The proofs of Christianity were noticed by Anglican Divines. Embedded
in the rich quarry of Jeremy Taylor’s _Ductor Dubitantium_, may
be found an able and eloquent summary of the external and internal
evidences; and Hammond, in his _Reasonableness of Christian
Religion_, points out the ground upon which men embrace it “in the
gross, all of it together,” after which he descends in detail to the
survey and vindication of those particular branches of Christianity
which appeared to men at that time to be least supported. And it may be
mentioned, as an illustration of the changing fashions of scepticism,
that the points here considered by Hammond were--objections to God’s
disposition of providence, founded on the prosperity of injustice and
the calamities of innocence; and the exceptions taken to Christ’s
commands because He enjoins the duty of taking up the cross--points
which certainly would not engross the attention of Christian advocates
in the present day.
[Sidenote: PURITAN WORKS ON EVIDENCES.]
The evidences of our holy religion were more largely discussed by
writers of the Latitudinarian school, as already described; and they
also received pre-eminent attention from Puritan authors. Authors of
that class were amongst the first keenly to discern the signs of the
times in the direction of scepticism, amongst the first to combat
the rising evil. Devoted to the study of the Sacred Volume, they also
devoted themselves to the examination of the basis of its Divine
claims. One reason why the Cambridge and Puritan Divines paid more
attention to this branch of study might be, that they thought so much
more of Christianity than of the Church, so much more of the former as
a system of truth, than of the latter as a scheme of government; and
further, which is only another particular effect of the same general
cause, they were under the influence of an individualizing power, which
is one of the secrets of Protestantism, and which makes each person
feel so strongly his own responsibility for the creed which he adopts.
In this respect especially, the Puritan differed from the Anglican, who
might be said to receive his Christianity from the Church, rather than
his Church from Christianity.
Two distinguished Puritan writers exhibit the proofs of natural
religion,--and two others the proofs of revealed religion.
Cudworth’s great work was published in 1678; but nine years before
that time, Theophilus Gale presented to the world treatises containing
arguments against atheism. _The Court of the Gentiles_--as the
expansion of the title shows--is “a discourse touching the original of
human literature, both philology and philosophy, from the Scriptures
and Jewish Church, in order to a demonstration of the perfection of
God’s Word and Church light, the imperfection of nature’s light, and
mischief of vain philosophy, the right use of human learning, and
especially, sound philosophy.” The title-page describes and exhibits
the whole work as a defence of religion. The author’s idea is that the
philosophy of the ancients, so far as it is true, constitutes an outer
court, leading to the Holy of Holies in the Word of God. All which is
valuable in classic writings, according to Gale, had been derived from
the chosen people. Pagan ignorance and folly arose from the obstinacy
of the human mind in forsaking Divine oracles. The inventiveness of
the human intellect added to the mischief, and the degradation of
the heathen, proves the need of the Gospel. In this frame-work of
evidence, built up in four parts, Gale inserts one book--the second
of the fourth part upon Atheism, and the existence of the Deity, in
which,--professedly following Plato, but often adding much to the
force of his master’s reasoning,--he demonstrates the being of a God
from universal consent--from a subordination of second causes to the
first, from a _prime Motor_; from the order of the universe; from
the connate idea of God in the soul; and from moral arguments founded
upon conscience and a natural sense of religion. In his reasoning he
anticipates Cudworth, and will bear honourable comparison with his
great successor.
[Sidenote: PURITAN WORKS ON EVIDENCES.]
The first part of Howe’s _Living Temple_ appeared in 1676. In it
he proves the “existence of God and His conversableness with men.” His
first argument is the same as Gale’s,[512] the consent of mankind;
but Howe does not appear to be indebted to his predecessor for this
mode of treating his subject. Common consent, Howe extends from God’s
existence to God’s conversableness,--in other words, to religious
worship; he quotes from Plutarch in proof of its universality, it
being characteristic of the age to cite an ancient classic in proof of
a statement of fact, which we should test by our own experience and
observation. Howe anticipates the _Demonstration_ contrived by
Samuel Clarke, and engages in a strain of reasoning beyond that of
either Gale or Cudworth.[513] He argues that since something exists
now, something must always have existed, unless we admit, that at one
period or another, something sprung out of nothing. When he proceeds to
prove the intelligence of this Eternal and uncaused Being, he enters
upon the _à posteriori_ path, which Gale and Cudworth, and indeed
the ancients, traversed to some extent, but in which the moderns have
gone so far beyond them. It is worthy of remark, that the ingenious
reference of Paley to a watch, as illustrating the indication of
design in nature is found in Howe; and to him also belongs the credit
of including among the proofs of Divine purpose, the constitution of
the human mind, as well as the organization of matter,--a department
in natural theology the neglect of which by many was lamented by Lord
Brougham. I may add, that when Howe demands of the atheist, whether,
if he will reject all the preceding evidence for the existence of God,
there are any conceivable methods by which the fact of the Divine
existence could be certified,--he opens another spring of thought on
this subject, as original as it is profound. After establishing the
truth of the Divine existence, Howe resumes his argument for the Divine
conversableness; and after ingeniously overthrowing the Epicurean
theory, he deduces from what he has said, that God is such a Being as
can converse with men, and he asserts His omniscience, His omnipotence,
His immensity, and His unlimited goodness.
There is another work by John Howe of singular eloquence--_The Vanity
of Man as Mortal_--in which the author suggests arguments for the
soul’s immortality, of a kind which only occur to minds of a superior
order. The works just noticed relate to natural religion.
John Owen and Richard Baxter wrote upon the evidences of revealed
religion.
In 1659, the former published _The Divine Original of the
Scriptures_. He bases his argument chiefly on the _light_
and _efficacy_ of Divine truth,--a branch of reasoning too much
neglected in after times, but vigorously renewed in our own day. Light,
from its very nature, he says, not only makes other things visible,
but itself manifest. So Scripture has a self-evidencing power, a power
beyond that of miracles. And as there are _innate_ arguments in
the Bible of its Divine original and authority, so also it exerts an
influence which confirms those arguments. Owen’s forms of expression
suffice to show that, whilst as to the points and bearing of his
arguments, he anticipates modern turns of thought, the details of his
logic bear an unmistakeably Puritan impress. But he passes out of
the range of evidence into the domains of dogmatic theology, when he
proceeds to dwell upon the conviction of the Bible being the Word of
God as the result of a twofold efficacy of the Spirit--that efficacy
consisting in a Divine communication of spiritual light, enabling the
mind to discern the majesty and authority of Revelation, and also in
the Divine inspiration of a sense or taste for the truths revealed.[514]
[Sidenote: PURITAN WORKS ON EVIDENCES.]
Owen, in his book upon _The Holy Spirit_, published at a later
period, speaks of the nature of inspiration as not leaving the sacred
writers to “the use of their natural faculties, their minds or
memories, to understand, and remember the things spoken by Him, and so
declare them to others. But He himself acted [upon] their faculties,
making use of them to express His words, not their own conceptions.”
This Divine reduces the modes of revelation mentioned in Scripture to
three heads--voices, dreams, and visions, with the accidental adjuncts
of symbolical actions and local imitations.[515]
Owen wrote his defence of revelation in the year 1659, before the end
of the Commonwealth;--at a still earlier period in 1655, when Oliver
Cromwell was on the throne, before any of the authors now mentioned
had published a word upon the subject, Richard Baxter produced his
_Unreasonableness of Infidelity_. It is thrown into the form of
the Spirit’s witness to the truth of Christianity, so far reminding
us of John Owen’s later work. Baxter, however, assigns a much higher
place to the evidential force of miracles than did his contemporary;
and, instead of dwelling upon the Spirit’s influence, in and through
the Holy Scriptures, he resolves the Spirit’s witness into the
miraculous operations of the first age. Baxter proceeds to show that
the evangelists did not deceive the world, but that they published
undoubted truths,--and that we have received their writings without
any considerable corruption. Having gone thus far in a path much
trodden since, he strangely turns aside to insist upon the doctrine of
everlasting punishment, and to explain the nature of the sin against
the Holy Ghost. He then refers to tradition, to the creed, to church
ordinances, to the succession of religion, to the preservation of
MSS., to the writings of Divines, to the laws of the Roman Empire,
and the like, as evidences of the history of the New Testament. He
writes, in rather a vague and confused way, upon a subject afterwards
elaborated by Lardner and Paley, but to him belongs the distinction of
having first entered this new field. He grapples with the objection
to miracles, but not as Campbell afterwards did. The ground he takes
somewhat resembles that of Bishop Douglas, when the Bishop compares
with the miracles of Scripture, those recorded by Augustine and other
Fathers.
Baxter’s treatise did not satisfy its author; and, in 1667, he added
_Reasons for the Christian Religion_. In this book, he treats of
religion, both natural and supernatural, describing man as “a living
wight having an active power, an understanding to guide it, and a will
to command it,”--and pointing out the relations in which he stands
to the Creator, as his Owner, his Governor, and his Benefactor. The
difficulties of religious duty, a future life of retribution, the
intrinsical evils and righteous penalties of sin, the present miserable
state of the world, and the mercy of God, all come within the scope
of Baxter’s observations, and are presented in the light of nature
and of reason. In the second part the Author points out the need of
Revelation, refers to the several religions existing in the world,
illustrates the nature and “congruities” of Christianity, and proves
the Divine mission of our Lord, by prophecy, by His character, by
His miracles, and by His renovation of men. Confirmatory proofs, and
collateral arguments follow, touching the historical grounds on which
we believe in miracles, and unfolding certain curious considerations
which tend to show that the world is not eternal.
The extrinsical and intrinsical difficulties of the Christian
faith, altogether amounting to the number of forty, are resolved
_seriatim_, and the refutation is extended over nearly one hundred
pages, concluding with a long and devout address to the Deity--somewhat
after the manner of Augustine’s confessions--in which the Puritan
Presbyter pours out his soul in strains not less devout and eloquent
than those of the patristic Bishop.
[Sidenote: PURITAN WORKS ON EVIDENCES.]
In 1672 Baxter returned to the subject, and published _More Reasons
for the Christian Religion and No Reason against it_, in which he
answers the _De Veritate_[516] of Lord Herbert, the first of our
English deistical writers. The author dedicates his work to Sir Henry
Herbert, a relative of the philosopher, and makes a graceful allusion
to Sir Henry’s brother,--the “excellently holy, as well as learned and
ingenious,” Mr. George Herbert. Baxter also wrote two treatises on the
Immortality of man’s soul, the nature of it, and of other spirits. And
also a most singular production, entitled, “The certainty of the world
of spirits fully evinced by unquestionable histories of apparitions,
and witchcraft’s operations, voices, &c.--proving the immortality
of souls, the malice and misery of devils, and the damned, and the
blessedness of the justified--written for the conviction of Sadducees
and Infidels.” This treatise was not printed until the year 1691--a
short time before Baxter’s death,--but its illustrations and arguments
are akin to those which, forty years earlier, he had introduced into
his incomparable _Saint’s Everlasting Rest_.
Baxter leads the van of the great army of our Christian _Apologists_
as they have been infelicitously termed. The armour which the veteran
wore was made after the fashion of the times--the weapons which he
wielded, and which he had forged, are some of them not such as would
be serviceable now, and all of them, as used by him, are unsuited to
our methods of defence; his wisdom also, it must be admitted, was
occasionally defective in his modes of attack, yet no small honour
is due to the man who was the first to enter the lists in English
literature against the infidelity of his day.
[Sidenote: PURITAN THEOLOGY.]
Turning to the doctrinal views of the Puritan school, I shall first
notice certain points of resemblance between them and the opinions of
Anglican Divines. The former, as well as the latter, insisted upon the
doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of our Lord, and the Divinity and
personality of the Holy Spirit--nor could any disciple of the Nicene
faith more firmly hold the eternal generation of the Son of God than
did some of them.[517] Also, they firmly held the doctrine of original
sin. At the same time, in common with the Low Church or Latitudinarian
writers, they eschewed appeals to the Fathers as invested with any
special authority, adopting more or less a spirit of free inquiry
which gradually led some of them to relax a little their doctrinal
strictness; and they went beyond their last-mentioned contemporaries
in anti-sacerdotal and anti-sacramental views. They present marked
characteristics of their own. They all appeal to the Scriptures, not
only as the supreme, but as the exclusively accessible tribunal to
which theological controversy could be brought; yet, it should be
noticed in passing, that many of them studied patristic literature with
great diligence, especially certain portions in harmony with their
own opinions and tastes. There is also this peculiarity attaching to
them as a class, that they do not, as Thorndike, work out a covenant
of grace founded upon baptism,[518]--although they occasionally allude
to that sacrament in a way which is surprising to some of their
descendants; nor did they, as Jackson, as Heylyn, as Pearson, or as
Barrow, follow the creeds of the Church in their theological inquiries.
Baxter especially valued the Apostles’ Creed, but Puritan Divines did
not adopt that, or any other of the ancient symbols, as a formula for
the order of their own thoughts. Not that they broke away altogether
from the habit of beginning with God the Great Cause, and descending
to man His creature, subject, and fallen child; not that they adopted
an _à posteriori_ method, beginning with man as a degenerate and
guilty being, and rising up to God whom man has offended, and who alone
can be the Author of his salvation,--a method which is adopted by some
theological thinkers of our own time. In commencing their systematic
ideas of theology with God, and coming down to man, the Puritans
followed the traditional order of studious thoughtfulness upon such
high themes. Goodwin resolved all Divine knowledge into the knowledge
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but still it was
not to the Creed as a textual authority, it was not to its clauses, one
by one, that he or any of his brethren referred, as direction posts
along the sacred way. Their wont was to select some one principle as
a centre, and then to cluster round it kindred theological ideas, the
various parts being woven into one harmonious whole. In this respect,
they differed both from Anglicans and from Latitudinarians, who were
not accustomed to the use of such a graduated scale of doctrine,
who did not attach to what are termed _Evangelical_ truths, so
much relative importance. Certainly, the themes which the Puritans
most devoutly cherished, were not those to which either Anglicans
or Latitudinarians chiefly turned. Puritan theology, because it is
more experimental than Anglican theology,--because it deals more with
the spiritual consciousness of Divine relations, with the position
and acts of the human soul towards the Divine Lord and Redeemer,--is
thought by some to be less dogmatic than Anglican theology; by which
is meant, that it deals less with those Divine fundamental facts,
which are distinctly recognized in the Creeds, and which, whether men
believe them or not, are absolute and unchangeable realities. But this
apprehension is a mistake. Puritanism, indeed, does insist much upon
what is experimental and practical in theology; it looks at Divine
persons, at their attributes and dispensations in reference to man’s
wants, and character, and conduct; it treats revelation rather as a
light to walk by, than as a light to look at,--which is wise--but it
does not throw into a distance, it does not place on the remote horizon
of its view the doctrines respecting Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
taught in the Scriptures, and upheld by the early Church.
[Sidenote: PURITAN THEOLOGY.]
The Puritans broke with the Anglicans--not upon the doctrines of the
Creeds, but upon other points. They broke with them as Reformers
had broken with Romanists on the question--What are the true means
of grace? Clerical orders and sacraments, said the Church of Rome.
Apostolical succession and sacraments, said the Anglican Church of
England; but the Anglican Church of England controverted the doctrine
of the Church of Rome as to the number, the nature, the form and the
efficacy of the sacraments. The Puritans went much further than the
Anglicans in this direction, and denied the Anglican views of the
ministry and the sacraments. The Anglican watchwords were,--_orders_,
_sacraments_, _faith_, _grace_. The Puritan watchwords were--_the
Bible_, _grace_, _truth_, _faith_. Both parties believed that men are
saved by grace through faith; but the one connected the salvation
chiefly with sacraments, the other with truth.
In considering the theology of the Puritans, we ought carefully to
notice differences amongst them, and I shall therefore subdivide them
into three classes--the _Calvinistic_, the _Arminian_, and
the _Intermediate_. I begin with the Calvinists, and shall select
Thomas Goodwin and John Owen.
The influence exerted by Perkins and other Puritan teachers and
friends in the University of Cambridge upon the mind of Goodwin when
a student, his remarkable conversion, the effect of his residence in
Holland, and of his association there, with Dutch Divines, and with
“English Dissenting brethren,” are visible in his opinions. Three main
stand-points come out sharply in the phases of Goodwin’s theology.
The first is _Faith_. In his treatise on that subject he discusses
(1) the object of faith, including the mercies in God’s nature, the
Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the riches of free grace
as declared and proposed in the Gospel covenant; (2) the acts of faith
in the understanding, the affections and the will, respecting which
he distinguishes between justifying faith in general, and the faith
of assurance; and (3) the properties of faith, its excellence and
use--good works, he says, so far from being slighted by the exaltation
of belief, are really promoted in a pre-eminent degree by the influence
of that principle. It is apparent at once, that in this way a complete
scheme of theology is arranged with faith for a pivot on which the
entire circle of thought is made to move. Accordingly, we find
introduced into this elaborate treatise, nearly, if not quite, all the
doctrines comprised within the writer’s evangelical creed. There are
abundant descriptions of faith, of what it is, and of what it does,
but we do not discover any compact definition of it in any part of the
volume. Goodwin alludes to it as sealed in the understanding, in the
heart, and in the will,--a description which might seem comprehensive
enough to take in all which Thorndike or Bull has advanced on the
subject; but Goodwin’s way of working out the idea is very different
from theirs, and whilst they are chiefly intent upon preserving the
interests of Christian morality, he, although not neglectful of them,
is principally engaged in exalting the glories of sovereign grace.
According to his theology, faith is commanded by God, it influences
all the graces--but it is the meanest and lowest of them all, and it
is merely and altogether a passive principle. It should be carefully
noticed, as amongst the marked features of Goodwin’s teaching:--not,
however, peculiar to him, but common to Puritan Divines--that although
he enumerates many objects of faith, by far the most prominent one is
Christ Himself, as the great propitiation for sin.[519]
[Sidenote: GOODWIN.]
Another stand-point of Goodwin’s is _Election_. He argues for the
necessity of this--saying, that without it “Christ had died in vain,
and not saved a man,” and had been in heaven alone to lament that He
had come short in this work. Goodwin dwells upon the order of God’s
decrees touching election and reprobation, and upon the end to which
the elect are ordained, even a supernatural union with God, and the
communication of Himself to their souls. The infinity of God’s electing
grace is a special theme of this writer’s meditations, in which,
amongst other points most repulsive to moderate Calvinists, he insists
upon a vast disproportion between the elect and the rest--rejoicing
not, as one would suppose, in the thought, that the saved immensely
outnumber the lost, but in the thought, that the paucity of men who
enjoy any privilege magnifies it the more. He speaks of the infinite
number of those laid aside in a fallen condition, in comparison with
the very few elected out of them, as enhancing the grace of election.
He contends for the perfect freedom of election, and the absence in it
of all reference to merit or worthiness; for its intimate connection
with effectual calling, which he unfolds at length; and for the
doctrine of final perseverance, which follows from the doctrine he has
previously laid down. It is remarkable that he employs a whole book
in showing that election in its ordinary course runs from believing
parents to their posterity; that the covenant of grace is entailed
upon the children of believers, and that God most usually makes them
His choice. He is careful practically to apply his views to Christian
parents on the one hand, and to their children on the other.[520]
The doctrine of reprobation is connected by Goodwin with the
doctrine of election; it is described as being its dark shadow. If
Goodwin was not a supralapsarian, he was, next to that, the highest
predestinarian a man could be.[521] It is marvellous how, with all
his thoughtfulness, he could have overlooked the question of moral
government and human responsibility, in connection with some of his
speculations; and it is distressing to find that one so zealous for
what he deemed the glory of Divine grace, could lay his scheme of
theology open to the charge of its robbing God of the attributes of
justice and righteousness.
Goodwin does not, in his treatise on election, or in his other
writings, give prominence to the dogma of particular redemption; but he
distinctly affirms in one place that the elect alone are redeemed;[522]
and his whole system of theology proceeds on the principle, that the
death of Christ was a ransom for the salvation of the elect. He presses
to the utmost extreme the ideas of suretyship, and of debt-paying;
and refers to the sinner’s liability as met by the sufferings of
the Saviour, and to the sinner’s bonds as for ever cancelled by the
Redeemer’s resurrection. To such an extent does the author carry his
notion of the identification of the Lord with His people as their
surety, that he positively declares Christ by imputation was made the
greatest sinner that ever was--for the sins of all God’s chosen met in
Him![523]
The last stand-point of Goodwin, which I have space to notice, is
_Regeneration_. In his treatise, entitled _The Work of the Holy
Ghost in our Salvation_, Regeneration is the theme throughout the
volume. Its necessity, its nature, and its cause are illustrated in
every variety of form and phrase; and it is noteworthy that no allusion
is made to the ordinance of baptism in connection with it, nor is any
opportunity lost of placing this spiritual change in relation to the
Divine decrees and electing love.[524]
[Sidenote: JOHN OWEN.]
Were it not that my proper business is to present, as succinctly
as possible, the doctrinal views of the Puritans, I should most
earnestly combat some of Goodwin’s theological positions, and point
out the tremendous consequences which they involve--admitting, at
the same time, the redeeming elements, which may be found in his
ofttimes wearisome method of instruction. I will only say, that when
he wandered into what appear to me not only perilous but pernicious
regions of thought, he did but stumble in the midst of fields into
which Augustine had gone before, and where Jonathan Edwards followed
afterwards. Happily, such men are inconsistent, and whilst sacrificing
the righteousness of God in one way, they contend for it most zealously
in another.
Owen’s works may be appropriately coupled with Goodwin’s. Their
literary defects and their religious excellencies are not dissimilar.
In each the reader is wearied with refinements and perplexed by
multiplied divisions; in neither can be found any graces of style,
any delectable flow of words, any rhythm of diction, any wealth of
expression; in both are presented signs of profound reflection, of
patient inquiry, of logical acumen, and also, beyond all these, proofs
of intense evangelical piety.
Owen goes over very much of the ground which is occupied by Goodwin,
and he is scarcely less rigid in his predestinarianism. It is
instructive to compare with the point of view selected by Goodwin
that which is chosen by Owen. Owen’s treatise on the _Doctrine of
Justification_ (1677) should be examined by the side of Goodwin’s
work on the _Objects and Acts of Justifying Faith_. Owen
describes justifying faith “as the heart’s approbation of the way of
justification and salvation of sinners by Jesus Christ;” he omits,
and vindicates the omission of any definition of this spiritual
act: but he is singularly full in his account of the Divine side of
justification, dwelling at great length upon its forensic nature,
and its basis in the imputed righteousness of the Redeemer. The last
point is wrought out with pre-eminent distinctness. It occurs at the
beginning--it is resumed in the middle--it is enforced at the end of
the book. The idea of Christ’s imputed righteousness is considered by
many evangelical Divines as at the best a theoretical key to explain
the fact of justification, rather than as an essential element of the
doctrine. Some hold the fact without accepting the explanation, not
finding it to be a key at all. But the state of opinion was widely
different in Owen’s day, the whole atmosphere of controversy was
different; he and others identified imputation with justification, and
fought for it as for the hearth of truth, as for the altar of God. They
deemed the interests of Protestantism, the security of the doctrines
of grace, and the welfare of Christ’s Church at stake in this one
doctrinal dispute.
[Sidenote: JOHN OWEN.]
Owen agrees substantially with Goodwin, but he is more cautious; and
he more frequently qualifies his statements. He says men may really be
saved by that grace which doctrinally they question, and they may be
justified by the imputation of that righteousness, which, in opinion,
they deny to be imputed. He shrinks from affirming what Goodwin affirms
as to the identification of Christ with the sinner.[525] It may again
be observed, that throughout, Owen looks more intently at the Divine
act of the sinner’s justification than at the human act by which
the justification is secured. His views on the whole are coincident
with Goodwin’s as to the Divine decrees; but he exhibits them less
prominently in reference to the doctrine of election than in reference
to the doctrine of particular redemption. The Atonement is a central
point in his thoughts; and it is in a treatise respecting the death and
satisfaction of Christ, that his clearest statements on the tenet of
election can be found.[526]
It was usual with most of the Puritan Divines, in harmony with the
order of thought pursued in the Westminster formularies, to start with
the doctrine of the Divine decrees; to regard, as the foundation of
all theology, the idea of God having resolved to save a certain number
of human beings; and to view all the processes of redeeming love, as
simply designed to accomplish that resolution. They did not deny the
responsibility of all men in a certain sense, and they were ready to
maintain the righteousness of God, as they understood it, against any
who dared to impugn that righteousness. But generally they did not look
at the moral government of God as dealing with mankind in general, on
common grounds of justice, love, and mercy; they did not regard the
Gospel as a gracious law for a fallen race; they did not consider it
as alike the duty and the privilege of every sinful child of Adam, to
accept the offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. There
is a deeper _theological_ difference between ancient and modern
Calvinists than some suppose--a difference appearing even more in the
order, the relations, and the turns of thought touching salvation, than
in any scientific mode of expressing it. But there remains a strong
_religious_ resemblance between the two classes. What most of the
old doctrinal Puritans put first as the premises leading to certain
conclusions, many of what may be called the new doctrinal Puritans
put last, as a conclusion drawn from certain premises. In a careful
study of the whole Bible, as a revelation of God’s government of the
whole world, they find passages which relate to mysterious operations
of grace upon human minds; and after a careful analysis of all human
and secondary causes, at work in the world’s history, or at work in
private experience, they discover rightly, in my opinion, a residuum
which points to what is not human, but Divine and absolute; and in this
they recognize the mysterious sovereign grace of God. Further, in those
passages of Scripture which speak of an election, a predestination,
and a purpose before the world began, they see a statement of the
fact, that what God does in time He from eternity meant to do; that
the knowledge and mercy, that the wisdom and the will of the Infinite
and Eternal One, must have been ever the same as they are now. And
also, the present disciples of this Puritan faith, like the former,
delight to dwell upon the cause and character of salvation, more even
than upon its consequences in their own experience and hopes; and they
are not weary, and I hope never will be, of adoring the Divine love,
righteousness, and power in which their redemption originated, and on
which it must for ever rest.
[Sidenote: JOHN OWEN.]
Owen enters fully into the nature of the death of Christ, and insists
upon its having been a price or ransom, a sacrifice and a satisfaction.
He contends that it was a punishment for sin properly so called; and
that the covenant between the Father and the Son was the ground and
foundation of the penal sufferings from which redemption flows. Nor
does he confine himself to the citation and enforcement of Scripture
texts in support of these opinions. He supplies a dissertation on
Divine justice--in which, from the consent of mankind, as appears
in the testimony of the heathen, and the power of conscience, from
the prevalence of sacrifices, and from the works of providence,--he
concludes that Divine justice is a vindicating justice, and that the
non-punishment of sin would be contrary to the glory of that justice.
He examines and answers the objections of Socinus, and the main drift
of the whole treatise is to establish the indispensable necessity of
the satisfaction of Christ for the salvation of sinners.
In his _Salus Electorum Sanguis Jesu_, a work published so early
as 1648, Owen connects the Atonement with the Divine decrees. He points
out what he conceives to be the false and supposed ends of the death
of Christ, and unfolds his reasons for a belief in the doctrine of
particular redemption.[527] He admits that the sacrifice of Christ was
of infinite worth and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming
of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that
purpose; but the main drift of the Essay is to prove that it did not
please the Lord so to employ it.[528] Whatever may be thought of the
logical consequences of Owen’s positions in reference to election and
particular redemption, it would be extreme injustice--and the same
remark may be applied to Goodwin and others--to charge him or them with
any connivance at Antinomianism, an error which they regarded with the
utmost abhorrence, and opposed with not a whit less of zeal than burns
intensely in their writings, when they are subjecting Arminianism to a
process of destructive criticism.