We have noticed a change in the Church of England, from prevalent
Calvinism, during the reign of Elizabeth, for prevalent Arminianism,
during the latter part of the reign of James I. A corresponding change
occurred in the history of several eminent Divines of the seventeenth
century: Bishop Andrewes, Dean Jackson, Bishop Davenant, Archbishop
Ussher, John Hales, of Eton, and Dr. Sanderson, are conspicuous
examples. Another instance, more remarkable in some respects, is
found in the life of John Goodwin--now less known to fame than the
celebrated Churchmen just mentioned, and yet a man who, in his own
day, attracted not less attention than did they; and whose works for
vigour, ingenuity, argument, and eloquence deserve to rank high amongst
theological productions, in an age when theology bore its richest
fruit. The names now grouped together belong to men who, from first
to last, retained more or less of Anglican predilections, and after
the commencement of the Stuart period, Anglicanism and anti-Calvinism
appear in close alliance; but John Goodwin, unlike the other converts,
began his career under the influence of that description of religious
feeling which forms so important an element in Puritanism, and he
retained that feeling to the end of life. Although he became an
Arminian, and renounced opinions identified with doctrinal Puritanism,
his Arminianism did not destroy the unction and ardour which were
characteristic of his earlier creed. His Arminianism presents some
striking differences from that of both the Anglican and Latitudinarian
schools; it is animated by an evangelical spirit, and it is wrought
out, in connection with evangelical principles, akin to those which
appear prominently in the Arminianism of our Wesleyan brethren. Like
them, this eminent predecessor of theirs maintained strenuously the
doctrine of human depravity, of justification by faith, of the work of
the Holy Spirit, of the new birth, and of sanctification.
[Sidenote: JOHN GOODWIN.]
Before John Goodwin abandoned Calvinism he repudiated the doctrine
of the imputed righteousness of Christ as held by the Calvinists of
his own day. Yet he concedes almost all for which modern Calvinists
would contend, when he remarks that a believer may “be said to be
clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and yet the righteousness of
Christ itself may not be his clothing, but only that which procured
his clothing to him. So Calvin calls the clothing of righteousness,
wherewith a believer is clad in his justification, _Justitiam morte,
et resurrectione Christi, acquisitam_--a righteousness procured by
the death and resurrection of Christ.”[529]
Goodwin, in his _Redemption Redeemed_, earnestly insists upon
the broad view of the effect of the Atonement,--“that there is a
possibility, yea a fair and gracious possibility, for all men without
exception, considered as men, without and before their voluntary
obduration by actual sinning to obtain actual salvation by His death;
so that, in case any man perisheth, his destruction is altogether
from himself, there being as much, and as much intended, in the death
of Christ to and towards the procuring of his salvation, as there is
for procuring the salvation of any of those who come to be actually
saved.”[530]
The great moot point between the old-fashioned Calvinists and their
opponents is treated by this intensely-evangelical Arminian in such a
way in his concessions, that he approaches rather closely to modern
Calvinism, without conceding the whole for which the advocates of the
latter system would stipulate.[531]
[Sidenote: JOHN GOODWIN.]
John Goodwin’s object was, whilst magnifying the grace of God, to
preserve what is demanded by the personality, the free agency, and
the responsibility of man. He so clearly explains his opinion and so
carefully fences it round, he so distinctly asserts the Divine origin
of salvation in every individual, and so vigilantly repels every idea
of indigenous rectitude in human nature, suffering from the fall, that
no one can charge his creed with any Pelagian or even semi-Pelagian
taint. So far as that point is concerned, Goodwin’s opinion might
have received the approval of Augustine, and it ought to have passed
muster with the second Councils of Milevis and Orange. Whether the
keen Catholic theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries, in their
jealousy for orthodox opinion, would have endorsed the following
sentence is another question: “That the act of believing whensoever it
is performed, is at so low a rate of efficiency from a man’s self, that
suppose the act could be divided into a thousand parts, nine hundred,
ninety, and nine of them are to be ascribed unto the free grace of God,
and only one unto man. Yea, this one is no otherwise to be ascribed to
man, than as supported, strengthened, and assisted by the free grace of
God.”
Goodwin was a person who thought for himself, and looked at a subject
on more sides than one, and was as zealous to maintain the freeness
of Divine grace as any Divine could be; consequently, we find him
expressing himself, so as to appear, in the eyes of opponents,
logically inconsistent, although he had a way of his own by which to
defend himself against the imputation. Although he distinctly denies
the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, yet he maintains, when
stating his own opinion on the subject, that predestination does not
depend on the foresight of faith, or righteousness. “For though it
be supposed,” he says, “that God decreeth to elect, and accordingly
actually electeth all that believe and none other; yet this, at no hand
proveth, either that His purpose, or the execution hereof, proceed in
their origination, from the faith of such persons foreseen, no nor from
the foresight of their faith: though this be more tolerable than the
other. There is nothing in the nature of faith, nor in God’s foresight
of faith, in what persons soever, that hath in it any generative virtue
of any such purpose in God.”
There were other Puritans who adopted Arminian views. John Horne, Vicar
of Allhallows, Lynn--a learned man of most exemplary and primitive
piety who was ejected in 1662--previously published a book entitled,
“The open door for Man’s approach to God; or, a vindication of the
Record of God concerning the extent of the death of Christ.”[532]
Tobias Conyers, Minister of St. Ethelbert’s, London, also one of the
ejected clergy, accused of being “schismatical and heretical,”--but
who seems to have been a man of high character, and of a catholic
spirit,--published, in 1657, a translation of a work by Arminius, under
the title of “The Just Man’s Defence, or the Royal Conquest.”[533]
Of George Lawson, Rector of More, in Shropshire, who animadverted
upon Baxter’s _Aphorisms of Justification_, Baxter himself
remarks,--after eulogizing him as almost the ablest man whom he knew
in England,--“He was himself near the Arminians, differing from them
only in the point of perseverance as to the confirmed, and some little
matters more.” He published (1659) an excellent sum of divinity, called
_Theopolitica_.[534]
[Sidenote: JOHN GOODWIN.]
The position of these Divines, especially of John Goodwin, amongst the
religious thinkers of that age, is remarkable and significant, and
deserves much more attention than it has ever received. The common
notion is that the Puritan movement, in its theological character, was
essentially Calvinistic, that Calvinism constituted its life and soul;
and, moreover, that evangelical opinions in general,--understanding
by them those views of the Gospel which rest on a keen appreciation
of its precious and saving character,--necessarily involve ideas
of Divine predestination, akin to those which were entertained by
the great Genevan Reformer. Both the disciples and the opponents of
that illustrious man have, in many cases, adopted or countenanced
this conception. But the writers we have just described show us that
it is a mistake. Here were men Puritan in spirit, Puritan in their
characteristic religiousness, Puritan in their habits and modes of
life, who, so far from being imbued with the distinctive sentiments of
John Calvin on the subject of the Divine purposes and decrees, utterly
repudiated them, and spent an immense amount of time and thought
upon their confutation. They believed in justification by faith, in
conversion to God, in the gracious work of the Holy Spirit upon the
human soul, and in the riches of Divine mercy manifested throughout the
salvation of men, as firmly and deeply as did any of those who most
fervently proclaimed the doctrines of election, effectual calling, and
perseverance. Neither their philosophy, nor their logic, nor their
religion, led them to identify the one class of ideas with the other.
And, if the discussion were proper in a work like this, it would
not be difficult to show, that the motive power in Puritanism--that
which made it such a well-spring of life and energy to multitudes of
Englishmen--consisted not in high notions of predestination, where such
notions were entertained, but in those articles of evangelical belief
which can unite devout Calvinists and devout Arminians in the bonds
of a common experience, and in the inheritance of the same hope. And,
if anything further were needful to prove that the Puritan spirit can
exist and thrive apart from Calvinistic theology, it is sufficient to
point to the Wesleyans of the present day, than whom none are more
decided in their opposition to predestinarianism, none are more zealous
in preaching salvation by grace, and none are more inspired with the
life and glow of a warm-hearted piety.
Anti-Calvinistic zeal, however, often took an anti-Puritanical form,
and by assaults which were made upon predestinarian principles, the
interests of evangelical religion were very seriously compromised.
[Sidenote: “FUR PRÆDESTINATUS.”]
A Latin tract, entitled _Fur Prædestinatus_, made some noise at
the time of its publication, and has received the commendation of
literary and theological critics. The _Fur Prædestinatus_ was
printed in London in 1651. D’Oyley, simply on the ground of general
rumour, ascribes the tract to Sancroft, and prints it in his life.
Hallam accepts the rumour, adding, “It is much the best proof of
ability that the worthy Archbishop ever gave.” Birch says, in his
_Memoirs of Tillotson_, that Sancroft joined with Mr. George
Davenport, and another of his friends, in composing this satire upon
Calvinism. But Jackson, in his _Life of John Goodwin_, affirms
that the tract was in existence many years before Sancroft was capable
of such a production. He adds, it was circulated in Holland, at the
early part of the seventeenth century, and was thought to have been
written by Henry Slatius. It is a dialogue between a condemned thief
and a Calvinistic minister, in which it is attempted to be shown,
that not only the doctrine of predestination but also the doctrine of
justification by faith is marked by an immoral tendency, and several
quotations from Luther and Zwingle, as well as from Calvin, Beza,
and others, are pressed into the service. It exhibits, no doubt,
some cleverness, and from the narrow view of the Atonement which
is introduced, as held by some distinguished evangelical Divines,
consequences are drawn which it would be difficult logically to repel.
Yet most persons will acknowledge, that conducting controversy,
dialogue fashion, is more easy for an author than it is satisfactory
to a reader; and that, in this controversy especially, allusions to
all sorts of authors can with ease be unfairly brought together, so as
to impart a specious appearance to allegations which on a thorough
scrutiny are found to be perfectly untrue. Certainly, Luther and Calvin
never dreamt of entertaining such views as are put into the lips of the
criminal and of his spiritual adviser--and they would have crushed,
with a force of logic too much for a stronger man than the writer now
under review, whoever he might be, the sophisms which are employed in
the _Fur Prædestinatus_, to the discredit of that which Reformers
held to be the scriptural doctrines of Divine grace.
Two eminent Puritans remain for consideration, and they may be regarded
as maintaining an intermediate position between High Calvinists and
Evangelical Arminians.