i

Bible University

John Owen – The Defender of the Jesus Christ and the

Nonconformist Way

Gary Hill

Professor/Vice President Bill Carnagey

To fulfill the requirements of the

Bachelor of Biblical Science Degree

13 October 2013

© Gary Hill 2013

ii

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 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.

iii

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 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.

iv

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 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.

v

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

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.

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.

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement.......................................................................................................................... ii

Dedication………...........................................................................................................................iii

About the Author…........................................................................................................................iv

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................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

Chapter 4 John Owen 1635-1650.................................................................................................13

Chapter 5 John Owen 1651-1683.................................................................................................59

Chapter 6 Conclusions on John Owen..........................................................................................95

Works Cited……………………..................................................................................................98

vii

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

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 – John Owen by John Greenhill...............................................................................ix

Figure 2 – Oliver Crowell Statue……….................................................................................7

ix

Figure 1

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 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.

Hill 2

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.

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 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

Hill 3

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 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”)

Hill 4

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 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 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

Hill 5

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

Hill 6

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 7

Figure 2

Oliver Cromwell statue at the Houses of Parliament, London

www.London-GB.com

Hill 8

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 born

1617 Raleigh’s expedition to Guiana1620 Pilgrims sail to New England

1625 King Charles the 1st marries Henrietta Maria

1628 Enters Oxford University1630 Laud becomes Chancellor of 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 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

Hill 9

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

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, 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

Hill 10

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.

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

Hill 11

beneficial. This mental exercise became central to Oxford’s intention for all students to be well-

rounded in all 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,

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

Hill 12

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.

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.

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.

Hill 13

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 Book in Scotland 1637 Becomes a private tutor1640 Short Parliament meets, Long

Parliament (1640-53) convenes1641 Irish Rebellion Grand Remonstrance

1642 Civil War begins 1642 London move/assurance of Salvation1643 Westminister Assembly meets/Solemn

League and Covenant signed1643 1st book published, A Display of Arminianism/Minister at Fordham and

marries Mary Rooke1644 Battles of Marston Moor/Newbury 1644 Son John was baptized 20 December1645 Laud executed/New Model Army

formed1646 End of 1st Civil War 1646 Parliament preaching/moves to

Coggeshall as minister/becomes Congregationalist, daughter Mary born?

1648 Colchester siege in 2nd Civil War 1648 Chaplain at Colchester siege, son Thomas dies.

1649 Charles the 1st executed/Cromwell expedition to Ireland

1649 Accompanies Cromwell to Ireland

1650 Cromwell invades Scotland 1650 Appointed preacher to Council 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

Hill 14

“a continuing dispute between Protestants and Roman Catholics and the rise of the Arminian

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

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 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

Hill 15

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:

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, 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

Hill 16

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, 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

Hill 17

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)

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 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

Hill 18

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 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, "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

Hill 19

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 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 20

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, 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

Hill 21

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

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 to God he is evil.

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

Unconditional Election – Free grace from God is how He chooses the elect. Each person comes 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 the Holy Spirit in invincible and intervenes in man’s heart. The Holy 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 believes he is born-again, faith and repentance come from free will and 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 back-sliders can come back to Him.

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

Hill 22

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.

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

Hill 23

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

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 24

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 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

Hill 25

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 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. 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.

Hill 26

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 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

Hill 27

Owen during this period remained silent 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 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

Hill 28

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.

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, 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

Hill 29

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 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.

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

Hill 30

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 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

Hill 31

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 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:

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.

Hill 32

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 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.

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.

Hill 33

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 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 34

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 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

Hill 35

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 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 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.

Hill 36

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”.

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

reformation to each parish. In an unheard of proposition, Owen proposed that real born-again

Hill 37

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. 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

Hill 38

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.

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 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

Hill 39

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.

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 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

Hill 40

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 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

Hill 41

single person as Christ. Therefore, Socinianism denies the incarnation and deity

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 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.

Hill 42

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 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.

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.

Hill 43

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.

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

Hill 44

have first a 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 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

Hill 45

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 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 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.

Hill 46

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 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.

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

Hill 47

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 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

Hill 48

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 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:

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)

Hill 49

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 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 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.

Hill 50

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 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

Hill 51

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 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 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)

Hill 52

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 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:

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

Hill 53

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 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

Hill 54

hoped their importunate cries will disquiet our rest, and wrest 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.

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

Hill 55

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.

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 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

Hill 56

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)

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

Hill 57

including Joseph Caryl, Edward Bowles and John Owen that all three should go to

Scotland. ("House of Commons Journal”, vol. 6 468)

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 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.

Hill 58

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 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)

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.

Hill 59

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 Parliament expelled. Barebone’s

Parliament, Cromwell becomes Protector

1653 Awarded Doctorate of Divinity

1654 Cromwell’s first Parliament 1654 Appointed a Trier in Cromwellian State Church

1655 Rule of Major-Generals. Penruddock’s rising

1655 Prepares the defense of Oxford

1656 Cromwell’s second Parliament1657 Opposes move to make Cromwell King.

No longer the Vice-Chancellor1658 Crowell dies/Son Richard becomes

Protector1658 Takes prominent part in Savoy

Assembly1659 Richard abdicates, General Monck

marches from Scotland.1659 Forms a gathered church of officers in

London.1660 Convention Parliament, Charles 2nd

returns. Act of Indemnity1660 Removed from Christ Church Deanery,

lives quietly at Stadhampton1661 Cavalier Parliament begins 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 Act

1670 Secret treaty of Dover concluded by Charles 2nd

1670 Discusses Nonconformist Unity with Richard Baxter

1672 Declaration of Indulgence 1672 Personally thanks the King for Indulgence

1673 Test Act 1673 Union of Caryl’s church with that of Owen’s under latter’s ministry

1674 Death of Milton 1674 First volumes Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and Epistle of Hebrews appears

1675 First wife Mary dies1676 Marries Dorothy D’Oyley

1678 Popish plot1679 Cavalier Parliament dissolved. First

Exclusion Parliament

Hill 60

1680 Second Exclusion Parliament 1680 Controversy with Dean Stillingfleet1683 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 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 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.

Hill 61

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 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 62

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 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)

Hill 63

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 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)

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

Hill 64

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 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 was not required to repeat it in

Hill 65

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 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

Hill 66

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 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, appoint tutors, approved

expenditures, the selection of Fellows and Chaplains, and much more.

Hill 67

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 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

Hill 68

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 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

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)

Hill 69

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

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

Hill 70

has been overcome; in these circumstances I wish you all prosperity and bid you

farewell.

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 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

Hill 71

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, 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 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.

Hill 72

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.

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,

Hill 73

ecclesiastical 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.

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

Hill 74

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 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 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)

Hill 75

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 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

Hill 76

an Apology and Humble Pleas for Indulgence and Liberty of 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 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.

Hill 77

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.

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, 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

Hill 78

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.

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 79

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 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.

Hill 80

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 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)

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

Hill 81

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 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)

Hill 82

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 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)

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)

Hill 83

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 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 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

Hill 84

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)

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

Hill 85

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)

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.

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

Hill 86

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 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.

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.

Hill 87

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 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

Hill 88

to excuse him) that, besides some little flourishes of his reading and wit, he seems

only to have lent them his name. I shut 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 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.

Hill 89

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)

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:

We renounce all other assemblies wherein they have had great experiences of

spiritual advantage unto their souls; to desert the observation of many useful

Hill 90

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 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

Hill 91

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 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

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.

Hill 92

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

“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 critical maxim, that no writer, however able, can secure

Hill 93

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 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

Hill 94

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

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 95

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)

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 96

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 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

Hill 97

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 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 98

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.

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

Hill 99

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.

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.

Gregg, Pauline. King Charles I. 1 ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984. Print.

Hill 100

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.

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.

Hill 101

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

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.

Owen, John, and W. H. Goold. The works of John Owen Vols. I-XVI. Introduction. 1968.

Reprint. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Print.

Hill 102

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.

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.

Hill 103

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.

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.

Hill 104

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.

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.