom from

the government or religious obstruction. Perhaps the biggest

surprise was the King himself sent John Owen one thousand guineas

for relief of the Congregational Dissenters who were suffering.

There were those that had come to Owen or wrote to him of the

pain and suffering of their families in England, Scotland and

Ireland. When this story went public, Owen had to explain to

other Congregationalist on why he accepted the money and its

implication that he agreed with Toleration for Roman Catholic

worship. (Orme 29)

To say that John Owen totally opposed the Roman Catholic

system could be seen by anyone who had read his publications.

The attack was unsubstantiated. Even in John’s proposals for

Toleration he specifically outlawed the Roman Catholic system of

Popery. John Owen, always the Puritan turned Congregationalist,

in late 1674 and for several years later became engaged in

lectures known as “The Morning Exercises against Popery” in the

Meeting House in Farthing Alley, Southwark. (Owen, Goold, vol.

VIII 473)

Hill 138

In explanation, John and others were extremely delicate to

the threat of Popery for several reasons:

1. The Roman Catholic backing of the House of Stuart.

2. The Roman Catholic Popish Plot to assassinate the

King Charles 2nd.

3. The Roman Catholic massacre of Christians

historically and the continued use force.

4. The Roman Catholic plot to seize Ireland.

5. God’s Punishment of the Roman Catholic conspirators

was evidence that England had not been entirely

forgotten of the Lord God. (Owen, Goold, vol. IX

505)

The list could go on forever. However those listed are

representative of the opinion that most Christians had about the

Roman Catholic Popery for over 1,000 years. Owen’s account of

sermons he preached to his church reflect this belief. John also

felt compelled to produce new works on the topic, “The Church of

Rome No Safe Guide” in 1679, and “A Brief and Impartial Account

of the Nature of the Protestant Religion” in 1682. (Owen, Goold,

vol. XIV 530)

Hill 139

It is easy to perceive that the eschatological view of John

Owen had remained steady since 1645 onward. He believed with all

his heart that 2nd Thessalonians and Revelation had yet to be

fulfilled. Politics continued in an organized turmoil from 1679

through 1682. The three Exclusion Parliaments, after the

aftermath of the Plot, included members of both Presbyterian and

Congregational members including Sir John Hartopp, a close

associate of John Owen. In addition to Sir John, another of

Owen’s former associates, the Earl of Anglesey, were both in the

Lords and Privy Council, assuring that Owen knew what happened in

Parliament. Like the weather, if one does not like it, just wait

for tomorrow. From “Dissenting and Parliamentary Politics” an

inevitable turn, “The King dissolved the Exclusion Parliaments, a

dissenting vehement conviction that the wrong action was taken by

Anglesey and Owen.” (Lacey 134)

Acts that followed the dissolvent of the Exclusion

Parliament are confused as to the goal of Toleration.

1. The Habeas Corpus Amendment Act passed, providing a

prisoner could claim that his case be examined

before the courts.

Hill 140

2. There was a decision made not to repeat the

Licensing Act of 1662.

3. A bill failed that would have excluded the Duke of

York from the throne.

4. A bill was passed which granted privileges in the

release of moderate restrictions passed in the

summer of 1679.

On the 7th of October 1679, the King dismissed Parliament

for unknown reasons, and they were not requested to come back to

Westminster until certain Whig and Nonconformist leaders

organized petitions to the King to get it restarted. That

occurred on the 26th of October 1680. A single incident occurred

which spotlights the newly acquired power of Protestants. The

Commons passed a bill that strengthened the Exclusion Act. The

Act became promptly rejected by the House of the Lords with the

brilliant advocacy of the Earl of Halifax. (Lacey 138)

There was an unusual amount of bargaining in the background

between factions in the government about whom would succeed

Charles 2nd. There was also a judicial case which happened at

about the same time with Lord Stafford, an elderly Roman

Hill 141

Catholic, impeached and executed for his part in the Popish Plot.

Owen saw this as God had “stirred up some of the nobles and our

rulers to pursue them and punish those who contrivers, authors,

abettors and carriers on of the bloody design.” (Owen, Goold,

vol. IX 13)

From the “Calendar of State Papers Domestic from 1681-1682”,

“With the failure of the Exclusion Act, the royalist reacted

intensely negatively. The King, humiliated by the failure,

regained his posture and assisted the Court Party as an indicator

of his revenge. In May 1682, the King allowed the Duke of York to

return from exile. This and other actions spelled a bleak future

for the Nonconformists. Nonconformity found an effective foe in

the person of Edward Stillingfleet, the Dean of St. Paul’s, of

London. This prompted even Richard Baxter to join into the fray

this time. In May 1680, with dignitaries present at Guildhall

Chapel the Dean preached “The Mischief of Separation”, which was

published.” (Daniell, Bickley, “1681-1682” 592, 613)

Four printings later of the popular document over twelve

months, we find Stillingfleet attempted to explain the

Nonconformists were little more than hypocrites.

Hill 142

1. They violated Philippians 3:16, “by the same rule

let us walk”.

2. They violate allowing “lay communion”, or appearance

as laymen during Holy Communion.

3. Although professing the true Faith of Christ, they

fail to maintain close churches like Aquila of

Romans 16.3.

4. They failed to yield to the community all of their

wares as in Acts 2.44.

5. They failed to wash-down each other’s feet as in

John 13.

6. Perhaps the most telling was the majority of divines

at Westminister Assembly voted against the request

of the Dissenting Brethren plea for Tolerance of

their Congregational governed churches. (Toon 148)

He supplied quotes from “The Papers and Answers of the

Dissenting Brethren” of 1648 to show that the Nonconformists had

already been condemned by the Westminister divines. He also

ridiculed John Owen’s tender conscience. He also stated in

conclusion that no Church is absolutely perfect while on the

Hill 143

earth and that Protestants must stand together against Roman

Catholicism.

Many wrote replies to the sermon. Richard Baxter wrote the

“Answer to Dr. E.S.’s Charge of Separation” in 1680. John Howe

penned “A Letter Written out of the Country to a Person of

Quality in the City” in 1680. Howe said to Stillingfleet,

If I may freely speak to you my own thoughts, he seems

to deal in this business, as one that forced himself to

say somewhat. For though I apprehend he speaks his

judgment, yet the expressing it in this time and manner

he might regret. And because it might appear a becoming

thing to him to seem earnest, the temptation prevailed

with him, against his habitual inclination, to supply

with sharpness the detect of reason: which the poverty

of the cause afforded not. For really his reasoning’s

are faint, unconcluded, and, unlike Dr. Stillingfleet.

So that if any expected this performance from him, one

may think (and this ought in some part to excuse him)

that, besides some little flourishes of his reading and

wit, he seems only to have lent them his name. I shut

Hill 144

up all with the words of the great apostle, Rom. 14.2,

3. One believeth that he may eat all things: another,

who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth

despise him that eateth not, for God hath received him.

Let us not therefore, judge one another anymore: but

judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block,

or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way. (Calamy

345)

Howe’s response was quite to the point to Stillingfleet.

Vincent Alsop produced with more than the usual briskness “The

Mischief of Impositions”, also in 1680. John Barrett recalled

Stillingfleet’s earlier moderate views in his “The Rector of

Sutton committed with the Dean of St. Paul’s or A Defense of

Stillingfleet’s Irenicum”. John Owen composed “with respect and

appropriate tense” penned “A Brief Vindication of the

Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism”, also in 1680.” (Owen,

Goold, vol. XIII 304)

It was in response to these five authors and papers that

Stillingfleet chose to write about in his first book, “The

Unreasonableness of Separation” in 1681. Owen chose to address

Hill 145

the three main points of “The Mischief of Separation”. The

points John gave from “Works vol. 20” are:

1. It aimed to mark all Nonconformists with separation

from the Church of England.

2. “Separation” written to punish them for their

supposed guilt and the soon approaching

consequences.

3. In reply to the indictment of the ministers, and

others, with a lack of openness in operation and

administration of the dissent. He charged them with

a lack of concern for the laymen and poor within the

Church of England.

4. Owen disagreed with his understanding of Philippians

3.16. The truth Paul referred to in the Philippians

scripture spoke directly to the requirement of

patience, and giving among Christians. This extends

to different economic status, achievement and even

Jewish and Gentile Christians. (Owen, Goold, vol. XX

252)

Hill 146

I think it is fair to say that the average Nonconformists

who read the verse from Philippians had a different

interpretation of Philippians 3.16 than the Dean. Owen, from

Works VIII, further stated:

We deny that the apostles made or gave any such rule to

the churches present in their days, or for the use of

the churches in future ages as should appoint and

determine outward means of worship, with ceremonies in

their observation, stated feasts and fasts, beyond what

is of divine institution, liturgies, or forms of

prayer, or discipline to be exercised in law courts,

subservient into a national ecclesiastical government.

(Owen, Goold, vol. XX 253)

In the second and third centuries, there were disputes

within the early Church about Easter. Some were saying John

wanted the church to celebrate Easter. Others claimed Peter gave

orders when to keep the holiday. This proves that the apostles

laid down no laws of uniformity. The lay communion charge by

Stillingfleet encouraged Owen to say:

Hill 147

We renounce all other assemblies wherein they have had

great experiences of spiritual advantage unto their

souls; to desert the observation of many useful Gospel

duties, in their mutual watch that believers of the

same church ought to have one over another; to divest

themselves of all interest of a voluntary consent in

the discipline of the Church, and choice of their

pastors; and to submit unto an ecclesiastical rule and

discipline which not one in a thousand of them can

apprehend to have anything in it of the authority of

Christ or rule of the Gospel. (Owen, Goold, vol. XX

259-260)

John Owen did not know more than six Nonconformists

ministers in England that practiced lay communion as a legal

function. As a Nonconformist Owen had long believed the Church

should not be under a National Church, imposing rites, ceremonies

and dictating the type of church government. Making it clear,

what Owen believed is that the stability as proposed by the

Presbyterian in 1645 did not include mandatory liturgy, prelacy,

diocesan ecclesiastical courts, ceremonies, and the sign of the

Hill 148

cross in baptism which are requirements of the Act of Uniformity

of 1662. Owen finished his answer with a moving defense of those

that the Dean accused of being chronic complainers.

Stillingfleet’s second book, “The Unreasonableness of Separation”

maintained the ecclesiastical debate going on for several years.

Owen briefly replied to Stillingfleet’s second attempt in the

appendix of his “An Inquiry into the Original Nature…” of 1681.

(Owen, Goold, vol. XV 188)

London merchants had drawn up a compromise between

Congregationalist and Presbyterians. Owen studied the idea and

agreed that it provided a method of negotiations between the

groups that would be beneficial. The document submitted for

review by ministers in Bristol and sent off for review of changes

with ministers in London. Owen, always the Puritan, desired that

there be some sort of agreement reached between among the

Nonconformists. The outcome of the merchant’s proposal probably

became pushed into the background for a need to be secret.

Because of the government’s power in the hands of Royalist and

the presence of Popery, the study probably remained secret

because of possible resentment. The renewal of persecution in

Hill 149

October 1861, happened because Shaftsbury and the Whigs demands,

and working to ensure that the Duke of York not be allowed to

succeed to the throne, had allowed the much often humiliated King

to elicit the comfort of his friends. (Lacey 150)

For whatever reason they kept the plan secret, the

Toleration Act failed to become law and more abuse of

Nonconformists was just ahead in the future. The Royalists,

because of fears of another civil war, seemed to enforce laws

against Nonconformists with enthusiasm. At this time, an older

and seriously sick Owen realized he was not in any condition to

do anything physically. However, he became extremely upset at

what was happening to the brethren all around him. The

persecution inspired Owen to compose his last two books, “The

Case of Present Distress on Nonconformists Examined” and “A Word

of Advice to the Citizens of London” which both examined how the

government was equating the crimes of worshipping God in a

conventicle with murder and robbery. (Owen, Goold, vol. VIII 587)

Owen, now late in life, ran afoul of the law on several

occasions. In the late 1670s, his horse and carriage stopped in

the Strand by two government informers and arrested. From Works

Hill 150

Owen states, “As they ordered me out of the carriage, Sir Edmund

Berry Godfrey happened by, and asked what was going on? He took

control of the situation by asking both me and the informers to

accompany him to his office. From the investigation, the evidence

showed that I had not committed any crime; and the divine

released.” (Owen, Goold, vol. VIII 578)

In November 1681, Owen and others became charged under the

Five Mile Act along with other notable Congregational ministers

including John Collins, Samuel Slater, Matthew Mead and Robert

Ferguson. In early 1682, Owen and George Griffith had a subpoena

issued for them. It seems they forgot to pray for the government

and the King. Administration spies were in the pews attending one

of sermons at Leadenhall Street. Owen arrested for the last time

in July 1683 this time charged with collusion in the Rye House

Plot. As part of the plot, the King would be assassinated with

the conspirators putting the Duke of Monmouth on the throne.

(Daniell, Bickley, “1683” 349, 367-8)

Owen had no part in the plot, but his former personal

assistant, Robert Ferguson had and more than likely this

connection made the authorities cast doubt on Owen. From

Hill 151

“Congregationalism in England”, “This became the last time

authorities could arrest or persecute John Owen, for he died at

Ealing in August of 1683.” (Jones 76)

Owen had made an indelible mark on not only England, but the

entire world including the churches in New England where his

publications were widely read. On John Owens tombstone in Bunhill

Fields is the inscription written by Thomas Gilbert, “John Owen

is furnished with human literature in all its kinds and in all

its degrees, and using it to serve the interests of Religion and

to serve in the Sanctuary of God.” (Orme 346)

There is no doubt that John Owen was a man who made a

positive difference in the seventeenth century. It has been said

that John Owen had a hard to read at times literary style. From

“British Heroes and Worthies” we have a review of Owen’s literary

style over a hundred years ago that could be found apt today:

It is to be feared Owen will never gain that position

in literature to which his learning and abilities

fairly entitle him; and the comparative neglect which

encircles one of the greatest names in English

theological literature, is a confirmation of the great

Hill 152

critical maxim, that no writer, however able, can

secure for his works abiding popularity, if he be

heedless of the style and dress in which he arrays his

thoughts. (Stoughton, 174)

Historical none of his personal diaries have been found and

are probably lost forever. It would have been a rare glimpse into

the divine’s secret thoughts of a great mind and heart. But for

now his secret thoughts remain his own. What is known is his

theology is evident from his writings, and we are better off for

it.

Some notes on Puritans before I close. You may compare a

committed Puritan to a giant tree. A person like John Owen, a

great saint, are so much more serious in their walk than average

pew sitters that they stick out by comparison. They possessed

four characteristics that we all should all examine and try our

best to imitate, but few will ever go that far.

1. They are, and were, great thinkers. Most of the

leaders of the Puritan movement were articulate

polymaths from the universities. Richard Baxter is

the exception to this, but was brilliant writer

Hill 153

nevertheless. Puritan teachers had to be up to date

on Biblical exegesis, Reformed Theology, Roman

Catholicism in England and Europe, Arminian and

Socinianism controversies of the day, just to name a

few. They were expected to know how to speak, read

and write English, Latin and Greek. This in

additional to their pastoral duties, which each more

than likely chose to participate within.

2. The Puritans were great worshippers. They served the

God of the Bible, a great God which was undiminished

by the philosophies of the day and the demeaning

lines of thought that press upon us today in our

media infested society. They had God shrinking

philosophies then like Arminianism as we do today in

the Humanist Manifesto theology practiced by the

adherents in political correctness and their no

ultimate truth or eternity.

3. Puritans were great hopers. One extremely obvious

strength of a Puritan, setting them far above and

apart from the Western Christians of today is the

Hill 154

firmness of their grip on the assurance of where

they were going of the Biblical teaching on the hope

of heaven.

4. The Puritans were great warriors. This point too

separates the Western Christians of today like light

and dark. The Puritan knows that they are in an

unending fight against the world, the flesh and

Satan. They realized this was a fight that had been

going on for thousands of years, and certainly no

less today than then.

I believe that in the providence of God the information

given to some ages have been preserved and have special messages

for another age. The New Testament era was preserved for all ages

and provides a model for the life of churches and individuals of

all ages. Perhaps the documents which have been preserved from

the Puritan era have a special message for the end time’s saints

of today. The comparison of the Puritans of that age being giant

trees and Christians of today being zany pigmies, this paper may

have convinced you to do your own research and come to your own

conclusions. I sincerely hope so.

Hill 155

Chapter 6

Conclusions on John Owen

John Owen was a Christian who lived what he believed 24

hours a day, seven days a week. His 80 books become a written

testament of John Owen being a well published Theologian that

stands among the giants of the Puritans. John receives a

compliment as “the Calvin of England” from Ambrose Barnes, a

Congregationalist from Newcastle. (Longstaffe 16)

While I have yet seen this in print, John Owen was decidedly

Jewish in his Puritanism. I mean this as the highest of

compliments. The 1965 reprint series of The Works of John Owen,

I-XVI refers to Dr. Owen as “the greatest Britain Theologian of

all time”,by the Banner of Truth Trust. (Owen, Goold, vol. I-XVI

Intro)

Hill 156

In researching his life, I find nothing that he did to bring

one shred of ill repute to Jesus Christ. He cared about, and for,

those less fortunate by taking them in, feeding them spiritually

and physically, and also helped them find work. The British

writer Anthony Wood, the Oxford Anglican, he was an “Atlas and

Patriarch of Independency.” (Wood, “Oxford” 10)

We owe the Puritans a enormous debt. Their thoroughly

Biblical worldview supplied the matrix of presuppositions that

many of the Western world’s rights and privileges have emerged.

Puritanism was the age of Newton, Bunyan, Milton, Cromwell,

Locke, Owen, and other generation changers’. Like Jesus Christ,

John Owen while he lived and those of us today that have found

him and his writing after his death either love him or despise

him.

John Owen’s theology included the following:

1. Christ is the Rock that the Church stands on

2. The person of Christ is the exact image of God

3. The faith of the Church in the Lordship of Jesus

Christ

Hill 157

4. Conformity to Christ and following His example are

ones ultimate right

5. Infinite Wisdom of God is in the person of Jesus

Christ

6. Infinite Wisdom of God in man’s redemption is

through Jesus Christ

John Owen believe that the greatest need for a man or woman

is the re-enthroning of the Person, Spirit, Grace and Authority

of the Lord Jesus Messiah in the hearts and consciences of

mankind, is the only way whereby an end may be put unto the

shedding of innocent blood and the worlds confusion. He also

believed that outside the Lordship of Jesus Christ unregenerate

man could not expect any degree of perfection amongst those that

stumble at the stone of offense.

Owen believed in the inerrancy of the Word of God. His

mother taught John both Greek and Latin as a child. He was an

expert at both upon graduating with a Master’s degree at Oxford

University when he was 19 years of age. His eschatology firmly

centered on the Word of God; Daniel, Ezekiel, Corinthians,

Thessalonians, and Revelation. He believed in a physical rebirth

Hill 158

of Israel which did not occur for another 265 years after his

death. A physical Millennium was also part of his beliefs.

John’s Puritanism included piety, active church life and

holy living not simply as an anecdote for a Popery laced often-

complacent lethargic church. He also believed communion with God

is a relationship of mutual interchange between God and man. The

communion with God when initiated by Him, He is the one who

supplies all the power. John Owen believed that communion with

God is a relationship in which Christians receive agape love from

God and that we respond to Him in love. God imparts to us a

triune Fatherly love that only He can give.

To say that I have learned from this study is an

understatement. I believe that each of us need to examine for the

extent that politically correct thinking has been engrained into

us by the media, education, the government and courts. There is

nothing Godly about politically correct thinking. The only way to

overcome politically correct thinking is to ask God to purge it

from one's life through prayer and immersing one’s self into the

Word of God. God will purge it supernaturally, through the life

Hill 159

changing Word of God, and through fellowship with those that have

overcome it and learn from them.

My experience with the Bachelor of Biblical Studies degree

program, at Bible University, has been an experience of depth in

Biblical perspective and expansion of knowledge the quantity and

quality of which I could not have seen coming at the beginning of

the program. The amount of research required for the degree, in

and of itself, will not only expand your knowledge of Jesus

Christ, but refine your worldview into a more Godly perspective

of life, church, education and government. I thank God for Bible

University from the bottom of my heart for the opportunity to

study and grow through your program. Maranatha….

Hill 160

Works Cited

"Arminian Churches and Inerrancy" Arminian Today, A Gospel Centered

Arminian Blog. N.p., 17 May 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2013.

Barclay, John. Diary of Alexander Jaffray. Philadelphia: Harvey and

Darton, 1999. Reprint. Print.

Bartlet, William. A Model of the Primitive Congregational Way. London:

Printed by W.E. for H. Overton Alley, 1647. PDF.

Baxter, Richard, and J. M. Lloyd Thomas. The autobiography of Richard

Baxter, being the Reliquiæ Baxterianæ abridged from the folio (1696).

London: J.M. Dent; 1925. PDF.

Bourne, H. R. Fox. The life of John Locke. New York: Harper & brothers,

1876. PDF.

Brooke, Karly. "TimeRime.com. the Stuarts" TimeRime.com - Homepage.

N.p., 1 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.

Calamy, Edmund. The Works of Rev. John Howe. The 2nd ed. London:

Cambridge Press, 2012. Print.

Hill 161

Cromwell, Oliver. The writings and speeches of Oliver Cromwell the

Commonwealth 1649-1653. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press, 1939. Print.

Curtis, Mark H. Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, 1558-1642; an essay

on changing relations between the English universities and

English society. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Print.

Cypher, Paul. The history of Rothwell. Rothwell: Oxford University

Press, 1977. Print.

Encyclopædia Britannica. Fifth Monarchy Men.  Encyclopædia Britannica.

Vol. 9:227.

Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 28 Sep. 2013

F.H. Blackburne Daniell and Francis Bickley (editors). "Charles 2nd:

August 1671." Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles 2nd, Addenda 1660-

1685 (1939): 336-338. British History Online. Web. 09

October 2013.

F.H. Blackburne Daniell and Francis Bickley (editors). "Charles 2nd:

March 1672." Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles 2nd, Addenda 1660-

1685 (1939): 347-351. British History Online. Web. 09

October 2013.

Hill 162

F. H. Blackburne Daniell (editor). "Charles 2nd: November - December

1681." Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles 2nd, 1680-

1 (1921): 544-620. British History Online. Web. 11 October

2013.

F. H. Blackburne Daniell (editor). "Charles 2nd: January 1682."

Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles 2nd, 1682 (1932):

1-90. British History Online. Web. 11 October 2013.

F. H. Blackburne Daniell (editor). "Charles 2nd: January-June 1683."

Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles 2nd, 1683:

January-June (1933): 1-380. British History Online. Web. 11

October 2013.

Firth, C. H., and R.S. Rait. Acts and ordinances of the interregnum,

1642-1660. Searchable text ed. Burlington, Ont.: Tanner

Ritchie Pub., 2005. Print.

Frank, Philipp, George Rosen, and Shuichi Kusaka. Einstein: His life and

times. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1947. Print.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. Oliver Cromwell. 1901. Reprint. New

York: Scribner, 2001. Print.

Gaunt, Peter. The English Civil War: the essential readings. Oxford, U.K.:

Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Print.

Hill 163

Gregg, Pauline. King Charles I. 1 ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California

Press, 1984. Print.

Greenhill, John. The Bust of John Owen. 1668. Oil on canvas. National

Portrait Gallery, London.

Grosart, Alexander B.. The Complete Works of Andrew Marvell. London:

Hazell, Watson and Viney, 1882. Print.

Haller, William. The Rise of Puritanism. 2nd Pa. pbk. ed.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

Print.

Henry, Philip, and Matthew Henry Lee. Diaries and letters of Philip Henry.

A.D. 1631-1696. Edited by M.H. Lee. Kegan Paul & Co.: London,

1882. PDF.

Hockliffe, Ernest. The diary of the Rev. Ralph Josselin, 1616-1683; 1908.

Reprint. London: Offices of the Society, 1992. Print.

"House of Commons Journal Volume 6: 13 September 1650." Journal of the

House of Commons: volume 6: 1648-1651 (1802): 468. British

History Online. Web. 01 October 2013.

Jones, W. Tudor. Congregationalism in England. New York: A.A. Knopf,

1931. Print.

Hill 164

Lacey, D. R. Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661-1689. Oxford:

Oxford University Publishing, 1969. Print.

Longstaffe, William Hylton Dyer. Memoirs of the life of Mr.

Ambrose Barnes, late merchant and sometime alderman of

Newcastle upon Tyne. Durham: Andrews & Co., 1867. Print.

Magrath, John Richard. The Queen's College, Oxford. Oxford: The

Clarendon Press, 1921. Print.

Mahaffy, J. P. An Epoch in Irish History, Trinity College. London: Macmillan

& co., 1874. PDF.

McGowan, Andrew. The Dictionary of Historical Theology. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2000. Print.

Missler, Chuck. "The Armor of God: The Adequacy of our Helmet - Chuck

Missler - Koinonia House." Koinonia House - The Ministry of

Chuck and Nancy Missler. N.p., 1 Feb. 1997. Web. 18 Sept.

2013.

Nickolls, John. Original letters and papers of state, addressed to Oliver Cromwell

concerning the affairs of Great Britain. London: Printed by William

Bowyer, and sold by John Whiston, 1743, Reprint. 2002.

Print

Hill 165

Nuttall, Geoffrey F., and Owen Chadwick. From uniformity to unity, 1662-

1962. London: S.P.C.K., 1962. Print.

Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: myths and realities. Downers Grove,

Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006. Print

Oliver Cromwell Statue. 2012. London Parliament Houses, London. London

- Great Britain. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

Orme, William. Memoirs of the life, writings, and religious connexions of John

Owen, D.D., vice-chancellor of Oxford, and dean of Christ Church during the

Commonwealth. Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1996.

Print.

Owen, John. A Dissertation on Divine Justice: or the claims of vindicatory justice

asserted. London: L.J. Higham. 1770, Reprint. 1973. Print.

Owen, John. Overcoming Sin and Temptation Three Classic Works by John Owen.

Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006. Print.

Owen, John, and Peter Toon. The Correspondence of John Owen 1616-1683.

London: James Clarke Publishing, 1970. Print.

Owen, John, and Samuel Burder. A display of Arminianism. London:

Printed by R. Edwards for T. Hamilton [etc.], 1809.

Reprint. 1988. Print.

Hill 166

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vols. I-XVI.

Introduction. 1968. Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust,

1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. I. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. VI. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. VIII. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.]

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. IX.

1968. Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. X. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. XIII. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. XIV. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. XV. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Hill 167

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. XVI. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vol. XVII. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Packer, J. I. The Transformation of Anglicanism, 1643-1660. Nashville: T.

Nelson, 1980. Print.

Rogers, John. Ohel or beth-shemesh a tabernacle for the sun, or,irenicum

evangelicum: an idea of church.... S.l.: Proquest, Eebo

Editions, 2011. Print.

Santich, Barbara. The Evolution of Culinary Techniques in the Medieval Er a.

Oakland: Rutledge Publishing, 1995. Print.

Scofield, C. I.. The new Scofield study Bible: authorized New King James

Version: new Scofield study system. New 1998 ed. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

Shaw, W. A. A History of the English Church, 1640-1660. New York: Burt

Franklin, 1900. Reprint, 1974. Print.

Slick, Matt. "Socinianism, What is Socinianism? CARM - Christian

Apologetics and Research Ministry. N.p., 1 Sept. 2009. Web.

26 Sept. 2013.

Hill 168

Smith, Jonathan Z., William Scott Green, and Jorunn Jacobsen

Buckley. The Harper-Collins dictionary of religion. San Francisco:

Harper, 1995. Print.

Stoughton, John. British Heroes and Worthies. New and rev. ed.

London: Religious tract Society, 1983. Print.

Toon, Peter. God's Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1971. Print.

Toon, Peter. The Oxford Orations of Dr. John Owen. Callington (Cornwall):

Gospel Communication, 1971. Print.

Turner, George Lyon. Original records of early nonconformity under persecution

and indulgence, vol. III. London: T.F. Unwin, 1914. Print.

Turner, George Lyon. Original records of early nonconformity

under persecution and indulgence, vol. II. London: T.F.

Unwin, 1912. Print.

Wheatly, W. B. The Diary of Pepsy. London: George Bell & Sons, 1967.

Print.

Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses an Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops

who have had their Education in the University of Oxford, vol. II. Oxford

University, UK: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.

Hill 169

Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses an Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops

who have had their Education in the University of Oxford, vol. IV. Oxford

University, UK: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.

Wood, Anthony. The History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Print.