[Sidenote: BAXTER.]
Few persons could have been subjected in early life to a greater
variety of influence than Richard Baxter. His father having been a
gambler, became, before the birth of his illustrious son, a pious man,
and trained up his offspring in godly discipline. Whilst over his home
a religious atmosphere diffused itself, the people in the village spent
the greater part of most Sundays in dancing round the Maypole. After
four successive curates of worthless character, there followed a grave
and eminent man who expected to be made a Bishop. Having been placed
under each of them at school, Richard afterwards had for his tutor a
Royalist chaplain, who did all in his power to make the youth hate
Puritanism. Baxter’s religious impressions were deepened by reading the
works of a Jesuit, which an evangelical Protestant had revised, and by
the perusal of evangelical books from the pens of Sibbs and Perkins.
The youth’s first associations in life were with the Episcopal Church,
and he was then a Conformist in practice and principle. He studied
Richard Hooker, and did not come in contact with Nonconformists, until
just before he attained his majority. He spent, as a young man, a month
at Whitehall, with the chance of becoming a courtier. Accident brought
him within an inch of the grave, and he suffered so much from illness,
that at twenty he had the symptoms of fourscore. No classic, no
mathematician, he plunged into the study of logic and metaphysics, and
soon formed an intimate acquaintance with Aquinas and Scotus, Durandus
and Ockham. He had omnivorous habits of reading, and it is curious
to notice the variety of authors whom he cites or enumerates. He was
a self-taught man, and when Anthony Wood inquired of him by letter,
whether he had been educated at Oxford, Baxter replied, “As to myself,
my faults are no disgrace to any University, for I was of none: I have
little but what I had out of books, and inconsiderable helps of country
tutors. Weakness and pain helped me to study how to die: that set me
on studying how to live; and that set me on studying the doctrine
from which I must fetch my motives and comforts; and beginning with
necessaries, I proceeded to the lesser integrals by degrees, and now am
going to see that which I have lived and studied for.”[535]
By bearing in mind these remarkable facts, we shall be assisted in
accounting for some peculiarities of opinions in this remarkable man.
There was a manifold character in his theology corresponding with the
manifold influences which moulded his religion, and we may trace the
effects of his education in both the excellencies and defects of his
numerous writings. In a literary point of view, they are strikingly
different from those of Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. He is, in
his doctrinal discussions, often as tedious as they, and sometimes
more provoking with his endless distinctions, but, in the practical
application of his theological principles, he exerts a charm which
neither of those contemporaries could ever rival. His masculine
style, just the outgrowth of his thought, just the natural skin, pure
and transparent, which covers it, has been the admiration of popular
readers and practised critics. It has been praised by Addison and
Johnson; it has been felt and appreciated by thousands of unlettered
people. We detect in Baxter, no rhetorical tricks, no striving to shine
for the sake of shining, no waving of the scarlet flag, no “taking out
his vocabulary for an airing:” and yet for fullness of expression,
for a rich flow of words, for occasional felicity of diction, for
poetry in prose, he surpasses all his compeers, except Jeremy Taylor:
and in directness, force, and genuine fervour, as to a glowing heat
of the affections, which is more intense than the eloquence of the
imagination, as to words which come rolling out like balls of white
fire, the great Church orator must give place to the Nonconformist
Divine. If immense popularity, if the possession of a spell which
can hold fast minds of all orders, be a test of genius, then Baxter
must be allowed to have possessed it in a high degree. In activity of
thought and in keenness of perception, in the grasp of his knowledge
and in the retentiveness of his memory, in dialectic skill and in
logical fencing, Baxter is acknowledged to have had no superior, if
any equal, in his own day, and he would have been worthy of a lot
amongst the mediæval schoolmen, to whose list of doctors his might
have added another characteristic name. But such qualities have their
disadvantages. In this instance, they led their possessor to travel
over such an immense field of inquiry, to meddle with so many topics,
to dispute with so many men, to make so many distinctions without any
difference, at least such as less acute minds can discern, that it is
difficult to gather together and harmonize his opinions, and to say on
certain points what he believed, and what he did not. It is easy for
a man of one-sided views to be consistent; but who that loves truth
for the truth’s sake, and wishes to see as much of it as is possible
in this world of imperfect knowledge, will value consistency of that
kind? Baxter was not one-sided, but strove to look at every subject
on its many sides, if it has many; and to reconcile aspects of truth
which to hasty and prejudiced thinkers seem contradictory. Hence he
has given occasion to the charge of inconsistency. His opinions have
been a battle-ground for critics ever since he left the world; and
in this respect he has attained a position honourable in one point
of view, dubious in another--like that of Origen. A great thinker, a
great debater, an eloquent expounder of his own convictions, he has
been pronounced a heretic by some members of his own Church, and his
orthodoxy has been endorsed by members of Churches not his own. It
is a curious illustration of the difficulty of deciding what were
Baxter’s sentiments on some intricate subjects, that his most copious
and intelligent biographer should first say, that he was neither
a Calvinist, nor an Arminian--should next assert his claims to be
considered a faithful follower of the Synod of Dort,--and should
finally pronounce this verdict: “Baxter was probably such an Arminian
as Richard Watson, and as much a Calvinist as the late Dr. Edward
Williams.”
[Sidenote: BAXTER.]
After such a verdict, I cannot hope successfully to thread the mazes
of Baxter’s theology. Yet there are a few conclusions which appear
to me undeniable. He took a Calvinistic view of the Divine decrees.
Several passages, probably, might be found in his writings apparently
inconsistent with the Genevan doctrine, but what convinces me that
he held it substantially, is not so much his confession, that he
accepted the decisions of the Synod of Dort (upon which his biographer
just mentioned insists), for Baxter sometimes interpreted statements
after a manner of his own,--as the fact that in his treatise _On
Conversion_, when dealing with such as say, “Those that God will
save shall be saved, whatsoever they be, and those that He will damn,
shall be damned,”--instead of cutting the matter short, as an Arminian
would do, by denying the Calvinistic dogma altogether, our Divine goes
on to guard against the abuses of that dogma; and to argue that people
should act in relation to the decrees of Grace, as they do respecting
the decrees of Providence. He finishes by saying just what Calvinists
say,--“God hath not ordinarily decreed the end without the means, and
if you will neglect the means of salvation it is a certain mark that
God hath not decreed you to salvation.”[536]
Baxter’s opinions of the efficacy of Christ’s death resemble those of
John Goodwin, rather than those of Thomas Goodwin. For he remarks,
“God hath made a universal deed of gift of Christ and life to all
the world, on condition that they will but accept the offer. In this
testament or promise, or act of oblivion, the sins of all the world
are conditionally pardoned, and they are conditionally justified, and
reconciled to God.”[537]
[Sidenote: BAXTER.]
Baxter seems to have believed that whilst those who are ultimately
saved, are saved by the sovereign and gracious purpose of the
Almighty--in other words, by Divine election--there is a provision
made by the mediation of Christ, sufficient for the wants of all men,
and of which all men, if they pleased, could avail themselves; and in
this respect his views do not materially differ from those expressed
by Dr. Edward Williams, in his treatise on _The Divine Equity and
Sovereignty_; or from those taught by Andrew Fuller in several of
his publications. A somewhat similar _via media_ was pursued by
Amyraut, the French Divine. Yet it is, I believe, not an uncommon
impression that Baxter went beyond this, and supposed that whilst some
are elected to eternal life by a special Divine decree, others are
saved through a general provision of Divine grace. I do not pretend to
have read all Baxter’s works: but in those with which I am acquainted,
I find no trace of such an opinion, neither does it appear in Orme’s
careful summary of Baxter’s theological writings. It is a curious
fact, however, that an idea of the kind attributed to the Puritan was
expressed, at the Council of Trent, by a Papist, Ambrosius Catarinus,
of Siena,[538] and that a similar idea is exhibited in the writings of
Fowler, the Latitudinarian.[539]
Baxter did not adopt the doctrine of imputation held by Thomas Goodwin
and John Owen. He remarks:--
“Most of our ordinary Divines say, that Christ did as properly obey
in our room or stead, as He did suffer in our stead, and that in
God’s esteem, and in point of law, we were in Christ’s obeying and
suffering, and so, in Him we did both perfectly fulfil the commands
of the law by obedience, and the threatenings of it by bearing the
penalty; and thus (say they) is Christ’s righteousness imputed to
us (viz.)--His passive righteousness for the pardon of our sins and
delivering us from the penalty, His active righteousness for the making
of us righteous, and giving us a title to the Kingdom--and some say
the habitual righteousness of His human nature, instead of our own
habitual righteousness--yea, some add the righteousness of the Divine
nature also. This opinion (in my judgment) containeth a great many of
mistakes.”[540]
Faith, Baxter explains as “both a general trust in God’s revelations
and grace, and a special trust in Jesus Christ,” adding, “I have oft
proved this justifying faith to be no less than our unfeigned taking
Christ for our Saviour, and becoming true Christians according to
the tenour of the baptismal covenant.” The characteristic nature of
Christian faith he further represents as consisting of trust in a
personal Saviour, inclusive of an assenting trust by the understanding;
a consenting trust by the will; and a practical trust by the executive
powers.[541] The linking of the exercises of faith upon three faculties
in human nature may be observed both in Goodwin and in Owen; but Baxter
seems to have proceeded further than they in carrying out the practical
relations of faith, and in this respect to have occupied ground not
unlike that of Thorndike.[542]
[Sidenote: HOWE.]
Howe’s Puritanism might almost be said to have reached him by descent;
but his extraordinary thoughtfulness, and his singular originality,
require us to believe, that far from blindly accepting the inheritance,
he carefully investigated the whole subject, and became a Puritan from
conviction. His father, appointed to the incumbency of Loughborough
by Archbishop Laud, afterwards displeased his patron, by refusing to
comply with his requirements, and was consequently ejected. The father
took the son to Ireland, whence he was driven back by the rebellion;
after which, John Howe, before he proceeded to Oxford, went to
Cambridge, and there, from the “Platonic tincture” of his mind, became
associated with Cudworth, More, and John Smith, from whom his Platonic
tastes received the highest culture. The great Pagan theologue,
however, exerted a more powerful influence upon his sympathizing
disciple, than did any of these under-masters; for Howe carefully read
Plato for himself. He had “conversed closely with the heathen moralists
and philosophers; had perused many of the writings of the schoolmen,
and several systems and common places of the Reformers. Above all,
he had compiled for himself a system of theology, from the Sacred
Scriptures alone: a system which, as he was afterwards heard to say, he
had seldom seen occasion to alter.”[543]
His defects of style have robbed him of that meed of honour to which
as a theologian he is entitled. He exhibits an utter neglect of the
art of composition, like a man of great wealth, thoroughly careless
about his attire, and falls into a habit of writing most inharmonious
periods, perhaps for want of a musical ear. His frequent poverty of
expression, and his numerous and intricate subdivisions, are failings
in their effect vastly heightened by the unaccountably strange method
of punctuation which he adopted himself, or left his printer to adopt
for him.[544] Yet his works present, in numerous instances, the most
felicitous phrases and the choicest epithets, and only less frequently
does he, under the inspiration of his genius, pour forth sonorous
sentences, with an organ-like swell, in keeping with the magnificent
ideas which they were employed to convey. After all Howe’s drawbacks, I
have often risen from the perusal of his works with feelings similar to
those of a traveller, who, at the end of his journey, charmed with the
remembrance of the scenes he has visited, forgets the ruggedness of the
road, and the inconvenience of his conveyance, however unpleasant they
might have been at the moment they were experienced. The originality
and compass of Howe’s mind, and the calmness and moderation of his
temper, must ever inspire sympathy, and awaken admiration in reflective
readers: his Platonic and Alexandrian culture commends him to the
philosophical student, and the practical tendency of his religious
thinking endears him to all Christians. His works contain no treatises
on Faith, on Justification, on Election, or Particular Redemption.
Though essentially evangelical, Howe’s writings are pervaded by a tone
of thought which varies from that which is predominant in Puritan
literature: and I may add that, as in Baxter, so in Howe, yet not from
exactly the same cause, or in the same measure, heresy hunters, if
their scent be keen, may discover passages open to exception.
[Sidenote: HOWE.]
In the _Blessedness of the Righteous_, when describing those
who bear that character, instead of dwelling upon justification by
the imputed righteousness of Christ, after the manner of Goodwin or
Owen, Howe exhibits chiefly the moral view of religion, that “it
can be understood to be nothing but the impress of the Gospel upon
a man’s heart and life; a conformity in spirit and practice to the
revelation of the will of God in Jesus Christ; a collection of graces
exerting themselves in suitable actions and deportments towards God
and man.” Calamy justly says that Howe “did not consider religion
so much a system of doctrines, as a Divine discipline to reform the
heart and life.” He carries out the idea of Christianity being a law,
“with evangelical mitigations and indulgences.” He speaks of the law
of faith, and insists upon that part of the Gospel revelation which
contains and discovers our duty--what we are to be and do, in order
to our blessedness.[545] Some of his expressions would scarcely have
been used by the two Divines we have just mentioned; yet, without
going into a theological discussion on the question, I may observe,
that Howe certainly believed most firmly in all which is essential to
the doctrine of justification by faith, and disposed of the opposite
doctrine in a summary way by saying, “To suppose the law of works, in
its own proper form and tenor, to be still obliging, is to suppose all
under hopeless condemnation, inasmuch as all have sinned.” The spirit
of his teaching throughout must be remembered, in order that we may
qualify, somewhat, certain expressions which seem to look favourably
towards such schemes as were advocated by Thorndike and Bull. The
drift of Howe’s theology was different from theirs, notwithstanding an
occasional resemblance of phraseology; and whilst I admit that some
of his passages on this subject require to be carefully guarded, and
others are open to exception, I must say that he did immense service
to the cause of Gospel truth, first, by insisting upon the present
dispensation of the Divine will as a form of moral and righteous
government for men in general, not simply an expedient for gathering
together the elect; and, next, by insisting upon the responsibility of
man, as well as upon the freeness of the grace of God. In my opinion,
Howe brought out--and Baxter did the same--phases of truth in relation
to man as a responsible being, as a subject morally accountable to the
universal Governor of the world, too much neglected by many of their
Puritan brethren.
[Sidenote: HOWE.]
The comprehensiveness of Howe’s mind, the harmony of his own spiritual
life, and the essentially practical character of his instructions,
appear in his _Carnality of Religious Contention_, especially in
the following passage relative to the two great blessings of the Gospel
which he distinguishes whilst he unites them:--In fine, therefore, the
Apostle “makes it his business to evidence to them that both their
justification and their sanctification must be conjoined, and arise
together out of one and the same root,--Christ Himself,--and by faith
in Him, without the works of the law, as that which must vitally unite
them with Him; and that thereby they should become actually interested
in all His fulness--that fulness of righteousness which was to be found
only in Him, and nowhere but in Him; and withal, in that fulness of
spirit and life and holy influence, which also was only in Him; so as
that the soul, being united by this faith with Christ, must presently
die to sin and live to God. And at the same time, when He delivered a
man from the law as dead to it, He became to him a continual living
spring of all the duty which God did by His holy rule require and call
for, and render the whole life of such a man a life of devotedness to
God.”[546]
The Popish theory of justification, which confounds it with personal
righteousness, and the approaches made in that direction by Anglican
Divines, drove the Puritans to an opposite extreme; and the distinction
they sometimes make between justification and sanctification amounts
almost to a separation; but Howe--following St. Paul, who seems never
to have thought of the one without having in his mind at the same time
the thought of the other--whilst distinguishing between them, justly
presents the two as _conjoint_ blessings, “arising together out of
one and the same root,” or as being, in reality, two harmonious aspects
of one simple salvation.
Howe nowhere maintains the doctrine of particular redemption, but
he exhibits the expiatory sacrifice of Christ with great clearness,
and introduces an argument to the effect “that to account for the
sufferings of the perfectly holy and innocent Messiah is made
abundantly more difficult by denying the Atonement.”[547]
In his _Redeemer’s Tears wept over Lost Souls_, he does not
enter at all into the Predestinarian controversy--a circumstance which
distinguishes him from High Calvinistic theologians, who would not
have failed largely to discuss the question of the Divine decrees,
together with the Divine foreknowledge. But Howe rigorously confines
himself to a solution of that broad difficulty which presses equally
upon Arminians and Calvinists, supposing that both believe, as they
generally do, that God is omniscient, and that man is responsible.
The author’s simple purpose is to vindicate the Divine sincerity and
wisdom, in employing methods of moral persuasion with His intelligent
and accountable creatures, when He discerns beforehand that they will
prove of no avail, in offering invitations of mercy which He knows will
never be accepted, and in urging admonitions and rebukes to which He
foresees many will turn an unlistening ear and an obdurate heart. The
reticence of Howe, in this and in other parts of his writings, upon
subjects which present a fascinating attraction to speculative minds,
however incapable they may be of grappling with the objects towards
which they are so irresistibly drawn, is worthy of special notice, and
indicates a resemblance between him, in this respect, and Robert Hall,
who regarded Howe with intense admiration.
One of the characteristic imperfections of that age in relation
to theology is found in the endeavour to define and explain many
things which are utterly beyond the reach of human comprehension.
Anglican and Puritan, in almost equal degrees, boldly ventured into
regions of speculation, and mistook for solid ground what really is
but cloud-land. Metaphysical conclusions of their own were by their
imagination transformed into Divine verities; and they often overlooked
the grand distinction between what revelation plainly teaches, and what
can be only inferred from its teaching. John Howe is singularly free
from all presumptuous intermeddling with subjects which lie beyond the
ken of mortals; and, although versed in the highest philosophy, beyond
many of his contemporaries--and, indeed, because he was thoroughly
imbued with the purest spirit of philosophy--he knew when to stop in
his path of inquiry, and how to distinguish between the wisdom of God
and the reasonings of man.
[Sidenote: BAXTER AND HOWE.]
Both Baxter and Howe were pre-eminently earnest in their endeavours
to promote the moral righteousness of Christians, and to exhibit its
production in human character and human life as the grand aim of the
Gospel of Jesus. Other Puritans, more Calvinistic in their modes of
thinking, inculcated holiness with emphasis and effect, and might
imply, throughout their instructions, that pardon and justification
were means to an end, that end being the conformity of the saints to
the will of God and the image of Christ; but no teacher of that class
impresses my mind with the positive conviction of such being the true
order of the great redemptive process, to the same extent, and with
the same depth, as do the two theologians now under review. They most
effectually relieve at least their part in Puritan Divinity from the
charge, and from the suspicion, of subordinating that which is moral in
religion to that which is speculative, that which is personal to that
which is relative, that which is practical to that which is emotional.
They give the true perspective in theology, and place subjects of
belief in their position one towards another, more accurately perhaps
than any of their contemporaries. They exhibit the sinner’s forgiveness
and acceptance with God, and his adoption into the Divine family of
the Church, and his heirship of celestial felicities, not as the
ultimatum of Christian object and desire, but as spiritual conditions
and circumstances essential to the growth and maturity of that moral
and God-like life which is begotten in the human soul at the hour of
the new birth by the Holy Spirit. No one, who reflects upon a scheme
of theology constructed after this type, can regard it as defective in
moral power, or as betraying the interests of perfect righteousness.
To place righteousness in the position of an end, rather than in the
relation of means to an end, must be to exalt and glorify it. Those
who impugn the whole system of evangelical belief as derogatory to
the moral character of religion, and who _therefore_ insist upon
moral duties as the means of attaining eternal life, do really dethrone
Christian righteousness from its Divine supremacy, and turn it into a
prudential expedient for promoting one’s own advantage, by making it a
series of stepping-stones or a flight of stairs by which men may climb
from the borders of perdition to the threshold of heaven. It is they
who dishonour--of course unintentionally--the nature and claims of
Gospel righteousness, not teachers like Baxter and Howe, who, refusing
to look at that righteousness merely or mainly as means to an end, as
price paid for a treasure, or as service done for reward, represent
it as the goal of all endeavour, the prize of the Christian race, the
richest gift of Divine love, and the brightest diamond in the crown of
salvation.
[Sidenote: BAXTER AND HOWE.]
A word may be added indicative of the literary and intellectual niche
which the names of these distinguished men deserve to occupy. Dr.
Arnold said of the Church Divines of the seventeenth century, “I
cannot find in any of them a really great man.”[548] Without adopting
the opinion so expressed, I am constrained to say that we can find
little of what may be called genius in some of the most renowned. No
one could ascribe that high gift to Thorndike, with all his stores of
learning and powers of reflection. No one would think of ascribing it
to Bull or Pearson. Nor, if we include Puritans, can it be attributed
in any high degree to Goodwin or Owen. Perhaps not one of the whole
class of theological writers at the time, able as they were, could
be justly esteemed the equal of that magnificent moral philosopher
and theologian in the days of Queen Elizabeth, Richard Hooker, or the
compeer even of Thomas Jackson, whose power, learning, and eloquence so
brightly adorned the Church in the reign of James I. Jeremy Taylor, no
doubt, had received Heaven’s gift of genius in the form of imagination,
and a power of musical expression in prose such as no one else could
rival, not even John Milton; but, in my opinion, the two theologians of
that age who possessed most of original power were Richard Baxter and
John Howe.
Moreover, there was in both of these men a breadth of human
sympathy--always closely allied to the highest order of
intellect--which redeemed them from the narrowness of some of their
contemporaries. Baxter and Howe evinced none of the restricted
Churchmanship which blinded the Anglicans to all goodness not seen in
their own communion; and none of the exclusive Calvinism which made
some Puritans virtually shut up God’s love to a few like themselves,
and hand over to reprobation the remainder of the race. Baxter,
although not an accomplished scholar, was a man of wide and varied
reading, and had a decided taste for history, politics, and especially
metaphysics, as well as for theology; and Howe, who seems to have known
much more of Greek than his friend, was at home amongst the ancient
masters of philosophy, and perhaps with none of his brethren, except
Theophilus Gale, was Plato such an intimate acquaintance, and such a
thorough favourite. It has been justly remarked that the man who is
only a theological scholar is a very poor one.[549] The remark may
detract from the reputation of some of the Puritans, but not from the
reputation of the two Divines we have last described.
Before I close this imperfect survey of the theology of the Puritans,
it is desirable to bring together, in some distinct form, the
characteristics of their teaching in reference to certain points which
have not been noticed in the foregoing detailed account of their
opinions.
Here we notice first what they say upon the nature of sacraments.
Goodwin and Owen refer to the subject of baptism incidentally, the
former speaking of it as the sign of salvation, and as the sealing of
our calling, our justification, our renewal, and our union with Christ;
the latter alluding to it chiefly for the purpose of denying that it
has the regenerating or purifying power ascribed to it by Catholics.
But he says a cleansing in profession and signification accompanies
baptism, when it is rightly administered.[550]
[Sidenote: PURITAN VIEWS OF SACRAMENTS.]
Baxter enters at large upon the subject, and discusses, in reference
to it, such questions as are particularly interesting to Catholics;
and one question at least--“Is baptism by laymen or women lawful in
cases of necessity?”--he answers after a manner resembling that of
the highest Anglican. He denies that there can be such necessity,
yet he does not absolutely pronounce lay baptism a nullity; although
he adds, If the baptizer “were in no possession or pretence of the
office, I would be baptized again if it were my case; because I should
fear that what is done in Christ’s name by one that notoriously had
no authority from Him to do it, is not owned by Christ as His deed,
and so is a nullity.”[551] Again, he remarks, “All that the minister
warrantably baptizeth are sacramentally regenerate, and are, _in foro
ecclesiæ_, members of Christ, and children of God, and heirs of
heaven.” “Therefore it is not unfit that the minister call the baptized
regenerate and pardoned members of Christ, and children of God, and
heirs of heaven, supposing that _in foro ecclesiæ_ they were the
due subjects of baptism.” What so subtle a dialectician exactly meant
by some things he said upon this subject, I do not undertake to say;
but certainly Baxter showed, like Thorndike, a strong disposition to
connect the functions of faith with a baptismal covenant. Baxter’s
theory was one which, upon a comparison of his theology in general
with that of Thorndike, must have materially differed from it; and
the qualifications introduced by the former in immediate connection
with the sentences quoted--which qualifications I have deferred citing
until now, in order that their force may be more clearly seen--must
be considered, if we would avoid misapprehending the drift of his
sentiments. “It is only those that are sincerely delivered up in
covenant to God in Christ, that are spiritually and really regenerate,
and are such as shall be owned for members of Christ and children of
God _in foro cœli_.”[552] Those readers who are familiar with the
controversy on baptismal regeneration will see at once that Baxter’s
statements, with his qualifications, may be so explained as to point
to a condition of Divine privilege, possibilities, and opportunities,
rather than to anything else. He further made a distinction between
some baptized children and others; a distinction which seems to
shift the conveyance of spiritual benefit from the rite itself to
the relation sustained by the child to a godly parent. “Not,” he
says, “that all the baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true
Christians are pardoned, justified, adopted, and have _a title
to_ the Spirit and salvation.”[553] And in his _Now or Never_
(published in 1663), there occurs a very strong passage against
baptismal regeneration as held by some Episcopalians.[554]
Howe touches upon the subject of baptism in his _Living Temple_,
and speaks of it as a taking on of Christ’s badge and cognizance,
as the fit and enjoined sign and token of becoming Christians, and
as a federal rite by which remission of sin is openly confirmed and
sealed.[555]
Dr. Jacomb, in his treatise on _Holy Dedication_, uses, as already
noticed, very strong expressions relative to the nature and effects of
the ordinance; and I may observe that generally the writings of the
Puritans on the whole subject are pervaded by a mystic and sacramental
tone such as would not evoke the sympathies of their religious
descendants.
[Sidenote: PURITAN VIEWS OF SACRAMENTS.]
The Lord’s Supper, Dr. Goodwin exhibits, in opposition to the Catholic
view, not as a commemorative sacrifice to God, but as a remembrance of
His sacrifice to men; and he says that by it the intention on God’s
part is to represent the whole work of Christ; and the intention on
our part is to show it forth, and to signify our personal interest
in the benefits of His death.[556] Neither in Owen nor in Howe, so
far as I can find, is there anything indicative of their opinions
on the nature of the Lord’s Supper; but Baxter writes copiously
upon this theme. According to him, the _consecration_ of the
sacrament respects God the Father, and makes it the representative
body and blood of Christ, whilst, in such consecration, the Church
offers the elements to be accepted of God for this sacred use; the
_commemoration_ of the sacrament respects God the Son, and He is
in it, “in effigy,” still crucified before the Church’s eyes, and by it
the faithful show the Father that sacrifice in which they trust; and
the _communication_ of the sacrament respects God the Holy Ghost,
as being that Spirit given in the flesh and blood for the quickening of
the soul.[557] The same author, in his _Dying Thoughts_, remarks,
with reference to the Real Presence, “When we dispute against them
that hold transubstantiation and the ubiquity of Christ’s body, we do
assuredly conclude that sense is judge, whether there be real bread and
wine present or not; but it is no judge, whether Christ’s spiritual
body be present or not, no more than whether an angel be present. And
we conclude that Christ’s body is not infinite or immense, as is His
Godhead; but, what are its dimensions, limits or extent, and where it
is absent, far be it from us to determine, when we cannot tell how far
the sun extendeth, its secondary substance, or emanant beams; nor well
what locality is as to Christ’s soul, or any spirit, if to a spiritual
body.”[558] It is strange indeed to hear a Puritan speaking thus; his
language has almost a patristic and Anglican sound. Some mysterious
presence of the body of Christ in the material elements on the altar
was believed by the orthodox Fathers; and Origen regarded that body
as being ethereal and ubiquitous, and capable of assuming different
forms: even the judicious Hooker supposed that the human substance of
Christ is universally present “after a sort, by being nowhere severed
from that which everywhere is present.” It is easier to employ definite
expressions on this subject, and others of a similar kind, than to form
definite notions corresponding with the expressions; and it appears
to me very hard to say exactly what either Origen or Hooker meant by
the language which they employed on this subject. Certainly Baxter
expresses no decided opinion as to the presence of Christ’s body in
the sacrament; but he admits such a presence to be not impossible, and
thus opens the door for such unsatisfactory speculations as those in
which Origen and Hooker indulged. Baxter, from his scholastic habits of
thought, and from his familiarity with Catholic as well as Protestant
theologians, was led, on the subject of baptism and the Lord’s
Supper--especially the latter--to adopt a much more mystical form of
belief than his Puritan brethren were wont to entertain.[559]
[Sidenote: PURITAN CONTROVERSY WITH POPERY.]
In connection with the subject of sacraments, it is pertinent to
inquire what were the opinions of these Divines in reference to the
ministry and ordination. Baxter, as might be expected, discusses the
question in his usual scholastic manner. His views on baptism, as just
stated, indicate that he attached much importance to clerical order;
and he alludes to the power conveyed from Christ to the individual
minister, of which power he says neither the electors nor the ordainers
are the donors; they are only the instruments of designing an apt
recipient, and of delivering the possession of office. This position
involves a denial of the High Church doctrine of orders, and this
doctrine Baxter still farther denies, when he concludes that imposition
of hands is not essential to ordination, but is simply a decent, apt,
and significant sign. Ordination, however, he holds to be needful;
for, without this key, the office of the ministry and the doors of the
Church would be thrown open to heretics and self-conceited persons.
The power of ordination he believes to be vested in the senior pastors
of the Church, and the people’s call, or consent, he does not regard
as necessary to the minister’s reception of office in general, but
only to his pastoral relation. He admits that laymen may preach,
as did Origen and Constantine, but he cautiously restricts their
preaching to their families, or within “proper bounds.” What he had
witnessed in the army had given the good man a great horror of the
license claimed by lay orators on religious subjects; and, no doubt,
recollections of some of his military antagonists came before his
mind when he laid down the law, that lay teachers must not presume to
go beyond their abilities, especially in matters dark and difficult.
He also forbids them to thrust themselves into public meetings, and
proudly and schismatically to set themselves up against their lawful
pastors.[560] Baxter’s Presbyterianism appears throughout his treatment
of these subjects--subjects respecting which Goodwin, Owen, and Howe
are silent. But it is not to be inferred from this circumstance that
they were indifferent to order in the ministry and the Church. What
the Independents determined respecting these matters, in the Savoy
Declaration, we have seen in a previous chapter.
Next to the Puritan treatment of the sacraments and the ministry comes
the Puritan share in the anti-Popish controversy. Although none of
the Divines now under consideration took so prominent a part in it
as did Cosin, Bramhall, and Barrow,--although none of them, on this
subject, published books which have become so famous as some written
by their brethren,--yet of their intense opposition to Romanism there
is not the shadow of a doubt. They might not have the same reasons for
wielding anti-Papal weapons which their Anglican contemporaries had,
who, by the charges of Romanizing tendencies brought against them,
were compelled to stand up in self-defence.[561] Still, expressions
of horror at the very thought of Rome are numerous enough in the
works of the Puritans, and some of them couched their thoughts on the
subject in the strongest phraseology. Nor were there wanting treatises
expressly upon the errors of Romanism from Puritan hands. Owen, at the
suggestion of Lord Clarendon, it is said, wrote his _Animadversions
on Fiat Lux_; a work which so pleased His Lordship that he declared
the writer had more merit than any English Protestant of that period,
and offered him preferment if he would conform. Baxter went beyond
Owen in the laborious defence of the Reformed against the Tridentine
Church; for he published altogether nearly twenty books and pamphlets
in this department of polemical literature, leaving “no one point in
the extensive field untouched,” and supplying “a complete library on
Popery.”[562]
[Sidenote: PURITAN ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROVERSY.]
In addition to what has been said on the subject in other portions of
this History, a passing notice must be taken of the ecclesiastical
controversies carried on by the Puritans against the High Church party.
During the Civil Wars, and under the Protectorate, unsparing attacks
were made upon Prelacy, modified schemes of Episcopacy were proposed,
Presbyterianism was upheld in books and pamphlets almost innumerable,
and between that system of Church government and Congregationalism the
warfare continued fierce and incessant. The Presbyterian contended
against the Prelatist for the original identity of Bishops and
elders, and for the scriptural authority of their own scheme of rule
and discipline. He contended against the Congregationalist for the
right and the duty of reducing England to a state of ecclesiastical
uniformity, based upon the decisions of the Westminster Assembly, and
defended by the employment of magisterial power. The Congregationalist
contended against the Presbyterian for the liberty of gathering
Independent Churches, and of maintaining Independent discipline--and
for the toleration, within certain limits, of all Christian sects. Of
course, after the Restoration, although the main differences continued
as before, and ecclesiastical disputes, essentially the same, were
carried on--differences in the treatment of these questions necessarily
arose, and changes in polemics on all sides became inevitable. When
the garrison within the castle walls are mastered and turned out by
the besiegers--when those who were besiegers become the garrison, and
those who formed the garrison become besiegers, the tactics of each
party will undergo alteration. Whilst Presbyterians or Independents, or
both, were in the ascendant, Episcopalians had to assume an offensive
attitude. They were, in fact, for the time being, Dissenters from
the Established religion of the country, and had, as such, to make
good their position as best they might. But when Prelacy had been
reestablished, its friends no longer needed the kind of battering-rams
which they had used very uncomfortably for about twenty years, they
would simply buckle on their defensive armour, and fence with their
weapons as in days of old. The other party had now to attack those
who were in power, and to draw their lines of circumvallation around
the fortress of intolerance, whilst they steadily defended themselves
against the charge of schism, and earnestly contended for liberty and
the rights of conscience. Baxter, in his _Plea for Peace_, argued
against Conformity on the ground of its unjust impositions,--such as
the expression of “assent and consent” to all things contained in the
Prayer Book, canonical subscription, re-ordination in the case of
Presbyterians, and the oath against seeking any change in Church or
State.
The right of imposing things indifferent was a point which met with
much consideration in books as well as in the Savoy discussions.
Respecting this subject, the reader cannot do better than ponder an
extract from Sanderson, in favour of imposing such things, and another
from Baxter, against all impositions of the kind.
“The liberty of a Christian,” says the Anglican, “to all indifferent
things, is in the mind and conscience, and is then infringed, when
the conscience is bound and straightened, by imposing upon it an
opinion of doctrinal necessity. But it is no wrong to the liberty of
a Christian man’s conscience, to bind him to outward observance for
order’s sake, and to impose upon him a necessity of obedience. Which
one distinction of doctrinal and obediential necessity well weighed,
and rightly applied, is of itself sufficient to clear all doubts on
this point. For, to make all restraint of the outward man in matters
indifferent, an impeachment of Christian liberty, what were it else,
but even to bring flat Anabaptism and anarchy into the Church; and to
overthrow all bond of subjection and obedience to lawful authority?
I beseech you consider, wherein can the immediate power and authority
of fathers, masters, and other rulers over their inferiors consist; or
the due obedience of inferiors be shown towards them, if not in these
indifferent and arbitrary things. For, things absolutely necessary, as
commanded by God, we are bound to do, whether human authority require
them or no; and things absolutely unlawful, as prohibited by God, we
are bound not to do, whether human authority forbid them or no. There
are none other things left then, wherein to express properly the
obedience due to superior authority than these indifferent things.”[563]
[Sidenote: PURITAN ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROVERSY.]
Turn from the Anglican to the Puritan:--“I confess,” he says, “it is
lawful for me to wear a helmet on my head in preaching; but it were
not well if you would institute the wearing of a helmet, to signify
our spiritual militia, and then resolve that all shall be silenced
and imprisoned during life that will not wear it. It is lawful for
me to use spectacles, or to go on crutches; but will you therefore
ordain that all men shall read with spectacles, to signify our
want of spiritual sight, and that no man shall go to church but on
crutches, to signify our disability to come to God of ourselves. So,
in circumstantials, it is lawful for me to wear a feather in my hat,
and a hay-rope for a girdle, and a hair-cloth for a cloak: but if you
should ordain that if any man serve God in any other habit, he shall
be banished, or perpetually imprisoned, or hanged; in my opinion, you
did not well: especially, if you add that he that disobeyeth you must
also incur everlasting damnation. It is in itself lawful to kneel when
we hear the Scriptures read, or when we sing psalms; but yet it is not
lawful to drive all from hearing and singing, and lay them in prison
that do it not kneeling. And why men should have no communion in the
Lord’s Supper that receive it not kneeling, or in any one commanded
posture, and why men should be forbidden to preach the Gospel that wear
not a linen surplice, I cannot imagine any such reason as will hold
weight at the bar of God.”[564]
Owen was particularly active and vigorous in defending Nonconformity,
in pleading its rights, and in expounding his own views of Church
polity. In the year 1667, he published several tracts, the design
of which was to promote peaceable obedience to the civil enactments
of government; to show the injustice and impolicy of subjecting
conscientious and useful men to suffering, on account of their
religious sentiments; to expose the unconstitutional nature of the
proceedings against them by informers and secret emissaries; to unfold
his ideas of the nature and benefits of toleration in former ages, and
in other lands; to vindicate it from various charges; and to point out
the folly of attempting to settle the peace of the country on the basis
of religious conformity.[565]
At a later period, in 1681, Owen published his _Enquiry into
the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of
Evangelical Churches_, in which he maintains that “unless men by
their voluntary choice, and consent, out of a sense of their duty
unto the authority of Christ, in His institutions, do enter into a
Church-state, they cannot, by any other ways or means, be so framed
into it, as to find acceptance with God therein.”
[Sidenote: PURITAN ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROVERSY.]
A Church he defines to be--“An especial society or congregation of
professed believers, joined together according unto his mind, with
their officers, guides, or rulers whom he hath appointed; which do or
may meet together for the celebration of all the ordinances of Divine
worship, the professing and authoritatively proposing the doctrine of
the Gospel, with the exercise of the discipline prescribed by himself,
unto their own mutual edification, with the glory of Christ, in the
preservation and propagation of His kingdom in the world.”[566]
But with all this zeal in defence of particular forms of government,
the great Puritan Divines expressed the utmost charity towards all
Reformed Churches at home and abroad. The schismatical sentiments of
Anglicans, who cut off Presbyterians and Independents from communion,
and expressed hopes of their salvation in only cautious, faltering
terms, find no echo in the writings of their antagonists. It was the
main business of Baxter’s life to unite together Christians of all
kinds; for this he wrote numerous books, to this he devoted his best
years; and if Owen came behind him in this respect, he has, as in a
nut-shell, summed up most truly the cause of all disunion:--
“Men fall to judging and censuring each other as to their interest
in Christ, or their eternal condition. By what rule? The Everlasting
Gospel? The Covenant of Grace? No, but of the disciples: ‘Master, they
follow not with us.’ They that believe not our opinion, we are apt to
think believe not in Jesus Christ; and because we delight not in them,
that Christ does not delight in them. This digs up the roots of love;
weakens prayer; increases evil surmises; which are of the works of
the flesh, genders strife and contempt, things that the soul of Christ
abhors.”[567]
Able as the Puritans might be in controversy, they appear to much
greater advantage in their experimental and practical instructions.
And here it ought to be noticed, that whilst the conforming Puritans
did not number amongst them any great scientific Divines, they
included well-known names of another class. Bishop Hall, by no
means an ecclesiastical Puritan, sympathized a good deal with the
doctrinal Puritans in their distinctive views, and still more in their
evangelical spirit; and this British Seneca, as he is called, always
wrote upon moral and practical subjects with the unction characteristic
of the best kind of Puritanism. Thomas Fuller, chiefly known as an
Historian, employed his matchless wit in the enforcement of religious
duties, after a manner which bore much of a Puritan stamp, whilst it
fascinated and edified all parties. Dr. Reynolds, the Puritan Bishop
of Norwich, wrote books which were once of considerable celebrity,
and which contain a great deal of evangelical sentiment and practical
piety. The _Christian Armour_, by Gurnal, the Puritan Incumbent
of Framlingham, is perhaps as popular as ever--exhibiting as it does,
amidst much perverted ingenuity of arrangement and a vitiated style
of expression, a surprising amount of spiritual truth and of genuine
wisdom. The Nonconformists, however, outpeer their brethren in this
department of literature. John Bunyan has a niche of his own in the
temple of literary fame, where the image of his genius has been crowned
with chaplets woven by the noblest hands. Other Puritan authors of
that age have contributed to the wealth of our spiritual literature.
In proof of which I need only mention Owen’s ideal of Christian
character, in his _Mortification of Sin_, and his _Spiritual
Mindedness_; Baxter’s encouragement for believers, in his _Saint’s
Everlasting Rest_; his warnings to the ungodly, in his _Now
or Never_; and Howe’s solace for mourners, in _The Redeemer’s
Dominion over the Invisible World_.
[Sidenote: PRACTICAL PURITAN THEOLOGY.]
Alleine’s _Alarm to the Unconverted_--of which it was stated
in 1775 that 20,000 copies had been sold, and 50,000 more under the
title of _The Sure Guide to Heaven_--is one of those books which
are eminently adapted to awaken deep spiritual convictions. Bates’
_Spiritual Perfection Unfolded and Enforced_--to mention no other
book by this estimable author--is written in his characteristic silvery
style: and, if there be sometimes an “abrupt dismissal of a train of
thought,” “these breaks in the veins of valuable ore do not appear
to be ever very material, and are rarely perceptible except to the
eye of a closely-reflecting and examining reader.” But the religious
excellencies of the volume surpass those which are literary, and if
Alleine’s _Alarm_ be calculated to arrest the godless, Bates’
_Spiritual Perfection_ is equally fitted to guide and edify the
godly. The titles of Brooks’ Treatises indicate the quaint kind of
talent which he possessed:--“A Box of Precious Ointment”--“An Ark for
God’s Noahs”--“A Golden Key to open hidden Treasures”--“Apples of Gold
in Pictures of Silver.” “Many of his sentences are proverbs newly
coined, shrewd, humorous, and Saxon; and they are provided with an
alliterative jingle, which, like a sheep-bell, keeps a good saying from
being lost in the wilderness.” It is impossible to read his writings
without respecting his character as well as admiring his ingenuity;
and whilst he exhibits more originality than Bates, like him he is
a teacher fitted to instruct Christian people and to comfort their
hearts under the troubles of life.
Flavel is entitled to occupy a niche, not far from that which is filled
by John Bunyan; not that he possessed the inventiveness of the Great
Dreamer, yet, like him, he delighted to use similitudes, and did it
successfully. His _Husbandry Spiritualized_--suggested by his
walks through pleasant farms in Dorset and Devon; and his _Navigation
Spiritualized_, arising from observations on sea-faring life, whilst
he resided in the picturesque town of Dartmouth, are full of sweet and
healthy allegories.
Less known than Flavel, but somewhat akin to him in natural and
spiritual taste, was Isaac Ambrose, whose work, entitled _Looking to
Jesus_, is full of pleasant illustrations, drawn from the scenes of
nature amidst which he delighted to ramble, especially “the sweet woods
of Widdicre,” on the banks of the Darwen, where in a little hut, to
which he annually repaired, this Puritan hermit, for the time, spent
hour after hour in meditation and prayer.
John Spencer, in his _Things New and Old_; Robert Cawdray, in his
_Treasury of Similes_; and Benjamin Keach, in his _Key to open
Scripture Metaphors_;--also belong to the same class of authors as
Flavel.[568]
[Sidenote: PRACTICAL PURITAN THEOLOGY.]
Many of the practical treatises published in the seventeenth century
consisted of courses of sermons, and partook largely of the diffuse
style proper to the pulpit; also many of the sermons of that day are in
fact practical treatises. We see this fashion of treating Divinity in
the works of Taylor and Barrow, and still more strikingly in the works
of Owen, Baxter, and Howe. Casuistry, now neglected by Protestants,
was then much studied by theologians of all schools. Taylor’s _Ductor
Dubitantium_, and Baxter’s _Christian Directory_, are worthy of
a chief place on the shelf of a library appropriated to works of this
description. The characters of the men, and the peculiarities of the
different schools of theological thought to which they belonged, may be
traced in these volumes, and there is truth in the remark of one well
read in all kinds of theological literature,--“Both may be consulted
occasionally with profit and advantage; but if resorted to as oracles,
they will frequently be found as unsatisfactory as the responses of the
Delphic tripod.”[569]
As, in common with devoted Conformists, Dissenting preachers “watched
for souls,” the means they pursued for the accomplishment of their
end bore a stamp indicating their distinctive theological principles.
One peculiarity in the mode of preaching adopted by the Anglican,
and an opposite peculiarity in the mode of preaching adopted by the
Puritan, grew--as differences always must--out of different systems
of Divinity maintained by the two parties. The first, regarding the
ordinance of baptism as lying at the root of Christianity, and looking
upon all who had undergone the holy rite, as regenerated Christians,
addressed their congregations at large--those congregations being
composed almost entirely of the baptized--as members of the mystical
body of Christ, as people already in fellowship with the Redeemer, and
as needing only to be awakened to a sense of their privileges, and of
their responsibility, and to be stimulated to the discharge of their
duties. The Puritan, on the contrary, regarding spiritual consciousness
as at the bottom of all spiritual life, and looking upon those who
were destitute of such consciousness, as dead in trespasses and sins,
laboured at making people feel the need of that new birth which our
Lord inculcated upon Nicodemus. The tone of the Anglican harp is heard
sweetly in Jeremy Taylor’s _Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and
Dying_. The Puritan trumpet waxes loud in Baxter’s _Call to the
Unconverted_.
The office of expositor was necessarily, to some extent, combined
with that of preacher. Puritan homilies were chiefly expository, and
Puritan expositions were chiefly homiletic. Biblical criticism, in the
precise sense of the word, was not studied then so thoroughly as it is
in the present day; but looking at the critical literature produced
by Puritans, in comparison with that which was produced by other
scholars, those who come in the line of succession after the former
have no reason to be ashamed of their predecessors. Thomas Gataker
the younger, Incumbent of Rotherhithe, who died in 1654, was one of
the first scholars of his age, and applied his extensive and profound
learning to Biblical investigations. He was somewhat erratic in certain
of his conclusions, but in the defence of them he displayed both
erudition and ingenuity. In his work on the style of the New Testament,
he overthrew the positions of Sebastian Pfochenius, who maintained the
classical purity of the Scripture Greek; and in establishing the fact
of Hebraistic peculiarities in apostolic writings, he anticipated the
opinions of modern scholars, and also entered upon original inquiries
respecting the origin of languages.[570] Pool’s _Synopsis_,
published between 1669 and 1674, with the _Annotations_, which
appeared in 1683, present, in an accurate and well-digested form,
the principal results of all the learning which had then been
applied to the investigation of the Old and New Testament. And Owen’s
_Exposition of the Epistles to the Hebrews_ is a rare monument
of erudition:--considering the age in which it was written, it is
equal if not superior to anything on the same subject which has been
composed since. Still, its value as a series of devout and practical
meditations far surpasses its exegetical worth, and that which is a
pre-eminent quality in Owen is a pre-eminent quality in his brethren.
Thomas Goodwin, if not equal in Biblical scholarship to John Owen, does
not come very far behind him. His exposition of a part of the Epistle
to the Ephesians is a noble production; but the chief excellence of
Goodwin, like that of the other “Atlas of Independency,” lies in his
clearness, sagacity, comprehensiveness, and point, as a practical and
experimental expositor. Burroughs on Hosea; Caryl on Job; Greenhill
on Ezekiel; Manton on James, Jude, the 119th Psalm, the Lord’s
Prayer, and the 53rd chapter of Isaiah,--and the list could be easily
enlarged,--are commentaries, in which the critical element appears
faint, when compared with the theological and hortatory characteristics.
[Sidenote: PURITAN EXPOSITORS.]
As Divines, as expositors, and preachers, the Puritans showed a
wonderful acquaintance with the Bible and with the human heart, for
they apply the one to the other with singular skill, force, and pathos.
No doubt they were deficient in taste, and sometimes worried their
metaphors to death, and handled their flowers till they dropped to
pieces, and are open to all kinds of criticism from modern masters of
science. No doubt, also, we in our day have many advantages over them
in reading the Bible; for, owing to helps now familiar, we acquire a
keener insight into ancient Eastern life than any of these worthies
could ever attain. They had no works in those days like that of
Conybeare and Howson; yet they had a pre-eminent gift in bringing
to bear, for spiritual and practical purposes, the daily life of
patriarchs and Apostles upon the daily life of the people to whom
they preached, and for whom they wrote. Travellers often gaze with
interest upon those frescoes in the churches of Florence and other
Italian cities, in which the stories of Scripture are rendered into
landscapes and figures, derived from streets and gardens, and costumes
and faces, with which the artist happened to be familiar in the place
where he dwelt. And who that has seen them has not been struck with
the stained glass windows in Germany, grotesquely portraying Scripture
scenes and incidents under forms borrowed from German dwellings and
German people? So at times, when reading the homely applications of
Bible stories in Puritan writers, are we not reminded of these works of
art; do we not feel that amidst a great deal which provokes criticism,
and which may make one smile, there is in the Puritan writer, as in
the mediæval painter, an instinct of truth, and an insight into the
connection between the Bible and common life, most profound, most keen,
most admirable? As the wickedness of old is still reproduced, and as
the enemies of Christ are the same in spirit whether dressed like
Jewish priests or as Saxon burgomasters,--so the devotion and piety
of ancient and sacred times may transmigrate into the souls, and be
embodied in the habits of modern citizens. But of all the excellencies
of Puritan divinity, this is the chief,--that it exhibits clearly, and
with warmth and love, with light and fire, the distinctive doctrines of
Christianity--the Fatherhood of God, the Divinity, the mediation, the
priesthood, and the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, the agency of
the Holy Spirit, the freeness of salvation, the way of acceptance with
God through faith, and the new birth and sanctification of the human
soul, through the efficacious operations of Divine grace.
[Sidenote: COMPARISON.]
Thus I have attempted to give an outline of the opinions which
divided the English Christendom of the latter half of the seventeenth
century. In citing passages from various authors I am fully aware how
fallacious quotations are when taken by themselves; at the best they
are insufficient for the formation of a judgment. The old illustration
of a brick taken out of a house as a specimen of the structure scarcely
applies to the subject; yet no judicious student of literature will
rely upon passages extracted from an author, detached from their
connection and separated from the leading idea and spirit of his work.
Those which are employed in these pages have been chosen on account of
their being not mere blocks lying upon the surface, but the croppings
up of characteristic strata, penetrating deeply, and spreading far
beneath the surface of the ground upon which they appear.
How do we acquire a correct knowledge of the opinions of the Fathers?
Not by looking at quotations alone, but by analyzing their writings,
by tracing out their trains of thought, by measuring the space which
they devote to particular topics, by arranging together their favourite
texts, by examining their references to tradition and the Church, as
well as to Scripture, and by endeavouring to detect their sympathies
and predilections; it is in the same way that I have endeavoured,
not so well as I could wish, to read the Divines of the seventeenth
century, and the result is such as the reader finds imperfectly stated
in the pages of this volume.
What was indicated at the beginning of our survey may, in other words,
be expressed at the close. In the Anglican teaching we find what is
doctrinal, what is ethical, and what is emotional; we see the orthodox
dogmas of Christianity, the indisputable morals of Christianity, and
the spiritual experience of Christianity; but these are introduced in
different proportions, the third less than the second, perhaps the
second less than the first. Yet not in any of these do we detect the
characteristic stamp of Anglican sentiment so much as in the belief of
one catholic Church preserving this truth, inculcating this morality,
and cultivating this experience, and in the idea of an organized unity,
with its ministers, sacraments, and ordinances, receiving, enjoying,
and dispensing God’s gifts of grace. In the Latitudinarian teaching,
there is not much which can be called experimental, there is more of
what is theological, but the principal feature is undoubtedly moral.
Quakerism has its exposition of dogmas and its enforcement of duties;
it has its creed and its forms as have other systems of Christianity;
but it is in its mystical element that we discover the key to unlock
the secrets of its power. Puritanism has its Church organizations,
Presbyterian, and Independent,--it has its moral teaching, for it is
decidedly practical, yet in neither of these do we reach its most
prominent distinction. That consists both in its doctrinal zeal, and
in its experimental tone, and in the last more than the first; for the
dogmatical difference between John Goodwin[571] and Thomas Goodwin,
between the Arminian and the Calvinist, seems lost when we ponder
the fellowship of these souls in the same peculiar kind of emotional
ardour, which glows with a coloured light, easily distinguishable from
such fires as burn in Anglican, in Latitudinarian, or in Mystic lamps
before the altar of the one God, in the one temple of His redeemed
Church.