MEMOIRSOF

THELIFE,WRITINGS,

AND

RELIGIOUSCONNEXIONS,OF

JOHNOWEN,D.D.(1616-1683)

VICE-CHANCELLOROFOXFORD,ANDDEANOFCHRISTCHURCH,DURINGTHECOMMONWEALTH.

οὗὁἔpαινοςδιὰpασῶντῶνἐκκλησιῶν·whosepraiseisthroughoutallthechurches

BYWILLIAMORME.(1787-1830)

London:PRINTEDFORT.HAMILTON,33,PATERNOSTERROW.

MDCCCXX.

1820https://archive.org/stream/memoirsoflifewri00orme/memoirsoflifewri00orme_djvu.txt

ThisisthestandardonwhichotherOwenbiographiesarebased.Formatted,lightlymodernized,andannotated(inblue)byWilliamH.Grosswww.onthewing.orgFeb2019

AbouttheBiographer–WilliamOrmeWilliamOrme(1787–1830)wasaScotchCongregationalminister,knownasabiographerofRichardBaxterandotherNon-conformistfigures.Hewas born at Falkirk, Stirlingshire, on 3 February 1787.His parentsmoved to Edinburgh, where in 1792 he began his education under aschoolmasternamedWaugh.On1July1800hewasapprenticedforfiveyearstoawheelwrightandturner.HisfatherdiedinOctober1803.Aboutthistime,Ormecameundertheinfluence of James Alexander Haldane, whose preaching at theTabernacleinLeithWalk,Edinburgh,hadattractedhim.InOctober1805he was admitted by RobertHaldane as a student for theministry at aseminary underGeorgeCowie. The usual term of studywas two years,butOrme'speriodsof study, interruptedbyapreachingmission inFife(1806),amountedtolittlemorethanayearinall.On11March1807hebecame pastor of the congregational church at Perth where he wasordained.About1809hebrokewithRobertHaldane,inconsequenceofHaldane'sadoptionofBaptistviews,andtookpartinthecontroversythatarose.HedeclinedacalltothecongregationalchurchatDundee.HetookanactivepartinthedevelopmentofScotchcongregationalism,especiallyaidingintheformationoftheCongregationalUnionofScotland(1813),andintheestablishmentofadivinityhallatGlasgow(1814).On 7 October 1824, he became pastor of the congregational church atCamberwell Green, Surrey, and soon afterwards was elected foreignsecretary of the LondonMissionary Society.He died in his prime on8May 1830, and was buried on 17 May at Bunhill Fields. His portrait,engravedbyThomsonfromapaintingbyWildman,waspublishedintheEvangelicalMagazineforJanuary1830.Hewastwicemarried,andleftawidow.Hepublished,inadditiontoseparatesermonsandpamphlets:

‘Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Religious Connections ofJohnOwen,D.D.,’etc.,1820.‘RemarkablePassagesintheLifeofWilliamKiffin,’etc.,1823.‘BibliothecaBiblica… List of Books on Sacred Literature, withNotices,Biographical,Critical,’etc.,Edinburgh,1824.‘Memoirs, including…RemainsofJohnUrquhart,’ etc., 1827,2

vols.Posthumouswas:

‘Life andTimesofRichardBaxter,’ etc., 1830, 2 vols. Thiswaspartlyprintedatthetimeofhisdeath;itwaseditedbyThomasRussell.ItaccompaniedaneditionofBaxter's‘PracticalWorks,’begunbyOrmein1827.ThesecondvolumecontainsadetailedcritiqueofBaxter'swritings.

His two volumes on Richard Baxter were commended by Sir JamesStephen. Andrew Thomson superseded him as a biographer of JohnOwen,andJosephIvimeyforWilliamKiffin._______

This article incorporates text froma publicationnow in the public domain:Gordon,Alexander(1895)."Orme,William,"inLee,Sidney.DictionaryofNationalBiography.42.London:Smith,Elder&Co.

PREFACE.The following work embraces the personal history, the theologicalwritings, and the religious connexions of Dr. John Owen. In commonwith many others, I had long entertained the highest respect for theworksofthiseminentperson;andintheperusalofthem,hadspentsomeofthehappiestandmostprofitablehoursofmylife.Thepleasurederivedfromhiswritingsledme,afewyearsago,merelyformyownsatisfaction,to make some inquiry respecting their author. Not finding such anaccountassatisfiedme,Ibegantothinkthatacarefulexaminationofhisnumerous works, and of the contemporaneous productions of his age,mightenablemetoaffordafullerandmorecorrectviewofhim,thanhadyetbeengiven.Thusoriginatedthepresentvolume.ivPREFACE.It does not becomeme to speak of the successwhich has attendedmyinvestigations,aseveryreaderwillnowformhisownopinion.ButImaybe allowed to state that neither personal labour nor expense has beensparedtoprocureinformation.AndhadIbeenaware,atanearlyperiod,ofallthedifficultieswhichhavebeenexperiencedinprosecutingthetask,it is more than probable it would never have been undertaken. At adistancefromthegreatdepositoriesofliterature—farfromthescenesofOwen’slifeandlabours,andengagedinaservicewhichhasarighttothechiefpartofmytimeandattention,my inquirieswere frequentlymuchretarded and interrupted. I am very far, however, from regretting thelabour in which I have been engaged. Whatever may be its effects onothers, the personal benefit which I have derived from itmyself, is anamplecompensationforallthetroubleithascostme.It isnotnecessaryheretosayanythingof thesourcesof informationtowhichIhavebeenchieflyindebted,astheyhavebeeningeneralcarefullymarked.AndIhavethesatisfactiontoassurethereader,thateveryfactandcircumstance in thepersonal lifeofOwen,which itwaspossible toprocureandauthenticate,hasbeenfullyandfaithfullygiven.PREFACE.vMuchattentionhasbeenpaidtotheworksofDr.Owen.Thedifficultyofevenobtaininga complete collectionof them,maybe estimated fromaremarkmadebytheauthorhimself,that“someofthemhehadnotseenfornearlytwentyyears.”Asmanyofthemwereanswerstothebooksof

others, and were replied to, often by more than one opponent, a vastnumber of works had to be procured and examined, which are nowalmost entirely unknown. Aminute account of all of these will not beexpectedwithinthelimitsofavolume.Itwouldhavebeenmucheasier,indeed,tohaveextendedthecriticism,thanitwastoconfineitwithintheboundswhich itoccupies.But it ishopedsuchanaccount is ingeneralgiven, as will gratify the curiosity and in some measure inform thejudgmentof the reader.Quotations are seldommade exceptwhen theycontaininformationrespectingthelifeoftheauthor,orarenecessarytoillustratehisopinions.viPREFACE.WhileIhavebeencarefultostatewhattherealsentimentsofOwenwere,and to rescue them frommisrepresentationwhennecessary, Ihavenotdeemed it essential to the faithful discharge of my duty, as hisBiographer, to indiscriminately adopt or defend them. Any differencewhich exists, however, will be found of very small importance, and tomoregenerallyrespectOwen’smannerofstatinghissentiments,thanthesentiments themselves. What the Doctor avowed, the writer of his lifeneednotbeashamedtoprofess:—

NulliusaddictusjurareinverbaMagistri.1

In noting the religious connexions of Owen, and the state of partiesduring his time, I have studied to speak the truth, and to avoid givingunnecessary offence. I am not anxious to lay claim to exemption frompartialityforthebodywithwhichOwenwaschieflyconnected,butItrustthishasneverledmetodefenditsfaults,ortomisrepresentitsenemies.Convincedthattruthistheonlythingofimportancetomyselforothers,Ihaveusedmybestendeavourstodiscoverit,andwhendiscovered,Ihavefairlytoldit.Itisprobable,however,thatsomemistakesmaybedetectedin the narrative; but these, it is hoped, will not affect any point ofmoment.PREFACE.viiTheAppendixcontainsanumberofNotesandDocumentswhichcouldnotbeconvenientlyinsertedinthebodyofthework.AsIwasuncertain,during theprintingof the firstpartof thevolume,what roomcouldbeaffordedforthem,theyarenotreferredtoatthebottomofthepage.Butas theyareplaced in the regularorder inwhich they illustrate the text,

and as each article has its subject and the page of the text to which itbelongs marked at the head of it, no serious inconvenience will resultfromtheomissionofreferences.Ihavebeenundervariousandimportantobligationstoseveralvaluableliteraryfriends,bothinScotlandandinEngland,bywhomtheworkhasbeenrenderedmorecompletethanitwouldotherwisehavebeen.ToDr.Charles Stuart ofDunearn, and JoshuaWilson,Esq. of London, I havebeen inparticularmuch indebted for theuseofmanybooks and tractswhich Imight invainhave sought formanyyears.For theseandotherattentions,theywillbepleasedtoacceptmygratefulacknowledgments.viiiPREFACE.

“Andnow,” toadopt thewordsof IsaacWalton,2 “Iamgladthat Ihave

collectedtheseMemoirs,whichlayscattered,andcontractedthemintoanarrowercompass;and if Ihaveby thepleasant toilofdoingso, eitherpleasedorprofitedanyman,IhaveattainedwhatIdesignedwhenIfirstundertook it.But I seriouslywish,both for thereader’sandDr.Owen’ssake, thatposterityhadknownhisgreat learningandvirtuebyabetterpen — by such a pen, as could have made his life as immortal as hislearningandmeritsoughttobe.”

PERTH,October15th,1820.

Contents

AbouttheBiographer–WilliamOrmePREFACE.CHAPTERI.Introduction—FamilyofOwen—StateofthePuritans—Owen’sEducation—StateofOxford—Owen’sreligiousconvictions—LeavestheUniversity—TakespartwiththeParliament—TheCivil War — Owen’s Conversion — Publishes his Display — Progress of Arminianism —PresentationtotheLivingofFordham—MarrieshisfirstWife.

CHAPTERII.Owen’sconnexionwiththePresbyterianbody—itsstateatthattime—Baxter’saccountofitsintolerance—Owen publishes his “Duty of Pastors and People”—His “Two Catechisms”—Preaches before Parliament — Publication of the Discourse, and his Essay on ChurchGovernment—HisviewsofUniformityandToleration—LeavesFordham.

CHAPTERIII.Owen’s settlement at Coggeshall—View of Independency—TheBrownists—Causeswhichretarded and promoted the progress of Independency in England — Owen becomes anIndependent—PublishesEshcol—ATreatiseonRedemption—Hisviewson thissubject—Controversy occasioned by it — Publishes two Discourses on the deliverance of Essex —Remarksonsomesentimentscontainedinthem.

CHAPTERIV.Owen preaches before Parliament on the day after the execution of Charles I. — TheIndependentsnotguiltyofputtingtheKingtodeath—Testimoniesonthissubject—RemarksonOwen’s Sermon—Charges against it—Essay on Toleration annexed to it—Doctrine ofReligiousLibertyowes itsorigin to Independents—Writerson this subject—BrownistsandBaptists—JeremyTaylor—Owen—Vane—Milton—Locke—Cook’saccountoftheoriginofTolerationamongtheIndependents—Adifferentaccountofit—SmithandHume—Neal—OwenpreachesagainbeforeParliament—HisfirstacquaintancewithCromwell—IspersuadedtoaccompanyhimtoIreland.

CHAPTERV.Owen preaches before Parliament — Joins the army — Character of the array — Arrives inIreland—LaboursinDublin—FirstcontroversywithBaxter—CharacterofBaxter—PreachesbeforeParliament onhis return from Ireland—Measures of theCommonwealth to promotereligioninthatcountry—OwenappointedtoaccompanyCromwell intoScotland-PreachesinBerwickandEdinburgh—StateofreligioninScotland—TestimonyoftheEnglishMinisters—Of Binning — Rutherford — Burnet — Neal—Kirkton — Owen’s return to Coggeshall —Appointed to the Deanery of Christ Church — Account of this office — Remarks on hisacceptanceofit—StricturesofWilton—OwenpreachesbeforeParliament—DeathofIreton—OwenpreacheshisFuneralSermon—CharacterofIreton—PreachesagainbeforeParliament.

CHAPTERVI.DivisionoftheMemoirsatthisperiod—OwenmadeVice-Chancellor—AttendsaMeetinginLondon,calledbyCromwelltopromoteunion—CreatedD.D.—ElectedM.P.fortheUniversity— Cromwell’s Instrument of Government — Debate about the Construction of the Article

respectingReligiousLiberty—RemarksonNeal’saccountof it,andtheMeetingofMinistersrespectingit—OwenappointedanEjectingCommissionerandTryer—ConductoftheTryers—Owen delivers Pococke—Baxter’s account of the Tryers—Owen’smeasures for securingOxford—CorrespondencewithThurloe—AttendsaMeetingatWhitehall about theJews—Preaches at theOpening of aNewParliament—Again on a Fast day—Assists in defeatingCromwell’sattempttomakehimselfKing—DeprivedoftheVice-Chancellorship.

CHAPTERVII.State of the University during the civil wars, and when Owen was made Vice-Chancellor —Extract from his first address to it — From his fifth address — Specimen of the state ofinsubordinationwhichprevailedinit—LearnedmeninofficeduringhisVice-Chancellorship—Independents—Presbyterians—Episcopalians—Persons of note then educated—Writers,Philosophers,andStatesmen—Dignitariesof theChurch—Dissenters—RoyalSociety thenfoundedinOxford—Clarendon’stestimonyonthestateoflearninginitattheRestoration—Owen’s management of the several parties — Conduct to the Students — Preaching — TheUniversitypresentsavolumeofpoeticaddressestoCromwell—Owen’saddress—TrickplayedbyKinastonatOxford—Owen’sconducttowardtwoQuakers—HisviewsoftheLord’sPrayermisrepresented— Refuses to swear by kissing the book—Wood’s account of his dress andmanners -Extract fromEvelyne—Owen addresses thenewChancellor,RichardCromwell—TakesleaveoftheUniversity.

CHAPTERVIII.Owenpublisheshis“DivinaJustitia”—Hiswork“OnthePerseveranceoftheSaints”—JohnGoodwin—Thedoctrineofperseverance—Kendal—Lamb—Baxterwritesonthissubject—OwenrequestedbytheCouncilofStatetoanswerBiddle’stwoCatechisms—Biddle—Progressof Socinianism— The “Vindiciae Evangelicae”—Never answered— “On theMortification ofSin”—ControversywithHammondaboutGrotius—DeathofGataker—Selden—Usher.

CHAPTERIX.The Independents propose to publish a Confession of their faith—Their sentiments on thissubject—Confessionspublishedby themonvariousoccasions—Cromwell consents to theirmeetingforthispurpose—TheyassembleattheSavoy—AgreetoadeclarationoftheirfaithandOrder—Itssentimentsonseveralsubjects—ExtractsfromthePrefacewrittenbyOwen—Baxter’s displeasure with the meeting — Defence of it by Forbes — Chief objection to theDeclaration—Notmuch known even among Independents—Death ofCromwell—State ofreligionduringhisGovernment—HisinfluenceonIndependency—Tillotson’saccountofafastinthefamilyofRichardCromwell—Stricturesonthataccount—OwenpublisheshisworkonCommunion—OnSchism—IsansweredbyHammond—byFirmin—byCawdry—Owen’sReviewofCawdry—Cawdry’srejoinder—Owen’sdefenceofhimselfandCotton—PublishesontheDivineOriginoftheScriptures—HisconsiderationsonthePolyglot—Walton’sReply—HiscontroversywiththeQuakers—RichardCromwellsucceedshisFather—OwenpreachesbeforehisfirstParliament—ChargedwithpullingdownRichard—Defendedfromthischarge— Assists in restoring the long Parliament — Preaches before it for the last time — TheIndependentsentertainfearsoftheirlibertyfromMonk—SendadeputationtohimtoScotland—Hisconductandcharacter—OwenejectedfromtheDeaneryofChristChurch—Remarksonhispoliticalconduct.

CHAPTERX.Owen retires to Stadham — Effects of the Restoration — Venner’s insurrection — The fifthmonarchymen—DifferencebetweenOwenandClarendon—TheActofUniformity—OwenwritesontheMagistrates’powerinReligion—HisPrimerforchildren—HisTheologoumena—His Criticisms on Fiat Lux — Cane’s Reply — Owen’s Vindication — Difficulty of finding a

licenseforit—InterviewwithLordClarendon—InvitationtoNewEngland—SufferingsoftheDissenters—RelievedforatimebytheplagueandfireofLondon—OwenwritesvariousTracts—PreachesmoreregularlyinLondon—PublishesaCatechismontheWorshipandDisciplineoftheChurch—AnsweredbyCamfield—DiscussionsbetweenBaxterandOwen,respectingaunionofPresbyteriansandIndependents—Failureoftheattempt—OwenreceivesaLegacy—PublishesonIndwellingSin—Onthe130thPsalm—ThefirstvolumeofhisExpositionoftheHebrews—Reviewofthewholework.

CHAPTERXI.PersecutingconductoftheCongregationalistsinNewEngland—RemonstrancesofOwenandhisbrethrenonthesubject—OwenpublishesontheTrinity—HiscontroversywithParker—HisTruthandInnocencevindicated—Publicationsofothersonthesameside—MarvelandParker—ConductofParliamenttowardtheDissenters—Vernon’sattackonOwen—Owen’sdefence — Alsop — Owen invited to the Presidency of Harvard College — Publishes on theSabbath—Correspondence on this subject with Eliot — Charles publishes a Declaration ofIndulgence — Address from the Dissenters on this account presented by Owen — Owen’sattentiontothemeasuresoftheCourt—BecomesoneofthepreachersoftheMorningExercise—PublishesonEvangelicalLove—DeathofCaryl—UnionofCaryl’sandOwen’sChurchunderthe Doctor — Notices of persons of distinction who were members of the Church — TheParliamentoffendedwith theKing’s Indulgence—Notices of distinguishedNoblemenwhosefriendship Owen enjoyed — His interviews with the King and Duke of York — Work onCommunion attacked by Sherlock — Owen’s vindication — Controversy occasioned bySherlock’s book — Owen publishes on the Holy Spirit — Review of all his writings on thatsubject—AttackedbyClagett—PublishesonApostasy—Marrieshissecondwife.

CHAPTERXII.Owen’s assistants— Ferguson— Shields—Loeffs—Angier—Clarkson— Intercourse betweenOwen and Bishop Barlow respecting Bunyan — Owen publishes on Justification — On thePersonofChrist—TheChurchofRomenosafeGuide—DeathofGoodwin—OwenpublishesonUnionamongProtestants—ControversywithStillingfleet—Owen’sVindicationoftheNon-conformists— Publications of others on the same side— Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness ofSeparation — Owen’s Answer — Other Answers — Unfair conduct of Stillingfleet — Owenpublishes on Evangelical Churches — His humble testimony — On Spiritual-mindedness —AccountoftheProtestantReligion—MeditationsontheGloryofChrist—Hisdeclininghealth—Lastsickness—LettertoFleetwood—Death—Funeral—Clarkson’sSermonontheoccasion—LastWill—SaleofhisLibrary—MonumentandInscription—PortraitsofOwen—GeneralviewofhischaracterasaChristian—AMinister—AWriter—Conclusion.

APPENDIXFAMILYOFOWEN—p.8.

THESYNODOFDORT,p.32.WESTMINSTERASSEMBLY,—p.72.

PAMPHLETSONTHESUBJECTOFRELIGIOUSLIBERTY,—p.100.

ADVOCATESOFRELIGIOUSLIBERTY,—p.106.ORIGINOFTOLERATIONAMONGINDEPENDENTS,—p.109.

PREACHINGOFTHEOFFICERSOFTHEARMY,—p.116.

THEEARLYSTATEOFINDEPENDENCYINIRELAND,p.123.THEEARLYSTATEOFINDEPENDENCYINSCOTLAND,P137.

OWEN’SSUCCESSORSINCOGGESHALL—p.134.

STATEOFOXFORDDURINGTHEEARLYPARTOFLASTCENTURY,p.180.THEUNIVERSITYOFOXFORDOPENTOALLDURINGTHECOMMONWEALTH,p.187.

RACOVIANCATECHISM,—p.214.

ONTHEUSEOFTHETERMINDEPENDENT,p.229.PRAYERSOFCROMWELL’SCHAPLAINS,—p.250.

THEALLEGEDSCHISMATICNATUREOFINDEPENDENCY,p.265.

THEEARLYINDEPENDENTSOBSERVEDTHELORD’SSUPPERWEEKLY,p.308.PERSECUTIONSINNEWENGLAND,—p.336.

OWEN’SSUCCESSORSINBURYSTREET,—p.397.

POSTHUMOUSWRITINGS,—p.443.PREFACESTOTHEWORKSOFOTHERS,—p.443.

LETTERSFROMDR.OWENTOVARIOUSPERSONS.

CHRONOLOGICALLISTOFTHEWORKSOFOWEN,INDEX.

MEMOIRS,etc.

CHAPTERI.

Introduction—FamilyofOwen—StateofthePuritans—Owen’sEducation—StateofOxford—Owen’s religious convictions—Leaves theUniversity—Takes partwith theParliament—TheCivil War — Owen’s Conversion — Publishes his Display — Progress of Arminianism —PresentationtotheLivingofFordham—MarrieshisfirstWife.

THEseventeenthcenturywastheageofillustriouseventsandillustriousmeninBritain.Thecivilandreligiousstrugglesandchangeswhichtookplace during that eventful period, the causes in which they originated,andtheeffectswithwhichtheywerefollowed,areworthyoftheattentionof every British Christian, and are powerfully calculated to excite andimprovebothhisreligiousandhispatrioticfeelings.Whilehewilloftenhaveoccasion todrop the tearofpityoverhisbleedingcountry,hewillfrequently be called to adore the wondrous operations of that gloriousBeing,“whorides in thewhirlwind,anddirects thestorm;”whopilotedtheArkof theChurchthroughthemighty tempestwhich threatened itsdestruction,andfinallysecureditssafetybyacovenantofpeace,wetrustnevertobebroken.In every rank and profession there were then many distinguishedindividualswhose independence ofmind in the cause of their country,whose laborious researches in every department of literature, orwhoseimportant discoveries in philosophy, conferred honours on themselvesandonthelandoftheirbirth,ofwhichtheycanneverbedeprived.2ThenamesofPymandHampden,ofSidneyandRusselwilllivewhilethefabric of the British Constitution continues to be loved and respected;thoseofLockeandBoyle,ofWallisandNewton,canperishonlywiththerecordsofscienceandtime.AChurchmancanneverthinkofHookerandTaylor,ChillingworthandBarrow,without emotionsof theprofoundestdelightandveneration.AndwhilethecauseofNon-conformity—whichtheamiableandcandidDoddridgepronouncedtobe“thecauseoftruth,honourand liberty,andofseriouspiety too,”—continues tobedear tothose whose ancestors defended and suffered for it, the page whichrecords the names and the virtues of Baxter and Bates,

3 of Howe and

Owen,howeverimperfect,willalwayssecureattentionandrespect.We leave toStatesmenthecommemorationof thosewho thenshone inthe cabinet, or distinguished themselves in the field. We resign toChurchmen the task of recording the learning, piety, and sufferings oftheir brethren. The task of preserving the memory of his forefathersnaturally devolves on a Dissenter. If he were to be indifferent to their

reputationandtheirwrongs,whocanbeexpectedtoassertthem?Andifhe is zealous in their cause and anxious to vindicate their honour, themotiveiscreditabletohisfeelings,whatevermaybethedegreeofsuccesswhichattendshisattempt.Itisrathersurprisingthat,whiletheminutestresearcheshavebeenmadeinto the lives of many obscure individuals, no separate work has beendevotedtothelifeofJohnOwen.3Mr. Clarkson, who preached his funeral sermon, observed, “that theaccount which is due to the world of this eminent man deserved avolume,” which he hoped would soon make its appearance. CottonMather, in that singularwork “MagnaliaAmericanaChristi,” publishedtwentyyearsafterwards,declaredthat,“thechurchofGodwaswrongedin that the life of the great JohnOwenwas notwritten.”About twentyyearsafter that,prefixed to the folioeditionofhisSermonsandTracts,appearedthefirstandtheonlyaccountofhimwhichcanbedependedon.But though it appears to have been drawn up by Mr. Asty, with theassistanceofSirJohnHartopp,itisbothinaccurateandimperfect,anditdoesnot contain somanypagesas theDoctorhadwrittenbooks.Withtheexceptionofthis,andthescantynoticesofgeneralbiography,Owenisonlyknownbymeansofhiswritings.Nonecessityexistsforstatingheretheclaimswhichthesubjectofthesememoirs has to a distinct account of his life.Every theological scholar,every lover of experiential piety, every reader of our civil andecclesiasticalhistory, aswell as everydissenter,hasheardof thename,andknownsomethingofthecharacterofOwen—aman,“admiredwhenliving,andadoredwhen lost;”whoseworksyetpraisehim in thegates,andbywhichhewillcontinuetoinstructandcomfortthechurchforagestocome.Thosewhobelievethat“Godhasmadeofonebloodallnationsofmen,”will never themselves be flattered by the pride of ancestry, nor attachmuch importance to it in others. No harm, however, can arise fromnoticing,whenitcanbedonewithanydegreeofcertainty,theparticularlineoftheAdamicracetowhicharespectedindividualowedhisbirth.4Therefore, regardless of Bishop Watson’s remark that “German and

Welsh pedigrees are subjects of ridicule tomost Englishmen,”we shallproceedtogiveashortaccountofthefamilyofOwen.JohnOwenderivedhis pedigree fromLewisOwen,Esq. ofKwyn, nearDollegelle,agentlemanofabout£300perannum,andlineallydescendedfromayoungersonofKewelynapGwrgan,PrinceofGlamorgan,LordofCardiffe, the last family of the five regal tribes of Wales. This WelshPrince was Vice-Chamberlain and Baron of the Exchequer in NorthWales,aboutthemiddleofthereignofHenryVIII,andcontinuedsotilltheeighthyearofElizabeth.LewisOwenwasHighSheriffofthecountyof Merioneth, and lost his life on returning from the assizes atMontgomery,bythehandsofsomeoutlaws,ataplacecalledDugsed.Acrosswas erected there tohismemory,which still goesby thenameof“thegateoftheBaron’scross.”Griffith,thefifthsonofthisgentlemanhadadaughternamedSusan,whowasmarriedtoHumphreyOwen,ofthesamefamilyinanotherline.ThisHumphreyhadfifteensons,theyoungestofwhomwasHenry,thefatherofthesubjectofourhistory.

4

Henry Owen, being not merely a younger, but the youngest son of sonumerousafamily,wasbredtotheChurch.AfterstudyingatOxford,hetaught a school for some time at Stokenchurch.

5 He was afterwards

chosenministerofStadham,inthecountyofOxford,6whereheremained

manyyears.InthelatterpartofhislifehebecamerectorofHarpsden,inthesamecounty,wherehedied,ontheeighteenthofSeptember,1649,inthe sixty-third year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of thechurch.

7

5“My father,” said his son, “was a Non-conformist all his days, and apainful labourerinthevineyardoftheLord.”

8“Hewasreckoned,”says

theauthorofhismemoirs, “astrictPuritan, forhismore thanordinaryzeal,inthoseearlydaysofreformation.”

9

For many years, the situation of the Puritans had been graduallybecoming more unpleasant and intolerable. The haughty spirit ofElizabethhadmade their yokeheavy, but the vanity anddogmatismofhersuccessorrendered italmost insupportable.Thegreatbodyof themhad no difference with their opponents about the lawfulness of

ecclesiastical establishments.Theyhadnodoubtsas to theproprietyofusingtheswordtoacertainextentforthepurposeofproducingunityofsentiment and uniformity of practice in religion. They objected not somuchtotheinterferenceofthecivilpowersintheaffairsofthechurch,astothemodeanddegreeofthatinterference.“Theywere,”saysNeal,“foronereligion,oneuniformmodeofworship,oneformofdisciplineforthewholenation,withwhichallmustcomplyoutwardly,whateverweretheirinward sentiments.”

10 “The standard of uniformity,” says the same

writer,“accordingtotheBishops,wastheQueen’sauthorityandthelawsoftheland;accordingtothePuritans,itwasthedecreesofprovincialandnationalsynods,allowedandenforcedbythecivilmagistrate.Butneitherparty was for admitting that liberty of conscience and freedom ofprofession, which is every man’s right as far as is consistent with thepeaceofthecivilgovernmenthelivesunder.”

11

6Their objections to the Church of England respected chiefly the natureandextentoftheKing’ssupremacy,theunscripturalnessofsomeofheroffices, the Popish character of parts of her liturgy, and some of themodes of worship which she enjoined. Had the crown resigned itsauthority to church rulers, had theoffices ofMetropolitan,Archbishop,andsomeothersbeenabrogated,hadtheliturgybeenreformed,hadthesignof thecross inBaptism,kneelingat theSupper,andbowingat thename of Jesus been done awaywith; had they been allowed to wear around instead of a square cap, and a black gown in place of a whitesurplice, then thegreatmassof theearlyPuritansandevenof the laterNon-conformistswouldhavebecomethewarmestfriendsoftheChurch.TheywerenotDissenters from its constitution,butNon-conformists tosomeofitsrequisitions.Thesethingsarenotstatedtoinsinuatethatthepointsindisputewereofsmall importance, for nothing is unimportantwhich is enforced on theconscienceaspartofreligion.Rather,itistoshowwhattheyreallywere;andtoenablethereadertounderstandthenatureandprogressofthosereligious,discussionswhichforalongperiodoccupiedsolargeaportionof the public attention. It is not so wonderful that the views of thePuritansonmanysubjectswere imperfect;but it issurprising that theysaw somuch—and that,with those views, theywere able to soboldlycontend for what they believed to be the cause of God. It cannot be

doubted that if their object had been accomplished, the Church ofEnglandwouldhavebeenmuchimproved.7Andsofarasexternalsareconcerned,itwouldhavebeenbroughtnearertothemodelofScripture,andthusrenderedworthierofthedesignationher sons are so proud of: “The glory and bulwark of theReformation.”Butalthough theyhadsucceeded, so longas the spiritualand temporalkingdoms remained incorporated, the root of the evil must havecontinuedstill.High expectations were formed by the Puritans from the accession ofJames I. to the throne of England. But alas! They were soon mostmiserablydisappointed.JameshadbeeneducatedaPresbyterian,wasaprofessedCalvinist, and a swornCovenanter. But after he obtained theBritish crown, he became a highEpiscopalian, a determinedArminian,andasecretfriendtoPopery.Hisbadprinciples,improperalliances,andunworthy conduct, laid the foundation of much future misery to hiscountry,whichburstlikeatorrentuponhissuccessor,andfinallyswepthisfamilyfromthethrone.TheHamptonCourtconference,heldin1603,revealed the high ideaswhich James entertained by kingly prerogative,andhowmuchhewasdisposedtodomineerovertheconsciencesofhissubjects.“NoBishop,noKing”washisfavouritemaxim.“Iwillhaveonedoctrine,onediscipline,onereligioninsubstanceandinceremony,”saidhisMajesty,intheplenitudeofhiswisdomandauthority;andconcludedthis mock discussion in which the Puritans were brow-beaten andinsulted,byvowingthathewouldmakethemconform,orhurrythemoutoftheland,ordoworse.Foronce,Jameswasasgoodashisword,andeverythingwasdonewhichwaslikelytorenderhisconscientioussubjectsmiserable,ortodrivethemto extremes. The samemeasures were persevered in, and increased inseverity,bytheinfatuatedandunfortunateCharles.8Theconsequencewasthatmanyleftthelandoftheirfathers,andfoundarefuge or a grave in a distant wilderness; some wandered about inEngland, subject tomanyprivations andhardships,doinggoodas theyhad opportunity; while others endeavoured to reconcile the rights ofconscience,withsubmission to thepowers thatwere—andprayedandhopedforbetterdays.

OfthislastdescriptionwasHenryOwen.Afullaccountofhisfamilyisnolongertobeobtained.Itappears,however,thathehadatleastthreesonsandadaughter.Hiseldestson,William,wasaclergyman.HeisdescribedintherecordsoftheHerald’sCollege“ofRemnam,inthecountyofBerks,parsonofEwelmeinthecountyofOxford,”wherehediedin1660,intheforty-eighthyearofhisage.Histhirdson,Henry,appearstohavechosena military profession. He went over to Ireland with Cromwell as anensign,andthereseemstohaveacquiredsomelandedproperty.HediedbeforeJohn,buthissonsucceededtotheDoctor’sestatesinEngland.

12

His daughter married Mr. John Hartcliffe, minister of Harding, inOxfordshire,andafterwardsofWindsor.Iknowlittleofhim;buthissonmadesomefigure.HewaseducatedfortheChurch,andin1681,afterakeencontest,hesucceededMr.JohnGoadasmasterofMerchantTailor’sSchool.Inthecontest,heappearstohavebeenassistedbyhisuncle,whoexerted his influence among the London merchants, on behalf of hisnephew.9Hispredecessor,Goad,was ejected forhisPopery.Mr.Hartcliffewroteseveral treatises, became D.D. in 1681, and died in 1702, Canon ofWindsor.

13 It is saidheonceattempted topreachbeforeCharles II;but

notbeingable toutteronewordof the sermon,hedescended fromthepulpitasgreatanoratorashewentup,treatinghisMajestywithasilentmeeting.

14

John, the second son,was born at Stadham, in the year 1616; the veryyear in which Mr. Jacob formed, in England, the first Church of thatdenominationofwhichOwenwasdestinedtobethebrightestornament,andoneofthemostlearnedandsuccessfuladvocates.YoungOwen, after receiving the first rudiments of education (probablyfromhisfather),wasinitiatedintotheprinciplesofclassicallearningbyEdward Sylvester, master of a private academy at Oxford. ThisrespectabletutornotonlytaughtGreekandLatin,butmadeorcorrectedLatin discourses, and Greek and Latin verses, for members of theUniversity.They found itnecessary toexhibitwhat theywereunable toproduce, and lived to see a number of his pupilsmake a distinguishedfigureintheworld.Amongthese(besidesOwen)wereDr.JohnWilkins,who was more celebrated for his philosophical talents than for being

Bishop of Chester; Dr. Henry Wilkinson, Margaret professor in theUniversityduringtheCommonwealth,andafterwardsacelebratedNon-conformist; and a man better known than either of the preceding,William Chillingworth, author of “The Religion of Protestants,” a workwhichconfersanhonourontheagethatproducedit.

15

10Owenappearstohavemaderapidprogressatschool,forbythetimehewasonly twelve yearsof age,hewas fit for theUniversity, andactuallyadmitted a student of Queen’s College, Oxford.We can have no doubtthat his father afforded him all the assistance in his power in theacquisitionof learning,asheknewthathehadnopropertytogivehim,and that hewould have to fight hisway through theworld by his ownexertions.Nothing,perhaps,ismoreunfavourabletogeniusandindustrythanbeingborntoafortunealreadyprovided.Itdiminishesordestroysthat excitementwhich is absolutelynecessary to counteract ournaturalindolence;whileittoooftenencouragesthosefeelingsofprideandvanitywhicharedestructiveofapplicationandsuccess.Hence,whiletheheirtotitles and to wealth has often passed through the world in ingloriousobscurity, the younger son has frequently supported and increased thehonoursofhis family.Mostpersonswhohaverisentoeminence inanyprofession, have given early promise of future distinction. There areindeed exceptions to this remark.Many a fair blossom has gone up asdust,andtheseedsometimesliessolongunderthesurface,thatallhopeof its resurrection is givenover—when somepowerful cause suddenlyquickensthe latentgerm,anddevelopstheenergiesandbeautiesof thefutureplant.11WhenOwenjoinedtheUniversity,andwhilehecontinuedatit,fewofitsleading members were distinguished either for their learning or theirtalents.TheProvostofhisCollegewasDr.ChristopherPotter,originallyaPuritan.ButafterLaud’sinfluenceatCourt,hebecameacreatureofthatambitious Prelate’s, and was considered a supporter of his Arminiansentiments.Wood says he was learned and religious. But he producednothingwhichrevealsmuchevidenceofeither,exceptatranslationfromtheItalianofFatherPaul’shistoryof the“QuarrelsofPopePaulVwiththe State of Venice.”

16 The Vice-Chancellors of the University during

Owen’s residence were Accepted Frewen,17 afterwards Archbishop of

York; —William Smith,Warden ofWadham College; — Brian Duppa,Bishop of Winchester, of whose qualifications Wood gives rather acuriousaccount:“Hewasamanofexcellentparts,andineverywayqualifiedforhisfunction,especiallyastotheattractivenessofhisperson,andgracefulnessofhisdeportment,whichrenderedhimworthyof

theserviceofacourt,andineverywayfittostandbeforePrinces:”18

—RobertPink,WardenofNewCollege,azealousdefenderoftherightsof the University, and who was much esteemed by James I for hisdexterityindisputing,ashewasalsobyCharlesIforhiseminentloyalty;19—andDr.RichardBaylie,PresidentofSt.John’sCollegeandDeanofSalisbury. The Margaret Professor of Divinity, was Dr. Samuel Fell, aparasiteofLaud’s,bywhosemeanshewasadvanced to theDeaneryofLichfield.Hewasejected fromallhisprefermentsby theParliamentaryvisitorsin1647.

20TheHebrewProfessorwasJohnMorris,ofwhomwe

knownothingasanorientalscholar;andHenryStringerwasProfessorofGreek,ofwhoseclassicalattainmentsweknowaslittle.12Barlow is almost the only namewe are nowdisposed to associatewithlearning:alltheothersareeitherforgottenorunknown.ItwillafterwardsappearhowdifferentthestateoftheUniversitybecame,inregardtomenofeminenceandlearning,whenOwenfilleditshighestoffices.In Queen’s College, Owen studied mathematics and philosophy underThomas Barlow, then fellow of the college of which he afterwards waschosenProvostwhenOwenwasVice-chancellor.Hewasmadeabishopin 1676, and lived till after the revolution. Barlow was a Calvinist intheology, an Aristotelian in philosophy, and an Episcopalian in churchgovernment.Hewasamanofeminenttalents,andaccordingtoGranger,as great a master of the learned languages, and of the works of thecelebratedauthorswhohavewritteninthem,asanymanofhisage.

21

Owen studied music (for recreation) under Dr. Thomas Wilson, acelebrated performer on the flute, whowas for some years in constantattendanceonCharlesI,whousedtoleanonhisshoulderduringthetimeheplayed.HewasmadeProfessorofMusicinOxfordbyOwenwhenhewas Vice-chancellor of theUniversity. This shows that themen of thatperiodwereneither sodestituteof tastenor somoroseandunsocial as

theyhavebeenoftenrepresented.22

Moderatetalentsassistedbydiligentapplication,willfrequentlydomorethan genius of amuchhigher order,whose efforts are all irregular anddesultory.Butwhentalentsandlaboriousexertionarecombinedwiththefervourofyouthandtheaidsoflearning,muchmaybeexpectedfromtheresult.13Our student pursued his various branches of improvement withincredible diligence, allowing himself for several years, not more thanfourhourssleepanight.Itisimpossiblenottoapplaudtheardourwhichthisapplicationreveals.Themoretimeastudentcanredeemfromsleep,andotherindulgences,somuchthebetter.Butitisnoteveryconstitutionthat is capable of such an expenditure. And many an individual instruggling beyond his strength for the prize of literary renown, hasprocureditattheexpenseofhislife,ortheirreparableinjuryofhisfuturecomfort.Owenhimselfissaidtohavedeclaredafterwardsthathewouldgladlypartwithallthelearninghehadacquiredinyoungerlifebysittinguplateatstudy,ifhecouldbutrecoverthehealthhelostbyit.

23Hewho

prefers mercy to sacrifice, requires nothing in ordinary circumstancesbeyondwhatthehumansystemisfairlycapableofbearing.Owen appears to have been blessed with a sound and vigorousconstitution.This,nodoubt,enabledhimtousegreaterfreedomsthanheotherwise dared to have done. To brace and strengthen it, he was notinattentivetothoserecreationswhichtendedtocounteracttheperniciouseffectsofhissedentaryoccupations.Hewas fondof forcefulandrobustexertion — such as leaping, throwing the bar, ringing bells, etc. Suchdiversionsmayappeartosometoberidiculousandunbecoming;butthisarisesfromlackofconsideration.Thatkindanddegreeofexercisewhichare necessary for preserving the proper temperament of the humansystem, are not only lawful, but a part of the duty which we owe toourselves.14Suchrecreationsarenottobecomparedwiththosefashionable levities,and amusements which only tend to vitiate the moral and intellectualpowers, and to enervate rather than strengthen the constitution. It ismuchmoregratifyingtoseetheacademicrobeswavinginthewind,than

shiningatthemidnightdance,oradorningthefrontranksofatheatre.Onthe11thofJune,1632,OwenwasadmittedtothedegreeofB.A.;andonthe27thofApril,1635,attheageofnineteen,hecommencedMasterofArts,

24adesignationwhichwasthenmoredeclarativeoflearningand

diligence than it has since become.When literary degrees are spurs toapplication,andtherewardsofmerit,theyanswerausefulpurpose.Butwhentheycometobealmost indiscriminatelybestowed, they lose theirvalue,aredespisedbythegenuinescholar,andaresoughtafteronlybythoseonwhomtheycanconfernohonourordistinction.Duringthisperiodofhislife,hismindseemstohavebeenscarcely,ifatall, influenced by religious principle. His whole ambition was to raisehimselftosomeeminentstationinchurchorstate,toeitherofwhichhewas then indifferent. Afterwards he used to acknowledge that, beingnaturally of an aspiring mind, and very desirous of honour andpreferment,heappliedhimselfverycloselytohisstudies inthehopeofaccomplishingtheseends.Then, thehonourofGodandthegoodofhiscountrywereobjectssubservienttotheadvancementofhisowngloryorinterest.Hadhecontinuedinthisstateofmind,hewouldprobablyhavesucceeded;butitwouldhavebeeninanothercausethanthattowhichhewasfinallydevoted.15InsteadofaPuritan,hemighthavebeenfoundamongtheirpersecutors,andhisnamehavedescendedtoposterityintherollofstateoppressors,orbigoted churchmen.Manyyoungpersonswhohavebeendevotedbytheirparentstothechurch,andhaveimprovedtheirtalentsinthehopeofrisinginit,wouldhaveconferredablessingonthemselves,aswellason the church and the world, had they found another path to earthlyglory. Some radical mistake must exist when the church of Christbecomes (or is capableof beingmade) the theatreofworldly ambition.Themerchandise of “the souls ofmen,” is themost infamous traffic inwhich man can engage, and constitutes one of the chief of thosedelinquencieschargedonthemysticalBabylon.Owen, however, was unconsciously preparing himself, for shining inanother career. He was now under a higher, though unperceivedinfluence,acquiring thecapacity forusing thoseweaponswhichhewasdestined to wield with mighty effect against all the adversaries of thegospel.“Manypurposesareinaman’sheart,butthecounseloftheLord

— that shall stand.” Pro 19.21 He was probably often exulting in theprospect ofwealth and honour,whileGodwas preparing him to suffermanythingsforhissake,andforimportantusefulnessinhisowncause.The limited resources of his father prevented allowing him any liberalsupportat theuniversity.But thisdeficiencywasamplymadeupbyanuncle, the proprietor of a considerable estate in Wales. Having nochildrenofhisown,hisuncle intended tomakehimhisheir.Althoughthis intention was not carried into effect, his nephew must have feltgratefulonaccountoftheassistanceaffordedduringhisearlyyears.16Previously tohis leaving theuniversity,which tookplace inhis twenty-first year, Owen appears to have become the subject of religiousconvictions.Bywhatmeansthesewereproduced,itisnowimpossibletoascertain.Hehadreceivedareligiouseducationinhisfather’shouse,andearly impressions thenmade,may have been revived and deepened bycircumstances which afterwards occurred. The impressions were verypowerful, and appear to have deeply affected his mind and even hishealth. The course of spiritual conflict through which he passed,undoubtedly fittedhim forwhathewas todoata futureperiod;and itprobably infused that tone of spiritual feeling into his soul which runsthroughallhiswritings.Thewordsoftheapostlearenolessapplicabletomentalthantobodilysufferings;“whocomfortsusinallourtribulations,that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, by thecomfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” 2Cor 1.4 If thespiritualphysicianknowsnothingfromexperience,ofthemaladyofthepatient,thenheisbutimperfectlyqualifiedtoadministerrelief.ItwaswhilehewasunderthesereligiousconvictionsthatOwenlefttheuniversity.Andastheychiefly ledtothisevent, it isnecessarytonoticethecircumstanceswhichoccasionedit.Forseveralyearsthingshadbeengradually coming to a crisis between the court and the country. Theaggressionsoftheformeronthecivilandreligiouslibertiesofthelatter,hadbecomesonumerousandso flagrant,as tooccasionaverygeneralspiritofdiscontent.Inanevilday,Charleshadadvancedtotheprimacyof England William Laud. He was a man of undoubted talents andlearning, but of highmonarchical principles; hewas fond of pompandceremony.Thoughhewasno friend to thePope atRome, hehad littleobjectiontohimselfbeingthePopeinEngland.Hisarbitraryconductin

thestarchamber,hispassionforceremonyinthechurch,andhisloveofArminianisminthepulpit,hastenedhisownfate,andpromotedthatofhismaster.17The best of the clergy were either silenced, or obliged to leave thecountry. High churchmen were engrossing almost every civil andecclesiasticaloffice, to thedisappointmentofmany,andthevexationofall.The same year, 1637, that produced the celebrated resistance ofHampdentoillegaltaxation,droveOwenfromOxfordinconsequenceoftheecclesiasticaltyrannyofLaud.AmongtheothersituationswhichthatambitiouschurchmanhadmonopolizedwasthatofchancellorofOxford.Byvirtueofhisoffice,hecausedanewbodyofstatutestobedrawnupfor the university; in the preface to which he clearly intimates that heconsidered the days of Mary

25 better than those of Edward. In these

statutes, obedience to some superstitious rites was required of themembersoftheuniversity,onpainofbeingexpelled.ThoughthemindofOwenwasnotsufficientlyenlightenedtoseethegloryof thegospel,hisconsciencewasbrought so farunder the authorityofDivine revelation,thathecouldnotsubmittothesehumanexactions.Ontheonesidelayallhisworldlyprospects;on theother lay theapprovalofHeaven.HehadthefaithandcouragetoembracethechoiceofMoses:herelinquishedthepleasuresoftheworld,ratherthansacrificethehonourofhisGod.Thischangeoffeelingandsentimentwassoondiscoveredbyhisformerfriends.As usually happens in such cases, they forsook themanwhomneither thekingnor theprimatewoulddelight tohonour.Theresultofhis refusing to submit, and of the opposition of Laud’s party, was hisleavingtheuniversity.18Hewasnevertoreturn,untilHewhodisposesequallythelotofnationsandofindividuals,sentHamantoascaffold,andraisedMordecaitofillhisplace.Duringthisstruggle,themindofOwenappearstohavebeeninawful spiritual perplexity. This, combined with external circumstancesandthediscouragingprospectswhichwerepresented, threwhimintoastateofprofoundmelancholy.Foraquarterofayearheavoidedalmostall intercourse with men; he could scarcely be induced to speak. And

when he did say anything, it was in so disordered a manner that itrenderedhimawondertomany.“Forsakenandforsakingofallfriends.Henowperceiveswhereearthlypleasureends;Hisgrieftheworldofallherpowerdisarms,Winehasnotaste,andbeautyhasnocharms:God’sholyword,oncetrivialinhisview,Nowbythevoiceofhisexperiencetrue.Seems,asitis,thefountainwhencealone

Mustspringthathope,hepantstomakehisown.”26

Onlythosewhohaveexperiencedthebitternessofawoundedspiritcanformanyideaoftheawfuldistresshemusthavesuffered.Comparedwiththisanguishof soul, all theafflictionswhichcanbefall a sinnerarebuttrifles. Letting into the mind but one drop of that wrath which shallfinallyfillthecupoftheungodly,isenoughtopoisonallthecomfortsoflife, and to spread mourning and lamentation and woe over thecountenance. It is not in the least wonderful that cases of this kindsometimes occur; but considering the character of man, it is rathersurprisingthattheydonotmorefrequentlyoccur.Ifmenweredisposedto seriously reflecton theirpresent condition, and to contemplate theirfuture prospects, nothing but the gospel could preserve them from thedeepestdespair.Perhapshealludestothisseveredistress,amongotherthings,whenhesays,19“ThevarietyofoutwardprovidencesanddispensationswithwhichIhavemyselfbeenexercised,togetherwith the inward trialswithwhich theyhavebeenattended,have left sucha constant

senseandimpressiononmyspirit,thatIcannotbutownaseriouscalltomentobeware.”27

Such a conflict of feeling, and of so long a continuance, it would havebeen strange if he had ever forgotten. And “knowing the terrors of theLord,”itwouldbestrangerstill,ifhehadceasedtobeseechmentoavoidthem.ItistheopprobriumofOxford,thatLockewasexpelledfromitsbowers.Itislittlelesstoitsdisgrace,thatsuchamanasOwenwascompelledtowithdraw from them. The treatment which both those learned menexperienced in this celebrated seat of loyalty and learning, probablycontributed in no small degree to produce that deep-rooted disliketoward civil and ecclesiastical domination, which appears soconspicuously in theirwritings. Thatwhichmen intended for evil,God

overruled for good. The influence of Owen’s early secession from thatbodywhichholdstherightofthechurch(orratheroftheking)todecree“rites and ceremonies,”was felt by himduring the course of his futurelife. There is a comfort connected with following the dictates ofconscienceinobeyingthewordoftheLord,whichimpartsavigourandindependence to thehumancharacter. It canneverbe feltby the time-servingvotariesofchurchorstate.Anditisinfinitelymorevaluablethanallthehonoursoftheone,ortheemolumentsoftheother.Itiscommontotreat theconductofsuchpersonsasOwen—who left thechurchforrefusing to submit to the interference of human authority — asunnecessarilypunctilious,

28andasresultingfromanarrowconformation

ofmind.20But let it be remembered that it was not a particular rite or ceremonywhichtheyrefusedtoobserve,somuchastheprinciplewhichenforcedobedience; and the greatness of their minds was revealed in theirwillingly exposing themselves to severe suffering for conscience’ sake.ThestrongviewwhichOwentookofthematter,iswellexpressedinthefollowingpassage:—“Ishall takeleavetosaywhat isuponmyheart,andwhat,theLordassisting,Ishallwillinglyendeavourtomakegoodagainstalltheworld,thatthisprinciple—thatthechurchhaspowertoinstitute any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, either as to its matter ormanner,beyond theorderlyobservanceof those circumstanceswhichnecessarily attend suchordinances as Christ himself instituted— this principle lies at the bottom of all the horriblesuperstitionandidolatry,ofalltheconfusion,blood,persecution,andwars,thathaveforsolongaseasonspreadthemselvesoverthefaceoftheChristianworld.Anditisthedesignofagreatpartoftherevelation,torevealthistruth.IdonotdoubtthatthegreatcontroversywhichGodhashadwiththisnationforsomanyyears,wasonthisaccount:thatcontrarytothatgloriouslightof thegospelwhich shoneamongus, thewills and fanciesofmen—under thenameoforder,decency,andtheauthorityofthechurch(achimerathatnoneknewwhatitwas,norinwhat itspowerconsisted,nor inwhom it resided)—were imposedonmen in theworshipofGod.HencetheSpiritofGodwasderidedinprayer;hencethepowerfulpreachingofthegospelwasdespised;hence thesabbathwasdecried;henceholinesswasstigmatizedandpersecuted.Andforwhat?

21ThatJesusChristmightbedeposed from the soleprivilegeandpowerofmaking laws inHischurch,thatthetruehusbandmightbethrustaside,andadulterersofhisspousebeembraced!—thattask-mastersmightbeappointedoverhishouse,whichhenevergavetohischurch,Eph.4.12— that a ceremonious, pompous worship, drawn from Pagan, Jewish, and Antichristianobservances,mightbeintroduced.ThereisnotonewordoriotaofanyofthisinthewholebookofGod.ThosewhoholdcommunionwithChristarecareful, then,of this: that theywillallownothing,practisenothing, in theworshipofGod,privateorpublic, exceptwhat theyhavehiswarrantfor.Unlessitcomesinhisname,with‘ThussaiththeLordJesus,’theywillnothearan

angelfromheaven.”29

Let thosewho despise theman, answer his reasons, and then boast oftheir superiority. The circumstance of Owen’s leaving Oxford, affordsAnthonyWood(whorejoicestogetahitatPuritansandRoundHeads),an opportunity to accuse him of perjury.

30 When Owen joined the

university, he very probably took the oaths, and made the usualsubscription. When he saw them to be unlawful, or felt they involvedconsequencesofwhichhehadnotbeenaware,herenouncedthem.Ifthisisperjury, it remains tobe consideredwhether theguilt lieswith thosewho impose oaths and subscriptions on boys — which they cannotunderstand andwhich,when they come to bemen, repent they shouldever have taken — or those who are thus innocently ensnared. Beforesuch conduct can be charged with perjury, the lawfulness of the oathmust be shown; unlawful oaths and vows require repentance, notfulfilment. All such subscriptions are unrighteous impositions. Theyimpedetheprogressoftruth,ensnarethemindsofthesubscribers,andoperateasabountyonhypocrisy.22They secure amonopolyofprivileges to the chartered corporation; andexcludealargeportionoftheprincipleandtalentofthecountryfromtheenjoymentofadvantagesthatoughttobecommon.BeforeOwenleftcollege,hereceivedordersfromBishopJohnBancroft,nephew to the celebratedArchbishop of the same name,who occupiedthe diocese of Oxford from 1632 to 1640. After leaving it, he lived forsometimeaschaplaintoSirRobertDormer,ofAscotinOxfordshire,andas tutor to his eldest son.WhenOwen left him, he became chaplain toLordLovelaceofHurbyinBerkshire.

31HecontinuedInthissituationtill

thecivilwarbrokeout,when—LordLovelaceespousingthecauseoftheking, and Owen espousing the cause of the Parliament— a separationnaturally took place. This step was attended with very importantconsequences forOwen.Hisuncle,beingadeterminedRoyalist,wassoenraged at his nephew for attaching himself to the Parliament, that heturnedhimoutoffavouratonce,settledhisestateonanother,anddiedwithoutleavingOwenathing.Astepattendedwithsucheffects,wasnotlikelytoberashlytaken.ItshowsthatOwenmusthavebeeninfluencedbysomeverypowerfulconsiderations.Havingtakenhisground,hewasnottobedrivenfromitbyregardtothefavouroffriends,orthesordid

interestsofthisworld.32

The civil war has often been rashly and unjustly charged upon thePuritans,orNon-conformists.Notwithstandingtheforceofevidencewithwhichtheaccusationhasbeenrepelled,itcontinuestoberepeatedstill.23

Episcopalcharges,thirtiethofJanuarysermons,33andvelvetcushionsin

every varied form, endeavour to fix the crime of rebellion onmenwhodeservetobeheldineverlastingremembranceforwhattheydid,insteadofbeingexecrated.Religiousdissatisfaction,itshouldneverbeforgotten,wasonlyoneof themanycausesof thatawfulconvulsion;andreligiouspersons composed but one of the classes which produced it. Thecontinual breaches made on the constitution by Charles I, from theperiodofhisaccessiontothethrone,tillhewasforcedtoleaveit—byhisarbitrary treatment of his Parliaments; by his persevering attempts torender himself independent of them; by his illegal modes of raisingmoney; by the oppression and cruelty with which those who assertedtheircivilorreligiouslibertyweretreated;—theseweretherealcausesofthe war. And that these measures were prompted chiefly by the highchurchpartywhichhadthemanagementoftheking,andwhichgoadedhimontothelast,isevidenttoallwhohavepaidtheleastattentiontothehistoryoftheperiod.This ishowfartheNon-conformistswerefrombeingtheauthorsoftherebellion,asitiscalled.Clarendonhimselfacknowledgesthat“themajorpartofthelongParliamentconsistedofmenwhohadnomindtobreakthepeaceof thekingdom,ortomakeanyconsiderablealterationinthegovernmentofchurchorstate.”

34Asanevidenceoftheirattachmentto

thechurch,seventeendaysaftertheirfirstmeeting,theymadeanorderthatnoneshouldsit in theirhouse,except thosewhowouldreceive thecommunionaccordingtothechurchofEngland.

35

24;The Earl of Essex, the Parliament’s general, was an Episcopalian; theadmiralwhoseizedtheking’sships,andemployedthemagainsthim,wasthesame;SirJohnHotham,whoshutthegatesofHullagainsthim,wasachurchman; the same may be affirmed of Sir Henry Vane, Senior; ofLenthal, the speaker; of the celebrated Pym, and of most of the otherleadingpersonsinParliamentandinthearmy.Sothatitisclearasnoon

day,thatwhateverfaultattachestothecivilwarmustbeimputedtotheChurchofEngland,whosememberswerefirstanddeepestinthequarrel.36

Theobjectofthatmomentouscontestonthepartofthecommunity,wasachangeofmenandmeasures,andnotasubversionoftheconstitutionof either church or state. Had Charles driven off his popish andunconstitutional counsellors; had he consented to govern by regularParliaments, and revealed sincerity in fulfilling his promises; had hegrantedevenalimitedtolerationtohispersecutedsubjects,andchangedsome of his most unadvised and unpopular measures, he would haveretrieved his affairs, established his throne, saved the lives of manythousandsofhis subjects, andmore than fiftymillionsofmoney tohiscountry — besides preventing that awful catastrophe whichmen of allpartiesmustdeplore.The war increased the number of Presbyterians, and augmented theirinfluence by the calling in of the Scots; it afforded opportunity to theIndependents to propagate their sentiments, and to multiply theirdisciples;italsooccasionedtheincreaseoftheBaptists,andsomesmallersects.Butthatanyorallofthesereligiouspartieswerethecausesofthewar,thechiefinstrumentsincarryingiton,orjustlychargeablewiththeexcesseswhich tookplace, is unsupportedby evidence, and contrary toclearlyestablishedfacts.

37

25The situationof thepeople ofGodduring this tryingperiodmusthavebeenveryperplexing.Neutralitywasscarcelypossible,especiallytothosewhopossessedrank,orheldofficeinthecountry.Thosewhojoinedthekingwere counted enemies to the liberty ofEngland; thosewho joinedthe Parliamentwere reckoned enemies to legitimate authority. Politics,howeverunfriendlytothegrowthofreligion,wasrequiredtobestudied,so that the subject might know his duty. All the Non-conformistsnaturallytookpartwiththeHouseofCommons,astheysawclearlythatnothing short of their ruin was determined by the king.Most of thosewhowishedwelltotruereligion,thoughattachedtothechurch,actedinthesamemanner,asitwasevidentthatreligionwasmoreatheartwiththe Parliamentary party than with the king’s. The friends of liberty, ofcourse, supported the popular side of the constitution, against theencroachments of prerogative. It is exceedingly unfair to charge those

whoactedinthismannerwithrebellion.TheHouseofCommonsformsanessentialpartof theBritishConstitution,aswellas themonarch.Atthis lamentable period, the constitutionwas divided against itself.Warwas openly maintained on both sides, between the king and theParliament. Liberty and redress were the professed objects of the oneparty,powerwastheobjectof theother.Ifyoutookpartwiththeking,youwere liable tobepunishedby theParliament;and ifyousupportedtheParliament,youwereindangerfromthewrathoftheking.Solongastheconstitutionwasthusdivided,nomancouldbejustlychargeablewithcrime in following either the one party or the other, as his consciencedictated.

38

26As Owen had no connexion with party politics, other than that whicharosefromnecessity,aviewoftheprogressofcivildiscord,oradefenceofthemeasurespursuedbytheParliament,cannotbeexpectedhere.Nodoubtcanbeentertainedabouthissincerity.Andasconscienceevidentlydirectedthepartwhichhetook,ifthecausehadbeenevenmoredoubtfulthanitappearstometohavebeen,heshouldhavethefullbenefitofthisplea. The Rev. Thomas Scott, a respectable minister of the Church ofEngland,saysthis:“Many,nodoubt,whoobtainedanundueascendencyamongthePuritansintheturbulentdaysofCharlestheFirst,andevenbeforethattime,werefactious,ambitioushypocrites.ButImustthinkthatthetreeofliberty,soberandlegitimateliberty,civilandreligious, intheshadowofwhichwe in the establishment, as well as others, repose in peace, and the fruit of whichwegather,wasplantedbythePuritans,andwatered,ifnotbytheirblood,atleastbytheirtearsandsorrows.Yet, it is themodern fashion to feeddelightfullyon the fruit, and then revile, ifnot

curse,thosewhoplantedandwateredit.”39

Owen’spatronhavingjoinedtheking’sarmy,OwenwentuptoLondon,where he was an entire stranger, and took lodgings in Charter Houseyard.

40 Though the force of his convictions had subsided after the first

severe conflict, they continued to disturb his peace. Nearly five yearselapsed from the commencement of his trouble, to obtaining solidcomfortofmind.27Thiswasa longtimetobeharassedwithfearsanddespondency.Itwasprobably occasioned by receiving a direction in his inquiries, whichincreased the evil it that was intended to remove. The dawn of light,

however,wasnowathand.Thegloryofthegospelspeedilydispersedhisdarkness,andproducedfeelingsofjoyandhappinesscorrespondingwithtohisformerdepression,andofwhichheneveragainseemstohavebeenaltogetherdeprived.Duringhis residence in theCharterHouse,heaccompaniedacousinofhistoAldermanburychurchtohearMr.EdmundCalamy,amanofgreatnoteforhiseloquenceasapreacher,andforhisboldnessasa leaderofthePresbyterianparty.Bysomeunexplainedcircumstance,Mr.Calamywaspreventedfrompreachingthatday.Consequently,notknowingwhowastopreach,manyleftthechurch.Owen’scousinurgedhimtogoandhearMr. Jackson, theMinister of St.Michael’s,Wood-street, aman ofprodigious application as a scholar, and of considerable celebrity as apreacher. Owen, however, being seated, and unwilling to walk further,refused to leave the church till he saw who was to preach. At last acountryminister,unknowntothecongregation,steppedintothepulpit.Afterprayingveryfervently,hetookforhistext,Mat.8.26.“Whyareyoufearful?Oyeoflittlefaith!”TheveryreadingofthetextappearstohaveimpressedOwen,andledhimtopraymostearnestlythattheLordwouldbless thediscourse tohim.Theprayerwasheard— for in that sermon,theministerwasdirectedtoanswertheveryobjectionswhichOwenhadcommonly brought against himself. And though the same answers hadoftenoccurred tohim, theyhadnotpreviously affordedhimany relief.ButnowJehovah’stimeofmercyhadarrived,andthetruthwasreceived,notasthewordofman,butasthewordofthelivingandtrueGod.Thesermonwasaveryplainone—thepreacherwasneverknown—buttheeffectwasmightythroughtheblessingofGod.28AllinstrumentsareequallyefficientinthehandoftheGreatSpirit.Itisnotbymightnorbypower that theLord frequently effects thegreatestworks, butbymeans apparently feeble, and even contemptible.Calamywas amore eloquent and polished preacher than the country stranger.And yet, Owen had perhaps often heard him in vain. Had he leftAldermanbury church, as proposed, he might have been disappointedelsewhere; but he remained and enjoyed the blessing. The facts nowrecordedmayaffordencouragementandreproof,both toministersandhearers.Itmaynotalwaysbepracticabletohearwhomweadmire;butifheisamanofGod,aneminentblessingmayaccompanyhislabours.Thecountryministermayneverhaveknown,tillhearrivedinanotherworld,

thathehadbeeninstrumentalinrelievingthemindofJohnOwen.Anddoubtless, many similar occurrences are never known here. Howencouraging this is to the faithful labourer! It may appear strange tosome,thatthesametruthsshouldproduceaneffectatonetime,andnotanother. But those who are at all acquainted with the progress of thegospelamongmenwillnotbesurprised.ThesuccessofChristianity, inevery instance, is the effect of Divine sovereign influence; and that isexertedinamannerexceedinglymysterioustous.“Thewindblowswhereitwishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tellwhere it comesfrom,andwhereitgoes:soitiswitheveryonewhoisbornoftheSpirit.”Joh 3.8 The darkness of Owen’s mind was now happily removed; hishealth,whichhadbeen impairedbydepressionof spirits,was restored,andhewasfilledwithjoyandpeaceinbelieving.

41

29“Thesoundofpardonpierc’dhisstartledear.Hedroptatoncehisfettersandhisfear,Atransportglowsinallhelooksandspeaks.

Andthefirstthankfultearsbedewhischeeks.”42

By his own account, the long and heavy depression which Owen hadlaboured under, had greatly subdued his natural vanity and ambition.The circumstances of his conversion must have convinced him of theutter insufficiencyofmere learning toaccomplish thesalvationofmen.Hisownexperiencemusthave simplifiedhis viewof thegospel, andofthemodeofstatingittoothers;anditcontributedtoimpartthatspiritualunction to his preaching and writing, by which they are eminentlydistinguished.Whenorwherehebeganhis labours in theministry,wecannotdiscover. It isveryprobable thathebegan theminLondon,andabouttheperiodofthisremarkablechange—perhapsnotlongbeforehisappearanceasanauthor,inwhichcapacityweshallnowproceedtoviewhim.While living in Charter House yard, he published his “Display ofArminianism, etc.” It is a work which deserves attention on its ownaccount, from its being the first performance of our Author, and fromhaving contributed to lay the foundation of his future reputation. Theimprimatur is dated March 2nd, 1612. It is highly probable that theunhappy state of his own mind was occasioned by somemisunderstanding of the subjects which the Arminian controversyembraces;andthatthisledhimtosofullyinvestigatethem,asthistract

showshehaddone.30Asitappearedsoonafterhismindhadobtainedcomfort,agreatpartofitmusthavebeenwrittenbefore,orat leastso fullydigested inhismind,thathecouldsoonputittogetherafterhegotpossessionofthekeywhichunlocksmostofthedifficulties.TheArminiandiscussioninvolvesavarietyofimportantpoints,someofwhicharenotpeculiartoChristianity;theyhavebeenthefruitfulsourcesof fierce contention, Milton represents the fallen angels themselves asdisputingaboutsomeofthem,withnobettersuccessthanmen.“Othersapartsatonahillretir’dInthoughtmoreelevate;andreason’dhighOfProvidence,foreknowledge,willandfate,Fix’dfate,freewill,foreknowledgeabsolute;

Andfoundnoendinwand’ringmazeslost.”43

Thediscussionsoftheancientphilosophers—abouttheOrigoMali;44the

disputesoftheFathersandSchoolmen,andoftheJesuitsandJansenistsabout grace and predestination; and the altercations of modernphilosophers respecting liberty and necessity — are all related to theArminiancontroversy,andmayallbetracedtoacommoncause.Itisthedesire to know what God has not revealed, and the vain attempt toreconcile apparent difficulties in the government of heaven, with theconstitution ofman.What the dark ages couldnot conceal, nor poperyitself subdue, the Reformation was more likely to excite than toextinguish.Accordingly,theworkofLuther,“DeServoArbitrio”andthereply of Erasmus, “De Libero Arbitrio,” show how early these subjectsoccupied the attention of the Reformers, and with what keenness theyengagedintheirdiscussion.31Calvintookhighgroundonthiscontroversy;andbothbyhistalentsandlearning,was peculiarly fitted to explore the niceties of theological andmetaphysical debate. His leading views, which he stated with greatperspicuity, and defended with uncommon ability, were both morescripturalandphilosophicalthanthosetowhichtheywereopposed.Butinhisminordetailsandillustrationshehassometimesexpressedhimselfincautiously,andhasaffordedtoomuchroomforArminianstodispute,andforAntinomianstoabusehisdoctrines.

45

Long before the time of Arminius, some of the principles which hebrought forward,hadbeen introduced intotheLowCountries.But theyhadbeenprevented frommakingmuchprogressby thevigilanceof theclergy, and the opposition of the magistrates. When published byArminius, they experiencedboth support andopposition.Hedied afterthe controversy had raged with considerable fierceness, but before itassumed that formidableaspectwhich finally involved theStates in themostviolentcivilcommotions.Afterhisdeath,thedebatescontinuedtospreadoverHolland.ThesideoftheArminianswastakenbyEpiscopius,whobecame their leader, byGrotius andHoogerbeets; andopposedbyGomarus for religious reasons, and by Maurice, Prince of Orange, forpolitical reasons. The far-famed Synod of Dort was called to heal thedivisions,andtoreconcilethecontendingpartiesofthechurch.Asmighthave been expected, thismeasure completely failed, though it cost theStatestentonsofgold.TheArminianscomplainedthattheywerebrow-beaten and condemned instead of being heard; and for refusing tosubmit,theywereimprisonedandbanished.

46

32From Holland, the dispute was imported into Britain. Previous to theSynod of Dort, though individuals might have believed and taughtdifferently, Calvinism was the prevailing theological system of thiscountry. The complexion of the THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES is evidentlyCalvinistic.Theywereunderstood in this senseby their framers, as theBritish and theContinentalReformerswere almost all Predestinarians.ThissensewasaffixedtothembythesucceedingFathersoftheEnglishChurch, and by the body of the Puritans. It was among the ridiculousinconsistencies of James I to oppose the Arminians abroad, and tosupportthemathome.HewroteagainstArminius;protestedagainsttheappointmentofVorstius tosucceedhiminthedivinitychairofLeyden;sentdeputiestotheSynodofDorttogetthepartycondemned;andaboutthesametime,heusedmeansfor itsadvancement inEngland.In1616,he sent directions to the University of Oxford respecting the disputedpoints.In1622,orderswereissuedthatnoneunderthedegreeofbishopordeanshouldpreachonanyofthesetopics.TheArminianclergywerepromotedinthechurch,andtheirwritingsprotected.Thereasonsforthisinconsistency in James’s conduct are to be found in his love of flatteryand power. The English Arminians were, in general, high church —fawningcourtiers—everreadytoburnincenseatthealtaroftheking’s

supremacy,andtopreachtothemultitudehisdivinerighttodisposeoftheirpersonsandpropertiesashethoughtproper.

47

33What the father thus inconsistently supported, the son endeavoured toraisetocelebrity.InthereignofCharlesI,Arminianismcombinedwiththe doctrine of passive obedience, and respect for Popish ceremonies,becamethereligionofthecourt,andtheroadtoroyalfavour.ThewholeHighChurchparty,withLaudatitshead,rankedunderitsbanners,andsupported its authority by royal and episcopal patronage, and highcommission and star-chamber decisions. In a speech in the House ofCommons,November23rd,1640,SirEdwardDeeringsaid,“Truthissuppressed,andpopishpamphletsflyabroad,cumprivilegio.Witness theaudaciousandlibellingpamphletsagainsttruereligionbyPocklington,Heylin,Cosins,Studley,andmany

more;Inamenobishops,Ionlyadd,etc.”48

TheprogressofArminianisminEngland,andthecausesofthatprogress,are thus ingeniously noticed by Owen in the preface to this firstproductionofhispen.“Neverweresomanyprodigiouserrorsintroducedintoachurch,withsohighahand,andwithsolittleopposition,sinceChristianswereknownintheworld.ThechiefcauseItaketobethatwhichEneasSylviusgave,whymoremaintainedthatthePopeisabovetheCouncil, thanthattheCouncilisabovethePope.BecausePopesgavearchbishopricsandbishoprics,etc.;buttheCouncilssued informapauperis.And, therefore, theycouldscarcelygetanadvocate topleadtheir cause. The fates of our church having of late devolved the government of it onto mentaintedwith this poison, Arminianismbecame backedwith the powerful arguments of praiseandpreferment,andquicklybeatpoornakedtruthintoacorner.”

34The great object of thework is to give a view of the sentiments of theArminiansonthedecreesofGod,Divineforeknowledge,Providence,theresistibility of Divine grace, original sin; and, in short, all the leadingtopics of this important and extensive controversy.Owen extracts fromthe writings, chiefly of the continental divines, those passages whichcontainthemostexplicitdeclarationoftheirsentiments;andstateswhathadoccurredtohim,inthewayofanswer.EachchapterisconcludedbyatabularviewofthosepassagesofScripturewhichsupporttheorthodoxdoctrine,andquotationsfromArminianwritersthatseemtoopposeit.Itis, therefore,according to its title,ADisplayofArminianism,nota fulldiscussionofthecontroversy.HowfarmodernArminianswouldabidebytheviewswhicharegivenhereabouttheirsentiments,Icanscarcelytell;

but it cannot be doubted that Owen has given a fair account of theopinionsoftheirancestors.Thoughsomeofthepassageswhichhequotesshould not, perhaps, be rigidly interpreted, and should probably beexplained in connexion with other parts of their writings; enough stillremains to show that their doctrines were far removed from thesimplicityandpurityofScripture.PerhapsthebodyofmodernCalvinistswouldnotadopteveryexpressionandsentimentofOwen’sDisplay—notbecausetheyaremoreArminianizedthantheirfathers,butbecausetheyexpress themselves in fewer words, and are not so attached to thepeculiarphraseologyofscholasticdisputation.35The style of the Display is simpler, and less strongly marked with thepeculiarities of theAuthor, than some of his subsequent performances.Heprobablyhadmore time tocorrectandpolish it, thanheafterwardscould command. It occasionally reveals a considerable degree ofsharpnessandseverity;hemayhavebeenledtothis,notsomuchbytheasperityofhisowntemper,asbythelicentiousfreedomsofthewritersheopposes,andbyhisstrongconvictionsaboutthedangeroustendencyoftheiropinions.Itisthedutyofallwhoknowthegospel,andespeciallyofthosewhopreachit,towatchtheprogressoferror,andtoendeavourtoobstructit.ButitisofinfiniteimportancethatthisshouldbedonewithChristian temper, and by employing those weapons which Christianitysanctions.TheDisplayisdedicatedtotheCommitteeofReligion,andisappointedto be printed by the committee of the House of Commons, for theregulatingofprinting,andthepublishingofbooks.Inthededicationheexpresses himself very strongly about the evils which he apprehendedwouldcomeuponthestate,throughthedifferencesinthechurch,andheimplorestheParliament’sinterference.“Arethereanydisturbancesofthestate?”heasks.“Theyareusuallyattendedwithschismsandfactionsinthechurch;andthedivisionsofthechurcharetoooftenthesubversionofthe commonwealth.” Owen was destined soon to acquire more correctsentiments: — to see that no political divisions or disturbances in thekingdoms of the earth, should interrupt the peace and unity of thekingdomofChrist;andthatnootherremedyshouldbeemployedtocureerror,thantheapplicationoftruth.36

The first effect of this publication,was his presentation to the living ofFordham in Essex,

49 from the Committee for purging the church of

scandalous ministers, by the hands of a special messenger. Thesequestered incumbentwasRichardPully.According toWalker,hewas“apersonofgreatlearning,religion,andsobriety;butwasturnedouttomakeway for”onewhomheerroneously calls “an IndependentofNewEngland.”

50 The Committee members, it would appear, were of a

different opinion. The presentation was an honourable mark of theirapproval, and it did credit both to themselves and to our Author. Hisacceptance afforded much satisfaction to the parish and also to thesurrounding country. It is stated that, while here, an eminent blessingattendedhislabours.Manyfromotherparishesresortedtohearhim,andnotafew,throughtheblessingofGod,wereledtotheknowledgeofthetruth.Thefaithfulministerwillneverpassunrewarded.Inallsituations,God will acknowledge that portion of his own truth which is properlybroughtforward;andsealwithsuccessthatwhichhasthesanctionofhisauthority.SoonafterhehadtakenuphisresidenceinFordham,hemarriedhisfirstwife,whosenameissaidtohavebeenRooke.Hehadelevenchildrenbythis lady, all of whom died young, except one daughter, who marriedRogerKynaston,aWelshgentleman.Thematchprovinganunhappyone,shereturnedtoherfather’shouse,whereshediedofaconsumption.37NoparticularsremainaboutthisMrs.Owen.Eventheyearofherdeathcannot be ascertained; but she is said to have been a person of veryexcellentcharacter.

51,Mr.Gilbertalludes toher inhis thirdepitaphon

theDoctor,intheselines:—PrimaÆtatisVirilisconsorsMariaReidomesticaeperitestudiosa

RebusDeidomussetotumaddicendi,CopiamillifecitGratissimam.

CHAPTERII.Owen’s connexionwith thePresbyterianbody— its state at that time—Baxter’s accountof itsintolerance — Owen publishes his “Duty of Pastors and People” — His “Two Catechisms” —PreachesbeforeParliament—PublicationoftheDiscourse,andhisEssayonChurchGovernment—HisviewsofUniformityandToleration—LeavesFordham.

By accepting the living of Fordham, Owen formally connected himselfwith the Presbyterian bodywhich about that time enjoyed the greatestprosperityiteverarrivedatinEngland.Itisnotourobject,atpresent,toascertainwhetherPresbyterywastheformofgovernmentthatprevailedintheprimitivechurch.ButwebelieveitisgenerallyadmittedthatCalvinwasthefirst,afterthereformation,tobringitintonotice,andreduceittopractice.Whether this formof politywas suggested tohimby theCivilGovernment of Geneva, or entirely by the New Testament, will becreditedaccording towhethermenare theabettorsoropponentsofhissystem.Bethisasitmay,thePresbyterianismofBritainoriginatedintheschool ofGeneva.TheEnglish exiles, driven to that city of liberty fromtheir native country by the oppressions of popery and prelacy, werealienatedfromthesysteminwhichmostofthemhadbeeneducated,bytheconductof itssupportersaswellasby itsobviouscontrariety to thewordofGod.Theywere thusprepared toviewwitha favourable eye, acodeof governmentandworshipwhichhadmore support inScripture;whichprovidedagreaterdegreeofparityandpowerforalltheministersofthechurch;andwhichseemedtobeproductiveofalargeportion,bothofspiritualandtemporalgoodtomen.39TheadoptionofthissystembythereformedchurchesofHolland,France,Scotland,andpartofGermany,promoteditsinfluence,andincreaseditscelebrity.ThewritingsofCalvin,Beza, andother celebratedmenof thesame school, were extensively read, and their authority generallyrespected.The intercoursebetweenEnglandand thosecountries,whichwas greatly increased by the tyrannical measures of government,advanced the progress of its career in that quarter. The body of thePuritans was never exactly of the samemind on the subject of churchgovernment.Withoutdoubt,notafewofthemwererigidPresbyterians;butmanyofthemwouldgladlyhavesubmittedtoamodifiedEpiscopacy,suchasthatwhichArchbishopUsherrecommended.TheDivinerightofclassical Presbytery came to be contended for, chiefly after the Scotcharmy was brought into England, and when a uniformity of faith and

worshipinthethreekingdomsbegantobeenforced.Foraconsiderabletime,itappearedlikelytogaintheascendency,asmostofthosewhofelloff from Episcopacy (from their dissatisfaction with its forms) unitedthemselveswithit,thoughmanyofthemwerenotdisposedtoadmitallitspretensions.

52

Owen, so far as he was a Presbyterian, was one of this description.Speakingofhissentimentsatthisperiodofhislife,andofaTreatisethenpublished,whichweshallimmediatelynotice,hesays,40“Iwasthenayoungman,abouttheageoftwenty-sixortwenty-seven.ThecontroversybetweenIndependency andPresbyterywas then young also; nor, indeed,was it clearly understood byme;especiallyas statedon theCongregational side.Theconceptionsdelivered in theTreatisewerenot,asappears in the issue, suited to theopinionofonepartyor theother;but suchasoccurredtomyownnakedconsiderationofthings,withrelationtosomedifferencesthatwerethenupheldintheplacewhereIlived.Only,beingunacquaintedwiththeCongregationalway,Iprofessedmyself toowntheotherparty,knowingonly thatmyprinciplesweresuitedto theirjudgmentandprofession—havinglookedverylittlefurtherintothoseaffairsthanIwasledby

alloppositiontoEpiscopacyandceremonies.”53

Presbyterywas not established in England “byway of probation,”54 as

Neal expresses it, until 1645; and as presbyteries were not erected forsometimeafterthis,andinmanyplacesnevererected,itisnotprobablethat Owen was ever a member of a presbytery.

55 This circumstance,

togetherwithhissentimentsasstatedintheaboveextract,showsthathisconnexionwiththatbodywasmorenominalthanreal.Togiveacorrectviewofthestateofreligioninitaboutthistimeisnotaneasytask.Thepartiality of its friends has perhaps led them to exaggerate itsexcellencies,andthedislikeofitsenemieshasinducedthemtoaggravateand multiply its faults. It doubtless embraced many individuals,estimablefortheirpiety,andcelebratedfortheirlearning;andnotafewwhohadsufferedmuchinthecauseofGod.41Inabodywhichcontainedsomanyfaithfulpreachersofthetruth,theremust have been a large portion of genuine religion; although, from itsprinciples,manywereadmittedintofellowshipwithit,whoseprofessioncould not have borne a close investigation.

56 The testimony of Baxter,

whose opportunities of judgingwere abundant, andwhose partiality tothe Presbyterians secures him from the suspicion of misrepresenting

themisasfollows:—“ThepersonswhowerecalledPresbyterianswereeminentforlearning,sobriety,andpiety;andthepastors,socalled,werethosewhowentthroughtheworkoftheministry,indiligent,serious

preachingtothepeople,andedifyingmen’ssouls,andkeepingupreligionintheland.”57

—But“Idislikedthecourseofsomeofthemorerigidofthem,whodrewtoonearthewayofprelacy by grasping at a kind of secular power; not using it themselves, but binding themagistratestoconfiscateorimprisonmen,merelybecausetheywereexcommunicated;andsocorrupting the true discipline of the church, and turning the communion of saints into thecommunionofthemultitude,whomustkeepinthechurchagainsttheirwillsforfearofbeingundone in the world.Whereas aman whose conscience cannot feel a just excommunicationunlessitisbackedwithconfiscationorimprisonment,isnofittertobeamemberofaChristianchurch,thanacorpseisfittobeamemberofacorporation.

—Theycorrupt thedisciplineofChristbymixing itwithsecular force;and theyreproach thekeysorministerialpower,asifitwerenotworthastrawunlessthemagistrate’sswordenforcesit;andworstofall,theycorruptthechurchbyforcingintherabbleoftheunfit,andunwilling,andtherebytemptmanygodlyChristianstoschismsanddangerousseparations.

42“Tillmagistrateskeeptheswordthemselves,andlearntodenyittoeveryangryclergymanwhowoulddohisownworkby it, and leave them to theirownweapons— thewordandspiritual

keys;etvaleantquantumvalerepossunt58—thechurchshallneverhaveunityandpeace.And

IdislikedsomeofthePresbyterians:thattheywerenottenderenoughtodissentingbrethren;but toomuchagainstliberty,asotherswere toomuch for it;and thought todobyvotesand

number,thatwhichloveandreasonshouldhavedone.”59

Certainly the worst feature of Presbytery about this time, that whichexcitedthegreatestattention,andwhichultimatelyruinedthebody,wasits intolerance, or determined and persevering hostility to liberty ofconscience. The most celebrated Presbyterian divines, such as Calamyand Burgess, in their discourses before Parliament, representedtolerationas thehydraofschismsandheresies,andthe floodgate toallmannerof iniquityanddanger.Therefore, the civil authoritiesought toexert their utmost energy to put it down.

60 Their most distinguished

writersadvocatedtherightsofpersecution,andendeavouredtoreason,orshoutdownreligiousliberty.Withthisviewchiefly,Edwardsproducedhis“Gangrena,”andhis“Castingdownof the lastandstrongestholdofSatan,oraTreatiseagainstToleration.”!!!And—nottonotetheravingsofBastwick,andPaget,andVicars—itispainfultoquotetherespectablenamesofPrincipalBaillieofGlasgow,andSamuelRutherford,ProfessorofDivinityinSt.Andrews,asengagedinsupportingsobadacause.Theformerthroughouthis“Dissuasive,”revealshowdeterminedafoehewas,towhathecallsa“monstrous imagination.”

61The latterwroteaquarto

volumeoffourhundredpages“againstpretendedlibertyofconscience.”!!43ItwastheTrojanhorsewhosebowelswerefullofwarlikesectaries,andweaponsofdestruction.LikethefabledboxofPandora,ithadonlytobeopened to let loose upon the world all the ills which ever afflicted ourrace. It was the Diana, before whose shrine the motley groups ofdissentersfrompresbyterywererepresentedasmakingtheirmostdevoutprostrations.LetthefollowingspecimenshowthatIdonotcaricaturethepersonsofwhomIamspeaking:“ATolerationisthegranddesignofthedevil—hismasterpiece,andchiefengineheworksbyatthis time, to uphold his tottering kingdom. It is the most compendious, ready, sure way todestroyall religion, layallwaste, andbring inall evil. It is amost transcendent, catholic andfundamental evil for this kingdom of any that can be imagined. As original sin is the mostfundamentalsin,havingtheseedandspawnofallinit;soatolerationhasallerrorsinit,andallevils.ItisagainstthewholestreamandcurrentofScripturebothintheOldandNewTestament;bothinmattersoffaithandmanners;bothgeneralandparticularcommands.Itoverthrowsallrelations,political,ecclesiastical,andeconomical.Andwhereasotherevils,whetherofjudgmentorpractice,arebutagainstsomeoneortwoplacesofScriptureorrelation,thisisagainstall—this is theAbaddon,Apollyon, thedestroyerofall religion, theabominationofdesolationandastonishment,thelibertyofperdition,andthereforethedevilfollowsitnightandday,workingmightily inmanybywritingbooksfor it,andinotherways;—All thedevils inhell,andtheir

instrumentsbeingatworktopromoteatoleration.”62

44Had these been the sentiments of a fewprivate and violent individualsonly,itmighthavebeenpropertopassthembyasgivinganunfairviewof theprinciples or spirit of thepartywithwhich theywere connected.Butwhensimilarsentimentsand temperare revealed in thepublicandunitedproceedingsofthebody,thematterisverydifferent.Thatthiswasthe case with the Presbyterians at this time, is too evident frommanyfacts.ThePresbyterianparty in theWestminsterAssemblydefeated theattempt,recommendedbythecommitteeoftheLordsandCommons,topromoteaunion,ifpossible,withtheIndependents.Theyrefusedeventotolerate their churches. Baxter acknowledges that they were so littlesensible of their own infirmities, that they would not agree to toleratethosewhowerenotonlytolerable,butworthyinstrumentsandmembersin the churches.

63 When they found the Commons would not support

theirviolentandunreasonabledemandstosuppressallothersects,theybrought forward the Scotch Parliament to demand that their advice becomplied with, and to publish a declaration against toleration.

64 The

wholebodyoftheLondonministersaddresseda lettertotheAssembly,inwhichtheymostsolemnlydeclaredhowmuchthey“detestandabhorthe much endeavoured toleration.”

65 The “Jus divinum of church

government,” published by the same body, argues for “a compulsive,coactive,punitive,correctivepowertothepoliticalmagistrateinmattersof religion.”

66 The provincial assembly of London, the ministers of

WarwickshireandLancashire,publisheddeclarationsoraddressestothesamepurport.45From the latterbodywe selectpart of apaper signedbyeighty-fourofthem,andwhichtheyentitle“TheharmoniousconsentoftheLancashireministerswiththeirbrethrenatLondon:”“Atolerationwouldbeputtingaswordinamadman’shand;acupofpoisonintothehandofachild;alettinglooseofmadmenwithfire-brandsintheirhands;appointingacityofrefugeinmen’sconsciencesforthedeviltoflyto;layingastumblingblockbeforetheblind;proclaiminglibertytothewolvestocomeintoChrist’sfoldtopreyuponthelambs—neitherwoulditprovide

fortenderconsciences,butIwouldtakeawayallconscience.”67

Enoughonsounpleasantasubject.Whateverdifferencesexistedinthispartyonotherthings,aperfectharmonyseemstohaveprevailedonthis.Theywereevidentlystartledandalarmedat thestrangeappearancesofthe religious world. They apprehended nothing less than the utterdestruction of religion from the libertywhichmenhadbegun to enjoy.Their fearsmagnified the danger, and their attachment to the cause ofGodledthemtoexpressthemselvesintheunwarrantablemannerwhichwe have seen. It is only matter of thankfulness that they were notpermitted tograsp thesword.Otherwisesomethingmoredreadful thanintemperate language would probably have followed, had they reducedtheirlanguagetoaction.These violent sentiments and proceedings must have alienated manyfrom their cause, and led moderate men to doubt the foundation of asystemwhich seemed to require such support. These, in fact, were thethingswhichentirelyruinedtheirinterest.46“If the leading Presbyterians in the Assembly and city had come to a temper with theIndependents, on the footing of a limited toleration, they had in all likelihood prevented thedisputesbetweenthearmyandParliamentwhichweretheruinofboth;theymightthenhavesavedtheconstitution,andmadetheirownterms“withtheking;buttheywereenchantedwiththe beauties of covenantuniformity, and theDivine right of Presbytery, which, after all, the

Parliamentwouldnotadmitinitsfullextent.”68

It required, indeed, considerable enlargement of mind, to impartiallyexaminethecausesoftheconfusionofpractice,andconflictofopinion,which were then operating on the country — and to look through thetempest which was then howling, to a period of peace which wouldcertainly follow— to a timewhen the novelty of liberty would subsideintotheenjoymentofitssweets;andwhentheebullitionsofpartywouldgivewayto“quietnessandassuranceforever.”Miltontookthetrueviewof the state of the country when he exclaimed, in all the fervour andfelicityofthepoetandthepatriot,“MethinksIseeanobleandpuissantnationrousingherself,likeastrongmanaftersleep,and

shakingher invincible locks.MethinksIseeher,asaneagle,muing69hermightyyouth,and

kindlingherundazzledeyesat the fullmid-daybeam;purgingandunsealingher long-abusedsightatthefountainitselfofheavenlyradiance;whilethewholetribeoftimorousandflockingbirds,with those also that love the twilight, flutter about, amazed atwhat shemeans, and in

theirenviousgabblewouldprognosticateayearofsectsandschisms.”70

WehavenoreasontothinkthatOweneverapprovedofthesesentimentsandthisspiritinthebodywithwhichhewasapparentlyconnectedforatime.Itseemsratherprobablethatitsviolenttempertendedtoshakeanyattachmentheeverhadtoit.47Themoderationofhisviews,evenwhileaPresbyterian,appearedinthenextproductionofhispen.ItwaspublishednotlongafterhissettlementinFordham.Thiswas,“TheDutyofPastorsandPeopledistinguished—touchingtheadministrationofthingscommandedinReligion,especiallyconcerning the means to be used by the people of God, distinct fromChurch Officers, for the increasing of Divine knowledge in themselvesandothers,”etc.,4to,pp.56,1644-.Thoughithasthedateof1644,itwaspublishedin1643.

71Itisdedicatedtohis“Trulynobleandeverhonoured

friend,SirEdwardScotofScotsHall, inKent,Knightofthehonourableorder of the Bath.” In the dedication, he tells Sir Edward that he hadpublished it in consequence of the solicitations of some judiciousmenwho were acquainted with its contents; and he thanks him for manyfavours, especially for the free “proffer of an ecclesiastical preferment,thenvacant,andinhisdonation;”butthesecircumstanceshadpreventedhimfromaccepting.IknownothingofSirEdwardScot,butOwenmakesmost honourablemention of him in this address. Fromone passage, it

wouldseemhehadbeeninSirEdward’sfamilysometime;andasitdoescredittotheworthyKnight,andshowssomethingofthetroubledstateofthecountry,itisworthquoting.“Twice,byGod’sprovidence,haveIbeenwithyouwhenyourcountyhasbeeningreatdangertobe ruined; once by the horrid insurrection of a rude, godless multitude; and again by theinvasionofapotentenemyprevailingintheneighbourcounty.Atbothwhichtimes,besidesthegeneralcalamity justly feared,particularthreateningsweredailybroughttoyou.Underwhichsaddispensations,ImustcraveleavetosaythatIneversawmoreresolvedconstancy,ormorecheerful,unmovedChristiancarriageinanyman.”

48Hisobjectinthistreatiseistosteeramiddlecoursebetweenthosewhoascribedtoomuchpowertoministers,andthosewhogavetoomuchtothepeople.Hesays,“SomewouldhaveallChristiansbealmostministers,othersnonebutministersbeGod’sclergy:thosewouldgive thepeople thekeys, theseuse themto lock themoutof thechurch.Theoneascribing to them primarily all ecclesiastical power for ruling the congregation, the otherabridging themof theperformanceof spiritualduties forbuilding theirownsouls.As thoughtherewerenohabitableearthbetweenthevalley,Ialmostsaid,thepitofdemocraticconfusion,

andtheprecipitousrockofhierarchicaltyranny.”72

Hisdesign, therefore, is toshowhow“Thesacredcallingmayretain itsancient dignity, though the people of God not be deprived of theirChristianliberty.”

73

Inprosecutingthisdiscussionhedeclareshimself tobeof“thebeliefofthatformofchurchgovernmentwhichiscommonlycalledPresbyterial,inoppositiontoPrelaticalontheoneside,andthatwhichiscommonlycalledIndependentontheother.”

74Hewasthen,asappearsfromwhat

we have already quoted, very ignorant of independency, but wasmorenearly allied to it in sentiment than he himself knew.Hence, referringafterwardstothisverytract,hesays,“OnreviewofwhatIassertedthere,IfoundthatmyprinciplesweremoresuitedtowhatisthejudgmentandpracticeoftheCongregationalmen,thanthoseofthePresbyterian.

49Only,whereasIhadnotreceivedanyfurtherclearinformationinthesewaysoftheworshipofGod,which Ihavesincebeenengaged in, Iprofessedmyselfof thePresbyterian judgment, inoppositiontodemocraticalconfusion;andindeed,Idosostill,andsodoalltheCongregationalmeninEnglandthatIamacquaintedwith.Sothat,whenIcomparewhatIwrotethen,withmypresentjudgment,Iamscarcelyabletofindtheleastdifferencebetweenoneandtheother;only

amisapplicationofnamesandthingsbyme,givescountenancetothischarge.”75

An examination of the tract itself confirms this view of it. It is very

different from theReformedPastor of Baxter, or thePastoral Care ofBurnet.Both thesesmallworks,whichcontainmuch importantmatter,are occupied with stating and enforcing the duties of ministers; whileOwen’sisdevotedtopointingouttherightsanddutiesofthepeople.Thegreaterpartof it is employed inpreliminarydisquisition respecting thecondition of the people of God before the coming of Christ. It is onlytowardstheendofit,thathetreatstheirdutynow,inextraordinaryandordinarycircumstances.Withoutseemingtoadvocate laypreaching,hearguesfromvariousconsiderations,that“truthrevealedtoanyonecarriesalongwithitanimmoveablepersuasionofconscience,thatitoughttobepublishedand spoken toothers.”

76 FromActs8.1-4,he says it appears

“thatall the faithfulmembersof thechurch,beingthusdispersed,wenteverywhere preaching the word, having no warrant but the generalengagement of all Christians to further the propagation of Christ’skingdom.”

77 In extraordinary or peculiar circumstances, therefore, he

contendsthatitisthedutyofeverymantomakeknownasextensivelyaspossible,theportionoftruthwithwhichheisacquainted.50Inordinarycircumstances,hemaintainsthatitisthedutyofthepeopleofGod,“for the improving of knowledge, the increasing of charity, and the furtherance of that holycommunionthatoughttobeamongthebrethren,toassembletogetheroftheirownaccord,toconsideroneanother,toprovokeuntoloveandgoodworks,tostirupthegiftsthatareinthem,

yieldingandreceivingmutualconsolationbythefruitsoftheirmostholyfaith.”78

He endeavours to show that such practices soberly conducted, are notinterferenceswiththepastoraloffice;butought tobeencouragedbyalltheservantsofJesusChrist,asmuchcalculatedtopromotetheprogressofknowledgeandholiness.Whileheeverywhererevealssufficientrespectfortheinstitutionofthegospelministry,thereisnoneofthatselfishandnarrow jealousy of encroachment upon its rights; none of thatmorbidfearofitshonouranddignity;noneofthatsupercilioustreatmentofthepeople—theLaity—whohavesofrequentlybeendiscoveredbymeninoffice—thosewhosavourmoreof theprideofpower,and thespiritofcorporation,thantheliberalityofChristianity,anddisinterestedzealforthesalvationofmen.In the course of this Treatise, Owen twicementions a Latin tract, “DesacerdotioChristicontraArmin.Socin.etPapistas.”Besidestreatingthe

priesthoodofChrist,itseemstohavebeenintendedasananswertotheviews of the Dutch Remonstrants on Liberty of Prophesying. Thisproduction was designed, at first, for the satisfaction of a few privatefriends;andhetellsusitwas“nondumedito,”

79whenhepublishedhis

Duties of Pastor and People. Nor does it appear to have ever beenpublished — as before this could take place, his mind underwent animportantchangeonthesubjectofreligiousliberty.51As everything on this subject is interesting, the candid avowal of hischangeof sentimenton this important topic, contained in the followingpassage,isworthyofattention:—“Irememberaboutfifteenyearsago,thatmeetingwithalearnedfriend,wefellintosomedebateabout the liberty that began then to be claimed by men, differing from what had been(Episcopacy),andwhatwasthenlikelytobeestablished(Presbytery);having,atthattime,madenofurtherinquiryintothegroundsandreasonsofsuchlibertythanwhathadoccurredtomeinthewritingsoftheRemonstrants—Ideliveredmyjudgmentinoppositiontothelibertypleadedfor—whichwas then defended bymy learned friend.Notmany years after, discoursing thesamedifferencewith thesameperson,we found immediately thatwehadchangedstations; Iwaspleadingforanindulgenceofliberty,andheforrestraint.Whetherthatlearnedandworthypersonisofthesamemindnowthathewasthen,Idonotknowdirectly.MychangehereIown;myjudgmentisnotthesameinthisparticularthatitwasfourteenyearsago.Andinmychange,IhavegoodcompanywhomIneednotname.Iwillonlysay,itwasatleasttwelveyearsbefore

the Petition and Advice,80 in which the Parliament of the three nations has come to my

judgmentonit.”81

This passage exhibits the openness and candour of Owen in a veryinteresting light; and it also shows that his changes didnot follow, butpreceded the revolutionsofpublic opinion. Itmusthavebeenno smallgratificationtohimtoseehissentimentsafterwardsembracedbysolargeandenlightenedaportionofthecommunity.52Andit isgratifyingtothebiographerofOwentohaveit inhispowertostatethatthechangesofsentimentandprogressofpublicopinionduringmore than a century and a half since Owen’s alteration, so far fromdetecting themistakes, or exposing the danger of his sentiments, haveonlymore fully elucidated their importance,andestablished their truthbeyondcontroversy—and,hetrusts,alsobeyonddanger.’Tislibertyalone,thatgivestheflow’rOffleetinglifeitslustreandperfume;Andweareweedswithoutit.Allconstraint,Exceptwhatwisdomlaysonevilmen,

Isevil:hurtsthefaculties,impedesTheirprogressintheroadofscience;blindsTheeye-sightofDiscovery;andbegetsInthosethatsufferit,asordidmind,Bestial,ameagreintellect,unfit,Tobethetenantofman’snobleform.”—Cowper’sTask,B.v,

Previous to Owen’s introduction to the parish of Fordham, the parishitself and the surrounding country had been exceedingly neglected.Therefore,immediatelyuponhisobtainingtheliving,hesethimselfmostresolutely to correct the evils in which it was immersed. Publicly, andprivately,heappearstohavelabouredforthepeople’sgood.Amongothermeanswhichhe employed,was that of catechising them fromhouse tohouse; amode of instructionpeculiarly adapted to their condition, andwhichhasoftenbeenblessedbyGodtothesoulsofmen.Toenablehimtomore effectually prosecute this plan, in the end of the year 1645, hepublished, “The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, unfolded in twoshortCatechisms;inwhichthoseprinciplesofreligionareexplained,theknowledge of which is required by the late ordinance of Parliament,beforeanyareadmittedtotheLord’sSupper.”12mo.pp.60.53The first part of this small production he calls the lesser Catechism,intendedforyoungpersons,andtobecommittedtomemory;thesecond,the greater Catechism, designed for the instruction of the grown-uppeople, and to assist them in instructing their families. They are bothtolerablysimple,andonthewhole,well-adaptedtothepurposeforwhichtheywereprepared.TheAddress to his “LovingNeighbours andChristian Friends,” revealsthedeepanxietyhefeltfortheirspiritualwelfare,andnotessomeofthemeansheemployedtopromoteit.“Myheart’sdesireandrequesttoGodforyou,isthatyoumaybesaved.IsaythetruthinChristalso, I do not lie, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have greatheaviness,andcontinualsorrowinmyheart, forthoseamongyouwhoasyetwalkdisorderly,and not as befits the gospel — little labouring to acquaint themselves with the mystery ofgodliness.Youknow,brethren,howIhavebeenamongyouandinwhatmannerforthesefewyearspast;andhowIhavekeptbacknothingthatwasprofitabletoyou;butIhaveshownyouandtaughtyoupublicly,andfromhousetohouse,testifyingtoallrepentancetowardsGod,andfaithtowardsourLordJesusChrist.Withwhatsinceritythishasbeenperformedbyme;withwhatresultsandsuccessreceivedbyyou,GodtherighteousJudgewillonedaydeclare.Inthemeantime,thedesireofmyheartistobeservanttotheleastofyouintheworkoftheLord;anddo that in any way which I can conceive profitable to you, either in your persons or yourfamilies.”

This language shows howmuch hewas in earnest about hiswork, andrevealsthesamespiritualandbenevolentmindwhichhecultivatedandmaintainedtotheendofhiscourse.54BothCatechismsarestrictlyofadoctrinalnature:theomissionofmoraldutiesheexplains,bydeclaringhisintentiontopublish,inashorttime,anExpositionoftheLord’sPrayer,andtheTenCommandments,withtheArticles of the Creed, in the same form. Before this intention could beexecuted, however, hewas either removed from Fordham, or hismindhadundergoneachangewhichpreventedthefulfilmentofhispromise.The fame ofOwenwas now beginning to extend,which occasioned hisbeing called to appear in awider field of labour and influence.On thetwenty-ninthofApril,1646,beingthedayofthemonthlyfastobservedbyParliament,hewasappointedtopreachbeforethataugustassembly.Thesermon,whichwaspublishedbycommandoftheHouse,andforwhichhe received its thanks by Mr. Fenner and Sir Peter Wentworth, wasfoundedonActs16.9.Itisentitled,“Avisionofunchangeablefreemercy,insendingthemeansofgracetoundeservingsinners.”Itcontainsagreatvarietyofmatter,andtowardtheend,anearnestexpostulationaboutthedestitutestateofWales,andsomeotherpartsofthecountry.“WhenmannafellinthewildernessfromthehandoftheLord,”heexclaims,“everyonehadanequalshare.Iwouldtherewerenotnowtoogreataninequalitywheninthehandofman.Somehaveall,andothersnone;somesheepdailypickingthechoiceflowersofeverypasture,otherswanderinguponthebarrenmountains,withoutguideorfood.”

Hisdedicationof thesermontothe longParliament is inLatin;andonaccount of the high eulogium which it pronounces on that body, itdeservestobeintroducedhere.55“Amplissimo Senatui, etc., etc. To the most noble Senate, the most renowned assembly ofEngland;—mostdeservedlycelebratedthroughthewholeworld,andtobeheldineverlastingremembrancebyalltheinhabitantsofthisisland;—forstrenuously,andfaithfully,assertingtherightsofEnglishmen;— for recovering the libertyof their country,almost ruinedby thebaseattempts of some;— for administering justice boldly, equally,moderately, impartially;— fordissolvingthepowerofahierarchicaltyrannyinecclesiasticalaffairs,andabolishingthepopishnewlyinventedantichristianrites;—forrestoringtheprivilegesoftheChristianpeople;—forenjoying the powerful preservation of theMost High in all these, and in innumerable otherthings in council and war, at home and abroad: — To the illustrious, honourable, selectGentlemen of the Commons in Parliament assembled, this Discourse, humble, indeed, in itspretensions; but being preached before them by their desire, is now published by theircommand…”

It must be acknowledged that this is no ordinary praise. When weconsider the conduct of the Long Parliament up to this period, hownatural itwas for a lover of liberty, justice, and religion, to view all itsconduct in the most favourable light; and when we consider theadmissions in its favour,evenof itsenemies, the languageofOwenwilloccasion less surprise. Lord Clarendon acknowledges that, “there weremanygreatandworthypatriotsintheHouse,andaseminentasanyagehad ever produced — men of gravity, of wisdom, and of large andplentifulfortunes.”Hume,almostinthewordsofOwen,callsita“famousAssembly,whichhadfilledallEuropewiththerenownofitsactions.”56After this, it will not excite wonder that Milton should praise its“illustrious exploits against the breast of tyranny, and the prosperousissueofitsnobleandvalorouscounsels.”Withoutbestowingunlimitedorindiscriminateapproval, itmaybesafelyaffirmedthatitcomprehendedmanywhosesternintegrity,andhighindependenceofmind,wouldhavedone honour to the proudest periods of Roman glory. Many of itsmeasureshaveneverbeenexcelledinthewisdomwithwhichtheywereframed,theboldnesswithwhichtheywereadvocated,ortheintrepidityandperseverancewithwhichtheywereexecuted.ButthechiefvalueofOwen’sdiscoursenow,istheassistanceitaffordsusin tracing theprogressofhismindon someof the subjectswhich thenagitated the country, and at which we have already glanced. From theSermon, and a “CountryEssay for the practice ofChurchGovernment”annexed to it, it appears that though Owen still remained in thePresbyterian body, it could scarcely be said that he was of it. Thediscourseitselfcontainshisdecideddisapprovaloftheviewsandspiritofmanyinthatprofession.“Theyare,”hesays,“disturbedintheiroptics,orhavingfalseglasses,allthingsarerepresentedtothemindubiouscolours.Whicheverwaytheylook,theycanseenothingbuterrors,errorsofallsizes,sorts,sects,andsexes,frombeginningtoend;whichhavedeceivedsomemen—andnot of the worst — andmade them think that all before was nothing, in comparison to the

presentconfusion.”82

ReferringtothesamethingintheEssay,hesays:“Oncemore,uniformityhas become the touchstone among most men, however different theirpersuasions otherwise. Dissent is the only crime; andwhere that is allthatisculpable,itshallbemadeallthatisso.”

83

57About this time, it appears that he had much discussion with theministersofthecountyofEssex,onthesubjectofChurchGovernment.

84

Thisoccasionedhisbeingveryvariouslyrepresented,andledhimatthesuggestion of others to put together, in a great hurry, his thoughts onChurchGovernment,andpublishthemwithhissermon.

85Thesubstance

of it had a goodwhile before been circulated inmanuscript;86 and the

great object of it is to try to unite both parties — Presbyterian andIndependent—orat least tomoderate theirzeal.Whileheprofesses tobelong to, or hold some of the principles of the former,

87 he explicitly

declares,at the same time, thathe “knewnochurchgovernment in theworld, already established, ofwhich hewas convinced of the truth andnecessity inallparticulars.”

88Thedetailsof theplan,however, contain

moreofIndependencythanoftheothersystem;perhaps,asmuchofitascouldbeactedon,alongwithobediencetoParliamentaryinjunctions.Healso intimates his conviction that “all national disputes about ChurchGovernmentwouldprovebirthlesstympanies.”

89

The tract contains an explicit declaration of his sentiments on twoimportant subjects: the folly and uselessness of contention aboutconformity,and thenecessityand importanceof toleration.Heprotestsagainst giving men odious appellations on account of their religioussentiments.58And he exposes the absurdity of that species of exaggeration in whichbothpartiesthenindulged.“Ourlittledifferencesmaybemetateverystall,andintoomanypulpits,swelledbyunbefittingexpressionstosuchaformidablebulk,thatpoorcreaturesarestartledattheirhorridlooksandappearance;whileourownpersuasionsaresetoutinsilkenwordsandgorgeousapparel,as ifwe sent them into the world a-wooing.Hence, whatever it is, itmust be temple-building,—God’sgovernment,—Christ’ssceptre,throne,kingdom,—thisistheonlyway.Andforwantofwhich,errors,heresies,andsinsspringamongus;plagues,judgments,punishmentscomeuponus. Such bigwords as these havemade us believe thatwe aremortal adversaries— that one

kingdom,communion,andheaven,cannotholdus.”90

He had refused, it appears, to subscribe petitions to Parliament aboutChurch Government, which gave great offence; but he assigns verysatisfactory reasons for it: reasons, however, that show he was faralienatedfromthereligiouspartytheninpower.

Owenhadmade great advances on the subject of toleration, thoughhehadnotyetarrivedattheperfectionofhissentimentsonthissubject.“Tolerationisthealmsofauthority;yetmenwhobegforitthinksomuchisatleasttheirdue.Inever knew someone to contend earnestly for a toleration of dissenters, who was not onehimself; nor any contend for their suppression, who were not themselves of the persuasion

whichprevails.”91

Hedoesnot,however,maintainthenecessityofuniversaltoleration.Andyet,whenhislimitationscometobeexamined,andthemeanshewouldemploy in repressing error and supporting truth are attended to, hisviewsare,onthewhole,highlyenlightenedandliberal.59Heusessomestronglanguageabouttheiniquityofputtingmentodeathforheresy,declaringthathe“hadalmostsaid,itwouldbefortheinterestofmoralitytoconsentgenerallytothepersecutionofamanmaintainingsuchadestructiveopinion.”“Iknow,”hesays,“theusualpretencesforpersecution:”—“suchathingisblasphemy:”

butsearchtheScriptures,lookatthedefinitionsofdivines,andyouwillfindheresyinwhateverheadofreligionitmaybe,andblasphemyisverydifferent.—“Tospreadsucherrorswillbedestructivetosouls.”

So are many things which yet are not punishable with death; let him who thinks so go killPagansandMahometans.—“Suchaheresyisacanker.”

But it isaspiritual one; let it bepreventedby spiritualmeans.Cuttingoffmen’sheads isnoproperremedyforit.Ifstatephysiciansthinkotherwise,Iwillsaynomore,exceptthatIamnot

ofthecollege.”92

Thereisaprodigiouscontrastbetweenthesesentiments,andthoseofthePresbyterianwritersquotedinthischapter.TheirviolenceandilliberalityappearmoredreadfulandimproperwhenbroughtintocontactwiththemoderationandliberalityofOwen.Hismindwasrapidlymaturingintheknowledgeof thegreatprinciplesof civilandreligious freedom;andbyadvocating it, he was destined to acquire for himself a distinguishedreputation, and to conferuponhis country amost invaluable boon.Hewas already, in the career of discovery, advanced considerably beyondmostmenofhistime.60Undismayedbythecollisionsanddisorderswhichseemedtoariseoutofthe enjoyment of liberty, his generous soul exulted in the importantblessing, and confidently anticipated from it themost gloriousultimate

results. Satisfied that the cause of God did not require the support ofman’spunyarm,northevengeanceofhiswrath,hefearlesslycommittedit toHimwho is engaged topreserve it, andwhohas said, “Vengeancebelongstome;Iwillrepay.”Rom12.19

On a report that the sequestered incumbent of Fordhamwas dead, thepatronpresentedanothertotheliving,anddispossessedOwen.Itwouldappearfromthis,thatinsuchcasesParliamentarypresentationsdidnotpermanently interfere with the rights of the patron; and that a personpresentedintheplaceofsomeonewhowasejectedforinsufficiency,heldtheparishonlyduringthelifeofthesequesteredminister.Withthelossof Fordham, terminated Owen’s connexion with the Presbyterians. Hismindhadbeeninastateofpreparationforthisforsometime.Every change of religious sentiment is important to the person whomakesit,andoughttobegoneintowithcautionanddeliberation.Tobegiventochangeisagreatevil,andindicatesaweakandunsettledmind.On the other hand, to be afraid of change is frequently the result ofindifference or sinful apprehension of consequences. It is the duty ofevery Christian to follow the teaching of the Spirit in the word ofrevelation, and to recollect that he must be accountable for hisconvictionsintheend.Theattempttosmotherthemisalwaysimproper;andwhensuccessful,itmustinjurethereligiousfeelingsoftheirsubject.Toallowhopesorfearsofaworldlynaturetoconquerourpersuasionofwhat thewordofGod requires, is to forget the important intimationofourLord,—thatifanythingislovedmorethanHe,itisimpossibletobehisdisciple.61Bysuchconduct, thetribulationsof thekingdommayoftenbeavoided;butitsconsolationsandrewardswillalsobelost.“Ifanymanservesme,lethimfollowme;andwhereIam,thereshallmyservantbealso;Ifanymanservesme,myFatherwillhonourhim.”Joh12.26

CHAPTERIII.Owen’s settlement at Coggeshall — View of Independency — The Brownists — Causes whichretarded and promoted the progress of Independency in England — Owen becomes anIndependent— Publishes Eshcol — A Treatise on Redemption—His views on this subject —Controversyoccasionedbyit—PublishestwoDiscoursesonthedeliveranceofEssex—Remarksonsomesentimentscontainedinthem.

OwenbeingdeprivedofFordhamwasattendedwithno loss,eitherofapecuniaryorspiritualnature.AssoonasthepeopleofCoggeshall,whichisonlyaboutfivemilesdistantfromFordham,heardofit,theysenthimapressing invitation to become their minister; to which the Earl ofWarwick, the patron, immediately acceded by presenting him with theliving.CoggeshallisaconsiderablemarkettowninEssex,aboutforty-fivemilesdistantfromLondon,andwasonceamanufacturingplaceofsomenote.Thechurch,which is still standing, isaspaciousand loftyedifice,dedicated to St. Peter; and the pulpit inwhichOwenpreached, thoughnotnowused,stillremains.

93

His immediate predecessors in this place were John and ObadiahSedgwick, brothers, who successively occupied this charge. They wererespectablePresbyterianministers, andauthorsof variousworkswhichwere then extensively read. The latter, whom Owen succeeded, was amember of the Assembly; he became preacher at St. Paul’s CoventGarden, 1646; was in 1653 appointed one of the Tryers, and died atMarlborough,hisnativeplace,towhichhehadretiredafterresigningallhisprefermentsin1658.

94

63Coggeshall affordedOwen amore extensive field of usefulness than hehad enjoyed at Fordham. The congregation consisted of nearly twothousandpersons;whoweregenerallysober,religious,andintelligent.Avery intimate and ardent attachment soon tookplace betweenhimandthem, which was productive ofmuchmutual satisfaction. Hisministrywas attended with considerable success; and nothing, probably, butcircumstanceswhichhecouldnotcontrol,wouldhaveremovedhimfromthisbelovedflock.ItwasherethathebegantoactasanIndependentorCongregationalist, by forming a church on the principles of thatprofession. Before stating the circumstances which produced Owen’sconnexionwith this body of Christians, I trust it will not be deemed adigressiontogiveabriefsketchofitssentiments,anditshistoryuptothe

periodofhisjoiningit.The distinguishing principle of Independency may be expressed in asinglesentence;namely,ThatachurchofChristisavoluntarysocietyofChristians, regularly assembling in one place, and with its officerspossessingthefullpowerofgovernment,worship,anddisciplineinitself.Asavoluntarysocietynomancan,oroughttobecompelledtojoinit;norcan it be compelled by any external authority to receive, or retain, anyindividualinitscommunion.AsaChristiansocietynonearefittoenjoyits privileges, except those who appear to have believed the truth,imbibed the spirit, and submitted to the authority of Christ. To admitpersons of a different description,must tend to defeat the object of itsassociation, which is entirely of a spiritual nature, and to introducecorruption and disorder. It is a regular, and not an ambulatory oroccasionalassembly.64Forconductingitsspiritualoffices,bishopsorpastorsareappointed;anddeacons or servants to manage its few temporal concerns. Withoutpersons suitably qualified for these duties, and conscientiouslydischarging them, its constitution must be imperfect, and all itsprocedurewillbemarkedwithirregularityanddisorder.Ithasthepowerofconductingitsworshipinsuchamannerasmay,consistentlywiththeScriptures, most tend to general edification. In its government anddiscipline, it is accountable to theGreatHeadof the church,butnot toany other tribunal. This view of the character and constitution of achurch, it is presumed, is characterised by that simplicity whichdistinguisheseveryarrangementinthekingdomofChrist;itisadaptedtothe endlessly diversified circumstances in which Christianity may beplacedintheworld;itanswerseverypurposeofreligiousassociation;andit is supportedby the generalprinciples, theparticularprecepts, or therecordedexampleoftheapostlesandprimitivebelievers.Asocietyofthisdescription can bemanaged only by the authority of the word of God,cannotbecompelledtoreceivethecommandmentsofmenfordoctrines,and can never allow alliance with or incorporation into a temporalkingdom. It is our object to state, not to advocate at present, theprinciples of Independency.

95 Among its friends, there have been

diversities of judgment on minor points, but every consistentIndependenthasheldsubstantiallythesentimentsexpressedabove.

65Others, aswell as Independents, have successfully shown that thiswasthe constitution of the primitive churches for at least the two firstcenturiesoftheChristianera.

96Itappearsgraduallytohavemergedina

species of Episcopacy, and was finally swallowed up with everythingvaluable in Christianity, in the vortex of papal abomination. Theconstitution of the church was among the last subjects the Reformerswerelikelytostudy,andfromtheirpeculiarcircumstances,theonetheywere most likely to misunderstand. Believing, as they did, thatChristianity could scarcely exist without state patronage, and thatconscience was the subject of human legislation, the simple form ofIndependencywasnotlikelytooccurtothem;orifitdidoccur,itwouldbe speedily rejectedasunsuitable to the stateof the church, andof theworld.As far as a name can fasten reproach, it has often been attempted torendertheIndependentsodiousbytracingtheirorigintoRobertBrownwho, after having professed the sentiments of the body, and sufferedgrievouslyforthem,returnedtothebosomoftheChurchofEngland,anddiedmiserablyataveryadvancedage.

97AlthoughBrownwas,foratime,

a very zealous defender of this form of ecclesiastical polity, there is noreasonforascribingtohim,eitherthemeritorthedisgraceoforiginatingit.Longbeforehewasheardof,perhapsbeforehewasborn,therewerepersonsinEnglandwhoheldandactedonthesesentimentsasfaraswaspracticableintheircircumstances.66Bolton,thoughnotthefirstinthisway,wasanelderofaseparatechurchinthebeginningofQueenElizabeth’sdays,

98Penrysaysinhisaddressto

QueenElizabeth, “IfwehadQueenMary’sdays, I thinkwewouldhavebeenasflourishingachurchtothisdayaseverany;foritiswellknownthatthereweretheninLondon,andelsewhereinexile,moreflourishingchurches than any tolerated by your authority.”

99 In the year 1567, a

number of persons were imprisoned belonging to a society of about ahundred,whoappeartohavebeenofthispersuasion.

100Inaspeechmade

by Sir Walter Raleigh in the House of Commons, 1692, on a law totransport the Brownists, he observes this: “If two or three thousandBrownistsmeetattheseaside,atwhosechargewilltheybetransported?

Orwherewillyousendthem?Iamsorryforit,butIamafraidtherearenearly twenty thousand of them in England. And when they are gone,whowillmaintaintheirwivesandchildren?”

101Iftheirnumberwassuch

atthisdate,theymusthavebeeninthecountrymanyyearsbefore.The Brownists, as they have been nicknamed, were treated with greatseverity both by Churchmen and Non-conformists. They were the firstconsistent dissenters from the Church of England, though theyundoubtedlycarriedsomethingsfurtherthanmoderatemeninmoderatetimeswouldapprove.Therewereafewforwardfieryspiritsamongthem,who expressed themselves with too much asperity of others. Thisproduceddiscordamongthemselves,andexposedthemtothevengeanceof their adversaries who, with an equal lack of religion and humanity,gloriedovertheirfaultsandinsultedtheirmisfortunes.67Inpalliationoftheirrealorsupposedimproprieties,however,muchmaybe said. They were placed in circumstances entirely new, and had noexperience in the mode of managing the principles they had adopted.They were surrounded by enemies, whose conduct often tended toinflame and exasperate, but seldom to enlighten or convince. The evilsthey had witnessed and endured in a worldly persecuting hierarchy,drovethemtothefurthestlengththeycouldgoinoppositiontoit.Someof them were men of learning, and the body of them were men ofprinciple who rejoiced to be counted worthy to suffer for the sake ofChrist.ThenamesofAinsworth,andCanne,andRobinson,willalwaysbecherishedwithrespectbytheloversofsacredliterature.AndthesoulsofCopping and Thacker, Greenwood and Barrow, Penry and Dennis, arenow before the altar above, for theword of God, and the testimony ofJesusChrist.Menwhosufferedthelossofallthingsforconscience’sake,and who loved not their lives unto death, should not be wantonlyreproached. It especially ill becomes thosewho belong to a communitywhich arose out of the ashes of Brownism, and which profited by itsmistakesanditssufferings,tojoinwithothersinridiculingordefamingit.Itshouldberecollectedtoo,thatthechiefaccountswhichwehaveofthe Brownists are from the pens of their adversaries. Such testimonyshould always be received with caution. And when we perceive thevituperation,indecency,andpalpableinjusticewhichprevail inmanyofthepublications issuedagainst thismuch-hated sect,wemust conclude

thatsuchauthoritiesasPagetandEdwards,andeventhoseofBaillieandHall,arenotentitledtoimplicitdeference.68Such as they were, the principles of this body obtained considerablepublicity before the end of the sixteenth century. A variety of spiritedpamphlets, chiefly anonymous, were published by members of it; andchurcheswereformedwhichmetmostlyinprivate,tillbytheActof1593,those who survived the effects of dungeons and gibbets,

102 were

condemned to indiscriminate banishment. Most of them retired toHolland, which was then the land of liberty; and in Rotterdam,Middleburgh,Leyden,Amsterdam,andArnheim,theywerepermittedtoconstitute churches according to their ownmodel. There, in 1596, theypublished a Confession of their Faith, in Latin and English, andaddressedittotheContinentalandBritishUniversities.TheirconductinHollandseemstohavebeeningeneralveryexemplary,tillmostofthemmovedtoNewEngland,andfoundedthat flourishingcolonyintowhichthey introduced those enlightened principles of religious liberty whichhaveobtainedsofirmanestablishmentinAmerica.Mr.JohnRobinson,whowaseducatedatCambridge,andbeneficednearYarmouth,withsomeofhispeople,renouncedtheirconnexionwiththeChurchofEngland,andmovedtoHollandwherehebecamepastoroftheCongregationalChurchatLeyden,about1609.SogreatwasthenumberofEnglish exiles at this place, that the church at one time consisted ofthree hundred members. According to the testimony of friends andenemies,Robinsonwasalearned,amiable,anddevotedservantofChrist;and the church under him seems to have merited and enjoyed a highChristiancharacter.

103

69WhileRobinsonwasatLeyden,Mr.HenryJacob,anotherEnglishexile,ofeminentlearningandtalents,waspastorofthechurchatMiddleburgh.These two excellent men were assisted by the celebrated Dr. WilliamAmes, better known by his Latin name, Amesius. With distinguishedreputation,hehad filled theDivinityChairofFraneker formanyyears.Afterwards he became joint pastor of the Congregational Church atRotterdam, and colleague to the unfortunate Hugh Peters. These menadopted those views of fellowship and Government which have since

distinguishedthebodyofBritishIndependents.104

Various circumstances concurred to induce Mr. Jacob to return to hisnative country about 1616, where he immediately set about forming aChurch in London, on Congregational principles. This is generallythoughttohavebeenthefirstChurchofthisdescriptioninEngland;butEdwardsassertsthattheChurchatDuckenfield,inCheshire,wasformedbefore any of the exiles cameover fromHolland.Whenwe reflect howextensivelytheseprinciplesweredisseminatedthroughoutEngland,itisprobablethatinmanypartsofittherewerepersonsreadytoembracethefirst opportunity of reducing topractice the sentimentswhich theyhadpreviouslyreceived.Itmaywellbesupposedthat theprogressof theIndependentChurchesduring the despotic reigns of James and Charles,must have been veryslow.Ingeneral,theywereobligedtomeetprivately;andeventhen,theywere liable to frequentandviolent interruptions.Mr.Jacob’s church inLondon, however, seems to have enjoyed a continuity of existencethrough most of this period, and was favoured with the labours of asuccessionofexcellentmen.Mr.Jacobhimselfcontinuedpastortill1621,when,withtheconsentoftheChurch,hemovedtoVirginia.70HewassucceededbyMr.JohnLathorp,whoremainedpastor till1636,whentheoppressionsofthetimesdrovehimandanumberofthechurch,to take refuge in America. His successor was Mr. Henry Jessey, whocontinuedinofficetillthetimeofwhichwearenowwriting.

105

Various causes combined after 1640 to promote the increase andrespectabilityoftheIndependentbodythroughoutEngland.Thestateofthe country became favourable to freedom of inquiry on religioussubjects. A very general disgust prevailed towards establishedEpiscopacy, which had been long excited by the conduct both of thechurch and the court. Respect for old established forms and receivedopinions rapidly gaveway; and theminds ofmen received an impulse,whichinmanyinstancesnodoubt,ledtoerrorandextravagance.Butonthe whole, it was favourable to the progress of truth. The influence oferrorisneversodestructiveaswhenitssubjectsareinastateoftorporand unconcern. The wildness of fanaticism, and the uproar ofpersecution,arenot sounfavourable to themarchofknowledge,as the

gloomysecurityofabigotedsuperstition.Intheonecase,somegoodwillappear amidstmuch evil; in the other case, thewholemass is sunk inhopelessanddeathlikeapathy.The return, at this time, ofmany individuals fromHolland,where theyhad long been exiled on account of their religious sentiments, excitedattention to Congregational principles. Many of those who had leftEngland chiefly from dissatisfaction with the forms and spirit ofEpiscopacy,hadbecomeIndependentsinHolland.71This change had been effected not so much by the zeal of the partypreviously settled there, as by the opportunity afforded during theirresidence in that country, to study the Scriptures unbiased by theinfluence of an established system, and freed from all temptations of aworldly nature. Such at least is the account given of their change byGoodwin, Nye, Burroughs, Simpson, and Bridge, in their celebratedApologetical Narrative, presented to theWestminster Assembly.

106 The

return of such persons, and their influence among their former friendsandflocks,musthavecreatedaconsiderablesensation.Bythistimetoo,theCongregationalcausehadobtainedafirmfootinginNewEngland,andchurchesthereweregrowingupandflourishingunderitsauspices.Americanpamphletswereimported,whichdisseminatedthesentimentsof the churches in thatquarter.Thus theheresy,whichhadbeen expelled fromEngland, returnedwith the increased strength of atransatlantic cultivation, and the publications of Cotton and Hooker,NortonandMather,werecirculatedthroughoutEngland,andduringthiswritinganddisputingperiod,producedamightyeffect.Another thingwhich contributedgreatly to the spreadof Independencywas the meeting and transactions of the Westminster Assembly. Thiscelebrated bodymet by appointment of Parliament on the first of July1648,andcontinuedtomeetwithmoreorlessregularitytillthetwenty-secondofFebruary1648-9,havingheldelevenhundredandsixty-threesessions during that time. It consisted of a number of Ministers andLaymen of various descriptions, chosen by Parliament to assist it, bycounselandadvice,butinvestedwithnopowerorauthority.72It was nearly of one mind on doctrinal subjects; but of very different

sentiments on church government and discipline. Some were decidedEpiscopalians;afewwereErastians,

107ormenofnofixedsentimentson

thesesubjects.Atthebeginning,thebodywasmoderateConformists;butpushedonby theScotchCommissioners, theywouldat lastbesatisfiedwithnothing short of theDivine right of Presbytery, and aCovenanteduniformity. Ten or eleven members were wholly or partiallyIndependents.

108 The character of the Assembly has been variously

represented. Without any question, it comprised a large portion ofreligionand learning;yet itsproceedingswereoftenmarkedwith thoseimperfections which uniformly attach to all Assemblies of uninspiredmen. The debates which occurred in this body on the subject ofgovernment and discipline, called forth the strength both of thePresbyteriansandtheIndependentsonalltheleadingquestionsinwhichthe twosystemsdiffer.Manyand longwere thediscussionswhich tookplace, both in writing and by speech. As might be expected, theIndependentswereinvariablyout-voted;butitwillnotbesupposedthatanIndependentwouldadmitthattheywereout-reasoned.73TheleadersoftheIndependentpartyweremenofasprofoundlearning,talents,andpietyasanyofwhomtheoppositesidecouldboast;andtheirinvincible patience, considering the opposition they had to encounter,deserves to be honourably mentioned. Truth never suffers fromdiscussion.ThepublicationoftheAssembly’sdebates,andthepamphletswhichtheyoccasioned,diffusedinformationonthedisputedpoints,andincreasedthenumberofdissentersfromPresbyteryandEpiscopacy.Whatever is due to these causes, it would be wrong to ascribe theprogressofIndependencyentirely to their influence.Therewasanother—themostimportantofthewhole.Butinstatingthis,Imustborrowthewordsofothers,toescapethechargeofpartiality.“TherapidprogressoftheIndependents,”saystheimpartialMosheim,“wasnodoubtowingtoavarietyofcauses;amongwhichjusticeobligesustoreckonthelearningoftheirteachers,andtheregularityandsanctityoftheirmanners.”

109This

candidadmissionofMosheimiscorroboratedbythetestimonyofBaxter,whowasveryfarfrombeingafriendtoIndependency.“Isaw,”hesays,“thatmost of themwere zealous, and verymany learned, discreet andgodlymen,andfit tobeveryserviceable intheChurch.—Also,Isawacommendable care of serious holiness and discipline in most of the

IndependentChurches.”110

Such were some of the causes which promoted the increase andrespectabilityofthisbody,shortlybeforeOwenconnectedhimselfwithit.Itwasneitheritsnumbernoritsrespectability,however,whichproducedhisadoptionofitssentiments,aswillimmediatelyappear.Thefollowingaccount is given by Baillie of its state in 1646, the very time at whichOwenjoinedit.74Itpartakesofthecolouringofthatwriter’spartyprejudices;butisonthewholebynomeansdiscreditabletotheIndependents,thoughheascribestopoliticalmanagement,whatmaybemoreeasilyaccountedforfromtheoperationofthecausesalreadyenumerated.“Of all the bypaths inwhich thewanderers of our time are pleased towalk, this is themostconsiderable;notforthenumber,butforthequalityoftheerringpersons.Therearefewofthenotedsectswhicharenotagreatdealmorenumerous;butwhat thisway lacks innumber, itsuppliesbytheweightofitsfollowers.Afterfiveyears’endeavoursandgreatindustry,withinthelinesof thecity’scommunication, theyaresaidtoasyetconsistofmuchwithinonethousandpersons—men,women,andallwhotothisdayhaveputthemselvesinanyknowncongregationbeingreckonedofthatway.Butsettingasidenumberforotherrespects,theyareofsoeminentacondition,thatnotanynoralltherestofthesectsarecomparabletothem.FortheyhavebeensowiseastoengagetotheirpartysomeofthechiefnotedinbothhousesofParliament,intheAssemblyofdivines, in theArmy, in the cityandcountry committees; all ofwhom theydailymanagewithsuchdexterityanddiligenceforthebenefitoftheircause,thattheeyesoftheworld

begintofalluponthemmorethanuponalltheirfellows.”111

“Contrary to the progress of other sects,” says a ScotchHistorian, “theIndependent systemwas first addressed, and apparently recommendedbyitstoleratingprinciples,tothehigherordersofsociallife.Itwasintheprogressivestateofthesect,whenindangerfromthepersecutingSpiritof the Presbyterians, that it descended to the lower classes of thecommunity,whereothersectariesbegintheircareer.”

112

75ThePresbyterianinterestwasratherdecliningaboutthistime.Thisarosechieflyfromitsextremeviolenceandinveteratehostilitytothetolerationofallotherparties.ThepeopleofEnglandwerenotgenerallypreparedtoenforcetheuniformityforwhichitcontended;andasnothingelsewouldsatisfy,thewholeoftheothersectsagreedandunitedtoresistit,howevertheydifferedfromeachother.AsthePresbyteriancausedeclined,thatoftheIndependentsrose—tillintheend,theformer,strugglingforpower,

entirely lost its influence; and the latter, seeking existence, acquiredascendency.TheprogressofOwen’smindonthesubjectofChurchGovernmenthasalready been noted. For a time he appears to have hesitated betweenPresbyteryandIndependency.Itfortunatelyhappensthatwecangiveanaccount of the circumstances which led to his decided adoption of thelatter system in his own words. The following passage is peculiarlyimportant.“Not long after [the publication of his Duties of Pastor and People] I setmyself seriously toinquireintothecontroversiesthenhotlyagitatedinthesenations.Iwasnotacquaintedwithanyoneperson,ministerorotheroftheCongregationalway;norhadItomyknowledgeseenanymorethanoneinmylife.

76My acquaintance lay wholly with ministers and people of the Presbyterian way. But sundrybooks being published on either side, I perused and compared themwith the Scriptures andwithoneanother,asIreceivedabilityfromGod.Afterageneralviewofthem,aswasmymannerinothercontroversies,Ifixedononetotakeunderparticularconsideration,whichseemedmostmethodically and strongly to maintain what was contrary, as I thought, to my presentpersuasion. This was Mr. Cotton’s book ‘Of the Keys.’ I engaged in the examination andconfutationof it,merelyformyownsatisfaction,withwhatdiligenceandsincerityIwasable.WhatprogressImade in thatundertakingIcanmanifest toanyoneby thediscoursesonthat

subject,andcriticisms113onthatbook,yetabidingbyme.Inthepursuitandmanagementof

this work, quite beside and contrary to my expectations at a time in which I could expectnothing on that account but ruin in this world, without the knowledge, or advice of, orconference with any one person of that judgement, I was prevailed on to receive thoseprincipleswhichIthoughtIhadsetmyselfinoppositionto.Andindeed,thiswayofimpartiallyexaminingallthingsbytheword,comparingcauseswithcauses,andthingswiththings,layingasideallprejudicedrespectstopersonsorpresenttraditions,isacoursethatIwouldadmonish

alltobewareof,whowouldavoidthedangerofbeingmadeIndependents.”114

InanswertoCawdry’schargesofinconsistency,heexpresseshimselfonthissubjectagain,asfollows:77“Be it here declared then, that at one time I apprehended the Presbyterial, SynodicalGovernmentofChurches,asfittobereceivedandwalkedin(whenIdidnotknowifitalignedwiththoseprincipleswhichIhadtakenup,uponmybestinquiryintothewordofGod).InowprofessmyselftobesatisfiedthatIwasthenunderamistake;andIdonowown,andIhavefor

manyyearslivedin,thewayandpracticeofwhatiscalledCongregational.”115

Thislanguagerequiresnocomment;itisamanlyandexplicitavowalofhischangeofsentiment,andacandidexplanationof thecircumstanceswhichledtoit.Betweentheyears1644and1646,itappearshehadbeenengaged in examining the constitution and government of the Church.

Forsometimehismindwasundecided;buttowardsthelatterpartoftheabove period, he fully adopted those views in which he continuedstedfast,andwhichhefromtimetotimedefendedtilltheendofhislife.Ihavebeenmoreparticularonthissubject,becauseeverythingrelatingtotheprogressofsuchamindasOwen’sisdeservingofattention;becausethefactsbroughtforwardshowthathischangewasneitherahastynoraninterestedone,butproducedentirelybytheforceoftruthandconviction;and because he appeared at the head of his brethren of theCongregational order during the long period of forty years, it becamemorenecessarytostatehowhehadbeenledtoembracetheirsentiments.AsitisalsooftenignorantlyassertedthatOwencontinuedthroughlifeaPresbyterian, justice required that his true sentiments should beexhibited. It clearly appears from his own words that he was never aPresbyterian;andthatatanearlyperiod,hewithdrewfromallconnexionwiththatbody,fromsomeofwhom(asitwillafterwardsbeshown),hereceived no small degree of abuse and ill-usage on account of hissecession.78TheconsequenceofhischangeofsentimentwashisformingachurchatCoggeshallonCongregationalprinciples,withwhichheremainedtillthecommonwealth appointments broke uphis connexion—butwhich hascontinuedinaflourishingstatetothepresentday.SoonaftertheformationoftheChurchinthisplace,hepublishedasmalltreatise: “Eshcol: or Rules of Direction for the walking of the saints infellowship,accordingtotheorderoftheGospel,”1647.Ithassincegonethroughmany editions. In the preface, he states four principles as thebasisofhisrules,andonwhichheconsideredmostpersonsagreedwhowereseekingascripturalreformation:

that particular congregations or assemblies of believers, underofficersoftheirown,areofDivineinstitutionthat every believer is bound to join himself to some suchcongregationthateveryman’svoluntaryconsentisrequiredforhisunionwithitand that it is convenient that all believers in oneplace should,unlesstoonumerous,formonecongregation

Most Presbyterians as well as Independents would agree in these

principles. The same remark is applicable to his rules, which arepurposely so expressed as to avoid occasion for dispute; and so thatChristians of every description may derive benefit from them. Hissentiments as an Independent, however, appear. For in explainingMat18.17,heobserves“thatbychurchcannotbeunderstoodtheEldersoftheChurchalone,butratherthewholecongregation.”It isdividedintotwoparts:thefirstonthedutyofMembersofChurchestotheirPastors;andthesecondontheirdutytooneanother.79The former contains seven rules, and the latter fifteen — all of themjudicious,wellsupportedbyScripture,andcalculatedtopromote, inaneminentdegree,thecomfort,edificationandusefulnessoftheChurchesofChrist.Eschol was followed by awork of deeper learning and research, “SalusElectorum,SanguisJesu;orthedeathofDeath,inthedeathofChrist:AtreatiseoftheredemptionandreconciliationthatisinthebloodofChrist,withthemeritthereof,andthesatisfactionwroughtthereby,etc.byJohnOwen, Pastor of the Church of God which is at Coggeshall, in Essex.”1648,4to.pp.333.ThisworkisdedicatedtotheEarlofWarwick,thenoblemantowhomhehad been indebted for the presentation to Coggeshall: a man ofunimpeachable Christian character and great sweetness of temper; avaluableandsteadyfriendtothepersecutedPuritans,andknownbefore(andlongafter)hisdeathbythedistinguisheddesignationofTheGoodEarlofWarwick.

116IthastheattestationsofStanleyGower,andRichard

Byfield,Presbyterianministersof considerableeminence,andmembersoftheWestminsterAssembly.Theybothspeakoftheworkintermsofthehighest commendation, though the latter professes to know nothing ofOwen,evenbyname!The work is entirely devoted to an examination of one branch of theArminiancontroversy:thenatureandextentofthedeathofChrist.Itisasubjectofmuchimportanceinitself,andthefruitfulsourceofnumerousandextendeddiscussions.80The subject had occupied the attention of Owen for more than sevenyears,duringwhichhehadexaminedeverythingwhichhecouldprocure

writteninformerorlatertimesonit.117Thevolumewhichistheresultof

this labour, is distinguished by all that comprehension of thought,closeness of reasoning, andminuteness of illustration, whichmark thefutureproductionsofourauthor.Itisdividedintofourparts.Inthefirst,hetreatstheeternalpurpose,anddistinctconcurrenceoftheFather,Son,andSpirit,respectingtheworkofredemption.Inthesecond,heremovesthe false and supposed ends of the death of Christ. The third containsarguments against universal redemption; and the last answers theobjectionsofArminianstoparticularredemption.In every part of the work, much important and scriptural sentimentoccurs;but I amdisposed to think thatOwen ismore successful in thetwo latter, than in the formerparts; in objecting to the sentiments andlanguageofArminians, thaninplacingthedoctrineofScripture,onthesubjectwhichhetreats,initstrueandsimpleaspect.Thereistoomuchminutereasoningonthedebtorandcreditorhypothesis.Forgettingthatif sin is a debt, it is amoral debt, which cannot be discharged by apaymentinkind,butwhichmaybecompensatedinanotherway,deemedsuitableandsatisfactorybytheoffendedparty.TheatonementofChristisagloriousexpedientdevisedbyinfinitewisdomandmercy,toremedythedisordersthathavetakenplaceinGod’smoralgovernment;tojustifyhiswaystomen;toopenthechannelofmercy;tomaintainthehonoursofjustice;tomagnifytheLawgiver;andtoglorifytheSaviour.81SomeCalvinistsmaintain that the sacrifice ofChrist is, in itsnature aswell as design, limited to the elect — to procure the removal of theirtransgressions, and to obtain spiritual blessings for them alone.Arminians,ontheotherhand,maintainthattheatonementofChrist,inits nature as well as its intention, extends to all; and that it is chieflydesignedtoputallmankindintoastatecapableofbeingsaved.Onbothsides, there seems to be a confounding of the death of Christ with thepurposeofGodrespecting itsextent.Thesovereign intentionofGod inregardtotheapplicationoftheatonement,issurelyathingdistinctfromtheatonementitself—thoughintheDivineplan,itiscloselyconnectedwithit.Thesameremedywouldhavebeennecessaryforthesalvationofone sinner if God had so restricted its application; while in its ownnature, it is sufficient to save a thousand worlds, if Jehovah was sopleased to extend and apply it. The sufficiency and suitableness of the

remedy,arisefromthefactthatChristisworthy,theoneforwhosesaketheFatherforgivesandrestorestofavourtheoffendingrebel.Suchisthenature of sin that nothing less than a testimony of infinite displeasureagainst it, would justify the Lawgiver in showing mercy to onetransgression of even one offender. Such is the infinite worth of thesacrifice, arising from the divine character of the sufferer, that it isenoughtopurgeawaythetransgressionsofallwhobelieve.Inattentionon thepartofmanyCalvinists to theglorioussufficiency oftheatonement,hasledtothewildestAntinomianism;whileoverlookingthesovereignlimitationofit,oritsappliedefficiency,hasledArminianstoanequallyobjectionableNeonomianism—ortoascribesalvationnotsomuchtothedeathofChrist,astothesinner’sobediencetoanewlaw,whichheisenabledtoobeybybeingputintoasalvablestate,throughtheworkofChrist.82The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort, appear to me to have stated thesubjectverycorrectlywhentheysay:“Christ’ssatisfactionisofinfinitevalueandprice—abundantlysufficienttoexpiatethesinsofalltheworld.ButthedeclarationofthegospelisthatwhoeverbelievesinChristcrucifiedshallnotperish,buthaveeternallife.Thisdeclarationshouldbepromiscuouslyandindiscriminatelyannounced to all men to whom God, of his good pleasure, sends the gospel; and it is to bereceivedbyfaithandrepentance.Butthefactthatmanywhoareinvitedbythegospel,neitherrepentnorbelieve,butperishininfidelity,arisesfromnodefectorinsufficiencyintheoblation

ofChristonthecross,butisentirelytheirownfault.”118

ThefollowingpassageofOwen’sworkfullycoincideswiththeseviews:“Itwas thepurposeofGod thathisSon shouldoffer a sacrificeof infiniteworthanddignity,sufficientinitselfforredeemingallandeveryman,ifithadpleasedtheLordtoemployittothatpurpose;yes,andofotherworldsalso,iftheLordweretofreelymakethemandredeemthem.Thisisitsowntrueinternalperfectionandsufficiency.Thatitshouldbeappliedtoany,madeaprice for them, and become beneficial to them, is external to it, does not arise from it, but

merelydependsontheintentionandwillofGod”119

Heproceedstoshowthatonthisgroundthegospeloughttobepreachedtoeverycreature:“Becausethewayofsalvationwhichitdeclaresiswideenoughforalltowalkin.Thereisenoughintheremedyitbringstolight,tohealalltheirdiseases,todeliverthemfromalltheirevils.

83Iftherewereathousandworlds,thegospelmightonthisgroundbepreachedtothemall,iftheywill only believe in him, which is the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of

salvation.”120

If these views of redemption were strictly adhered to, which I do notthink is done even byOwen himself in this verywork, the controversyconcerning its extent would be reducedwithin very narrow limits. Theprinciple on which men are called to believe the gospel, is not God’sdecreeofelection—notthatChristhasdiedforthem—buttherevealedsufficiencyoftheatonementforallwhobelievethetestimonyrespectingit. This is unaffected by any decree of God, and it remains unalterablytruewhethermenbelieveitornot.Thosewhowouldunderstandthenatureofthedebateonthissubjectatanearlyperiod,willdowelltoreadthe“SalusElectorum”ofOwen.Butthosewhowishtosee themodernstateof thequestion,will find in themasterly reasonings of Dr. Williams in his work on Equity andSovereignty,andinhisDefenceofModernCalvinism,theablestdefenceoftheviewsofthatpartoftheCalvinisticschemewhicharenowgenerallyadopted.Inthecourseof thiswork,Owenfrequentlyreplies to the languageofatreatise on the “Universality of Free Grace,” by a Thomas More, whoappears to have been an illiterate person; and I suppose the same onewhom Edwards describes as “a great sectary, who did much hurt inLincolnshire, Norfolk, and Cambridgeshire; who was also famous inBoston, Lynn, and even Holland; and who was followed from place toplacebymany.”

121

84Attheendofthevolumealsoisashortappendix,bywayofanswertoanundescribedworkofMr.JoshuaSprigge.ThisgentlemanwaseducatedatOxford,andgraduatedM.A.atEdinburgh.Hemusthavebeenapersonofsomenote,as in1673hemarriedthewidowofLordSay.Hewastheauthor of various works, both political and theological; but I have notascertainedwhichofthemOwenreferstoinhisappendix.

122

AnanswertothisworkwaspublishedbyMr.JohnHome,entitled“TheOpenDoorforMan’sapproachtoGod;oraVindicationoftheRecordofGod,concerningtheextentoftheDeathofChrist,inanswertoaTreatiseon that subject,byMr. JohnOwen, 1650,4to.pp.318.TheauthorwasministeratLynninNorfolk,fromwhichhewasejectedin1662.HewasanArminianonthesubjectofRedemption,butnotonsomeoftheother

points,andissaidtohavebeenaholy,excellentman.Hewroteavariety,chieflyofcontroversialpieces,ofwhicha long list isgivenbyPalmer.

123

This reply toOwen treatshimvery respectfully. In thepreface, he saysthathe chose to reply tohiswork rather thananyother, onaccountofOwen’sreputationforingenuityandlearning,inwhichheacknowledgesthattime,opportunityanddiligence,hadgivenhimmuchadvantage.Hetakesuptheworkchapterbychapter,anddiscoverssomeportionbothoflearningandacuteness.Hisargumentsaregenerallythesamewiththoseof other Arminians, while he yet seems to differ from them on thesubjectsofgraceandelection.SomeofhisremarksandinterpretationsofScripturewerenotunworthyofOwen’s attention.However, he thoughtdifferently,forhethusspeaksofhisopponent:“ForMr.Home’sbook,Isuppose you are not acquainted with it; if I could have met with anyuninterestedpersonwhosaiditdeservedareply, itwouldnothavelainsolongunanswered.”

124

85Colchesterwas,aboutthistime,besiegedbytheParliamentaryarmy;andLord Fairfax, the general, had his headquarters at Coggeshall. He thusbecameacquaintedwithOwen,whoappearstohaveactedaschaplaintohim for a time.

125 Fairfax was then considered the head of the

Presbyterian party. But it appears from the Memoirs of ColonelHutchinson,

126 that he was an Independent at bottom — though he

allowed himself to be overruled by his wife at home, as he was byCromwellinthecouncil.Owenappearstohavehadahighopinionofhisreligiouscharacter.EvenHumesaysofhim,“Hewasequallyeminentforcourageandforhumanity;andthoughstronglyinfectedwithprejudicesorprinciplesderivedfrompartyzeal,inthecourseofhispublicconduct,he never seems to have been diverted by private interest or ambition,fromadheringstrictlytothoseprinciples.”

127

Owenpreachedtwosermons,onetothearmyatColchesteronadayofthanksgiving— on account of its surrender; the otherwas preached atRumford,totheParliament’sCommittee,whichhadbeenimprisoned—it was occasioned by their deliverance. Afterwards he published thesetogether,astheywerepreachedfromthesamepassage,Habakkuk1.1-9.He prefixed two dedications: one to Lord Fairfax, and the other to theCommitteeandsomeoftheParliament’sofficers.

86Hedesignatedthem,“AmemorialofthedeliveranceofEssexcountyandCommittee.” In these discourses are some strong statements about theimpropriety, and iniquity of human interference with religion.“Arguments for persecution,” he says, “have been dyed in the blood ofChristiansforalongseason;eversincethedragongavehispowertothefalseprophet,theyhavealldiedashereticsandschismatics.Supposeyousaw,inoneview,allthebloodofthewitnesseswhichhasbeenletoutoftheirveinson falsepretences; suppose thatyouheard inonenoise, thedolefulcryofallpastorlesschurches,dyingmartyrs,harbourlesschildrenof parents inheriting the promises, wilderness wandering saints,dungeonedbelievers—perhaps, itwouldmakeyourspiritstenderastothispoint.”

128

There are some passages which seem to encourage more of a warlikespiritthanIthinkquitejustifiableonChristianprinciples.Tostirupmento defend or fight for the privileges which Christ has bestowed on hischurch,isaviolationbothoftheletterandthespiritofhisword.Toviewreligious rights as civil privileges, and to maintain the lawfulness ofdefending themon this ground, is quite adifferentmatter.Christianityjustifiesnoman,asaChristian,infightingforanythingconnectedwithit;butitisperfectlyconsistentwithitsprinciplestodefendwhatbelongstous as men, or as natives of a country whose constitution secures theenjoyment of Christian or of civil privileges. It bestows no particularrightsorimmunitiesofacivilnatureonitsprofessors;ontheotherhand,itdeprivesnorightsofwhichtheymaybepreviouslypossessed.87One of these warlike passages which has given much offence, and ofwhichaveryunfairusehasbeenmade,isthefollowing.Afternotingthatformer mercies and deliverances, thankfully remembered, strengthenfaithandpreventdespondency,heexclaims:“Where is the God of Marstone moor, and the God of Naseby! This is an acceptableexpostulationinagloomyday.Oh!whatacatalogueofmerciesthisnationhastopleadinatimeof trouble! God came fromNaseby, and the Holy One from the west! His glory covered theheavens,andtheearthwasfullofhispraise.Hewentforthinthenorth,andhedidnotwithholdhishandintheeast.ThepoortowninwhichIliveismoreenrichedwithastoreofmerciesinafewmonths,thanwithafulltradeofmanyyears,”etc.

Thispassage is quotedbyL’Estrange as aproof thatOwenwasoneofthosefanaticswhobelievedthatsuccesswasanevidenceofthegoodness

of a cause.129 Dr. Grey also, commenting on a passage of Hudibras,

affirmsonthesameground,thatOwenwasofthissentiment.130Butthis

isagrossperversionofhismeaning.ItisamererhetoricalapplicationofthewordsofScripture,withthedesignof impressingthe importanceofrememberingpastmerciesanddeliverances.However,asthesentimentthatsuccessisanevidenceofDivineapprovalhasoftenbeenimputedtoOwenandthepartywithwhichheacted,itisimportantthatwecanproducehisownreplytothecharge.88“Acauseisgoodorbad,beforeithassuccessonewayorother;andthatwhichdoesnothaveitswarrantinitself,canneverobtainanyfromitssuccess.Theruleofthegoodnessofanypubliccause,istheeternallawofreason,withthejustlegalrightsandinterestsofmen.Ifthesedonotmakea causegood, successwillnevermend it.Butwhena causeon thesegrounds is indeedgood,orisreallyjudgedsuchbythosewhoareengagedinit,nottotakenoticeoftheprovidenceof God in prospering men in the pursuit of it, is to exclude all thoughts of Him and Hisprovidencefromhavinganyconcerninthegovernmentoftheworld.AndifI,oranyother,haveatanytimeappliedthistoanycausethatisnotwarrantedbytheonlyruleofitsjustification,itinnowayreflectsonthetruthoftheprinciplewhichIassert;nordoesitgivecountenancetothe

falseonewhichheascribestome.”131

IfthisquotationdoesnotsatisfythereaderthatOwen,andImightaddmostofthemenwhoactedwithhim,neverheldtheabsurdandimpioussentimentascribedtohim,hemustbeunreasonablysceptical.Owen,nodoubt,hadthesameviewsasPaul,ofthecharacterofthosewhodoevilso that good may come;

132 of whom even a heathen poet tolerably

expresseshisdislike:“Careatsuccessibusopto;Quisquisabeventufactanotandaputat.”—Ovid.

CHAPTERIV.OwenpreachesbeforeParliamentonthedayaftertheexecutionofCharlesI.—TheIndependentsnot guilty of putting the King to death — Testimonies on this subject — Remarks on Owen’sSermon—Chargesagainstit—EssayonTolerationannexedtoit—DoctrineofReligiousLibertyowes its origin to Independents—Writers on this subject—Brownists andBaptists—JeremyTaylor—Owen—Vane—Milton—Locke—Cook’saccountoftheoriginofTolerationamongtheIndependents—A different account of it— Smith andHume—Neal—Owen preaches againbeforeParliament—HisfirstacquaintancewithCromwell—IspersuadedtoaccompanyhimtoIreland.

On the thirty-first of January, 1649, Owenwas called to preach beforeParliament, on the most trying occasion on which he ever appearedbeforethatassembly:thiswasthedayafterthedecapitationofCharlesI.A lengtheneddiscussionrespecting thecauseswhichproduced,and thepersonswhowere engaged in this dismal affair,would be foreign fromthedesignofthiswork.ButasthereligiouspartywithwhichOwenactedhasreceivedalargeportionoftheblameforthistransaction,itcannotbedeemedimpropertoshowthatithasbeengreatlywrongedinthis.Thatany body of religious persons should be guilty of such lawless andunjustifiableprocedure,wouldbesufficienttobranditwithdeservedandindelibledisgrace.Buta littleacquaintancewith the truestateof thingswillevincethatnoreligioussectcanjustlybechargedwiththecrimeofputtingthekingtodeath.90Thepartiesimmediatelyconcernedinthistragicalscene,werethearray,theparliament,andthehighcourtofjustice.Thearmywasacollectionofallthefiercerepublicanspiritswhichhadbeenproducedbytheanarchy,theexcitement,andthesuccessoftheprecedingyears.Itcomprehendedagreatnumberofreligiouspersonsbelongingtovariousprofessions,andmanyofnodefiniteprofessionwhatever— thosewhomightpretend toreligion,butinreality,foughtforrevolutionandplunder.InittherewerePresbyterians, and Independents (properly so called); and under thelatter designation, there was a crowd of anomalous fanatics who tookrefuge in the general name and respectable character of theCongregational body. There were Baptists and Fifth Monarchy men,SeekersandAntinomians,LevellersandRanters,

“Allmonstrous,allprodigiousthings.”133

Cromwellandhisofficersruledthearmyand,asitsuitedtheirpurpose,sometimes provoked its religious feelings, and at other times on its

revolutionaryfrenzy.Theycanbeconsideredasbelongingdecidedlytonoreligious body; though they naturally favoured the Independent ratherthananyother,asfromitsprinciples,theycouldmoreeasilymanageitinpoliticalmatters.TheParliament,bythenumerouschangesithadundergone,wasreducedto amere caputmortuum

134 by the army.After Colonel Pride’s purge,

“nonewere allowed to enter it,” saysHume, “but themost furious anddeterminedoftheIndependents,andthesedidnotexceedthenumberoffifty or sixty.” Hume never distinguishes between the civil and thereligiousIndependents,norwouldithavesuitedeitherhispoliticalorhisreligious creed to do so. Some of the persons composing the RumpParliamentwere no doubt connectedwith the religious body knownbythisname,andtosuchmenasColonelHutchinson.91Howevermuchwemay think theyerred, itwillnotbeeasy todeny theclaim of religious character. But many of them, we know, neverconsidered themselves Independents, nor were they considered so byothers—norcanitbeshownthatanyconsiderablenumberofthemwereso.“’Tis certain to a demonstration, that there weremen of all parties then left in the house—Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and others— so little foundation is

therefortheconclusionthatIndependents,andtheseonly,putthekingtodeath.”135

The same remarks are equally applicable to the high court of justicewhich,beingcomposedchieflyofofficersofthearmyandmembersofthecommons,partookof their respectivecharacters.Fewof the individualswhocomposedit,sofarasIcandiscover,everrankedunderthebanneroftheCongregationalbody.ThetestimoniesofWhitelocke,

136Wellwood,

Du Moulin, Baxter, Burnet, and of the Convention Parliament itself(whichrestoredCharlesII),supporttheviewsnowgiven.Thereaderwillfindthesubstanceof thesecollected inNeal,

137who justlyobserves that

the violent writers on the other side, “constantly confound theIndependents with the army, which was made up of a number ofsectaries, the majority of whom were not of that distinguishingcharacter.”

138AsNeal’stestimony,however,maybeunjustlysupposedto

be influenced by partiality, it is gratifying to be able to adduce thelanguageofawriterwho is far removed fromall suspicionof thiskind,

and whose opinion on this (as onmost other subjects of ecclesiasticalhistory),isentitledtothehighestrespect.SaysthecandidandimpartialMosheim,92“IamwellawarethatmanyofthemosteminentandrespectableEnglishwritershavegiventheIndependentsthedenominationofRegicides;andif,bythetermIndependents,theymeanthoselicentiousrepublicanswhosedislikeofamonarchical formofgovernmentcarriedthemtothemostpernicious and extravagant lengths, then I grant that thisdenomination iswell applied.Butif,bythetermIndependents,wearetounderstandareligioussect,theancestorsofthosewhostillbearthesametitleinEngland,itappearsveryquestionabletomewhethertheunhappyfate of the worthy prince above-mentioned, ought to be imputed entirely to that set ofmen.Thosewho affirm that the Independentswere the only authors of the death ofKingCharles,mustmeanoneofthesetwothings:eitherthattheRegicideswereanimatedandsetonbytheseditiousdoctrinesofthatsect,andtheviolentsuggestionsofitsmembers;orthatallwhowereconcerned in this atrocious deed were themselves Independents, zealously attached to thereligiouscommunitynowunderconsideration.Now,itmaybeprovedwiththeclearestevidencethatneitherofthesewasthecase.Thereisnothinginthedoctrinesofthissect,sofarastheyareknowntome,thatseemsinthe leastadaptedto incitementosuchahorriddeed;nordoes itappear from the history of these times that the Independents were a whitmore exasperatedagainst Charles, than thePresbyterians were. And as to the latter supposition, it is far frombeingtruethatallthosewhowereconcernedinbringingthisunfortunateprincetothescaffoldwere Independents; since we learn from the best English writers, and from the publicdeclarations of Charles II., that this violent factionwas composed of persons ofdifferentsects. That there were Independents among them may be easily

conceived.”139

93The subsequent reasonings of this historian respecting the distinctionbetweenthecivilandreligiousIndependents,arealsohighly important,buttoolongtobequotedhere.Thoughinanote,histranslatorMaclaineendeavourstoshaketheforceofhisreasonings,whathesaysamountstoverylittle,asthefactsofthecaseareallonthesideofMosheim.EachardandBates(thephysician)bothobservethatseveraloftheIndependentsjoinedwith thePresbyterians indeclaring against thedesignof puttingthe king to death — in their sermons from the pulpit, in conferences,monitory letters, petitions, protestations, and public remonstrances.

140

None of their ministers expressed their approval of it, except HughPeters, and John Goodwin, neither of whom has strong claims to beconsidered as belonging to the regular body of Independents; not theformer on account of his fanaticism, nor the latter on account of hisArminianism. It also deserves to be noticed that few of the religiousIndependents suffered after the restoration on account of their real or

supposedconnexionwiththedeathorCharles.InstatingthesethingstovindicatetheIndependentsfromthecalumnieswhich have been heaped upon them, I consider myself to be doing aservicetoreligioningeneral,whichalwayssufferswhenitsprofessorsarereproached.Therealcausesoftheking’sdeatharenottobefoundintheprinciplesormembersofanyreligiousbody;butare tobe traced,mostprobably, to the duplicity and fickleness of Charles himself — to theunconstitutional and despotic principles perpetually instilled into hismind by his immediate attendants and confidential friends; and to theperilouscircumstancesofthedemocraticleaders,whohadgonetoofartorecede,andweredriventothisdesperatestrokefortheirownsalvation.94WithsomeitmaybeenoughtoinvolveOwenintheguiltoftheRegicides,thathewasemployedbythemtopreachonsuchanoccasion,asthedayafter the king’s death. The apology made by him in regard to anotheraffair is perhaps quite as applicable here. His superiors were persons“whose commandswerenot to be questioned.”Theywere aware of theimportanceofhavingtheirconductsanctioned,eveninappearance,byapreacherofOwen’srespectability,andonthisaccount,itisprobablethathewaschosentodischargeafunctionwhichit is impossibletosupposehe would have coveted. Perhaps they expected he would defend orapologizefortheirmeasures.Iftheydid,theymusthavebeengrievouslydisappointed,asthediscoursemaintainsaprofoundandstudiedsilenceontheawfultransactionoftheprecedingday.ItisfoundedonJer.15.19,20.Itwaspublishedwiththetitle,“RighteouszealencouragedbyDivineprotection,”fromwhichadirectapplicationtotherecenteventsmightbeexpected.Extremely little of this occurs, however. The text and contextwere both very suitable to the circumstances of the country, and in ageneralway,heusesthemforthispurpose.Butheisexceedinglycautiousofcommittinghimselfbyexpressinganopinioneitherofthecourt,orofthecountryparty.Thisplainlyimpliesthat,whilehewasnotatlibertytocondemn, he was unwilling to justify. He tells the Parliament veryfaithfullythat,“muchoftheevilwhichhadcomeuponthecountry,hadoriginated within their own walls;” and he warns them against“oppression,self-seeking,andcontrivancesforpersecution.”95Mr.Astyspeakingofthisdiscourseremarks:—

“Heappearedbeforeanumerousassembly;itwasacriticaljuncture,andhewasnotignorantofthetempersofhisprincipalhearers;hewasthenarisingman,andtojustifythelateactionwasthe infallible road to preferment. But his discourse was so modest and inoffensive, that hisfriendscouldtakenojustexceptiontoit,norhisenemiestakeadvantageofhiswordsanother

day.”141

Thislastobservationisnotquitecorrect.Forthisdiscourseoccasionedtoitsauthoralargeportionofabuseandmisrepresentation.Dr.Grey,inhisexaminationofNeal’shistory,endeavourstoshowfromthissermon,thatOwenapprovedof thedeathof theking.For thispurpose twopassagesaredetachedfromtheirconnexion—andsothatnothingmaybelackingtofix theguiltof thepreacher,wordsareprinted in italicsasemphatic,onwhichheneverintendedanyemphasisshouldbelaid.Greyshallhavethefullbenefitoftheallegedevidencewithoutnoteorcommentfromme.“The famed Dr. John Owen, in a sermon preached the day after the king’s murder, has thefollowing remarkable passages, which I think plainly reveal his approval of that execrableparricide.‘Astheflamingsword,’hesays,‘turnseveryway,soGodcanturnitintoeverything.Tothosewhocry,givemeaking,Godcangivehiminhisanger;andfromthosewhocrytakehimaway,Hecantakehimawayinhiswrath.—Whenkingsturnseducers,theyseldomlackagoodstoreoffollowers.Now,iftheblindleadtheblind,theyshallbothfallintotheditch.Whenkings command unrighteous things, and the people suit themwith willing compliance, none

doubtsthatthedestructionofthembothisjustandrighteous.”142

96HemustbedesperatelyprejudicedagainstOwen, indeed,whodoesnotseethatthislanguagebearsashardonthepeopleasontheill-fatedking;and had I been disposed to quote passages to show that OwendisapprovedofthedeathofCharles,1shouldhaveselectedtheseaswellsuitedforthispurpose.Grey, in the passage we have now quoted, merely follows the steps ofAnthonyWood, who prefers the same charges against Owen’s sermon,and on the same grounds. He only goes a little further, and says thatOwen “applauded the regicides, and declared the death of that mostadmirablekingtobejustandrighteous.”

143Woodhimselfwasinthis,as

in several other instances of his abuse of Owen, the servile copyist ofVernon;whosevileanonymouslibelisthestorehouseoutofwhichallthefuture defamers ofOwen supplied themselveswith accusations both inmatterandform.

144

To sum up the whole, the University of Oxford, on the twenty-first ofJuly,1683,inthefervourofitszealandloyalty,condemnedthepositionsofthissermonasperniciousanddamnable,andorderedthemtobeburnt

by the Marshal in the school quadrangle before the members of theUniversity.

145 This act of cowardly revenge on a man whose learning,

moderationandpietyhadoncegracedtheirhighesthonours,tookplacewithinamonthofhisdeath;whenhemusthavebeeninsensiblealiketotheir praise or their contumely. It was well that their power was thenfeebler than their inclinations, or theywouldprobablyhave substitutedtheauthorinplaceofhiswritings.

146

97But what renders this discourse peculiarly valuable, is the Essay ontoleration annexed to it. Owen had thought long and deeply on thissubject,andhenowpublishedthefruitofhisdeliberations;—notwhenhe and his party were struggling for existence, but when they hadobtained in great measure the protection and support of the supremepower.Asthisisasubjectofvastimportance,andasIconsiderthemostenlightened views of religious liberty to have originated with theCongregationalists, I hope to be excused for entering into some detailuponit.The right ofman to think for himself on the subject of religion, to actaccordingtohisconvictions,andtouseeverylawfulmeansforpromotinghissentimentsamongothers,wasneitherunderstoodnorenjoyedinanyheathen country at the beginning of the gospel. Intercommunity ofworship was the utmost extent of Pagan liberality; but this was a verydifferentthingfromreligiousliberty.Properly,itwaspermissiontouniteoragree,ratherthanlibertytodiffer.Theforeignerwasperhapsallowedtopractise inprivatetheritesofhisownfaith—buttopubliclyprofessdissent fromtheestablishedsuperstition,and toattempt to introduceanew faith,or theworshipof “strangegods,”wereuniversallyheld tobecrimesjustlypunishablebythejudges.98On this account, notwithstanding all the professed indifference ofheathenismtoreligiousworshipsandopinions,Christianityexperiencedtheutmostrageandfuryofintolerance.Itsdisciplesrefusedtounitetheservice of Jesus with that of Mars or Jupiter. And turning from thesedumbidolsthemselves,theyalsosoughttoturnothersawayfromthem.Hence, it was spoken of as “a new and mischievous superstition;” itsfollowers were branded as Atheists in respect to the gods, and incited

withhatredinrespecttomen.Theirperseveringadherencetothecausewhich they believed to be Divine, was considered merely a sullenobstinacy, deserving only the severest punishment. The simpledeclarationinthepresenceofajudge,“Christiatiussum”

147wasdeemed

quitesufficienttojustifybeingsentimmediatelytothelions,ortheblock.But indeed, while civil liberty was so little understood as it was in themostcelebratedstatesoftheancientworld,itwouldhavebeenstrangeiftherightsofconsciencehadbeenrespected.Unhappily, when Christianity acquired the ascendency, and becameblendedwith secular power, itsmistaken or pretended friends adoptedandactedonthesameperniciousprinciples,anddirectedtheiroperationeither against idolators, or against the heretical schismatics from theirownbelief.ItistrulydeplorabletothinkoftheChristianbloodthatwasshed by men calling themselves Christians. During the entire reign ofPapaldarknessandtyranny,intolerancewasdisplayedinawfulscenesofdevastation and carnage; the blood of saints intoxicated the scarlet-colouredwhore,

148andcriedforvengeanceagainstherbeforethealtarof

God. The Reformation, which brought relief from many evils, did notaltogetherremovethis.99None of the first Reformers seem to have understood the principles ofreligiousliberty.Theyinconsistentlyadvocatedarightforthemselves,theexerciseofwhich theydenied toothers.All theProtestantgovernmentsheldthelawfulnessandnecessityofpunishinghereticsandidolators;andamongcrimesagainsttheState,theyrankeddissentfromtheestablishedfaith.Henry VIII indiscriminately put to death Papists and Protestantswhodeniedhissupremacy.EdwardVI,urgedonbyCranmer,drenchedhis hands in innocent blood on account of religion. And Elizabeth innumerous instances followed the unhallowed example of her father. AtGeneva,seditionandheresywereinterchangeableterms;andthosewhodid not submit to the discipline of the church were subjected to civilexcision,anddeprivedoftheirrightsascitizens.The great body of British Puritans, after all they had suffered from it,werefarfromseeingtheevilofpersecution.Mostofthemappeartohavebelievedinthelawfulnessofsupportingthetruereligionbycoerciveandrestrainingmeasures.ThefirstcorrectviewsofreligiouslibertyaretobeascribedtotheBrownists.Fromthem,andfromtheBaptistandPaedo-

baptist Independents who sprung from them, came everything thatappeared on this topic for many years. In the year 1614, one of thosepeople, Leonard Busher, presented to king James and Parliament,“Religion’sPeace,oraPleaforLibertyofConscience.”Theleadingobjectofthistreatiseistoshowthatthetruewaytomakeanationhappyis“togivelibertytoall,toserveGodastheyarepersuadedismostagreeabletohisword—tospeak,write,andprintpeaceably,andwithoutmolestation,inbehalfoftheirseveraltenetsandwaysofworship.”100Thisvaluabletractcontainsthemostscripturalandenlightenedviewsofreligious liberty. It exposes in a series of seventeen arguments, theiniquityandimpolicyofpersecution;andinthemostmovingmanner,itinvokes the king and Parliament to grant the inestimable blessing oftoleration. Robinson’s “Justification of separation from the Church ofEngland,” published in 1639, contains themost accurate statements onthedistinctprovincesofcivilandspiritualauthority.Thesameremarkisapplicable to an anonymous pamphlet, by some Brownist in 1644,entitled“QueriesofHighestConsideration,”presentedtotheDissentingBrethren, and theWestminster Assembly. Burton’s “Vindication of theChurchescommonlycalledIndependent,”alsoproduced in1644,showsthat“theMagistratemustpunishevilactions,buthasnopowerovertheconscienceofanyone—topunishamanforthat—solongashemakesnootherbreachofGod’scommandments,orthejustlawsoftheland.”

149

In that same year, Roger Williams of New England, an IndependentBaptist, published his “Bloody tenet of Persecution for the cause ofConscience;” inwhichhemaintainsthat“personsmay,with lesssin,beforced to marry whom they cannot love, than to worship where theycannot believe.”He broadly denies that “Christ had appointed the civilswordasa remedyagainst false teachers.”Thisgentlemanobtained thefirstcharterfortheStateofNewProvidence,ofwhichhewasconstitutedGovernor.Andtohishonour,itdeservestoberecordedthathewasthefirstGovernorwhoeverpleadedthatlibertyofconsciencewasthebirth-rightofman.Hegrantedittothosewhodifferedfromhimself,whenhehadthepowertowithholdit.101Itwouldbetiresometomentionallthepamphletswhichappearedaboutthistimefromthesamequarter.ForIhavenotmetwithanythingwritten

by Episcopalians or Presbyterians down to this period, which containsreasonable sentiments on the subject. In theWestminster Assembly, itwasdebatedatgreatlength,andwithgreatkeenness.ThePresbyteriansand Independents ranked on opposite sides in the controversy, andfought, according toBaillie, “Tanquampro aris et focis.”

150 Toleration

wasconsideredthegrandandfundamentalprincipleofIndependents—thegodoftheiridolatry;anditwouldhavebeenhappyfortheworld,ifsobloodless adivinityhadalwaysbeen theobject ofworship.Thiswas intheestimationofmanyatthattime,theopprobriumoftheIndependents;itwillnowperhapsbegrantedastheirdistinguishedhonour,thatinthemidst of much opposition, they manfully advocated a most important,but littleunderstood, andunjustly abused right.Andwhenopportunityafforded,they“didtoothers,astheywouldhaveothersdotothem.”In 1647, JeremyTaylor publishedhis “Liberty of Prophesying; showingtheunreasonablenessofprescribingtoothermen’sfaith,andtheiniquityof persecuting differing opinions.” This is the firstwork produced by achurchmanonthissubject,whichisdeservingofanynotice.Itcontains,on the whole, rational and scriptural views of the impropriety ofexercisingauthorityinreligion.Buttherearesomecircumstanceswhichdetract greatly from its value. He argues chiefly from the difficulty ofexpounding the Scriptures so as to arrive at any certain conclusion onsome subjects — from the incompetence of Popes, Councils, or theChurch at large, to determine them — from the innocence of error inpious persons — and from the antiquity and plausibility of varioussentimentsorpracticesgenerallyheldtobeerroneous.102Itismoreonsuchgroundsasthesethatherestshisdefenceoftoleration,thanonthenaturalrightsofmenandtheplainlanguageofScripture.Inmany parts of the book, it is difficult to determine whether Taylor isarguing fromhis own personal conviction, ormerely as an advocate toserve his cause at the lime. Though a churchman, he was a dissenterwhen he wrote theLiberty of Prophesying — he was then pleading toEpiscopacy for toleration.Hemust eitherhavewrittenwhathedidnothimselffullybelieve,toserveatemporarypurpose;orinafewyearshisopinionsmust have undergone awonderful change.With the return ofmonarchy,Tayloremergedfromobscurity,wrotenomoreontheLibertyof Prophesying, and was a member of the privy council of Charles II.

From there proceeded all the persecuting edicts against the poorNon-conformists. Liberty deserves to be viewed, therefore, either as thespecialpleadingofapartycounsellor;orelseastheproductionofJeremyTaylor, imploring relief for himself— deprived of his benefice and theprivileges of his profession. Bishop Taylor, later “enlightened” by hiselevation to the Episcopate, and enjoying (with his party) security andabundance,becameashamedofit.Inhisownconduct,hepublishedthemosteffectualconfutationofhisformeropinionsorsincerebeliefs.HowdifferentwastheconductofJohnOwen!Wehavealreadynotedthestateofhismindrespectinglibertyofconscience.Hehadpleadedforittoacertainextentbefore;otherswehave seenhadpublishedsomeof thesamesentiments.ButhehasthehonourofbeingthefirstmaninEnglandwhoadvocated,whenhispartywasuppermost,therightsofconscience,andwhocontinuedtothelasttomaintainanddefendthem.103Inhis treatise “OfToleration,”annexed tohis sermon,heexamines theargumentsagainst it,broughtfromHolyWritandotherconsiderations.Attheend,hestateshisowndefenceofreligiousliberty.Inthefirstpart,he examines particularly the arguments alleged in the testimony of theScotch General Assembly, and exposes their fallacy. He next considersmost of the other arguments, which have been alleged in defence ofpersecutionorcoercion,andproceedstonotethedutyoftheMagistrateto the truth, and to persons professing it — to those who oppose andrevileit—andtothosewhodissentfromit.Withoutprofessingtobeofthesamemindwithhiminall theparticularsof the last topic,wemustadmit that there is so much moderation in his views, and so manyexceptions to guard against the abuse of them, that it appears as if hehimselffeltthedifficultieswhichwereinvolvedinsupposingthatthecivilMagistrate(whohadthetruthonhisside)wasboundtoprovideplacesofworshipandmeansofsupportforthosewhowereengagedinpromotingit; and to discourage or remove external inducements to embrace falseworship.He does not seem to have attended to the difference betweenwhattheMagistrateisboundtodoasaChristian(ifheisone),andwhatheiscalledtodoastheheadofthecivilcommunity.Notwithstandinghismistakehere,heexplicitly,andbyavarietyofarguments,maintainsthattheMagistrate has no right to meddle with the religion of any personwhoseconductisnotinjurioustosocietynordestructiveofitspeaceandorder.

104“Gospelconstitutionsinthecaseofheresyorerror.donotseemtofavouranycourseofviolenceundercivilpenalties.Itisforetoldthatheresiesmustbe,2Pet2.1butthisistoidentifythosewhoareapproved,notdestroythosewhoarenot.Bydestroying,Imeanwithtemporalpunishment.Foralltheargumentsproducedforthepunishmentofheretics,exceptingcapitalcensures—andthesebeingthetendencyofallbeginningsofthiskind—Imentiononlythegreatest,includingall other arbitrary penalties, being but steps in walking toward the utmost censures.Admonitionsandexcommunicationsuponrejectionofadmonition,arethehighestconstitutionsagainst suchpersons—waitingwithallpatienceon thosewhooppose themselves, lestatanytimeGodgrantsthemrepentancetoacknowledgethetruth.Imprisoning,banishing,slaying,isscarcelyapatientwaiting.Goddoesnotsowaitonunbelievers.Perhapsthosewhocallforthesword on earth are as unacquaintedwith their own spirits, as thosewho called for fire fromheaven,Luke11.Andperhapstheparableof thetaresgivesusapositiveruleas to thiswholebusiness.Forthepresent,Iwillnotfeartoassertthattheanswerstoit,borrowedbyourdivines

fromBellarmine,willnotendurethetrial.”151

This passage alone is sufficient to show the extent and liberality ofOwen’s opinions; the circumstances inwhich theywere published, andthe perseverance with which they were held, are full evidences of thesincerityoftheirauthor.Whilenotinghisexertionsinthisnoblecause,Icannotallowmyselftopassoversomeothernameswhichareentitledtoa distinguished place in the list of enlightened defenders of religiousliberty.The first is the celebrated, defamed, andunfortunateSirHenryVane.105Withallhismysticism,heappearstohavefeltthepowerandimbibedthespiritofthegospel;andhepossessedthemostexaltedviewsofcivilandreligiousfreedom.Inhis“RetiredMan’sMeditations,”publishedin1655,heaccuratelydefinesinasinglesentence,thelimitsofhumanauthority:“The province of theMagistrate is this world andman’s body; not hisconscience,northeconcernsofeternity.”Milton, who knew Vane well, expresses in one of his sonnets the highopinion which he entertained of his religion, and of his skillfuldiscernmentonthesubjectwhichwenowtreat:Toknowbothspiritualpow’randcivil,whateachmeans.Whatseverseach,thouhastlearn‘d,whichfewhavedone:Theboundsofeitherswordtotheeweowe:ThereforeonthyfirmhandreligionleansInpeace,andreckonstheehereldestson.”

Miltonhimselfmusteverbereckonedoneoftheablestadvocatesofthisimportant doctrine. In his treatise on “Civil Power in Ecclesiasticalcauses,” hemaintains that, “it is not lawful for any power on earth to

compelinmattersofreligion,”andthat“twothingshadeverbeenfoundworking much mischief to the cause of God: force on the one siderestraining, and hire on the other side corrupting its teachers.” In his“Way to establish a free Commonwealth,” Milton eloquently exclaims,“Who can be at rest, who can enjoy anything in this world withcontentment,whodoesnothave liberty to serveGodand savehis ownsoul according to the best light which God has planted in him to thatpurpose,bythereadingofhisRevealedWillandtheguidanceofhisHolySpirit.” And in his “Speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing,” headmirably exposes the absurdity and iniquity of theological as well aspoliticalgagsandlicenses,andpoursoutaflowofthemostbeautifulandimpassionedeloquenceonthismostinterestingsubject.

152

106BothVaneandMilton,letitbeeverremembered,wereIndependentsonthe subject of Church Government. Locke, whose immortal treatise ontoleration,inaccuracyofstatementandcogencyofreasoning,placedallits predecessors far behind, has left almost nothing to be done bysucceedingwriters.ThoughLockewasaChurchman,themainargumentof his treatise is the grand principle of Dissent. Many who extol thePhilosopher, forget that he plowed with the heifer of an Independent.Locke was a student of Christ Church while Owen was Dean. It canscarcelybedoubted thathewas indebted to theheadof theCollege forthegermofhisfuturework.Thepreceding statementswill perhaps enable the reader tounderstandthetruthofHume’sObservation:“OfallChristiansects,this(theIndependents)wasthefirstwhich,duringitsprosperityaswellasadversity,alwaysadoptedtheprincipleoftoleration.Anditisremarkablethatsoreasonablea

doctrineoweditsoriginnottoreasoning,buttotheheightofextravaganceandfanaticism.”153

It would, indeed, be very remarkable if it were true. But with Hume,extravagance and fanaticism are only terms of reproach for scripturalsentimentsandreligiouszeal.IfHumewerebetteracquaintedwithsomeof the Independents, he would have found them not so incapable ofreasoning as he alleges; and he might have discovered that theirtoleratingprincipleswerenottheresultofaccidentorcaprice,butoftheideaswhichtheyentertainedonotherpartsofChristianity.107

I amaware that their sentimentson the subjectof religious liberty, areattempted to be accounted for from the operation of accidentalcircumstances.Ithasbeensaid,“The Independents were originally few in number. And thus subjected to the contempt andseverityofpersecution,theyexpatiatedontheimportanceandblessednessofreligiousfreedom.Innumerable sects —many of them professing the wildest tenets, and actuated by themostgloomyandsavageenthusiasm—aroseinEnglandduringthestrugglesbetweentheKingandthe Parliament. And these sects naturally supported the Independents. Thus the ardour fortoleration,whichhadoriginallybeenexcitedinthem(asithadbeeninotherdenominations)byaneagernesstoescapefromsuffering,becamethespiritoftheirsystem—frompolicy,andfromananxietytocheckorsubduethePresbyterians.Itcontinuedtobeso,aftertheyhadacquiredpower.Thisisbecausetheywereawarethattheslightestdeparturefromitwouldhaveseparatedfromthemthedifferentsects,andthusrestoredpreponderancetotheenemieswhomtheyhad

somuchcausetodread.”154

Allthismayseemveryplausibletoapersonsuperficiallyacquaintedwiththeperiod.Butitisnaturaltoaskwhypersecutiondidnotdriveothers—thePresbyteriansforinstance—toadvocatetoleration?Whydidpoliticalmotivesnotinducethemtomakefriendsbythesamemeans?WeretheIndependentstheonlypoliticiansduringthatperiodofanarchy?108Would not others have been likely to see through the vail of hypocrisynowwoven for the IndependentsbyDr.Cook,andnothave left tohimthe honour of the discovery? It is evident that he has not attended tothose parts of the system of Independency which necessarily, andindependent of all external circumstances, produce the love and thedefenceofreligiousliberty.Till theProfessorsofChristianityobtainedpossessionof secularpower,orbecametheobjectofitspatronage,theyneverthoughtofcompulsorymeasures for promoting the faith, or restraining the religion of others.The renunciation of all dependence on civil authority in matters ofreligion, and of all connexion with temporal governments, forms anessential part of consistent independency. The abandonment ofeverything like force for promoting or preserving the interests of theGospel,followsasamatterofcourse.AnotherprincipleofIndependencyisthenecessityofgenuineconversion,toqualifyandentitlementoenjoythe privileges of the kingdom of Christ. The absurdity as well as theunlawfulness of using anymeans but spiritual to produce this change,andtobringmenintothechurch,mustbeveryobvious.Sofullywerethesentiments of the Independents understood on this point during the

period of which we are speaking, that Baillie represents them as theircapitalopinion,andthechiefcauseoftheirseparationfromothers.

155He

declaresthatiftheywereactedon,fortyforonewouldbeexcludedfromthebestreformedchurches.

156Inconnexionwiththeseleadingprinciples

of the system, may I just note a third which contributes to the sameresult: everymember of an Independent Church is understood to takepartinthedisciplineofthatchurch.109Heisneverrequiredtoactexceptaccordingtohisownconvictions,andhecannolongerberetainedinit,thanheissatisfiedthatitsprocedureisaccordingtothewordofGod.IfIndependentsjudgeittobeunlawfultocompeloneanother toactcontrary to theirconvictions, theymustholdtheunlawfulnessofinterferingbyforcetocompelorrestrainothers.These are the principles out of which the tolerating conduct ofIndependentsarises.Itsfundamentaldoctrinesarefavourabletoallthatis valuable in the civil and religious privileges of men. A persecutingIndependent is amonster,becausehe is acting inopposition to the lifeandgloryofhisownsystem.Othersmaypersecuteconsistentwiththeirprinciples; but he can only do it in the face of his. To withdraw fromnational churches, protest against authoritative synods, and refusesubscriptiontohumancreeds—andyet toemploythearmofpowertopropagate their own sentiments, or to defend the use of it by others,wouldbeanexhibitionofthegrossestfolly,orthepracticeofthegreatestknaveryeverknownintheworld.TomaintainthenecessityofconversioninordertoenjoythekingdomofGod,andtopromoteconversionatthepointof the sword,wouldbe the incongruitiesofmadmen,andnot theactionsofrationalbeings.As I have quoted the opinion of one northern philosopher onIndependency,Iwillperhapsbeexcusedforquotinganother.Dr.AdamSmith, after noting what the effect would be of entirely withdrawingpoliticalinfluenceandpositivelawfromreligion,andleavingthevarioussectstothenaturalprogressoftruthorerror,observesthis:“Thisplanofecclesiasticalgovernment,ormoreproperly,ofnoecclesiasticalgovernment,waswhat the sect called Independents— a sect no doubt of verywild enthusiasts— proposed toestablishinEnglandtowardtheendoftheCivilWar.Ifithadbeenestablished,thoughofaveryunphilosophical origin, it would probably by this time have produced themost philosophical

goodtemperandmoderationwithregardtoeverysortofreligiousprinciple.”157

110This passage reveals the same philosophical contempt for religiouspersons,andthesameunphilosophicalmodeofaccountingforfactsandopinionswhichwerebeyondthesphereofhisownunderstanding,whichare marked in the language of his friend and countryman, Hume. Itclearlyshows,however, thatSmith’sopinionof the toleratingprinciplesoftheIndependentswasthesameasthatofthehistorianofEngland.Itreveals the strong convictionwhich thephilosopherhadof the salutaryinfluence of these sentiments. IfHume and Smith had been capable ofentering into the viewswe have just been stating, theywould probablyhave given the Independents credit for knowing something of thephilosophyofChristianity,andofmantoo—andmighthavebeenledtosee that these principles are conducive not only to “philosophical goodtemper,”buttosomethingofhigherandmoredurableimportance.Icanscarcelyallowmyselftoapologiseforthislongapparentdigression.Thesubjectisoneofsomuchimportance,andthepartwhichOwentookindiscussingit,sonaturallyledmetoconsiderit,thatIfeltitimpossibleto slightly pass it over. If Britain is in great measure indebted to thePuritansforherCIVILLIBERTY,thenitispropertoshowthatshehasbeenindebtedtotheINDEPENDENTSforallthatisrationalandimportantinherviewsofRELIGIOUSFREEDOM.111I know it may be said that, though the Independents possessed bettertheoreticalsentimentsonthesubjectoftolerationthanothers,whentheypossessed power, they acted in the samemanner as other parties havedone. Even Neal exclaims, “How defective was their instrument ofGovernment under Cromwell! How arbitrary the proceedings of theirtryers! How narrow their list of fundamentals! And how severe theirrestraints of the press!”

158 The conduct of the New England

Congregationalists towardBaptists andQuakers,has alsobeen referredtoasevidenceofthepersecutingdispositionofIndependentswhentheypossess power. As all these subjectswill come before us in subsequentpartsofthiswork,Imustwaiveanyconsiderationofthemnow.IamfarfromthinkingthateveryIndependentfullyunderstoodandpractisedallhisownprinciples.But themore the subject is investigated, themore IamsatisfiedthatthestatementofHumewillbefoundtobecorrect.ItdoesnotappearthatOwen’ssilenceonthesubjectoftheKing’sdeath

lost him the favour of Parliament. For on the nineteenth of Aprilfollowing,wefindhimagainpreachingbeforeitandthechiefofficersofthearmy,whenhedeliveredhiscelebratedSermononthe“Shakingandtranslation of the heavens and the earth;” for which, the next day, hereceived the thanks of the house, and an order to print it. In hisdedicationtotheCommons,heapologisesforhisinabilitytodojusticetothe subject, from the little time he had to prepare it, and “the dailytroubles,pressures,andtemptationshehadtoencounterinthemidstofa poor and numerous people.” It is a long and important discourse,containing many free sentiments expressed with great vigour andplainness.112Heexclaims,asifinspiredbyaspiritofprophecy,“Thetimeshallcomewhen the earthwill discloseher slain, andnot the simplesthereticwillhave his blood unrevenged; nor shall any atonement or expiation beallowedforthisblood,whileatoeoftheimageoraboneofthebeastis

leftunbroken.”159Nordoesheleaveusatanylosstoascertainwhoare

theantichristianpowerstowhichherefers.Heasks,“Isitnotevidentthatthewholepresentconstitutionofthegovernmentofthenationsissocementedwithantichristianmortar, fromthevery topto thebottom,thatwithouta thoroughshaking they cannot be cleansed? This plainly reveals that theworkwhich the Lord is doingrelatestotheuntwiningofthisclosecombinationagainsthimselfandthekingdomofhisdearSon;andhewillnotleaveittillhehasdoneit.Towhatdegreethisshakingshallproceedintheseveralnations,Ihavenothinginparticulartodetermine,theScripturenothavingexpressedit.This alone is certain: it shall not stop nor receive its period, before the interest of

Antichristianityiswhollyseparatedfromthepowerofthesenations.”160

It was this sermon, I apprehend, that introduced Owen to theacquaintanceofCromwell,

161whothenheardhimforthefirsttime,and

was much pleased with the discourse. Owen intended to return homewithintwodaysafterpreaching.113Butcallingbeforehelefttown,topayhisrespectstoGeneralFairfax,withwhom he had become acquainted at the siege of Colchester, heaccidentally met with Cromwell there. When Owen waited on hisexcellency,theservantstoldhim,hewassomuchindisposedthatseveralpersonsofqualityhadbeenrefusedadmittance.However,hesentinhisname,requestingitbementionedtotheGeneral—thatheonlycameto

express his obligations for themany favours received fromhim. In themeantime,Cromwellcameinwithanumberoftheofficers.SeeingOwen,heimmediatelywalkeduptohim,andlayinghishandonhisshoulderinthefamiliarmannerwhichheusedwithhisfriends,hesaid“Sir,youarethepersonImustbeacquaintedwith.”Owenmodestlyreplied,“Thatwillbemuchmore tomy advantage than yours.” “We shall soon see that,”saidCromwell.Takinghimby thehand,he immediately ledOwen intoFairfax’sgarden,wherehetoldhimofhisintendedexpeditiontoIreland,and requested that he would accompany him for the purpose ofregulatingtheaffairsofTrinitycollege.Owenobjected,onaccountofhischargeof thechurchatCoggeshall.ButCromwellwouldtakenodenial,and from entreaties he proceeded to commands. He told him hisyoungest brother was going as standard-bearer in the army, and heemployedhimtousehisinfluencetoinducecompliance.HealsowrotetothechurchatCoggeshallonthesubject,whichwasexceedinglyaversetopartwithitsbelovedpastor—tillatlengthCromwelltoldthemhemust,andshouldgo.Owen,findinghowthingsstoodatlast,consultedsomeofhisbrethrenintheministry,whoadvisedhimtocomply.Hefinallybegantomakesomepreparationforthejourney.

162

114Such was the commencement of Owen’s intimacy and connexion withOliver Cromwell. The friendship now begun, lasted the greater part ofCromwell’slife,andproducedveryimportantconsequencesforOwen.Itisevident fromtheattentionshepaidOwen,andthehonourswhichheconferredonhim,thatCromwellhadahighregardforhim.ThatOwenhadareciprocalrespectforCromwell,isnolesscertain.Itwasarespectfoundedonwhathebelieved respecting theprivateworth, thepersonaltalents,andthepublicvirtuesofthatextraordinaryman.Onfewsubjectsisitsodifficulttospeakwithcandourandjustice,asonthecharacterofCromwell.Byhis friends, or his enemies, hehas been represented as asaintorademon;adornedwitheveryvirtue,ordegradedwitheveryvice,ofhumannature.Hischaracterwascertainlymadeupofinconsistencies;and his history is full of paradoxes. Whether good or evil mostpreponderated in his conduct will perhaps be estimated, as men arefriendsorenemiesofhispoliticalmeasures.Heisbynomeansentitledtounmingledpraise;andunqualifiedcensureisequallyundeserved.Hedidmuchtopromotethegloryofhiscountry.Ifnotareligiousmanhimself,he yet promoted religion in others, and was eminently the friend of

religious liberty at home and abroad. If he did not always act as heshould,itcanscarcelybedeniedthatfewmenwhohavegraspedtherodofpower,haveuseditwithsomuchmoderation,andsogenerallyforthegoodofothers,asOliverCromwell.

CHAPTERV.OwenpreachesbeforeParliament—Joinsthearmy—Characterofthearray—ArrivesinIreland—Labours inDublin—First controversywithBaxter—Character ofBaxter—Preaches beforeParliamentonhisreturnfromIreland—MeasuresoftheCommonwealthtopromotereligioninthatcountry—OwenappointedtoaccompanyCromwell intoScotland-Preaches inBerwickandEdinburgh—Stateofreligion inScotland—Testimonyof theEnglishMinisters—OfBinning—Rutherford — Burnet — Neal—Kirkton — Owen’s return to Coggeshall — Appointed to theDeaneryofChristChurch—Accountofthisoffice—Remarksonhisacceptanceofit—StricturesofWilton—OwenpreachesbeforeParliament—DeathofIreton—OwenpreacheshisFuneralSermon—CharacterofIreton—PreachesagainbeforeParliament.

SEVERALmonthselapsedbetweenOwen’sfirstinterviewwithCromwell,andbeingunder thenecessity of accompanyinghim to Ireland.On the7th of June, 1649, the city of London made a grand entertainment inGrocer’s hall, for the general, the officers of state, and the House ofCommons — to which they repaired in great pomp after hearing twosermons from Owen and Goodwin. On the following day, the housereferredittotheOxfordcommitteetopreferthepreacherstobeheadsofcollegesinthatuniversity,andreturnedtheirthanksforthesermons.

163

The discoursewhichOwen preached on this occasion is printed in thecollectionofhissermonsandtracts,entitled“Humanpowerdefeated.”Atthefootofthefirstpage,itissaidtohavebeenoccasionedbythedefeatoftheLevellersatBurfordonthepreceding18thofMay.Inthediscourse,there are repeatedallusions to thedesignsand ruinof thatparty.Theywere a body of fanatical desperados, who were enemies to civilmagistracy, to the regular ministry of the gospel, and to all statedordinances.116AboutfourthousandofthemassembledatBurfordunderthecommandof a person named Thomson — formerly condemned for sedition, butpardonedby thegeneral.ColonelReynolds, andafterwardsFairfaxandCromwell,felluponthemwhiletheywereunpreparedfordefence.Theytookfourhundredofthemprisoners,andsubduedtherest.

164

Onthe2dofJuly,OwenreceivedhiscommissionfromParliamenttogotoIrelandaschaplaintoLieutenantGeneralCromwell;£100perannumwasorderedtobepaidtohiswifeandchildreninhisabsence.

165Thiswas

nogreatrewardfor leavinghis familyandanaffectionatecongregation.AboutthemiddleofAugust,hesailedfromMilfordHavenwiththearmy,which consisted of fourteen thousandmen. Prior to its embarkation, a

dayoffastingandprayerwasobserved.Afterthreeministershadprayed(of whom Owen was probably one), Cromwell himself, and ColonelsGoughandHarrison.expoundedsomepartsofScriptureverysuitabletotheoccasion.The influenceof theseexercises, andsuchconducton thepartofitscommanders,musthaveproducedaverypowerfuleffectonabody so constituted as the army of theCommonwealth. Itwas under asevere discipline— not an oathwas to be heard throughout thewholecamp.

166 The soldiers spent their leisure hours in reading their bibles,

singingpsalms,andinreligiousconferences.167

117NorareweentirelydependentonthetestimonyoffriendsforthisviewoftheParliamentarytroops.Chillingworthsays,“I observed a great deal of piety in the commanders and soldiers of the Parliament’s army. Iconfess their discourse and behavior says they are Christians; but I can find little of God orgodlinessinourmen.TheywillnotseekGodwhiletheyareintheirbravery,nortrustHimwhentheyare indistress. Ihave tomakea fuss toget themon theirknees, tocalluponGod,or toresign themselves toHimwhen they go about any desperate service, or are thrown into any

difficultsituation.”168

ThetestimonyofLordClarendon,comparingthetwoarmies,ismuchtothe same purport. “The royal army,” he says, “was a dissolute,undisciplined,wicked, beaten army—whose horse their friends fearedand their enemies laughed at — being terrible only in plunder, andresoluteinrunningaway.”

169Elsewherehedescribestheotherforcesas

“anarmytowhichvictoryisentailed,andwhichhumanlyspeaking,couldhardly fail of conquest wherever it should be led — an army whosesobrietyandmanners,whose courageand success,made it famousandterrible over the world — which lived like good husbandmen in thecountry,andgoodcitizensinthecity.”

170

SuchwasthearmycommandedbyCromwell,whichgainedallhisbattlesandtowhich, fora time,Owenwasattachedasoneof thechaplains. Itconsisted of a body of warriors which fought with more than mortalcourage,animatednotmerelybyamorpatriae,

171butbymorepowerful

principles—whattheyconsideredtheamorDeietgloriaeeternae,172.

118Inthecourseofthesamemonthinwhichitembarked,itarrivedsafelyinDublin,whereOwentookuphislodgingsinTrinitycollege.Itisnopart

of my business to follow the. progress of the army, or to describe itsvictories,OwenremainedinDublinduringthegreaterpartoftheperiodhe spent in Ireland. His health was somewhat affected, and “he wasburdenedwithmanifoldemployments,andwithconstantpreachingtoanumerousmultitude of people, as thirsting after the gospel as ever heconversedwith,”

173Norwerehislabourswithoutfruit.Ihaveaccidentally

discoveredtwo individuals,DorothyEmett,andMajorManwaring,whoascribetheirfirstconvictions,tohispreachinginDublin.Manymore,wemayhope,willappearatanotherday.“Mr.Owen,” saysDorothyEmett, “was the firstmanbywhosemeans andministry I becamesensibleofmycondition.Iwasmuchcastdown,andcouldhavenorestwithinme;andthusIcontinued tillhisgoingaway fromus;andathisgoinghebidme tobelieve inChrist,andbeferventinprayer.”

Sheafterwardsobtainedcomfort.“IheardMr.OweninDublin,”saidMajorManwaring,“whodidmemuchgood,andmademeseemymiseryinthewantofChrist.”

I extract these testimonies from a curious and scarce book by JohnRogers, “The tabernacle for the Sun,” in which the experience of anumberofmembersoftheIndependentchurchinDublinisrecorded.

174

Ifeelthemorepleasureinquotingthem,astheysufficientlyconfuteanunfoundedsayingascribedtoDr.Owen—thatheneverknewthathehadbeenuseful in convertingone sinner. I amvery sure thatOwenhadnoreason for such a discouraging view of his labours. What he did inarranging the affairs of Trinity college cannot be ascertained, as theregisters of the university prior to the Restoration no longer exist.Whatever he was entrusted with, we are sure he would endeavour toconscientiouslydischargeit;thoughitmusthavebeenextremelydifficultto effect anything of great importance in the circumstances in whichIrelandthenwas,andduringaresidenceofonlyafewmonths.119While in Dublin, however, amidst all his labours, he found time toprepareareplytosomeremarksofBaxter’s,onhisworkonRedemption.ThishepublishedinLondon,aboutMaythenextyear.“OfthedeathofChrist, thepricehepaid,andthepurchasehemade—andthedoctrineconcerningthesethings,formerlydeliveredinatreatiseagainstuniversalredemption,vindicatedfromtheexceptionsandobjectionsofMr.R.B.”4to. This was the commencement of a series of discussions andconfrontations between Baxter and Owen, which continued on one

subject or another till the death of both these eminent men. Justiceobliges me to state that Baxter was invariably the aggressor, as Owenseemsnevertohavemeddledwithhimexceptinself-defence.Whateverhisreasonswere,BaxterseldomomittedanopportunitytoputablotonOwen’s conductorwritings.Andnot contentwithwranglingduringhislife, he left a legacy of reproach on the memory of his brother, whichwouldcontinuetooperatelongafterhisdeath.

175

The work of Baxter, to which this is a reply, is his “Aphorisms ofJustification,” in an Appendix to which he made some criticisms onOwen’s views of redemption. Baxter was a man of eminent piety andindefatigable zeal;who laboured hard tomake thatwhichwas crookedstraight,andtonumberthatwhichwaswanting—toreconcileconflictingopinions,andtoharmonizecontendingspirits.120Pureinhisintentions,butofteninjudiciousinhismeasures,hislaboursfrequentlyproducedonlydisappointmentandtrouble.Hewasthemostmetaphysical man of his age, constantly employing himself in makingdistinctionswheretherewasnodifference,orinattemptingtoshowthatthe most opposite sentiments allowed for the same explanation. Aprofessed enemy to controversy, yet perpetually engaged in it, hemultiplieddisputesby endeavouring todestroy them.Hewasneither aCalvinistnoranArminian;andyetattimeshewasclaimedbyboth.Hewasneither a churchmannor adissenter; but sometimeswrote againstthe one, and sometimes against the other— till all partiesmight quotehim as an advocate, andmeet him as an enemy. To noman, perhaps,werethewordsoftheheathensatyristevermoreapplicable:—Tenetinsanabilevulnus

Scribendicacoëthes.176

Of this he seems to have been at times sensible, as he franklyacknowledges that he had writtenmultitudo librorum [a multitude ofbooks]whichcontainedmultavanaetinutilia[muchthatwasemptyanduseless].HewasnearlyofthesamestandingwithOwen—hewasinferiorinlearning,butOwen’sequalinacuteness,inpatienceofresearch,andintheabundanceofhis labours.Thedifferencesbetween themonvarioussubjects,laymore,perhaps,inwordsthaninthings.Itmustberegrettedthatadegreeofsharpnessmarkedtheconductoftheirdiscussions,whichtheimportanceofthepointsat issue,andthemeeknessofwisdom,will

bynomeansjustify.121A particular account of Owen’s reply to Baxter would now be veryuninteresting, as he admits himself that the contention laymore about“expressions than opinions.” It is, in fact, a piece of dry scholasticdiscussion, partakingmore of the character of theological logomachy,

177

thanalmostanyotherperformanceofourauthor.Hewasdoubtless ledtothisbythesubtletyofhisopponent,whoemployedallhisacutenesstodetecterrorinOwen’sviewsofthedeathofChrist,andtheparticularityofitsdesign.Owen,however,stoutlydefendshisoriginalstatementsandsuccessfully unravels the web in which his ingenious adversaryendeavouredtoentanglehim.Asimplerreferencetotheplain languageofScripture,andlessattachmenttomerelyhumanformsofexpression,wouldcertainlyhavebeenadvantageous toboth.Aprolix

178 contention

astowhetherthedeathofChristwassolutioejusdem,oronlytantundem—that is,whether itwas apaymentof the very thingwhichby lawweoughttohavepaid,orifitwasapaymentofsomethingheldbyGodtobean equivalent — does not promise much profit or gratification to themind. A man’s views of the atonement, as the sole ground of hisacceptance,arenotlikelytobemuchaffectedwhicheverofthetwosidesheembraces.YetthisseemstobetheturningpointofthedebatebetweenOwenandBaxter.Howevertriflingthedifferencemayappear,Baxterpublishedananswerto Owen’sVindication in the “Confession of his Faith.” 4to. 1655. Theobject of this, was to explain himself more fully on the subjects ofrepentance, justification, sincere obedience, etc. In the course of thisvolume, he introduces Owen, and tries to fasten on him the charge ofAntinomianism. Owen replied to this at the end of his VindiciaeEvangelicae, vindicating his former sentiments, and complaining ofinjusticeonthepartofBaxter.122Determined to have the last word, even if only by way of assigningreasonsfornotwriting,BaxterrejoinedandrecriminatedinanAppendixto his “Five Disputations of Right to the Sacraments.” 4to. 1656. Sointerminableat timesare thedebatesof systematic theologians.Baxter,however,acknowledgedafterwardsthathehadmeddledtoorashlywith

Owen,andthathewasthentoorawtobeawriter.179

ImmediatelyafterhisreturnfromIreland,hewascalledtopreachbeforeParliament on a day of solemnhumiliation throughout the kingdom—February 28th, 1650. This discourse, entitled, “The Stedfastness ofPromises,andtheSinfulnessofStaggering,”revealsthedeepinteresthetookinthewelfareofIreland.Hesays,“Iwish therewere for the present, one gospel preacher for everywalled town in the EnglishpossessioninIreland.Thelandmourns,andthepeopleperishforlackofknowledge:manyruntoandfro,butitisuponotherdesigns—knowledgeisnotincreased.Theyaresensibleoftheirwants, and cry out for supply. The tears and cries of the inhabitants of Dublin after themanifestationofChrist,areeverinmyview.Iftheywereinthedark,andlovedtohaveitso,itmight insomerespectsclosethedooronour innermostcompassion.Buttheycryoutof theirdarkness,andarereadytofollowwhoeverhasacandle.Iftheirbeingwithoutthegospeldoesnotmoveourhearts, it ishopedthat their importunatecrieswilldisquietourrest,andextort

ourhelp,asabeggardoesalms.”180

123HecallsuponParliamentnot toconsider thesubjugationofIrelandtheonlyobjectdeservingof their attention;but to appoint a committee forthe consideration of its religious state, and to take other steps forsupplying the wants and redressing the grievances of that ill-fatedcountry. In consequenceof these representations, secondedby thoseofCromwell,Parliamentpassedanordinanceonthe8thofMarch, fortheencouragement of religion and learning in Ireland. By this act, certainlandsweredevotedtosupportTrinitycollegeandtheendowmentof itsprofessors; for erecting another college in Dublin and maintaining itsteachers; and for the erection of a free school and the support of themasterand scholars.

181 Theuniversity ofDublinbeing thus revivedand

put on a new footing, the Parliament sent over six of their mostacceptable preachers to give it reputation — appointing them twohundred pounds per annum paid out of the bishop’s lands. Until thatcouldbedulyraised,itwastobepaidoutofthepublicrevenue.Bythesemethods,learningbegantorevive,andinafewyears,religionappearedwith a better face than it had ever done in that kingdom before.

182

NothingismorehonourabletotheCommonwealthgovernment,thantheattention it invariably paid to representations respecting the state ofreligion in all parts of the country, and the measures it employed toadvance the interests of the gospel. It was, in fact, a college depropaganda fide

183as much as a civil institute. It provided for the

spiritualaswellasthetemporalwelfareofitssubjects.Itdidthiswithoutmakingaparticularreligiousprofessionthetestofcivilprivileges;anditnever forced the particular sentiments of the governors on theconsciencesofthegoverned.124Perhapspolicydictatedsomeofitsreligiousmeasures,butonthewhole,religionwasneversolittleabusedbystateenactments,ormadesolittlesubservienttoworldlypurposes.Icanonlyaccountforthisbyadmittingthe decidedly Christian character of the body of men then in power.Persons of another description would either have pursued differentmeasures, or have given more of a secular aspect and tendency toreligiousobjects.CromwellreturnedtoLondontheendofMay,1650,andleftforScotlandthe following month. An order, some time after, passed the House ofCommonsforMr.JosephCarylandMr.OwentoproceedtothearmyinScotlandperthedesireofthegeneral.

184Accordingtothedeclarationof

the Parliament, the invasion of Scotland was occasioned by the ScotchdeclaringthemselvesenemiestotheCommonwealthgovernment,andtoallwhoadheredtoit.ThiswasbytheirfollyinproclaiminginScotland,thatCharlesStuartwaskingofEnglandandIreland,andpromisinghimassistance to invade England. Other things also led the Parliament tobelievethattheScotswouldmarchintoEnglandatthefirstopportunity,toavengethequarrelofthecovenant,thedeathoftheking,andthelossoftheirinfluence.ThisdeclarationwaspublishedbytheParliament.AndanotherbyCromwell,innameofthearmy,wasaddressedinthestyleofthetimes,“ToallthataresaintsandpartakersofthefaithofGod’selectinScotland.”Thelattercontainsreasonsforputtingthekingtodeathandexcludinghis family fromthethrone; forerectingacommonwealthandrejectingPresbyterianchurchgovernment;alongwitharefutationofthechargesofheresyandblasphemychargedagainstthearmy.125Cromwell,however,didnotspendtimeinpapermanifestos.Theprogressofhisarmsgaveanenergytohisdeclarations—andthebattleofDunbardecidedthefateofScotland,andopenedthegatesofitsmetropolis.OwenjoinedhimatBerwick,inobediencetotheordersofParliament.Wehavenoreasontothinkthathewasatalldesirousofthekindofemploymentthus forceduponhim.Hewasunited toanaffectionatechurch, fondof

ruralretirement,andtheheadofagrowingfamily.Thenoiseofacampand the din of arms must have been revolting to his feelings, anddestructiveofhisstudioushabits.InIreland,hehadremainedasshortatime as possible, and his residence in Scotland could not be morecongenial to his wishes. The Scotch were generally opposed to theParliamentary proceedings, and their ministers were among the mostdetermined enemies of that form of church polity to which Owen wasattached.Insuchcircumstances,thepreachingofanapostlewouldhavebeen listened towith distrust and suspicion; and his conduct, howeverharmless,wouldscarcelypasswithoutreprehension.WehavetwoSermonspreachedbyOwenduringhisjourneytoScotland,and his residence in it. They are both from the same text, Isaiah 56.7.“Formyhouseshallbecalledahouseofprayerforallpeople.”ThefirstwaspreachedatBerwick,on theadvanceof thearmy;and theother inEdinburgh. In a dedication prefixed to them, addressed “to the LordGeneralCromwell,”anddatedEdinburgh,November26th,1650,hetellsCromwellthat,“Itwaswiththoughtsofpeacethatheembracedhiscalltothisplaceintimeofwar”—thathischiefdesignincomplyingwithit,126“wastopouroutasavourofthegospelonthesonsofpeaceinScotland;thathehopedthishadbeenmanifestedintheconsciencesofallwithwhomhehadtodealintheworkoftheministry;andthatthoughsomeweresoseasonedwiththeleavenofcontentionaboutcarnalthings,astodisrelishtheweightierthingsofthegospel,yetthegreatOwnerofthevineyardhadnotlefthimwithoutacomfortableassurancethathislabourintheLordhadnotbeeninvain.”

Thediscoursesareentitled,“TheBranchoftheLord,theBeautyofZion;”they contain scarcely an allusion to the peculiar circumstances ofScotland.When theEnglish army tookpossession ofEdinburgh, theministers ofthecityretiredtothecastleforprotection.Inconsequenceofthis,averycurious correspondence took place between Cromwell and them. TheGeneralsentnoticetotheGovernorofthecastle,thattheministersmightreturn to discharge their duties, that they would have full liberty topreach,andthatnoneinthearmywouldmolestthem.Theyrepliedthatno security being offered for their persons, they resolved to reservethemselvesforbettertimes,andtowaituponHimwhohadhidhisfaceforawhilefromthesonsofJacob.Cromwellrepliedtothisinalettertothe Governor, which produced an answer from the ministers, and arejoinder from the General.

185 The correspondence affords a curious

illustrationofthesentimentsofbothparties.AsitisprintednotonlyinThurloe’sStatePapers,andWhitelocke’sMemorials,butalsoinNeal,itisunnecessarytoinsertithere.

186

127AsthePresbyterianministersremainedinthecastle,theministersofthearmy tookpossessionof thepulpits,where thepeopleheard themwithsuspicion and wonder.

187 How long Owen remained in Edinburgh is

uncertain, hemost probably accompanied the army to the west, and acuriousdiscussionissaidtohavetakenplace inGlasgowbetweensomeof the Scotchministers and him, in the presence of Cromwell. At thismeeting,itissaidthatMr.HughBinningsomanagedthedispute,thathenonplusedCromwell’sministers.ThisledOlivertoask,afterthemeetingwasover,who that learnedandboldyoungmanwas.Onbeing toldhisnamewasBinning,he said, “Hehasboundwell indeed;”but layinghishand on his sword, “this will loose all again.”

188 There is nothing

improbableinthemeeting;andCromwell’spunquiteaccordswithotheranecdotesofhisconversation.The state of religion in Scotland, during the ten years preceding theEnglishinvasion,andtheruleofthecommonwealthafterwards,hasbeenmuchmisunderstood.ThezealousfriendsofPresbyteriandisciplinehaverepresentedtheperiodfrom1638to1649asthegoldenageofreligioninScotland, and the following years as exhibiting a lamentable falling off.And indeed, if true religion consists in the regular meeting of churchcourts, and the overwhelming power of ecclesiastical rulers, the formerperiodwould be very distinguished.But ifmuch of the formmay existwithout thepower of religion,wewill be cautioushowwe judge of thestateofreligionfromtheproceedingsofAssemblies.128It is beyond dispute that there were then many excellent men in thechurch;butitisequallyunquestionablethatnotafewoftheclergyweredestituteofgenuinepiety, andavastmajorityof thepeoplewere innobetter state. The Assemblies were exceedingly zealous in putting downEpiscopacy, inestablishinguniformity,andinpassingpersecuting laws;189buttheyhadmuchlessofthespiritofChristthantheirofficerequired.

TheEnglish army andministers had only a low opinion of the state ofreligionupon coming into Scotland.According to a testimony from the

Army,quotedbyWhitelocke,theChurchofScotlandwas“AKirkwhosereligion is formality, andwhosegovernment is tyranny, a generationofvery hypocrites and vipers.”

190 Joseph Caryl, John Oxenbridge, and

CuthbertSydenham—ministerswhoattendedthearmy—assertthat.“Theexperienceofthetrueanddeservingshepherdshere(theministersofthechurch)whoareasdeartotheirotherbrethrenassheeptothewolves,tellsthemthatalmostnineoutoftenintheirflockarenotsheep—notfit,theysay,forcivilmuchless,wesay,forspiritualprivileges.”191

This language shows the state of parties in the church then; theresolutionists and the remonstrants being something like themoderateandtheorthodoxamongtheclergynow.Ifitisthoughtthatthesearetheprejudiced statementsof enemiesand strangers, thenanextractor twofromthewarmestandmostuprightfriendsofthechurchwillshowthattheyarefarfrombeingtoostrong.129“The scantiness of gracious men,” says Hugh Binning, in a discoursepreached in 1650, “is the spot of judicatories — that there are manychildrenoftheworld,butfewchildrenoflightinthem.Thisisthespotof Assemblies, Synods, and Presbyteries — that there are few godlyministers. Alas that this complaint should be — even among thosewhoseofficeitistobegetmanychildrentoGod—howfewofthemarebegotten,orhavetheimageoftheirFather.”

192

ThetestimonyofMr.SamuelRutherford,whosepietyandattachmenttothechurchwillnotbequestioned,isequallystrong,respectingthesecularcharacterandmeasuresoftheAssemblies.“Afterward,” referring as I understand him to this period, “ourwork in publicwas toomuchmoreinsequestrationofestates,finingandimprisoning,thaninacompassionatemournfulnessofspirittowardthosewhomwesawtoopposethework.InourAssemblies,weweremoretosetupastateopposite toastate—moreuponforms,citations, leadingofwitnesses,suspensionsfrombenefices—thantospirituallypersuadeandworkupontheconsciencewiththemeeknessandgentlenessofChrist.ThegloryandroyaltyofourprincelyRedeemerandKingwastrampledon, as any might have seen in our Assemblies. The way that the army, the sword, and thecountenanceofnobles andofficers seemed to sway,was theway that the censures carried. Itwould have been better had there beenmore days of humiliation and fasting, and far less of

adjourningcommissions,newperemptorysummonses,andnewlydrawnupprocesses.”193

Ifwepassfromtheclergyandchurchcourts,tothepeople,theviewgivenof them by the friends of the church,will not appearmore favourable.“Whatnow,” asksMr.Binning, “is the great blot of our visible church?

Here it is:most are not God’s children but are called so; and it is thegreaterblotthattheyarecalledso,andarenot.”

194

130Addressingthemagain,hesays,“Setasideyourpublicserviceandprofessions,andisthereanythingbehindyourconversation,butdrunkenness, lying, swearing, contention, envy,deceit,wrath, covetousness, and the like?Hasthemultitudenotbeenascivil,andcarriedthemselvesasblamelessly,asthethrongofourvisiblechurch?Whatdoyouhavemorethanthey?Whatthenaremostofyou?Youbowaknee

toGodneitherinsecretnorinyourfamilies.”195

IfPrincipalBaillie’swordsalreadyquotedhaveanymeaning,notmorethanone in “forty of themembers of his church gave good evidence ofgrace and regeneration.”

196 These testimonies show that there may be

muchprofessedzealfortheLordofHosts—muchclamorouscontentionabout Confessions of Faith, Forms of Church Government, andextirpation of heretics, and yet a deplorable degree of ignorance,depravity,andirreligion.It does not appear that the influence of the English army, and ofCromwell’s government, was unfavourable to the state of religion inScotland. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that true religionduringthisperiod,wasinratheraprosperousstate.Itistrue,Cromwellput down the Assemblies, and curbed the spirit of interference withpolitics which then so much prevailed among the ministers. But heinterferedwithnoneoftheotherrightsofthechurch;andheencouragedtheprofessionofthegospelinallranks.131I“rememberwell,”saysBishopBurnet,“ofthreeregimentscomingtoAberdeen.Therewasanorderanddiscipline,andafaceofgravityandpietyamongthem,thatamazedallpeople.MostofthemwereIndependentsandAnabaptists:theywereallgiftedmen,andpreachedastheyweremoved.Buttheyneverdisturbedthepublicassembliesinthechurchesbutonce.Theycameandreproachedthepreachers for laying things to theircharge thatwere false. Iwas thenpresent.Thedebate grew very fierce.At last they drew their swords; but therewasnohurt done. Yet

Cromwelldisplacedthegovernorfornotpunishingthis.”197

The power of the churchwas reducedwithin a narrower compass. Forthough it had liberty to excommunicate offenders, or debar them thecommunion,itmightnotseizetheirestates,ordeprivethemoftheircivilrightsandprivileges.Nooathsorcovenantsweretobeimposed,exceptbydirectionfromWestminster.Andasall fittingencouragementwasto

begiventoministersoftheEstablishedChurch,sootherswhowerenotsatisfiedwiththeirformofChurchGovernment,hadlibertytoserveGodin their own manner. This occasioned a great commotion among theclergy, who complained of the loss of their covenant and churchdiscipline. They exclaimed against toleration as opening a door to allkindsoferrorandheresy.ButtheEnglishsupportedtheirfriendsagainstallopposition.

198

The strongest testimony as to the prosperous condition of religion inScotland, is from the pen ofMr. James Kirkton, afterwards one of theministers of Edinburgh. From his opportunities, he was well able tojudge, and from his sentiments as a Presbyterian, he was unlikely tooverrate,thesalutaryinfluenceofthemeasuresofthecommonwealth.132“Theydidindeed,”hesays,“proclaimasortoftolerationtowardDissentersamongProtestants,but permitted the gospel to have its course, and Presbyteries and Synods to continue in theexerciseoftheirpowers;andallthetimeoftheirgovernment,thegospelprosperednotalittle,butmightily.Itisalsotrue,thatbecausetheScotchministersweregenerallyforthekingonanyterms,theydidnotthereforepermittheGeneralAssemblytosit(andinthisIbelievetheydidno bad office). For both the authority of thatmeetingwas denied by the Protesters, and theAssembly seemed to be more set upon establishing themselves than promoting religion. —Errorsinsomeplacesinfectedsomefew;yetalltheselosseswereinconsiderableinregardtothegreatsuccessthewordpreachedhadinsanctifyingthepeopleofthenation.AndIverilybelievethereweremoresoulsconvertedtoChristinthatshortperiodoftime,thaninanyseasonsincetheReformation,thoughoftripleitsduration.Norwasthereevergreaterpurityandplentyofthemeansofgracethanintheirtime.Ministerstookpains;peoplewerediligent.Andifamanhadseenoneoftheirsolemncommunionswheremanycongregationsmetingreatmultitudes—somedozenministersusedtopreach;andthepeoplecontinuedforthreedaysatleast,inakindof tranceas itwere (soseriouswere they inspiritualexercises)—hewouldhave thought itasolemnityunknowntotherestoftheworld.—Attheking’sreturn,everyparishhadaminister,everyvillagehadaschool,almosteveryfamilyhadaBible; indeed,inmostofthecountryallthechildrencouldreadtheScriptures,andwereprovidedwithBibles,eitherbytheirparentsor

theirministers.”199

133Nothingneedstobeaddedtothesetestimonies.Whenthestateofthingsthus described, is contrastedwith the condition of Scotland during thewhole government of the four last Stuarts, it will not be difficult foranyone to determine whether the reign of legitimate and covenantedroyalty to which the people were so devoted, or the government of adespisedandconstantlyopposedusurpation,deservedthemostrespect.It will also appear that the meetings and enactments of political,intriguing General Assemblies were by no means so necessary to the

advancementoftruereligionasmanyhavesupposed.Also,doingjusticetothepartywithwhichOwenwasmostcloselyconnected,requiresthatIshow that its measures and influence were generally favourable to theinterestsofChristianity.Owen continued with the army in Scotland till early in 1651 when hereturnedtohisfamilyandflockatCoggeshall.There,however,hewasnotallowed to rest long.According to theorderwhichpassed theHouseofCommonsmorethanayearbefore,OwenandGoodwinwerepreferredtobe heads of Colleges in Oxford. Goodwin was now revised to thePresidency of Magdalen College, and Owen was made Dean of ChristChurch. The first notice he received of this was the appearance of thefollowingorderinthenewspapersoftheday:“Onthe18thMarch,1651,theHousetakingintoconsiderationtheworthandusefulnessofMr.JohnOwen,M.A.ofQueen’sCollege,orderedthathebesettledintheDeaneryofChrist’sChurch,inplaceofDr.Reynolds.”Reynoldshadbeenputintothe Deanery of Christ Church and the Vice-Chancellorship of theUniversitybythePresbyterianparty.ButrefusingtotaketheengagementastruetothegovernmentestablishedwithoutKingorHouseofLords,hewasdeprivedofit.134And though, to save theDeanery,hesometimeafteroffered to take theengagement, the Parliament, which was offended at his conduct, tookadvantage of the forfeiture, and conferred it onOwen.

200 Baxter says it

hadpreviouslybeenofferedtoCaryl,whorefusedit;201butnoevidenceof

this appears. Soon after Owen’s appointment was made public, hereceivedaletterfromtheprincipalstudentsatChristChurch,expressingtheirgreatsatisfactionattheappointment,andtheirdesirethathewouldcome among them. Accordingly, with the consent of the Church, heresignedhis pastoral office, and tookuphis residence inOxford in thecourseofthesameyear.

202

Christ Church College is one of the best foundations in Oxford. It waserected by CardinalWolsey. And though it has since undergone manychanges, it still remainsamonumentof thegreatnessof thatambitiousChurchman. The establishment consists of aDean, eight Canons, eightChaplains,andonehundredstudents,withinferiorofficers.Theofficeofthe Dean is to preside at all meetings of the College, and to deliver

DivinityLectures.Inthehierarchy,heisnextindignitytotheBishopofOxford;buttheappointmentisintheCrown.Duringthecommonwealth,the ecclesiastical functions of the office and the connexion with thechurch, must have been suspended; but the temporalities

203 of the

Deanerywere not sequestrated alongwith the otherDean andChapterlands.

204 Thiswasprobably on account of its relation to theUniversity.

Theemolumentsoftheofficearenowveryconsiderable,andmusthavebeensoeveninthetimeofthecommonwealth.135Owen’saccountof thisappointmentandofhimselfarecharacterisedbyhisnaturalmodesty,andChristianhumility.“InowclearlyfoundthatIwhodreadedalmosteveryacademicemployment,asbeingunequaltothetask,andatatimetoowhenIhadentertainedhopethatthroughthegoodnessofGodingiving me leisure and retirement, and strength for study, that the deficiency of genius andpenetration,mightbemadeupby industryanddiligence,wasnowsocircumstanced that thecareerofmystudiesmustbeinterruptedbymoreandgreaterimpedimentsthanever.Forwhatcouldbeexpectedfromamannotfaradvancedinyears,andwhohadforsometimebeenveryfullofemployment?Iwasaccustomedonlytothepopularmodeofspeaking.Andbeingentirelydevoted to the investigationof thegraceofGod throughJesusChrist, Ihad taken leaveofallscholastic studies.My genius is by nomeans quick; and I even forgot, in somemeasure, theportionofpolitelearningthatImighthaveformerlyacquired.Themostweightyandimportanttaskoflecturinginpublic,wasputuponme.Thiswouldstrictlyandproperlyrequirethewholetimeandattentionofthemostgraveandexperienceddivine.Andindischargingit,ifIhadnotbeengreatlyassistedandencouragedbythecandour,piety,submission,andself-denialoftheauditors,andby their respect for theDivine institution,and their loveof the truthwitheverykindof indulgence to theearthenvessel—Iwouldhave long lostallhopeofdischarging that

province,eithertothepublicadvantageormyownsatisfactionandcomfort.”205

136It appears, at first, rather surprising that an Independent would haveacceptedanofficethathasalwaysbeenreckonedpartoftheecclesiasticalestablishment, but both Baptists and Independents were then in thepracticeofacceptingthelivings—thatis,thetemporalitiesoftheChurch.They did not, however, view themselves as parishministers, who werebound to administer all the ordinances of religion to the parishpopulation.Theyoccupiedtheparochialedifices,andreceivedaportionof the tithes for theirmaintenance;but inall other respects, theyactedaccording to their own principles. The times were unsettled; theEpiscopalclergywerethrownoutbythestate,eitheronaccountoftheirprinciplesor their conduct; the fundsof the churchwerenototherwisedisposed of.Andbecause theDissentersweredischarging theduties of

public teachers,many of them (amongwhomwasOwen) considered itlawfultoreceiveaportionofthoseprovisionstowhichnootherclassofmenhadthenabetterclaim.Itcannotbedoubtedthatthisstateofthingswould soon have introduced very serious evils among them; but thesewere prevented by another revolution which restored Episcopacy, andgraciously threw the Dissenters on their own resources. The Dean ofChrist Church, however, was no further connected with theEstablishment than, as President of his College, he held a situation ofimportant influence, andwas legally entitled to the support attached tohisoffice.Hehimselfsolemnlyassuresusthatheneversoughttheoffice,andwasactuallyaversetoit.“WhileIwasdiligentlyemployedinpreachingthegospel,theParliamentofEnglandpromotedmetoaChairinthecelebratedUniversityofOxford,bytheirauthorityandinfluence—though

withreluctanceonmypart.”206

137Fromsuchdeclarations,andtheformerdisinterestednessofhisconduct,weareboundtobelievethatasenseofdutyaloneinducedhimtoaccepttheAcademicChair. But I freely acknowledge that he andhis brethrenwho accepted of the livings of the Church, exposed themselves (notunfairly)tothechargeofinconsistencypreferredagainstthembyMilton.Thatspiritedwriter,withhisusualenergy,declaredthathe,“hatedthatIndependentsshouldtakethatname,astheymayjustlytakeitfromtheirfreedomofChristiandoctrine,andchurchdisciplinethat issubjecttonosuperior judgebutGodalone—and yet seek to beDependents on the magistrates for their maintenance. These two things,Independence and State hire in religion, can never consist long or certainly together. Formagistrates at one time or other will pay none but those whom, by their committees ofexamination, they find conformable to their interests and opinions. And hirelings will soonframe themselves to that interest and those opinions which they see best pleasing to their

paymasters.Andtoseemrightthemselves,theywillforceothersastothetruth.”207

TheDeanofChristChurchwascalledtopreachbeforeParliamentonthe24th of October 1651. It was the thanksgiving day appointed for thedestructionoftheScotcharmyatWorcester,“withsundryothermercies.”Thiscelebratedvictory,“thecrowningmercy”ofCromwell,completedtheruinofCharlesIIandthesubjugationofScotland;anditestablishedtheauthorityofthecommonwealthinthethreekingdoms.Inthededicationof this sermon to Parliament, theDean expresses himself very stronglyconcerning the principles and conduct of the people of Scotland in thewar,whichthebattleofWorcesterterminated.

138“Withwhatdeceivablenessofunrighteousness,andliesinhypocrisy,thelategrandattemptinScotland was carried on, is in some measure now made naked to the loathing of itsabominations.Indiggingdeeptolayafoundationforbloodandrevenge;incoveringprivateandsordid endswith a pretence of glorious things; in outlining a face of religion upon aworldlystock; inconcealingdistantaimsandbloodyanimosities tocompassonecommonend(thatatheatremightbeprovidedtoactseveralpartsupon);inpleadingnecessityfromanoathofGodtomostdesperateundertakingsagainstGod, it doesnot giveplace to anywhich former ageshavebeenacquaintedwith.”

The views of Owen on this subject were no doubt influenced by thepersons with whom he generally acted. But there were certainly greatinconsistenciesintheproceedingsoftheScotchleaders;andmanythingswere very provoking in their conduct to England. Correct religioussentimentsandsoundpolicywouldhavedictateddifferentmeasuresbothtoward Charles, and the people of England from thosewhich they hadpursued. The sermon preached on this occasion is entitled, “TheAdvantageof theKingdomofChrist in theShakingof theKingdomsofthe world, or Providential Alterations in their subservience to Christ’sExaltation.” It containsmany free and eloquent passages, especially onthe danger of human governments interfering with the principles andrightsofthekingdomofChrist;andontheabominationandextentoftheAntichristianapostasy.“HethatthinksBabylon,”saysthepreacher,“isconfinedtoRomeanditsopenidolatry,knowsnothingofBabylon, nor of theNewJerusalem.Thedepth of a subtlemysterydoesnot lie ingrossvisible folly. Ithasbeen insinuating itself intoall thenations forsixteenhundredyears;andtomostofthemithasnowbecomeasthemarrowintheirbones.

139Beforeitiswhollyshakenout,theseheavens(ecclesiasticalpowers)mustbedissolved,andthisearth(civilgovernments)mustbeshaken—theirtalltreesheweddownandsetahowling,and

theirresiduetransplantedfromoneendoftheearthtoanother.”208

Henry Ireton, son-in-law toCromwell (byBridget,his eldestdaughter),diedwhileLordDeputyof Ireland,on the26thofNovember, 1651.HisbodywasbroughtovertoEngland,andburiedinWestminsterAbbeyonthe6thofFebruary,1652,withgreatfuneralsolemnity.“Ifhecouldhaveforeseenwhatwasdone,”saysLudlow,“hewouldcertainlyhavemadeithisdesirethathisbodymighthavefoundagravewherehissoulleftit,somuchdidhedespisethosepompousandexpensivevanities;havingerectedforhimselfamoregloriousmonumentintheheartsofgoodmen,byhisaffectiontohiscountry,hisabilitiesofmind,hisimpartialjustice,hisdiligence in the public service, and his other virtues, whichwere a far greater honour to his

memorythanadormitoryamongtheashesofkings.”209

OwenpreachedthefuneralsermononthisoccasionintheAbbeyChurch

ofWestminster. It was published with the title, “The labouring Saint’sdismission to his rest,” and dedicated to Col. Henry Cromwell, theyoungestsonoftheProtector.Itisdifficulttoascertainthetruecharacterof Ireton. According to Burnet, “he had the principles and temper of aCassius.”Noblerepresentshimasthemostartful,dark,deliberatemanofalltherepublicans,bywhomhewasinthehighestdegreebeloved.

210

140And Hume acknowledges that he was a memorable personage, muchcelebratedforhisvigilance,industry,andcapacity.Thathewasamanoftalents and disinterestedness, is admitted by all parties; that he was arepublicanneednotbedenied;thathewasamanofpiety,thereisstrongreasontobelieve.The testimonyofLudlow,whomusthaveknownhimwell,ishighlyhonourable;thatofHeath,thoughintendedasareproach,is scarcely less to his credit: “Hewas absolutely the best prayermakerand preacher in the army, for which he may thank his education atOxford.”

211Todeservethischaracterinanarmyofprayingandpreaching

men,arguedfornoordinaryattainmentsofareligiousnature.Owen,whomusthaveknownhimintimately,expresses inasinglesentence(averylongoneIadmit),hisopinionofthisrepublicanhero.“Mybusinessisnottomakeafuneraloration;onlyIsupposethatwithoutoffenceImaydesirethatincourageandpermanencyofbusiness,inabilityandwisdomforcounsel,infaithfulnesstohistrustandinhistrust,inindefatigableindustryinthepursuitoftheworkcommittedtohim,in faith on the promises of God and acquaintance with his mind in his mighty works ofprovidence,inlovetotheLordJesusandallhissaints,intenderregardtotheirinterest,delightintheirsociety,contemptofhimselfandallhisforthegospel’ssake,witheminentself-denialinallhisconcernments,inimpartialityandsincerityintheexecutionofjustice—thatintheseandlikethings,wemayhavemanyraisedupinthepowerandspiritinwhichhewalkedbeforethe

Lordandtheinhabitantsofthisnation.”212

141OnthethirteenthofOctoberfollowing,OwenwasagaincalledtopreachbeforetheHouseonadayofsolemnhumiliation.Inonepassageofthissermon, we have a striking picture of the unsettled, chaotic state ofreligionduringthisperiodofconfusion.“Whatnowisthestateofthingsbythelustofmen?Somesay,thereisnogospelatall.Otherssay, if there is,youhavenothing todowith it.Somesay look,here isChrist;others say, look

there. Some make religion a colour213

for one thing, others for another. Some say themagistrate must not support the gospel; others say the gospel must subvert the magistrate.Somesay,yourruleisonlyformenasmen,youhavenothingtodowiththeinterestofChristandhisChurch;otherssay,youhavenothingtodotorulemen,exceptonaccountoftheirbeing

saints.Ifyouwouldhavethegospel,saysome,thendownwithitsministers;andifyouwouldhavelight,takecarethatyouhaveignoranceanddarkness.Thingsarebeingcarriedonasifitwerethecareofmenthattheremightbenotroubleintheworld,butthatthenameofreligion

mightlieatthebottomofit.”214

It is surely gross injustice to charge themanwho thus strongly regretsanddeprecatesthereligiousconfusionofthetimes,asoneoftheleadinginstrumentsofproducingthatconfusion.Owenalwayshadcorrectviewsoftheimportanceandnecessityoforder;andneitherhissentimentsnorhisconductnecessarilyproduceddisorderineitherchurchorstate.Butitis no strange thing for the greatest benefactors of their country to berewardedwithreproachandmisrepresentation.

CHAPTERVI.Division of theMemoirs at this period—OwenmadeVice-Chancellor—Attends aMeeting inLondon,calledbyCromwelltopromoteunion—CreatedD.D.—ElectedM.P.fortheUniversity— Cromwell’s Instrument of Government — Debate about the Construction of the Articlerespecting Religious Liberty— Remarks on Neal’s account of it, and theMeeting ofMinistersrespectingit—OwenappointedanEjectingCommissionerandTryer—ConductoftheTryers—OwendeliversPococke—Baxter’saccountoftheTryers—Owen’smeasuresforsecuringOxford—CorrespondencewithThurloe—AttendsaMeetingatWhitehallabouttheJews—PreachesattheOpeningofaNewParliament—AgainonaFastday—AssistsindefeatingCromwell’sattempttomakehimselfKing—DeprivedoftheVice-Chancellorship.

TheperiodduringwhichOwenwasVice-ChancellorofOxford,wasbyfarthebusiestandmostimportantofhislife.Itisthuspropertoarrangeourmemoirsofitstransactions,insuchamannerastoexhibitacorrectviewofhisgeneralconduct,hisconnexionswiththeUniversity,andhisseveralpublications. Each of these topics, therefore, will form the subject of adistinctchapter.Oliver Cromwell was chosen Chancellor of Oxford in the month ofJanuary,1651.ButbeingmostlyinScotlandwiththearmy,andfindingitinconvenienttoattendtotheaffairsoftheUniversity,hedelegatedinthefollowing year, the Dean of Christ Church and some other heads ofHouses,tomanageeverythingwhichrequiredhisconsentasChancellorof the University. By letters dated September 9th, 1652, he nominatedOwen to be Vice-Chancellor in place of Dr. Dan. Greenwood; and onSeptember26th,hewasaccordinglychosenbytheunanimoussuffrageoftheSenate,

215“notwithstandinghisurgentrequesttothecontrary.”

143Hedoesnotspeakofhimselfashavingundertakenthisdifficultofficeindeference to the opinions, solicitations, and commands of the leadingmenof theUniversityand in theState,bywhom ithadbeen inagreatmeasure forced upon him. “By accepting it,” he declares, “he hadknowingly sacrificed his peace, and all his studious pursuits.”

216 Full

credit will be allowed him for sincerity in these declarations when thecircumstances of the University (which will be noted afterwards) arebroughtforward.InOctober1653,theVice-ChancellorwascalledtoLondonbyCromwellto attend a meeting of ministers of various denominations for thepurposeofconsideringtheirdifferencesofsentiment,andofdevising,ifpossible, someplanofunion.The following curious account is givenof

thismeetinginthenewspapersoftheday.“SeveralministerswereaddressedbyhisExcellency,theLordGen.Cromwell,topersuadethosewhoholdChristtheHead,andsoholdthesameinfundamentals,toagreeinlovethattherebenosuchdivisionsamongpeopleprofessinggodliness,astherehasbeen,norrailingorrevilingeachotherfordifferencesonlyinform.TherewereMr.Owen,Mr.Marshall(Presbyterian),Mr.Nye (Independent),Mr. Jessey (Baptist),Mr. Harrison, and others, to whom the advice andcounsel of his Excellency was so sweet, so precious, and managed with such judgment andgraciousness,thatitishopeditwillmuchtendtopersuadethosewhofeartheLordinspiritand

truth,tolabourfortheunionofallGod’speople.”217

144WhetherthiswasaseriousproposalofCromwell’s;orapoliticalattemptto discover through themediumof their leaders, the sentiments of thevarioussects;oramerehypocriticalfarceraisedforthesakeofproducingaparticulareffect,Idonotpretendtodetermine.Itdoesnotappearthatthe persons who were themselves consulted, suspected any evil, andperhaps none was intended. Nothing of importance, however, resultedfrom themeeting. It ismuch easier to propose plans of union, than tocarrythemintoeffect.Religiousdifferenceswillneverbehealedbystateinterferenceorpoliticalmanagement.Themostlikelywaytoeffectitisbyteachingmentorespectthesupremeandexclusiveauthorityofthewordof God, and by leaving every individual to follow the dictates of hisconscience respecting it. Peace and union are desirable; but not at theexpenseoftruthandprinciple.While inLondonaboutthisbusiness,theUniversityconferredonOwenthedegreeofDoctorinDivinity.Thediplomaisdatedthe22dDecember,1653,anddescribeshimas“InPalaestraTheologicaexercitatissimus,inconcionandoassiduusetpotens,indisputandostrenuusetacutus,”etc.His friend, Thomas Goodwin, President of Magdalen College, wasdiplomated at the same time, and described as “In scriptis in reTheologica quamplurimis orbi notus.”

218Many of the early reformers

were decidedly opposed to Theological degrees. Carlostadt refused tosubmittothetitleofDoctor,andchoseratherthedesignationofBrotherAndrew.145Zuinglius could not hear the title without horror. Grynaeus, SebastianMunster,andMyconiusneverassumedit:thelast,indeed,whenurgedtoacceptthedegree,asrequiredbyalawoftheUniversity,offeredtoresignhis professorship rather than submit to it. Melanchthon and Oporinus

bothrefusedtoacceptofit.AlltheselearnedmenseemtohavethoughtsuchdistinctionsareinconsistentwithobediencetoourLord’sinjunctioninMat.23.8-10.

219Erasmussaid,withhisusual jocularity, “The titleof

Doctormakesamanneitherwisernorbetter.”Itisgratifyingtobeabletogive the sentiments of Owen on this subject. At the time in which heflourished,suchdegreeswerenotsocommonastheyhavesincebecome.Andmostofthosewhoreceivedthem,probablydeservedtoenjoythem,asfaraslearningandtheologicalattainmentsgo.ButOwensubmittedtothehonourwithgreatreluctance.Cawdry,inoneofhisattacksonOwen,insinuates that he had been offended by Cawdry not constantly callinghim “reverend Author” and “reverend Doctor.” Owen replies to thisinsinuationwithgreatspirit.“Let thisreverendauthormakewhatuseof ithepleases, Icanonly tellhimagain, that theseinsinuationsbecomeneitherhimnoranymanprofessingthereligionofJesusChrist,orthathasanyrespectfortruthorsobriety.Cananymanthinkthatinhisconsciencehegivesanycredittotheinsinuationwhichhemakeshere,thatIshouldthankhimforcallingmereverendAuthororreverendDoctor?Asforthetitleofreverend,IgivehimnoticethatIhaveverylittlevalueditever since I considered Luther’s saying: ‘Nunquam periclitatur religio nisi interReverendissimos.’Sothat,astome,hemayforbearitforthefuture,andcallmeastheQuakersdo,anditwillsuffice.

146AsforthattitleofDoctor,itwasconferredonmebytheUniversityinmyabsence,andagainstmyconsent,as theyexpressed itunder theirpublicseal.Nordoesanythingbutgratitudeandrespect toward themmakeme once own it. Freed from that obligation, I would never use itagain.NordidIuseituntilsomewereoffendedbyme,andblamedmeformyneglectof[these

titles].”220

Cromwell having dissolved the Long Parliament, found it necessary tocall another in the year 1654. A writ was issued to the University ofOxfordtochoosebutoneburgesstorepresentit;onthe27thofJune,Dr.Owenwaschosentherepresentative.TheParliamentmetonSeptember3rd,buthesatonly forashort time,

221hiselectionbeingquestionedby

theCommittee of privileges— on account of his being in theministry.This part of Owen’s conduct occasioned some infamousmisrepresentations. Cawdry asserted, that “when he was chosen aParliament-man,herefusedtoanswerwhetherhewasaministerornot;”222 and the truth of this he rested on the vox populi [the voice of the

people] — public rumour of Oxford. Wood improves the story, anddeclares that “rather than be put aside because hewas a theologist, herenounced his orders, and pleaded that he was a mere layman,

notwithstanding he had actually been createdD.D. the year before.”223

This is carrying the matter to the climax of absurdity and villainy. Towhat purpose did they ask the Vice-chancellor of Oxford and Dean ofChristChurch,whetherhewasaminister?Didnotalltheworldknowit?147Was it practicable for theDoctor to renounce his profession thoughhehad been disposed? Need we then wonder at his indignant reply toCawdry?“Myrefusal toanswerwhetherIwasaministerornot,onanyoccasion in the world, is purum putum mendacium — a scandalous,malignantfalsehood.SoitisnotruerthatitwasvoxpopuliatOxford,aspretended.”

224 And having occasion to refer to it again, he says, “It is

notoriously untrue, and so remote from anything that would give apretence or colour to it, that I question whether Satan has impudenceenoughtoownhimselfasitsauthor.”

225Theanonymouswriterofthelife

ofSouth,publishedin1721,repeatsthestoryofOwen’srenunciation.HeascribestoDr.Souththemeritof“somanagingmatterswiththedoctors,bachelorsofdivinity, andmastersof arts, and the electors, thathewasreturned with great difficulty. And after sitting a few days, he had hiselectiondeclarednullandvoidbecausehisrenunciationwasnotreputedtobevalid.”

226

What the Doctor’s reasons were for wishing to become a member ofParliament cannotnowbe ascertained.Heprobably consideredhimselfas holding no clerical office during his Vice-chancellorship. He mightthinkitwasaslawfulforhimtobeamemberofParliament,astoholdacivilofficeinOxford;andthatinthissituationhemightbeabletorenderimportant service to theuniversity,which then stood inneedof all thefriends it couldmuster.As only onememberwas to be chosen, hewasperhapsthefittestpersonatthetimetorepresentthatlearnedbody;andinallprobabilityhewasurgedtoacceptthesituation,bothbyCromwellandtheelectors,tillhecouldnotrefuse.148Those who reproached him for it ought to have shown that there wassomethingunlawfulinit,orthatheactedfromimpropermotives.Thosewho claim a bishop’s seat in the house of lords, can have no religiousscruplesataministergoing intoParliament.AndIneednothesitate toassert that comparatively few of the ecclesiastical legislators of Great

BritainhavebeenfitterfortheofficethanDr.JohnOwen.Oliver presented his Instrument of Government to this assembly— “AcreatureofCromwell’s, andhis council of officers,” saysNeal, “andnotdrawnupbyaproper representativeof thepeople.”

227This isnot very

consistentwiththathistorian’sexclamationagainst thedefectivenessofthe“Independents’instrumentofgovernmentunderCromwell.”Itcouldnot be the work of the Independents unless they are to be madeaccountable for everything done by Cromwell and his officers, whichwouldbemanifestlyunjust.ThisInstrumentprovidedthat,“ThosewhoprofessfaithinGodbyJesusChrist,thoughdifferinginjudgmentfromthedoctrine,worship,ordisciplinepubliclyproposed,shallnotberestrainedfrom,butshallbeprotectedintheprofessionoftheirfaith,andtheexerciseoftheirreligion,soastheydonotabusethislibertytothecivil injuryofothers,andtotheactualdisturbanceof thepublicpeaceontheirparts—providedthislibertyisnotextendedtopoperyorprelacy,ortothosewho,underaprofessionof

Christ,proposeandpracticelicentiousness.”228

149Thisactof toleration, thoughbynomeansperfect, revealsconsiderableenlargement of mind. It would have done well for the country, if theproceedings of its Parliaments had always been as liberal. Popery andprelacywereexcluded,notasreligioussomuchaspoliticalsystems.Andbecause their adherentswere constantlyplottingagainst theProtector’sgovernment, and even in regard to them, the laws were more interrorem,

229thanintendedforexecution.

InthedebatewhicharoseinParliamentonthearticleofthisInstrumentjustquoted,itwascontendedthattheclause,“thosewhoprofessfaithinGodbyJesusChrist,”wasdesigned to limit the toleration to thosewhowere agreed on the fundamentals of Christianity. This, I apprehend,Oliverhadnotcontemplated,becauseadifferenceindoctrineisthefirstthingexpressed in thearticle;and theproceedingsof thehouseon thissubjectseem,bynomeans, tohavegratifiedhim.Inwhateverwaytheyunderstoodit, itcannotbedoubtedthatthemostunrestrictedlibertyofconscience was intended by the Protector. But in consequence of thedebate inthehouse,acommitteeof fourteenwasappointedtoconsiderwhatwerefundamentals;andthatcommitteewasempoweredtonameadivine each, whowouldmeet and return their opinion on this delicatesubject.TheministerswhometwereDrs.Owen,Goodwin,andCheynel;Messrs. Marshal, Reyner, Nye, Simpson, Vines, Manton, Jacomb, and

Baxter. After several meetings, they at last returned a list of sixteenarticles in a paper endorsed, “The principles of faith, presented byMessrs. Thomas Goodwin, Nye, Simpson, and other ministers, to theCommittee of Parliament for religion, by way of explanation to theproposalforpropagatingthegospel.”

230

150Baxter gives a longand tiresomeaccountof thismeeting, ascribing thewholeworkof it toDr.Owen,assistedbyNye,Goodwin, andSimpson.Heassuresus therewasagreatdealofwranglingofwhich,byhisownaccount, hewas a principal cause.He says, “Dr.Owenwasmore hotlyand better befriended in the assembly than himself;” and that “hewasthen under great weakness, and soporous (a scotomatic illness of hishead).”

231 He evidently laboured under his constitutional malady, a

disputatious pertinacity.232What is surprising is that, professing all his

life to be a lover of peace and unity, he takes credit for defeating theunanimitythatwouldhaveprevailedhadhenotbeenthere!Nealappearstohavemisunderstoodthenatureofthismeeting,andthedesignof the framersof thesearticles.Hespeaksas if theobjectof thedivineshadbeentolegislateonthesubjectoftoleration,ortodirecttheParliamenthowfaritmightproceedingrantinglibertyofconscience.Butthefactwassimplythis:theywerecalledtogetherbyacommitteeofthehouse, to state what, in their opinion, was fundamental or essential inChristianity.Theyhadnothingtodowiththeproprietyoftoleratingthosewhodifferedfromthemonthepointsoftheirdeclaration.Theusetobemadeoftheirpaperwasnoconcernoftheirs.And they conscientiouslyadheredtothequestionproposedtothem,astheygavenoopinionofanykind on the subject of religious liberty. Instead of this, we shouldconclude from the title of the document, that it was intended for adifferent purpose — something about the propagation of the gospel.Where then is theoccasion forNeal’s languageabout thenarrow listoffundamentalsgivenbytheIndependents?151Sofarfromitbeingnarrow,itseemstometobeverywide—almostasgeneralastheApostles’Creed.IbelievemostChristianswouldconsiderthat it contained rather too little than too much. “It appears by thesearticles,” Neal says, “that these divines intended to exclude not only

Deists, Socinians, and Papists, but Arians, Antinomians, Quakers, andothers.”Excludefromwhat?Not fromcivilprivileges,but fromholdingthe essentials of Christianity. “Wise and good men fall into suchdifficulties when they usurp the kingly office of Christ, and pretend torestrainthatlibertywhichisthebirthrightofeveryreasonablecreature.”233

Themeetingunderconsideration,fellintonodifficulties,usurpednopartoftheofficeofChrist,anddidnothingtorestrainthelibertyofothers.“Itisanunwarrantablepresumptionforanynumberofmentodeclarewhatisfundamental intheChristianreligion,anyfurtherthantheScriptureshaveexpresslydeclaredit.”

234IfthissentencemeansthattheBiblealone

candecidewhatisnecessarytosalvation;noChristiandoubtsit.Butifitmeans that we have no right to declare what, in our opinion,must bebelieved in order to be saved, it is patently absurd. Every man whopreaches thegospel is called todeclare this.Every societyofChristianshas a professed or implied belief on the subject. And there can be noimpropriety in our giving an answer, in any circumstances, to what isasked of us respecting it. “Besides,” adds Neal, “Why should the civilmagistrate protect none but those who profess faith in God by JesusChrist?” Ialso ask, why? Theministers were not called to answer thatquestion.Whoproposed this as the lawof toleration?According toourhistorianhimself,itwasCromwellandhisofficers,ortheParliament!

235

152Thusthemainproofwhichhasbeenallegedabouttheintolerantconductof Independents when possessed of power, completely fails — as thismeeting and its acts had nothing to do with determining the boundseitherofcivilorreligiousliberty.Andwhateveritsviewsorconductwere,itshouldbenotedthatthemajorityoftheministerswerePresbyterians.Itwillnotbesupposedthattheseremarksareintendedtovindicatethepropriety of putting religious liberty on the footing of even the mostenlarged interpretation of Oliver’s Instrument. Christianity should not,eitherinpartorinwhole,bemadethetestofcivilprivileges.Itneverwasintendedforanysuchpurpose.Andsuchauseofitisonlycalculatedtocorruptit,byinducinghypocriticalprofessionsofbelief,anddiscouragingfreeenquiry.Attheendof1653,Owen,Goodwin,Caryl,Lockyer,andothers,hadbeenpresented to Parliament, and were to be sent as commissioners in a

circuit,ingroupsofthree,forejectingandsettlingministersaccordingtothe rules then prescribed. But this project not taking effect,Commissioners for the approval of public preachers were afterwardsappointed, of whom Owen was one. And in 1654 he was one of theCommissioners appointed in every county for ejecting scandalous,ignorant,andinsufficientministersandschool-masters.

236Hewas,about

the same time, appointed one of the visitors for the regulation of theuniversityofOxford,andforthepromotionoftheinterestsoflearninginit.

237Thesevariousappointmentsmusthavegreatlyincreasedhislabours,

andmultiplied the opportunities of adversaries to annoy and reproachhim.153TheTryers,astheywerecalled,werethirty-eightinnumber,consistingofIndependents, Presbyterians, and Baptists. They were to enquireparticularly “into the grace of God in the candidate, his holy andunblameable conversation, also into his knowledge, and utterance, andfitness to preach the gospel.” Whatever may be thought of thegovernmentappointingsuchaboard,orofsomeindividualsformingpartof it, every Christian will admit that ministers of the gospel ought topossess the above qualifications. The greatest injury to the church ofChristhasarisenfromtheintroductionofignorantandungodlymenintotheofficeof theministry. Ingeneral, thedoorhasbeentoowideratherthantoonarrow,andattention topersonalor literaryqualificationshasoften superseded due regard to themore important acquirements of amoralandspiritualnature.FaultwiththeconductoftheTryershasbeenfoundinvariousquarters.Neal exclaims against their arbitrary proceedings; and yet, when hecomes to detail those proceedings, his account amounts almost to acomplete vindication. Their conduct was not, probably, more arbitrarythanmightbeexpectedfromthegeneralnatureoftheirinstructions,andthe peculiarity of their business. They have been burlesqued, asendeavouringTofind,inlinesofbeardandface.Thephysiognomyofgrace;AndbythesoundoftwangandnoseIfallbesoundwithindisclose.

The most grievous complaints have been uttered, and the most

extravagantexpressionsofastonishmentpouredout,because theywereso fanatical as to speakaboutgrace, regeneration, andexperience, as ifthesewere the last things that should be spoken of toministers of thegospel!154Iamfarfromvindicatingalltheirproceedings.Theyhadadifficulttasktoperform,andtheyhadtodealwithpersonsofverydifferentprinciples,both in religionand inpolitics;—and thosewhowerenotapprovedofwould,ofcourse,complain.Hadthispowerbeenlodgedwiththebishopsofthosetimes,ortheirchaplains,orwiththehighPresbyterians,wouldtheynothavehadtheirshibboleth,forwhichill-naturedmenmighthavecalledthemaholyinquisition?

238

We are able to give a very favourable specimen of the conduct of Dr.Owen,asoneoftheejectingCommissioners,inhisbehaviourtowardthecelebratedDr.Pococke.HewasProfessorofArabicatOxford,whowasbroughtbeforetheCommissionersforthecountyofBerks,onaccountofa living he had there; and he was likely to receive hardmeasure fromthem.Owen’s viewsof the conduct of theseCommissionerswill appearfromanextractofalettertoSecretaryThurloe.“There are inBerkshire a fewmen ofmean quality and condition— rash, heady, enemies oftithes—whoaretheCommissionersforejectingministers.Theyalonesitandact,andareatthistimecastingout,onslightpretences,veryworthymen.Oneespeciallytheyintendtoejectnextweek,whosenameisPococke,amanasunblameable inconductasanythatIknowliving;ofrepute for learning throughout theworld, being the Professor of Arabic in our university. Sothat,theyexceedinglyexasperateallmen,andprovokethemtotheheight.Itanythingcouldbe

donetocausethemtosuspendactingtill thisstormisover,239

Icannotbut think itwouldbe

goodservicetohisHighnessandtheCommonwealth.”240

155NotsatisfiedwithwritingtoThurloe,andaccompaniedbyDoctorsWard,Wilkins,andWallis,OwenrepairedtothespotwheretheCommissionersmet,wheretheyalllabouredwithmuchearnestnesstoconvincethemofthestrangeabsurdityoftheirconduct.Dr.Owen,inparticular,withsomewarmth,endeavouredtomakethemsensibleoftheinfinitecontemptandreproachwhich would certainly fall upon them, when it would be saidthattheyturnedoutamanforinsufficiency,whomallthelearned—notonly of England, but of all Europe — so justly admired for his vastknowledge and extraordinary accomplishments. Being one of theCommissionersappointedbytheAct,headded,thathehadnowcometo

deliver himself, as well as he could, from a share in such disgrace, byprotesting against a proceeding so strangely foolish and unjust. TheCommissioners being very much mortified at the remonstrances of somany eminent men, especially of Dr. Owen, in whom they had aparticular confidence, thought it best to put an end to thematter, anddischargedPocockefromfurtherattendance.

241

The conduct of Mr. Howe toward Fuller the historian, in somewhatsimilar circumstances, was no less creditable to his judgment andliberality.

242 So much for the arbitrary proceedings of some of the

IndependentTryers.Ifwemayjudgefromtheresults,thenecessityofameasure,andthewisdomofitsmanagement,thenwewouldformaveryfavourableopinionofthisappointmentoftheProtector’s.156Baxter,whowasnotoneoftheCommissionershimself,noranyfriendoftheirproceedings,acknowledgesthat“Theysavedmanyacongregationfromignorant,ungodly,drunkenteachers—thesortofmenwho intended no more in the ministry than to say a sermon, as readers say their commonprayers,andsopatchafewgoodwordstogethertotalkthepeopleasleeponSunday;andtherestoftheweekgowiththemtotheale-house,andhardenthemintheirsin—andthesortofministers who either preached against a holy life, or preached as men who were neveracquaintedwith it—all thosewhoused theministryasa common trade to liveby,andwereneverlikelytoconvertasoul—allthesetheyusuallyrejected,andintheirsteadtheyadmittedanywhowereable,seriouspreachers,andlivedagodlylife,ofwhatevertolerableopiniontheywere. So that, thoughmanyof themwere somewhat partial to the Independents, Separatists,FifthMonarchymen,andAnabaptists,andagainstthePrelatistsandArminians—yet,sogreatwasthebenefitabovethehurtwhichtheybroughttothechurch,thatmanythousandsofsoulsblessed God for the faithful ministers whom they let in, and grieved when the Prelatists

afterwardsturnedthemoutagain.”243

In the year 1655, considerable dissatisfaction with Cromwell’sgovernmentexistedindifferentpartsofthecountry;adaywasappointedfor a general uprising by the royalists. In the West, the conspiracyactuallybrokeout,headedbytheunfortunateColonelPenruddockwho,withseveralothers,shortlyaftersufferedfortheirconduct.157ThevigilanceanddeterminationoftheProtectorandhisfriendscrushedthis dangerous conspiracy. On this occasion, the Vice-chancellor ofOxfordexertedallhisenergyandinfluencetopreservethepublicpeace,and to support theexistinggovernment. In thesame letter toSecretaryThurloe,fromwhichImadeanextract,hesays,

“Wearehereinaquietcondition.Ihaveraised,andnowwell-settled,atroopofsixtyhorsemen,besidestheirofficers.Thetownalsohasraisedsomefootmenfortheirdefence.Wehavesomepersonsincustodyonverygoodgroundsofsuspicion,andwillyetsecurethem.Thereismuchriding to and fro in the villages near us; but as yet, I cannot learn any certain place of theirmeeting;soIkeepacontinualguard,andhopesomegoodservicehasbeeneffectedbyarmingourselves.The(Gentlemen)ofthecountyhavemet;theyarebackwardandcold;butsomethingwehavegottenthemtoengagefor,istowardraisingsometroops.IfIhadablankcommissionortwoforhorsemen,Icouldongoodgrounds,Isuppose,raiseatroopinBerkshire.Variousgoodministersandothershavebeenwithmetoassistyoutothatpurpose.Ifyouthinkitnecessarytohavetheworkgoon,assurelyitisnecessarytoengagemeninsuchacityasthis,inwhichself-preservationurgesonthepublicinterest;pray,sendmedownoneortwocommissionstothat

purpose.”244

ThenewspapersoftheperiodrecordthatDr.Owenhadbeenveryactivein securing the county, and that the university had raised a troop ofhorsemenunderCaptainKent.158Foreignassuchpursuitsmusthavebeentohishabits,anddisagreeableto his feelings (as they could not fail to be), they reveal his activedisposition, and his public spirit. And they show how determinedly heendeavouredtodischargethetrustcommittedtohimasVice-chancellorof theuniversity.Theyafforded,however,amostgratifyingopportunityforhisadversariestoabusehim,andwerelong-afterrememberedtohisdisadvantage.“When those loyal gentlemen of thewest,” says amost virulent reviler, “made an attempt toredeem their native soil from the bondage of their Cromwellian taskmasters, how did thisCromwellian Doctor, like a Major-General rather than Vice-chancellor, carry God in his

scabbard, and religion at his sword’s point?Howdidhemakehis beadles245

exchange theirstavesforfightingirons?Howdidheturnhisgownintoacloak,andvauntitwithwhitepowderinhishair,andblack inhispocket, threateningeveryonewithdisaffectiontothegovernment,who would not join with him in his designs? And so he rode up and down like a spiritual

Abaddon,246

breathingoutnothingagainst thosebravesoulsbutrageand fury,slaughterand

blood.”247

TheDoctor repelled the chargeof carrying a sword,by coollydeclaringthat,“tohisremembrance,heneverworeaswordinhislife.”

248

About this time, he correspondedwith Thurloe, and Cromwell himself,regardinghisneighbour,Mr.UnionCrooke,ofMertoninOxfordshire,aman whose son was very active in Penruddock’s affair; for which hisfather was made a Sergeant at Law, and he was liberally rewardedhimself.

249

159

In a letter to Thurloe, dated May 29, 1655, the Doctor refers to aconversationwiththeSecretaryrespectingthisgentleman.Hespeaksofhimasworthyofatrust,thenatureofwhichhedoesnotexplain,thoughI apprehend it refers to his being made Sergeant. For, in a letter toCromwelldatedOctober2,1655,hespeaksofCrookeinthiscapacity.HereferstotheProtector’sfavourtowardhimnotlongbefore,inhisrequestonhisbehalf.Andheincludesapetitionthat,asCromwellwasabouttomake some new judges, Crooke he might be thought of for thatemployment, as a man of abilities and integrity.

250 I do not find that

Crookewasmade a judge; but the correspondence shows the habits ofintimacyonwhichOwen livedwith theProtector, and the influencehewassupposedtopossess.Onthe12thofDecemberthissameyear,theDoctorwascalledtoattendaconference respecting the Jews. It was held in a drawing-room atWhitehall, in the presence of hisHighness,who laid before the counciltheproposalofManassehBenIsrael,aSpanishJewresidinginHolland.This man asked permission for his countrymen to settle and trade inEngland.Themeetingconsistedoftwojudges,sevencitizensofLondon,among whom were the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, and fourteendivines, amongwhomwereDr.Owen,Dr.Goodwin,Dr.Whichcot,Dr.Cudworth,Mr. Bridge, andMr. Craddock. The judges considered theirtolerationmerely as a point of law, and declared they knew of no lawagainst it; and that if it were thought useful to the state, they wouldadvise it.Thecitizensviewed it inacommercial lightand,becausetheyprobablyhaddifferenttradeinterests,theyweredividedintheiropinionsaboutitsutility.160Both these, however, dispatched the matter quickly. But most of thedivines violently opposed it, by text after text, for four whole days.Cromwellwasatlengthwearied,andtoldthemhehadhopedtheywouldthrowsome lighton the subject todirecthis conscience.But insteadofthis, they had rendered it more obscure than before. He desired,therefore,nomoreof their counsels; but lesthedo anything rashly, hebeggedashareintheirprayers.

251SirPaulRicaut,whowasthenayoung

man,pressedinamongthecrowd,andsaidheneverheardamanspeaksowellinhislife,asCromwelldidonthatoccasion.

252

WhatpartOwentookinthisdebatewearenotinformed;butassomeofthe ministers would have admitted the Jews into England on certainconditions,itisveryprobablethathewasofthisnumber.TheProtector’sviews of the subject, on religious grounds, were far from fanatical —“SincetheconversionoftheJewswaspromisedinScripture,hedidnotknowbutthatthepreachingofthegospelinEngland,withoutidolatryorsuperstition,mightbeconducivetoit.”Theprojectfailed,butManassehreceived£200fromthepublicpurseforhistrouble.Onthe17thofSeptember,1656,theDoctorpreachedattheopeningofanew Parliament, which the Protector had called for the purpose ofconfirminghis title to thesuprememagistracy, inamoreconstitutionalmanner than had yet been done. The Sermon was published with adedication,asusual, toCromwelland theParliament,under the titleof“God’sworkinfoundingZion,andhispeople’sdutythereupon.”161In the course of it, Owen expresses his feelings on account of thedeliverancewhichGodhadwroughtforhispeopleverystrongly.“Thepeople ofGod in thisnation,”he exclaims, “weredespised, but arenow in esteem; theywereundersubjectiontocrueltaskmasters—someinprisons,somebanishedtotheendsoftheearth—merely for the worship of their God. The consciences of all were imprisoned, whileiniquityandsuperstitionwereestablishedbylaw.Butnow,theimprisonedaresetatliberty;thebanishedarerecalled.Thosewholayamongthepotshavereceiveddove’swings;conscienceisnomore imprisoned; their sacrifices are notmixed with their blood; nor do theymeet withtremblingtoworshipGod.Oyoumessengersofthenations,thisiswhattheLordhasdone!”

EveryrealChristianmusthaveexultedattherevolutioninreligionwhichhadtakenplace;andmusthavebeengratefultotheinstrumentsbywhichit had been effected, whatever were their views or characters. Owen’senlightened ideas of religious liberty are stated with great precision inthisdiscourse.Afternotingwhatvariouspartieswishedthemagistratetodo,hethusstateshisownwishes:“ThatthepeopleofGodbedeliveredfromthehandsoftheircruelenemies,thattheymayservethe Lord all the days of their lives; — that notwithstanding their differences, they may livepeaceablyonewith,oratleast,byanother,enjoyingruleandpromotionastheyarefittedforemployment,andashegivespromotioninwhosehanditis;—thatgodlinessandtheloveofourLordJesusChristbepreserved,protected,andsecuredfromthehandofviolenceuponit.”

I question, whether the most enlightened advocate of the duties ofgovernment, and the liberties of men, could state the subject in moreappropriatelanguagethanthis.162

ThegovernmentofBritainhasnotyetgrantedallthattheenlargedmindofOwengrasped.Butinwhathasbeenobtained,anearnest

253isenjoyed

of the ultimate triumph of principle and liberty; — when test, andcorporation,andeventolerationacts,shallallbeabrogated;—whencivildistinctions, on account of religious differences, shall forever cease; —when the particular privileges of ecclesiastical corporations shall be setaside,andthenamesofchurchmananddissentershallonlyoccurinthevocabularies of obsolete terms; — when the great body politic shallconsist of men of every religious name, united by the grand andharmonizingprinciple thatconscience isuncontrollablebyhuman laws,and that to worship God according to its dictates, is the undoubted,unalienable,andmostsacredrightofeveryrationalcreature.OwenagainpreachedbeforeParliamentonOctober30thfollowing,beingadayofhumiliation.Thediscourse, forwhichhereceivedthethanksofthe house byMajor-General Kelsey, is entitled, “God’s presencewith apeople is the spring of their prosperity.” I do not observe anythingparticularly deserving of notice in it, except his pleading very earnestlytowardsitsconclusion—fortheprotectionandfreedomofthepeopleofGod, of all parties; and directing the attention of Parliament to thereligiousstateofWales,“Where the unhappiness of almost all men running into extremes, has disadvantaged theprogressofthegospel,whenwehadgreatgroundfortheexpectationofbetterthings.Somearestillzealousforthetraditionsoftheirfathers,andalmostnothingwillsatisfythem,excepttheirold road of beggarly readers in every parish. Others again, perhaps out of a good zeal, haveharried the people with violence beyond their principles, and maybe sometimes beyond thetruth.Betweencomplaintsononesideandtheother,betweenmisguidedzealandformality,thewholeworkisalmostcasttotheground.ThebusinessofZion,assuch,isscarcelycaredforby

any.”254

163The Parliament had not been inattentive to the interests of religion inWales; though its measures may not always have been productive oflasting benefit to the people. The scandalous and ignorant clergy hadbeenejected.Insteadofthem,onehundredandfiftygoodpreacherswereplantedinthethirteenWelshcounties,mostofwhompreachedthreeorfourtimesa-week.Ineverymarket-towntherewasaschoolmaster,andin most great towns two. Six preachers were appointed to itinerate ineachcounty,whowereindefatigableintheirlabours;andthewholetithesof the principality were devoted to these purposes, directed by act of

Parliament.255So that,consideringthepreviouscharacterof theclergy;

the mountainous and thinly peopled state of the country; and thedifficulty of finding suitable persons who could instruct the people inWelsh— perhaps all was done that human instrumentality at the timecouldeffect.Foraseriesofyears,theloveofruleandofpowerhadbeencontinuallyincreasing in thebreastofOliverCromwell.Thedissolutionof the longParliament, the calling and dispersing of other packed assemblies, andthe frequent changesof the formof government, all seem tohavebeenpreparatory to his layinghands on the regal sceptre, and assuming theformsand titlesofmajesty.His lastParliamentwasundoubtedly calledforthepurposeofsanctioningthisconcludingactofhisambition.164Fromthemannerinwhichithadbeencollected,itwaseasilymanaged;and upon the proposal beingmade that the Protector should have thecrown with the title of king, it was soon agreed to by a considerablemajority.A committeewasappointed topersuadehim toaccept,whichpresentedtheofferofthecrownintheformofapetition,onthefourthofApril.Therewasanotherparty,however,moredifficult tomanage thantheParliament,andwhosesanctionwasthenfullymorenecessary.Thiswas composed chiefly of the officers of the army. Among them wereGeneralFleetwoodandColonelDesborough.Theformerwasson-in-law,andthelatterbrotherin-law,totheProtector.Theyweremostdecidedlyopposedtothismeasure.Andfromtheirinfluenceinthearmy,Cromwellfound it necessary to court their favour. Still, nothing was likely topreventhistakingthisfoolishstep.Hehadactuallyappointedthehouseto meet him for this purpose on the following morning, when anoccurrencetookplacewhichforeverblastedhisambitiousdesign.HavingmetColonelDesborough in thepark,Cromwell acquaintedhimwithhis resolution—uponwhichDesborough frankly toldhim thathegavehimandhisfamilyupforlost,andthathewouldnotcontinuetoactwith him any longer.When Desborough went home, he found ColonelPride,whomCromwellhadknightedwithkindling,towhomheimpartedtheinformationhehadreceived.Prideexclaimed,“Heshallnot.”“Buthowwillyoupreventit,”rejoinedDesborough.“GetmeapetitiondrawnupandIwillblastit,”washisreply.

On this, they bothwent toDr.Owen; and having acquainted himwithwhatwasgoingon,theypersuadedhimtodrawupthepetitionforthem.165NextmorningitwaspresentedtothehousebyColonelMasonandsomeotherofficers,andsetforth,“—thattheyhadriskedtheirlivesagainstmonarchy,andwerestillreadytodoso,indefenceofthe libertiesof thenation—thathavingobserved insomemengreatendeavours tobring thenationagainundertheoldservitude,bypressingtheirGeneraltotakeuponhimselfthetitleandgovernmentofking,inordertodestroyhimandweakenthehandsofthosewhowerefaithfultothepublic— they, therefore,humblydesired theywoulddiscountenanceall suchpersonsandendeavours,andcontinuesteadfasttotheoldcause.”

Thispetitionbeingsupportedby themajorityof theofficers in town,atonceinvolvedthehouseandCromwellintheutmostperplexity.Butthatsagacious politician, upon discovering how things were likely to go,declined with great ostentation of self-denial, the title of king. Heaccepted his pomp and power under the less common, but expressivedesignationofPROTECTOR.

256

ThisdisappointmentwasnotlikelytobeforgottenbyCromwell,eitherinregardtotheofficers,ortoOwen.TheDoctorwasmostprobablyappliedto,becausetheofficersconsideredhimbetterqualifiedthanthemselvesfor drawing up a petition. He would frame the petition to suit thesentiments of the persons who were to subscribe it; and it must not,therefore,beconsideredaproperindexofhisownviews.Atsametime,therecanbelittledoubtthatheagreedwiththeminthemain.Hemusthavedreadedtheconsequencesofthisstep,bothtoCromwellandtothecountry. By this time, he was probably suspicious of the Protector’sambition, and must have deprecated the return of former scenes oftyranny,orofcivilcommotion.166Whatever his reasonswere, his conduct did not advance his interest atcourt; for from this time, he does not appear to have been aboutCromwellmuch.AthisinaugurationintotheofficeofProtector,wefindLockyer preaching, andManton, a Presbyterian, praying— the leadingIndependentseithernotchoosing,ornotbeingchosen,toofficiateatthatmock coronation. Cromwell’s death took place in the same year, andOwendeclaresthathehadnotseenhimforalongtimebefore.Alltheseare evidences of declining favour; but the most conclusive proof soonfollowed.OnthethirdofJuly,theProtectorresignedtheChancellorship

ofOxford;ontheeighteenth,hissonRichardwaschosensuccessor.Sixweeksafter,hedismissedOwen fromtheofficeofVice-Chancellor, andappointed in his place.Dr. JohnConant, a Presbyterian, andRector ofExetercollege.

257

CHAPTERVII.

StateoftheUniversityduringthecivilwars,andwhenOwenwasmadeVice-Chancellor—Extractfromhisfirstaddresstoit—Fromhisfifthaddress—Specimenofthestateof insubordinationwhichprevailedinit—LearnedmeninofficeduringhisVice-Chancellorship—Independents—Presbyterians— Episcopalians— Persons of note then educated—Writers, Philosophers, andStatesmen—DignitariesoftheChurch—Dissenters—RoyalSocietythenfoundedinOxford—Clarendon’stestimonyonthestateoflearninginitattheRestoration—Owen’smanagementoftheseveralparties—ConducttotheStudents—Preaching—TheUniversitypresentsavolumeofpoeticaddressestoCromwell—Owen’saddress—TrickplayedbyKinastonatOxford—Owen’sconducttowardtwoQuakers—HisviewsoftheLord’sPrayermisrepresented—Refusestoswearbykissingthebook—Wood’saccountofhisdressandmanners-ExtractfromEvelyne—OwenaddressesthenewChancellor,RichardCromwell—TakesleaveoftheUniversity.

We now return to take a view of the university of Oxford during thisperiod, and of the conduct of Dr. Owen as Vice-chancellor. Thiscelebrated seat of learning had been in the most deplorablecircumstancesduring the civilwars.The collegesandhallshadgone toruin;fiveofthemwereperfectlydeserted;someofthemwereconvertedinto magazines,

258 and the rest were in a most shattered state; the

chambers259werefilledwithofficersandsoldiersorletouttotownsmen.

There was little or no education of youth; poverty, desolation, andplunder—thesadeffectsofwar—weretobeseenineverycorner; thebursarieswereemptiedof thepublicmoney, theplatemelteddown fortheking’sservice,andthecollegesinvolvedindebtstheywerenotabletodischarge.

260

168Suchwasthewretchedstateoftheuniversity,whenOxfordfell intothehandsoftheParliamentin1646.ItwasnottillafteramostdeterminedstruggleoftwoyearsfromtheRoyalistsbeingsubdued,thattheheadsofhouses who had espoused the royal cause, allowed the Presbyterianclergy,appointedtofilltheirplaces,toobtainpossessionofthem.Itmayeasilybesupposedthatduringthisviolentcontest,littleattentionwouldbe paid by either party to the interests of the university, or to thepromotion of learning. When the Presbyterians did obtain the upperhand,alongtimemusthaveelapsedbeforetheycouldbringmattersintoasemblanceoforderandmanagement,duetotheextremeconfusioninwhich they found everything, and the excited state of the publicmind.They were scarcely fixed in their chairs, when their conduct andsentimentsbecamedisagreeabletotherulingpowers,andotherchangeswere considered. Long before Dr. Reynolds and his brethren lost theirplaces, theymusthave foreseen the stormwhichwas approaching, andwould naturally be discouraged from attempting what they otherwise

wouldhavedoneforthegoodoftheuniversity.SuchwastheunsettledstateofOxford,whenOwenwasappointedtofillthe office of Vice-chancellor. The chairswere chiefly occupied by thosewhoweresecretlyattachedtoroyaltyandEpiscopacy,orbyPresbyterianswhose aversion to Independents was not less inveterate; but theysubmitted(fromonemotiveoranother)tothesuccessivechangesofthatfluctuatingperiod.A few Independentswere installedat theexpenseofPresbyterian exclusions, which could not fail to excite the bitterestenmity.169Wemay, therefore, giveOwen full credit for accepting thehonourwithreluctanceandanxiety.Toperformthepartofafaithfulandskilfulpilotinsuchastorm,toreducesuchchaosintoorder,toplungeintothemidstof party dissatisfaction and cabal — to please those above and satisfythosebelow—requirednoordinarycourage,self-denial,andability.Heexpressedhisviewsandfeelingsinhisfirstaddresstothelearnedbody,thus:“I amwell aware,Gentlemen of theUniversity, of the grief youmust feel that after somanyvenerablenames—reverendpersons,depositaries, andpreceptorsof theartsandsciences—the fates of theuniversity should, at last, haveplaced as leaderof the company, theonewhoalmost closes the rear. Nor, indeed, is this state of affairs (of whatever kind itmay be) veryagreeable tomyself, since I amcompelled to regardmy return tomybelovedmother, after alongabsence,asapreludetothedutiesofalaboriousanddifficultsituation.Butcomplaintsarenot remedies for anymisfortune.Whatever their situation, groans do not become grave andhonourablemen.Itisthepartofanundauntedmind,toboldlybearupunderaheavyburden.

Forasthecomicpoet261says:—

ThelifeofmanIslikeagameattables.IfthecastWhichismostnecessarybenotthrown,Thatwhichchancesends,youmustcorrectbyart.—Coleman.

Theacademicvessel,alas!hasbeentoolongtossedbystorms,andalmostentirelyabandonedbyall thosewhosemore advanced age, longer experience, andwell-earned literary titles excitedgreat and just expectations. And so, I have been called upon by the partiality and too goodopinion of Him whose commands we must not question, and with whom the most earnestentreatiestobeexcusedwereurgedinvain—andalsobytheconsentingsuffrageofthissenate.

170Therefore,althoughthereis,perhaps,noonemoreunfit,Iapproachthehelm.Ibothknowandlament inwhat times, whatmanners, what diversities of opinion (dissentions and calumnieseverywhereraginginconsequenceofpartyspirit),whatbitterpassionsandprovocations,whatprideandmalice,ouracademicauthorityhasoccurred.Nor is itonly thecharacterof theagethat distracts us, but another calamity to our literary establishment,which is daily becomingmoreconspicuous:namely,contemptforthesacredauthorityoflawandthereverencedueour

ancestors; the watchful envy ofmalignants; the despised tears and sobs of our almost-dying

mother—theUniversity(withtheeternallossoftheclassofgownsmen,262

andnosmallriskoflosingthewholeinstitution);thedetestableaudacityandlicentiousness(manifestlyEpicurean)whichisbeyondallboundsofmodestyandpiety,andinwhich,alas!toomanyofthestudentsindulge. Am I then able, in this tottering state of all things, to apply a remedy to thiscomplicationofdifficulties, inwhichsomanyandsuchgreatheroeshave laboured invain, inthemost favourable times? Iamnot so self-sufficient,Gentlemen. If Iwere toact thepartofsomeonewhoissoimpertinentlydisposedtoflatterhimself—indeed,iftheslightestthoughtofsuchanatureweretoentermymind—Ishouldbequitedispleasedwithmyself.Idonotlivesofar from home, nor am I such a stranger tomyself (I do not usemy eyes in themanner ofwitches)asnot toknowwell,howscantily I am furnishedwith learning,prudence, authority,andwisdom.

171Antiquity celebratedLucullus as a prodigy inhis nature.Thoughunacquaintedwith even thedutyofacommonsoldier,hebecameanexpertGeneralwithoutanydifficulty.Sothat,themanthecitysentoutinexperiencedinfighting,thearmyreceivedasacompletemasteroftheartofwar.Beofgoodcourage,Gentlemen,Ibringnoprodigies.Ihaveretreatedfromtheobscurityofaruralsituation, fromthedinofarms, fromjourneys for thesakeof thegospel intothemostdistantpartsofthis island,andalsobeyondthesea,fromthebustleofthecourt.Ihavecomehere,unskilfulalso—unskilfulinthegovernmentofauniversity.

“Whatmadnessisthis,then?”youwillsay.“Whyhaveyouundertakenanofficewhichyouareunabletoexecute,farlesstoadorn?Youhavejudgedverybadlyforyourself,theuniversity,andthis venerable senate.” Softly, my hearers, neither hope nor courage wholly fails one who isswayedbythejudgment,thewishes,thecommands,theentreatiesofthehighestcharacters.Wearenotourselvesthesourcesofworthydeedsofanykind.‘Hewhosuppliesseedtothesower,’andwho, ‘from themouths of infants has ordained strength,’ is able to graciously supply alldefects,whether caused fromwithout or feltwithin. Therefore, destitute of any strength andboldnessofmyown,andofanyadventitiousaidthroughinfluencewiththeuniversity—sofarasIknow,orhavedeserved. Itneverthelessremains formetocommitmyselfwholly toHim,‘whogivestoallmenliberallyanddoesnotupbraid.’Hehasappointedaneternal fountainofsupplyinChrist,whofurnishes‘seasonablehelp’toeverypiousendeavour,unlessour‘littlenessof faith’ stands in the way. From there Imust wait, and pray for light, for strength, and forcourage.Trusting,therefore, inhisgraciouslypromisedpresence,accordingtothestateofthetimes, and the opportunity which we have obtained through Divine Providence— consciousintegrity alone supplying the place of arts and of all embellishments — without either a

depressedorservilespirit,Iaddressmyselftothisundertaking.”263

172No human powers, or influence could, in a short time, subdue theformidable difficulties of such a situation. Bad habits of long standingwerenotgoingtobequicklyoreasilycorrected.Strongprejudicesagainstlearning prevailed among some of the persons in power; and adispositiontoinnovateandoverturn,hadgottenpossessionofthepublicmind. A combination of firmness and prudence, of perseverance andmeekness, was particularly necessary in the existing state of both thecountryandtheuniversity.Anattemptwasactuallymadetosuppressthe

universitiesentirely.Haditsucceeded,itwouldhavebeenattendedwiththemostruinousconsequences.,Owengivesthefollowingdescriptionofthisstateof things, inasubsequentoration to theuniversity. Itatonceexhibitsthemiserableanarchyoftheperiod,hisloveoflearning,andhisindignantcontemptforthefanaticaldesperadoeswhohadattemptedtore-barbarizethecountry.“Forthefirsttwoyearswewereamererabble,andasubjectoftalktotherabble.Ourcriticalsituation and our common interestswere discussed in journals and newspapers, by themostignorantanddespicable.Norwasanycreaturesomiserablystupidasnottoentertainfearsorhopesonaccountofoursituation.Suchwas thewillof theSovereignDisposerofevents, thatmortals might learn to value less whatever is mortal. Nor, perhaps, was it right that theuniversityaloneshouldcarryanuninjuredflower,whileempiresandthehighestornamentsofthewholeworldwerewithering.

173Meanwhile,veryfewventuredtoheartilydefendourcause,whichshouldhavebeenheldsacred,butwasnowexposedtothegreatestdanger.Noindeed,suchwasthepitchofmadnessthattohavestoodupforgownsmen,wouldhavebeenreckonedaviolationofreligionandpiety.Ontheotherhand, everything that is reprobatedamong respectablemen,and that is really criminal,was most plentifully charged on you every day by the malicious. Those who were morefavourablydisposedtowardsus,wereneverthelesssooccupiedwiththeirownaffairsthat,beingdeaf to our entreaties, andworn outwith almost continual reproaches, all they could dowasmereconversation—contrivingdelays,orutteringpioussentimentsthatareusualconcerningthe dead. Therefore, all our affairs being in confusion and in the most imminent danger,destituteofallhumanaid,nomarvelwasachievedforusbytheuseofmeans—butourmostmercifulFatherlookeddownonusfromheaven.Afterithadbecomeonlytoomanifest,towhatan extreme the audacity, rage, and ignorance of somewould have gone— those fromwhombetterthingsmighthavebeenexpected—thatGovernorofallthings,quicklydefeatedalltheircouncils, and all their attempts. Those who three days before were most eagerly intent onswallowingupourinterests,wereabletoprovidefortheirowninterestsonlywithdifficulty.Ofthatbaseattemptagainsttheuniversities,which(withtheangerandoppositionofGod)someinsanecreaturesinvainengagedin,nothingremainsexceptthesignaldisgrace,andthenevertobeforgotteninsanity.However,aslongastherearemenwho,withcopiouseloquence,areableto transmit in eternal records thedeedsanddecreesof thebraveandwise, togetherwith the

infamyofthewicked,itsauthorswillprobablyhavereasontorepentofthatattempt.”264

174Wemay be assured that the exertions of the Vice-Chancellor were notlackingtocorrecttheseevils,tomaintaintherightsoftheUniversity,andtosupportitsclaimstothecharacterofpietyandlearning.Hesethimselfvigorouslytocurbthelicentiousnessofthestudents.Thestateofmoralsandorderamongthem,withthedegreeoffirmnessandauthoritywhichwasrequisitetokeeptheminsubjection,maybejudgedbythefollowingincident.At apublicAct,whena student ofTrinityCollegewasTerraefilius,

265 the Doctor, before the student began, told him that he would

have liberty to say what he pleased, provided he would abstain fromprofaneness, obscenity, and personalities. The Terrae filius began butsoon transgressed all the ruleswhich had been prescribed to him. TheDoctorseveraltimesdesiredhimtoforbear,butstillhewenton—tillatlast, seeinghewasobstinate,Owen sent theBeadles topullhimdown.Upon this, the scholars interposed and would not allow them to comenearhim.TheDoctordeterminedtopullhimdownhimself.Thoughhisfriendsnearhimdissuadedhimlestthescholarsdohimsomemischief,Owen said, “I will not see authority trampled on in this manner.” Heactually pulled him down, and sent him to Bocardo.

266 The scholars,

standingaside,were surprisedbyhis resolve.267He took care, says the

writerofhislife,torestraintheloose,toencouragethesoberandpious,andtoprefermenoflearningandindustry.Underhisadministration,itwas visible that thewhole bodyof theUniversitywas returned to goodorder,andflourishedwithanumberofexcellentscholars,andpersonsofdistinguishedpiety.

268Thiswillbeapparentbyabriefnoteofsomeofthe

leadingmenamongtheIndependents,Presbyterians,andEpiscopalians,thenintheUniversity.175John Owen was Vice-Chancellor for five years, and filled the nextimportant office in it for nine years. Dr. Thos. Goodwin, whomWoodcalls, “One of the Atlases and Patriarchs of Independency,”

269 was

PresidentofMagdalenCollegeduringthesameperiod.Asa theologian,hewasperhapsrathertoohighaCalvinist;buthewasdistinguishedforhis piety, learning, and industry, as the five folio volumes of hisposthumous works bear ample testimony. He was thankful Owen wasPresident of St. John’s College.

270 According to Wood, Goodwin had a

good commandof theLatin tongue.271He is described byCalamy as a

man of polite learning and excellent temper, who was admired for hisuncommonfluency,easiness,andsweetness,inallhiscompositions.Dr.Owen said of him at his death in 1681, that “he had not left his equalbehind, for learning, religion, and good humour.”

272 George Porter,

FellowofMagdalenCollege,wasProctoroftheUniversityinthesecondyear of Owen’s Vice-Chancellorship, — a man of good learning, greatgravity, integrity, self-denial, and charity.

273 Stephen Charnock was

Fellow of New College, and Senior Proctor in 1652. His work on the

DivineAttributesisasufficientproofofhistalents,piety,andlearning.274

Samuel Lee, of Magdalen Hall, afterwards Fellow ofWadham College,andProctorin1656,wastheauthorofseverallearnedandskilfulworks.275

176Afterwards,LeebecameamemberofDr.Owen’sChurch inLondon, towhichhededicateshis“EcclesiaGemens” in1667:“TotheHolyChurchofChrist, latelywalking incommunionwithMr.JosephCaryl,andnowwithDr.JohnOwen,beforewhomtheseexerciseswerehandled,andtowhomtheyarenowhumblypresented,bytheirsinthefellowshipofthegospel,S.L.”RalphButtonwasFellowofMertonCollege,andCanonofChristChurch;anexcellentscholar,saysBaxter,butofgreaterexcellenceasamosthumble,worthy,godlyman.

276HeobtainedhisFellowshipof

Merton College, in 1633, entirely by hismerit, which ledDr. Prideaux,thenRector ofExeterCollege, to say that, “allwhowere elected besidehimwerenotworthaButton.”

277JonathanGoddard,M.D.wasWarden

of Merton College, a man of considerable celebrity as a Chemist andPhysician.HewasamemberoftheRoyalSociety,ProfessorofPhysicinGreshamCollege,andtheauthorofvariousMedicalworks.

278Theophilus

Gale,wasFellowofMagdalenCollege.Wooddescribeshimas“apersonof great reading, an exact Philologist and Philosopher; a learned andindustrious person;

279 His “Court of the Gentiles” alone furnishes

indubitable evidence of this. Thomas Cole was Principal of St. Mary’sHall,andTutortoJohnLockeandothercelebratedindividuals.

280James

Baron was Divinity Reader of Magdalen College and (with ThankfulOwen)editorofDr.Goodwin’sPosthumousworks.

281FrancisHowelwas

MoralPhilosophyreadertotheUniversity,andPrincipalofJesusCollege.282

177Lewis DuMoulin,M. D. Cambden Professor of History, was aman ofgreatlearningandacuteness,andauthorofmanyworks.Woodsays,“Hewas a fiery, violent, and hot-headed Independent.”

283Mr.Francis

Johnson,MasterofUniversityCollegeandoneofCromwell’s Chaplains,wasamanoflearningandability.

284IneednotpronouncethepraiseMr.

JohnHowe,FellowofMagdalenCollege,asheisuniversallyadmittedto

havebeenoneofthegreatestmenthiscountryeverproduced.285,Henry

Stubb,Secondkeeperof theBodleianLibrary,afterwardscelebrated forhisoppositiontotheRoyalSociety,wasthemostnotedpersonofhisage,accordingtoWood.Headds,“Whilehe continuedunder-graduate, itwasusual for him todiscourse in thepublic Schools,veryfluentlyintheGreektongue.ButsincetheKing’srestoration,wehavehadnosuchmatter,whichshowsthat educationanddisciplineweremore severe then thanafter,when scholars

weregivenmoretolibertyandfrivolousstudies.”286

Among the Presbyterians were Dr. Henry Wilkinson, Sr., MargaretProfessor of Divinity, a man of learning and public spirit; “A goodscholar, a close student, and an excellent preacher,” saysWood.

287 Dr.

HenryWilkinson,Jr.,PrincipalofMagdalenHall,andauthorofseverallearned works. “He was ever courteous in speech and carriage,communicative of his knowledge, generous and charitable to the poor,andalwaysmindedthecommongoodmorethanhisowninterests.”

288

178Dr. Dan. Greenwood, Principal of Brazen Nose College, and formerlyVice-Chancellor.Neal sayshehad the reputationof a profound scholarand Divine; even Wood acknowledges that he was a severe and goodgovernor.

289Dr.EdmundStaunton,PresidentofCorpusChristiCollege.

He was so well acquainted with the Scriptures that he was a livingConcordancetotheBible,distinguishednolessforhisamiablemanners,thanfortheextentofhislearningandthegreatnessofhislabours.

290Dr.

JohnConant,RectorofExeterCollege,ofwhomPrideaux (who lovedapun,aswehavealreadyseen)said,Conantinihildifficile.

291 DrRobert

Harris, President of Trinity College, a great Hebrew scholar,Chronologist,andHistorian.

292Dr.HenryLangley,MasterofPembroke

College,asolidandjudiciousDivine.293Dr.MichaelRoberts,whomNeal

speaksofasagoodscholar.294JohnHarmar,RegiusProfessorofGreekat

theUniversity.HewasamostexcellentPhilologist,atolerableLatinPoet,and the author of several learned works. He was ejected at theRestoration.

295

AmongtheEpiscopalianswereDr.Wilkins,WardenofWadhamCollege,whomarried the sister of the Protector. After the Restoration, he wasmade Bishop of Chester; a man justly celebrated for the extent of his

philosophicalknowledge,hisexcellenttemper,andadmirableabilities.296

Dr. Seth Ward, afterwards Bishop of Exeter and Salisbury, atimeserver,

297butthemostnotedMathematicianandAstronomerofhis

age.298 Dr. John Wallis, who had been one of the clerks to the

Westminster Assembly, Savilian Professor of Geometry, and highlycelebratedasaGeometrician.

299

179Dr.Pococke,ProfessorofArabic,thegreatestOrientalscholarofhistime.300Dr.Zouch,PrincipalofSt.Alban’sHall,adistinguishedcivilian.

301Dr.

Langbain, Provost of Queen’s College and keeper of the records of theUniversity; an excellent linguist, philosopher, and divine; the friend ofSelden and of Pococke.He died in 1657,

302 and was succeeded by Dr.

Barlow,whohadbeen tutor toOwenandafterwardsbecameBishopofLincoln.Dr.PaulHood,RectorofLincolnCollegeandChancelloroftheUniversity in 1660.

303 Dr. JoshuaHoyle,Master of University College,

andKing’sProfessorofDivinitytillhisdeathin1651.Hewasapersonofgreatreadingandmemory,andsodevotedtohisbookthathewas inagreatmeasure a stranger to theworld.

304 Dr. ThomasHyde, afterwards

Professor of Arabic, and author of the learned work “De ReligionePersarum.”Mr.SamuelClarke,anothereminentOrientalscholarandoneofthemostlearnedcoadjutorsofWaltoninthePolyglot,thenresidedinOxford;asdidtheingeniousRobertHooke,andthefarcelebratedRobertBoyle,whotookuphisresidenceinOxfordastheonlyplaceinEnglandinwhichhecouldenjoy thebenefitof learnedsociety,andprosecute toadvantage,hisphilosophicalstudies.

305

Such were some of the celebrated men in the several parties whoflourished at Oxford during the commonwealth. It may be doubtedwhether that university ever enjoyed a greater number of personseminent in their respective professions, or more distinguished forcharacter, talents,and learning.Theyafford indubitableevidenceof thetruth of Thurloe’s account of Cromwell, that “he sought out men forplaces, and not places for men;” a remark by no means generallyapplicabletothekingsoftheearth.180Themereenumerationoftheirnamesissufficienttoshowthejustnessof

the eulogiumwhich the Vice-Chancellor pronounced on the worth andcelebrity of his colleagues in 1653. After speaking of their piety andcandour,hethusproceeds:—“Icouldnothelpbutgivesuchapublictestimonyasaregardtotruth,andtothedutyrequiredfromme,totheseveryrespectableandlearnedmen,headsoftheColleges,whohavemeritedsohighlyoftheChurch,fortheirdistinguishedcandour,greatdiligence,uncommonerudition,andblamelesspoliteness.Manyofthemarezealouslystudiousofeverykindofliterature;andmany,by their conduct in the early period of their youth, give themost promising hopes of futuremerit.Thus,Iwouldventuretoaffirmthatnoimpartialandunprejudicedjudgewouldbelievethatouruniversityhaseitherbeensurpassed,orisnowsurpassed,byanysocietyofmenintheworld—eitherinpointofproperrespectandesteemforpiety,formannersthatareorderlyandworthy of the Christian vocation; and for a due regard to doctrines, arts, languages, and all

sciencesthatcanadornwiseandgoodmenappointedforthepublicgood.”306

181Norwillouropinionof the learningandcelebrityofOxfordduring thisperiodbelowered,ifwerunoverafewofthepersonswhothenreceivedapart or the whole of their academic education. Some of them wereafterwards distinguished as philosophers and statesmen; some of themrose to eminent situations in the church, while others adorned thehumbler ranks of theNon-conformist profession.Among the first classwere: — John Locke. William Penn, the celebrated Quaker andenlightened founder and legislator of Pennsylvania.

307 Dr. South, who

enjoyedinearlylifethefriendshipandpatronageofDr.Owen,thoughheafterwardsshowedhimselfunworthyofboth.

308SirThomasMillington,

M.D.,whowasafterwardsSedlyanProfessorofNaturalHistory.309Dr.

RalphBathurst, afterwardsPresidentofTrinityCollege, andnominatedto be Bishop of Bristol.

310 Joseph Williamson, afterwards Secretary of

State.311 Sir Christopher Wren, the celebrated architect.

312 Dr. Daniel

Whitby, well known for his critical acumen and Anti-Calvinistic zeal.313

AnthonyA.Wood,theOxfordAntiquary,andtheenemyofPuritansandDissenters;towhoselearnedpageswehaveoftenbeenindebted.

314Mr.

JosephGlanville, a distinguishedwriter, a Fellow of the Royal Society,andoneofitsmoststrenuousdefenders.

315LauncelotAddison,fatherto

thecelebratedJosephAddison.316HewasDeanofLichfield,andamanof

someeminence.182HenryOldenburg,aSaxon;afterwardsSecretarytotheRoyalSociety.He

married the only daughter of John Dury, the indefatigable butunsuccessful promoter of peace and concord among the ProtestantChurches.

317Learning,saysBurnet,wasthenhighatOxford;chieflythe

study of theOriental tongues,whichwas greatly raised by the PolyglotBible then expounded. They read the Fathers much there; andMathematicsandtheNewPhilosophywereingreatesteem.

318

ManyofthedignifiedclergyofthefuturereignswerealsoindebtedtotheOxfordProfessorsofthisperiodfortheireducation.Suchas:—Dr.Sprat,Bishop of Rochester, and Historian of the Royal Society.

319 Henry

Compton,successivelyacornetintheguards,andBishopofOxfordandLondon; a determined supporter of the Revolution.

320 Dr. Nathaniel

Crew, Bishop of Oxford and Durham, and Grand Inquisitor of theEcclesiasticalCommissioninthereignofJamesII,forwhichheobtaineda pardon from William, through the intercession of Dr. Bates.

321 Dr.

ThomasCartwright,BishopofChester, and another friendof James II,with whom he afterwards fled to France.

322 Samuel Parker, son of a

Puritan, andhimselfknownasagrueller323 atOxford, but afterward a

violentenemyoftheNon-conformistsandofDr.Oweninparticular.HewasmadeBishopofOxfordbyJamesII,anddiedmorethansuspectedofPopery.

324EzekielHopkins,BishopofRaphoeandDerry,amanofpiety

andabilities,whoseExpositionoftheCommandments,andotherworksarestillpopular.

325

183Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and afterwards one of theNonjurors.

326EdwardFowler,BishopofGlocester;hewasraisedtothis

SeeforhisactiveservicesattheRevolution.Hewastheauthorofseveralworks.

327 Nicholas Stratford, Bishop of Chester.

328 Capel Wiseman,

Bishop of Dromore, and Timothy Hall, Bishop of Oxford.329 George

Hooper,BishopofSt.Asaphs,andofBathandWells,thewriterofseverallearned works.

330 Narcissus Marsh, Archbishop of Cashel, an amiable

and learned Prelate, and founder of a valuable library in Dublinconductedon themost liberalprinciples.

331RobertHuntington,Bishop

ofKilmore,anddistinguished forhisattainments inOriental literature.332 Richard Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, well known as the

authorofavaluableworkonJewishWeightsandMeasures,andas thetranslator of Sanchoniathon, besides other things.

333 Francis Turner,

BishopofRochesterandEly,oneofthesevenwhoweresenttotheTowerbykingJames;butwhowasafterwardsdeprived,fornottakingtheoathstoWilliam.

334JohnLloyd,BishopofSt.David’s.

335Hewasagreatcritic

intheGreekandLatinauthors,butchieflyintheScriptures—thewordsand phrases of which he carried the most perfect concordance in hismemory.Wilkinsusedtosaythathehadthemostlearninginreadycashof any he ever knew.Hewas a great chronologist and historian, and aholy, humble, patient man, ever ready to do good when he had anopportunity.

336

184AfternotingsomeofthedignifiedclergywhowereformedatOxfordandCambridgeduringthisperiod,Burnetadds:“Thesehavebeenthegreatestdivineswehavehadthesefortyyears.Theycontributedmorethancanbewell imagined to reform thewayofpreachingwhich—among thedivinesofEnglandbefore them — was over-run with pedantry. It was a great mixture of quotations from theFathersandancientwriters,alongopeningofatext,withtheconcordanceofeverywordinit,andgivingall thedifferentexpositionsof it,withthegroundsforthem,concludingwithsome

veryshortpracticalapplicationsaccordingtothesubjectoroccasion.”337

AmongtheDissenterswhothenreceivedtheireducationatOxford,were:—Mr.Thos.Cawton,afterwardsministerofachurchinWestminster,ofwhomGrangersays, “hehad fewequals in learning,andnosuperior inpiety.”

338Mr. EdwardBagshaw, secondmaster ofWestminster School,

whileBusbywasatitshead;hehadsomeheatedcontroversywithhim,aswell aswithBaxter.Hemaybe said tohave losthis life for refusing totaketheoathofallegianceandsupremacy,ashediedfromtheeffectofimprisonmentonthisaccount.HewasthefriendofDr.Owen,whogiveshischaracterinthefollowingepitaphwhichisinscribedonhistombstoneinBunhillfields:—"HereliesinterredthebodyofMr.EdwardBagshaw,ministerofthegospel,whoreceivedfromGod faith to embrace it, courage todefend it, andpatience to suffer for it;whendespisedbymostandpersecutedbymany.Esteemingtheadvantagesofbirth,education,andlearning,alleminentinhim,asthingsofworth,tobeaccountedlossfortheknowledgeofChrist.Fromthereproachesofpretendedfriends,andpersecutionsofprofessedadversaries,hetooksanctuaryin

eternalrest,bythewillofGod,the28thDecember,1671.”339

185Mr.PhilipHenry,wellknownasaneminentNon-conformisthimself,and

as the fatherof themorecelebratedMatthewHenry, theCommentator.Dr.Owenusedtospeakhighlyofhisexercises,whenDeanoftheCollegeofwhichMr.Henrywasastudent.HisaccountofthestateofreligionintheUniversitywhilehewasatit,deservestobequoted.“Hewouldoftenmentionit,withthankfulnesstoGod,whatgreathelpsandadvantageshethenhadintheUniversity,notonlyforlearning,butforreligionandpiety.Seriousgodlinesswasinreputation,andbesidesthepublicopportunitiestheyhad,thereweremanyofthescholarswhoused to meet together for prayer, and Christian conference, to the great confirming of oneanother’sheartsinthefearandloveofGod,andpreparingthemfortheserviceofthechurchin

theirgeneration.”340

Mr. George Trosse, afterwardsminister in Exeter, aman of unwearieddiligence,andconsiderablelearning;hewroteseveralthingswhichwereesteemedatthetime,andleftinsixfoliovolumesaMS.ExpositionoftheAssembly’s Catechism, which still exists. His account of religiousexercisesinOxfordwhilehewasastudent,oughttobenotedalongwithMr. Henry’s, as throwing light on the state of the University at thisperiod.“HeattendedDr.Conant’s lecturesonFridays,Dr.Harris’s catechetical lecturesonTuesdays,thelecturekeptupbytheCanonsofChristChurchonThursdays,Mr.Hickman’sministryatSt.Olaves,ontheLord’sdays,andalsoheardmanyexcellentsermonsatSt.Mary’s.

186HereceivedthesacramentsometimesfromMr.Hickman,andsometimesfromDr.Langley,theMasterofhisCollege.HeattendedtherepetitionofSermonsandsolemnprayerintheCollegeHall,ontheLord’sdaysbeforesupper.Andhehimselfrepeatedsermonsandprayedwithafew

youngmeninhischamber,afterwards.”341

JohnWesley, ejected fromWhitechurch in Dorsetshire, grandfather ofthe celebrated founder of Methodism, to whom, while a student atOxford,Dr.Owenshowedmuchkindness.

342Itisworthyofremarkthat

bothbyhisfatherandhismother,JohnWesley,HighChurchmanthoughhewas, sprung fromDissenters:Dr.Annesley,hismother’s father, alsobeingadistinguishedNon-conformist.Mr.JohnQuick, thewell-knownauthorof the “SynodiconGalliaReformata,” andof anuneditedMS. inthreefoliovolumes,nowintheRedCrossStreetLibrary,containinglivesof eminent Protestant divines, both French and English.

343 Joseph

Alleine, the ejected minister of Taunton; a learned and most devotedman,justlycelebratedforhis“CalltotheUnconverted;”whichhasgonethroughinnumerableeditions.

344ThomasTregrosse,theejectedminister

of Millar and Mabe in Cornwall, and distinguished for his apostolic

laboursinthatcountry.345JohnTroughton,blindfromthefourthyearof

his age; yet a good school divine, and metaphysician, and muchcommendedforhisdisputationswhenattheUniversity.HewroteseveralthingsontheNon-conformistcontroversy.

346

187CharlesMorton, afterwards a celebrated dissenting tutor at NewingtonGreen;butsoinfestedwiththeBishops’processes,thathewasobligedtodesistandretiretoAmerica,wherehedied.

347SamuelTapper,thefriend

of Bishops Wilkins and Ward; Thomas Danson, Samuel Blower, JohnSpilsbury,andJamesAshurst,allDissentingministersofsomeeminence,besidesmanyotherstoonumeroustobenamedinthisplace.

348

It was during this time, and inOxford also, that the foundation of theRoyal Societywas laid; and someof its earliest andmost distinguishedfriends either belonged to the University, or received the elements oftheireducationthere.

349Thesefactsandtestimoniesshowtheflourishing

state of learning, religion, and science during the latter part at least ofOwen’s Vice-Chancellorship; and the merit which is due to him inbringingthisimportantseatofinstructionoutofthedangerstowhich,atthe beginning of his administration, it was evidently exposed — fromdisorder,partyspirit,andfanaticism.Ifanyadditionalevidenceiswantedin support of our representations, and to expose the calumniespropagated against Owen and his friends, it will be furnished by LordClarendonwhoseimpartialityonsuchasubjectwillnotbequestioned.“Ityielded,” sayshisLordship, “aharvestofextraordinary,good,andsoundknowledge, inallpartsoflearning.Andmanywhowerewickedlyintroduced,appliedthemselvestothestudyoflearningandthepracticeofvirtue.SothatwhenitpleasedGodtobringKingCharlesIIbacktohisthrone,hefoundthatUniversityaboundinginexcellentlearning,andlittleinferiortowhatit

wasbeforeitsdesolation.”350

188The Doctor managed the different parties in the University by hisgentlemanly behaviour and humility; by his impartiality anddecisiveness; and by his generous disinterestedness. He was moderatebutfirm,dignified,andatthesametimefullofgentleness.Hegainedthegood wishes of the Episcopalians by allowing a society of about threehundredof them,whoused theLiturgy, tomeet everyLord’sday, overagainsthisowndoor.Thiswaswithoutdisturbance,althoughtheywere

not legally tolerated. He secured the support and favour of thePresbyteriansbygivingawaymostof thevacantbenefices topersonsofthat denomination; and he had themost intimate communicationwiththePresbyteriansoftheUniversity.

351Amongthestudents,heactedasa

father. While he discountenanced and punished the vicious, heencouraged and rewarded the modest and the indigent. He washospitableinhisownhouse,generoustopoorscholars,someofwhomhetook into his family; others he assisted by presents of money.

352

Foreignersaswellasnativesexperiencedhisbounty;forsomeofthem—byhisfavourandthatoftheCanonsofChristChurch—wereadmittedtofree Commons, and the use of the Library.

353 He was frequently

consultedbypersonsofdistinctionrespectingtheirsonswhowereplacedattheUniversity,andentreatedtotakeaninterestinthem.Hesetapersonalexampleoffidelityandlaboriousdiligence,whichmusthavebeenattendedwiththebesteffects;whilehis labours inthepulpitaidedtheinfluenceofhisacademicexertions.TheUniversitysermonsonthe Lord’s day afternoons, used to be preached by the fellows of theCollegeintheircourse;butthisbeingfoundnotsomuchforedification,theVice-ChancellorandDr.Goodwindividedthe labourbetweenthem.354

189St.Mary’sisalargeplaceofworship,andwhentheDoctorpreachedinit,he was always attended by a numerous congregation. There was anIndependentchurchatOxfordatthistime,ofwhichGoodwinwaspastor.ButIamunabletosaywhetherOwenheldanyofficeinit.CawdryassertsthathelabouredtogatherachurchinhisownCollege

355—andifhedid,

little doubt can be entertained of his success. But this is one of therumourswhichthatviolentwriterdelightedtospread;anditistherefore,perhaps, entitled to little attention.Every second Sabbath, however, hepreached at Stadham, in the neighbourhood, where he bought someproperty.Thus,betweentheUniversityandthepulpit—nottospeakofotherlabourswhichremaintobebroughtforward—hishandsmusthavebeenveryfullyoccupied.DuringOwen’sVice-Chancellorship,severalincidentsofamiscellaneousnature occurred which serve to display his talents, or illustrate hisprinciples, or throw some light on the state of the times. I shall now

proceedtostatethese.OntheoccasionofthepeacewhichCromwellconcludedwiththeDutchin 1654, many addresses and poetic praises were presented to him.Amongtherest,theUniversityofOxfordapproachedhishighnesswithavolume of poems in all languages, entitled “Musarum OxoniensiumELLIOFORIA,” etc. The dedication of this volume to Cromwell, by Dr.OwenasVice-Chancellor,isinprose.ItisfullofexpressionsofgratitudetotheProtectorforhisfavourtotheUniversity.Afterthis,wehavesomeversesby theDoctor,whichdeserve tobe inserted,as theyare theonlyspecimenexistingofhispoetictalents[orig.inLatin].190

TOTHEPROTECTOR.NowpeacereturnsinconqueringCaesar’strain,Who,kindling,daresnotthepoeticstrain?Ev’nI,devotedtosevererthemes.Noraptforsong,orwakingfancy’sdreams.Struckwithnovainpoeticrage,aspire;And,lo,anhumbleteacher,graspsthelyre:Pregnant,Ihastethetunefulthrongtojoin;Foreverymuse,andeverylyreisthine.Hadthesefairscenes,unshelter’dbythinearm.

Todiscordfall’naprey,andrudealarm,Notthou,Augustus,wertsecurefromshame.Unlikethyselfandheedlessofthyfame;Obliviousshadeshadvail’dthyvictories.Andpeaceappear’dinglorioustooureyes.Butsav’dbythee,theMusesyetsurvive.

Andgratefulcometobidthyglorieslive;Peaceistheirsong,—restor’datthycommand,ToblesstheBritishplainsandeveryland;Forthee,theytwinethewreatheofpeace,asdueTohimwhobearsitsnameandemblemtoo.Thengraciousown,unconquer’dPrince,thelay

Bywhichthesefriendsofpeacetheirhomagepay.—Jo.Owen,Acad.Procan.

191After the Vice-Chancellor, many members of the University follow inorder, with various degrees of poetic merit. Zouch, Dr. of Civil Law;HarmartheGreekProfessor,andDr.RalphBathurst,nameswellknownin the republic of Letters, contribute to this collection, and join ineulogisingCromwell.Besidesthese,wefindBusby,whosolongruledinWestminster School and compliedwith every change of government inhistime;andLocke,thefriendofphilosophyandliberty.Dr.Southalso

celebrates the praises of the Protector; and yet afterwards he couldrepresent him as a lively copy of Jeroboam, and say of the leadingecclesiasticsof theperiod,—“Latinwasamortal crimewith them,andGreek, instead of being owned as the language of theHoly Ghost, waslookeduponas the sin against it— so that, in aword, theyhadall theconfusionofBabelamongthem,withoutthediversityoftongues.”

356But

this was Dr. South. The volume is closed with some verses from theprinter,whostyleshimselfLeonardLichfield,Esq.BedleofDivinity.Helived to perform the same honour for Charles II, as did many of thegentlemen mentioned above. Praise generally follows fortune; and hewhohasthepowerofconferringbenefits,willneverlackflatterers.

357In

September 1654, a Londonmerchant of the name of Kinaston came toOxford,withalongbeard,pretendingtobeapatriarch,andsaidthathewanted a model of the last reformation. A number of the Royalistsrepairedtohimtoobtainhisblessing,amongwhomwereHenryLangleyandHarmar,whopresenteda formalGreekharangue tohim. It turnedout,however, tobea trickofLloyd’s, thenaTutor inWadhamCollege,whoafterwardsbecame,successively,BishopofSt.Asaph,Lichfield,andCoventry.192ItwaschieflyintendedagainsttheRoyalists;butasDr.Owenandsomeof the Presbyterians had resorted to this Patriarch, or he to them, onaccount of his wished-formodel, theywere so offended on discoveringthecheat,thatLloydwasobligedtoabscond.

358

This year, also,Oxfordwas visited by two femaleQuakerswho createdsomedisturbance,andwereratherseverelytreated.Gough,theHistorianof theFriends, represents theVice-Chancellor asneedlessly interfering,andsentencingthepoorwomentobepunished,whentheMayorrefusedto do so. But on referring to Sewel, who is quoted by Gough as hisauthority, andwho, being aQuaker himself, would not have concealedOwen’s misconduct, the story appears in a different light. Aftermentioning how the students had treated Elizabeth Heavens, andElizabethFletcher,henotesthattheyhadbeencommittedbytwojusticesto Bocardo, the common prison, for speaking in the church after theminister had finished his discourse. A meeting of the Justices wasafterwardssummoned,whichtheMayorrefusedtoattend,and“towhichtheVice-Chancelloralsowasrequiredtocome.”Owenchargedthemwith

blaspheming the name ofGod, and abusing theDivine Spirit, towhichthe Quakers replied. After they were asked to withdraw, the Justicesagreedthattheyshouldbewhipped,whichwasexecutedaccordinglynextmorning.

359 Itappears fromthisaccount, that theQuakerswereput in

prisonfordisturbingthepublicworship,orspeakingwheretheyhadnorighttospeak;thatDr.Owen,byvirtueofthecivilofficewhichheheldinthe University, was required to attend a meeting of the Justices toconsider their behavior; and that he made some remarks on theirreligioussentimentsandconduct.Sewelchargeshimwithnothingmorethanthis.

193However peaceable and respectable the Quakers are now, it must beadmitted, evenby themselves, that thiswasbynomeans the casewithmanyoftheearlyprofessors.TheyfrequentlydisturbedthecongregationwhenengagedinDivineservice—addressedthosewhomtheyopposedinthemostviolentandabusivemanner—outragedtheboundsofmodestyand decency, and even endangered the lives of others. These wereproceedingswhichtoofullyjustifiedtheconductofthepublicauthoritiestowardsthem;thoughmanyofthevisionaryoffendersshouldhavebeensenttoaprivatecellratherthantreatedcruelly,orpubliclyexposed.During Owen’s Vice-Chancellorship, a calumnious report was raisedabout his blaspheming the Lord’s Prayer, and putting on his hat as amark of disapproval, when some preacher in Christ Church, concludedthe service by repeating it. This was carried so far that in 1660MericCasaubonwroteaformalvindicationoftheLord’sPrayer.AssoonasthereportreachedtheDoctor,hepublishedasolemndenialofitstruth,bothin French and English. Notwithstanding this denial, the charge wasrepeated and aggravated by Vernon in his infamous libel.

360 This led

OwentonoticeandrepelitagaininhislettertoSirThomasOverbury.361

After all this, Wood repeats the slander, and contradicts the Doctor’sdenialbyreports.

362

191Soperseveringaremaliceanddetraction,andsouselessiscontradiction,when men are determined not to be convinced. Dr. Owen franklyacknowledgesthathedidnotbelievethattheLord’sPrayerwasintended

forastandingformintheChurchofChrist,andthathehadmadesomefreeremarksontheimproperrepetitionofitintheEnglishLiturgy,andonthesuperstitiousviewswhichsomepersonsentertainedaboutit.Buthejustassolemnlydeclares:—“Ido,andeverdidbelieve,thatthatprayerispartoftheCanonicalScripture,whichIwouldnotwillinglyblaspheme. I dobelieve that itwas composedby theLordJesusChristhimself, andhavevindicateditfrombeingacollectionofsuchpetitionsasweretheninuseamongtheJews,assomelearnedmenhad,Ithink,unadvisedlyasserted.Ido,andeverdidbelieveittobethemostperfect form forprayer thatwasever composed; and thewordsof it sodisposedby theDivinewisdomofourblessedSaviour, that it comprehends the substanceof all thematterofprayertoGod.Ido,anddidalwaysbelieve,thatitoughttobecontinuallymeditatedon,thatwemaylearnfromit,bothwhatweoughttoprayfor,andinwhatmanner;neitherdidIeverthink

athoughtorspeakawordunsuitabletotheseassertions.”363

In1657,hewasbroughtbyMr.ColtintoWestminsterHall,asawitnessagainstMr.Dutton.On being asked to take the oath, he requested theNewTestamentbeopenedbeforehim,andsaidhewouldliftuphishand;butherefusedtosubmittotheridiculousceremonyofkissingthebook.The Jury requested the Court to inform them whether this mode ofswearingcouldbeadmitted;onwhichLordChiefJusticeGlynntoldthemtheDoctor’soathwasperfectlysufficient.364

195This triflinganecdote showsushowOwenviewedwhat some,perhaps,mayconsiderbutasmallmatter;butwhichentersdeeplyintotheawfulabuseandlittle influenceofoaths, forwhichEnglandisproverbial;andwhichconstitutesalargeportionofitsnationalguilt.TheaccountwhichAnthonyWoodgivesof theconductandmannersofOwenwhileVice-Chancellor,istoocurioustobeomitted.“Heendeavoured,”saysthatilliberalwriter,“toputdownhabits,formalities,andallceremony,notwithstandinghehadtakenanoathbeforetoobservethestatutesandmaintaintheprivilegesof the University. While he underwent that office, instead of being a grave example to theUniversity,hescornedallformality,andundervaluedhisoffice,bygoinginquirpo,likeayoungscholar—withpowderedhair,snake-boneband-stringsorband-stringswithverylargetassels,lawnband,a largesetof ribbandspointedathisknees,andSpanish leatherboots,with large

lawntops,andhishatmostlycocked.”365

This most singular representation has the misfortune to be scarcelyconsistentwithitself.Tobeanenemytopomp,andyetamanofdress,towish to put down form in others, and be at the same time very formalhimself, are scarcely reconcilable. It is true that Owen attached littleimportance tohoods and tippets, andother academicparaphernalia, in

whichWood supposed a great part of the glory of anOxford educationconsisted.ButanextractfromEvelyne’sJournalwillshowthathedidnotinterferewiththeformsoftheUniversity.196“July9,1654,Dr.FrenchpreachedatSt.Mary’s,onMat.12.42—advisingthestudentstosearchaftertruewisdom,nottobefoundinthebooksofphilosophers,butintheScripturesalone.In

theafternoon, the famous Independent,Dr.Owen,perstringingEpiscopacy.366

OnMonday Iwentagaintotheschoolstoheartheseveralfaculties;andintheafternoonwaitedoutthewholeActinSt.Mary’s—thelongspeechesoftheProctors,theVice-Chancellor,theseveralProfessors—creationofDoctorsbythecap,ring,kiss,etc.— theseancient ceremoniesand institutions

notyetbeingwhollyabolished.Dr.Kendal,nowinceptor,367

amongothers,performinghisActincomparablywell,concludeditwithanexcellentoration,abatinghisPresbyteriananimosities.

TheActwasclosedwithaspeechoftheVice-Chancellor.”368

On the subject of the University oath, we can let the Doctor himselfspeak:—“Icansay,withsomeconfidencethattheintentionanddesignoftheoathwereobservedbymewithasmuchconscienceanddiligence, asbyanywhohave sinceacted in the samecapacity.And being provoked by thisman [Vernon] I do not fear to say that, considering the state ofaffairs at that time in the nation and the University, I do not believe there is any person oflearning,ingenuity,ormodesty,whowasrelatedtothatplaceinthosedays,whowillnotgrantat least that, notwithstanding some differences from them about things of very smallimportance, I was not altogether useless to the interest of learning,morality, peace, and the

preservationoftheplaceitself.”369

197Wood’saccountofOwen’sdressisvastlyamusing.WewouldhavebeenmuchgratifiedifhehadfurnisheduswithadrawingofthisdandyVice-chancellor. His snakebone bandstrings, and lawn boot tops, would beinvaluable antiquarian relics if they could be recovered.

370 Had Owen

beenapersonofadifferentdescription,Anthonywouldhave toldusofhis turnip head, sepulchral face, and sackcloth garb, by which hedisgraced the university, and brought all good breeding into contempt.Granger,however,justlyremarksthatWood’sdescriptionofOwen’sstyleamountstonomorethanhisbeingamanofgoodpersonandbehaviour,andlikedtogowell-dressed.

371

“We must be extremely cautious,” adds that acute writer, “how we form our judgment ofcharactersatthisperiod;thedifferenceofafewmodesorceremoniesinreligiousworshiphasbeenthecauseofinfiniteprejudiceandmisrepresentation.Thepracticeofsomeofthesplenetic372

writersof thisperiod, remindsmeof thepainter,wellknownby theappellationofhellishBrueghell, who had so accustomed himself to painting witches, imps, and devils, that hesometimesmadebutlittledifferencebetweenhishumanandinfernalfigures.”

198Nothing could more accurately describe the manner of the Oxfordhistorian. Granger, though a Churchman, expresses himself veryhonourably of Owen. “Supposing it to be necessary for one of hispersuasiontobeplacedattheheadoftheUniversity,nonewassoproperas this person who governed it several years withmuch prudence andmoderation, when faction and animosity seemed to be a part of everyreligion.”

373

At the installation of Richard Cromwell into the office of Chancellor,Owenaddressedhiminthenameoftheuniversity,andeulogizedinthestrongestterms,thecharacterofhisfather.“TheuniversityofOxfordcastsatyourfeetthoseinferiorsceptreswhichyourgreatparentwasnot ashamed to have borne in hands that now almost regulate the balance of power in allEurope,andwhichwerenocontemptibleomensofhisrisinggloryandhonour.Ifthegownsmenseemtoyoutoactwithahigherspirit thansuits theircondition, if theyseemtobepuffedupwithacertaindegreeofpridebecausetheyareunwillingtobeunderthecareandprotectionofan inferior patron— thatmust be ascribed to the exceeding great favour of himwho, by hisaffection, compelled them to forget their lot, and to aspire to thenoblest advantagesof everydescription.But it isunnecessary,atpresent, toexpatiateonhispraise,or to repeathisgooddeeds, since all are eager to ascribe to him the best blessings they enjoy; andhe has himselfobtainedimmortalhonourbyhisconduct.

199I thereforepurposelyomit the eulogyof thewisest andbravestmanwhich this age, fertile inheroes,hasproduced.WhatevermaybecomeofEngland,itshalleverbeknownthathewasa

princewhohadatheartthegloryoftheisland,andthehonourofreligion.”374

Part of his concluding address to the university, after Dr. Conant hadbeenappointedhissuccessor,enumeratessomeoftheserviceswhichhadbeen rendered to itduringhis administration. Itwill therefore formanappropriateconclusiontothissectionofhisMemoirs:“…personshavebeenmatriculated;twenty-sixadmittedtothedegreeofDoctor;threehundredand thirty-seven to the degree of Master of Arts; six hundred and ninety-seven to that of

BachelorofArts375

—Professorssalaries, lostformanyyears,havebeenrecoveredandpaid;someofficesofrespectabilityhavebeenmaintained;therightsandprivilegesoftheuniversityhavebeendefendedagainstalltheeffortsofitsenemies;thetreasuryisincreasedtenfold;manyof every rank in the university have been promoted to various honours and benefices; newexercises have been introduced and established; old ones have been duly performed;reformation of manners has been diligently studied, in spite of the grumbling of certainprofligate brawlers; labourshave beennumberless; besides submitting to themost enormousexpense,oftenwhenbroughttothebrinkofdeathonyouraccount,Ihavehatedtheselimbsandthis feeble bodywhichwas ready to desertmymind; the reproaches of the vulgar have beendisregarded,theenvyofothershasbeenovercome.

200Inthesecircumstances,Iwishyouallprosperity,andbidyoufarewell.Icongratulatemyselfona successor who can relieveme of this burden; and congratulate you on one who is able tocompletelyrepairanyinjurywhichyouraffairsmayhavesufferedthroughourinattentionBut,asIdonotknowwherethethreadofmydiscoursemightleadme,Icutitshorthere.Iseekagainmy old labours, my usual watchings, my interrupted studies. As for you Gentlemen of the

university,mayyoubehappy,andfareyouwell!”376

CHAPTERVIII.Owen publishes his “Divina Justitia”—His work “On the Perseverance of the Saints”— JohnGoodwin—Thedoctrineofperseverance—Kendal—Lamb—Baxterwriteson this subject—OwenrequestedbytheCouncilofStatetoanswerBiddle’stwoCatechisms—Biddle—ProgressofSocinianism—The“VindiciaeEvangelicae”—Neveranswered—“OntheMortificationofSin”—ControversywithHammondaboutGrotius—DeathofGataker—Selden—Usher.

ItmightbethoughtthatthelaboursaccompanyingtheDeaneryofChristchurch, and theofficeofVice-chancellorof theuniversity;ofpreachingregularlyontheLord’sday;ofattendingmanymeetingsinLondonattherequest of Government; and preaching occasionally before Parliament;with various other public and important employments, would have socompletely occupied Owen, that no time would have been found forwriting books. Difficult as it is to conceive how he could, in suchcircumstances, find leisure for the latter occupation, it was during thisperiod that some of his most valuable and elaborate works wereproduced.Iwillnowproceedtogivesomeaccountofthese.The first which claims our attention, is a LatinDissertation on DivineJustice,—“DiatribadeDivinaJustitia,etc.;ortheclaimsofVindicatoryJustice asserted, 12mo, pp. 296.—Ox. 1653.” It originated, theDoctortellsus,inoneofthepublicdisputationsintheuniversity,inwhichitfelltohislottodiscourseonthevindicatoryjusticeofGod,andthenecessityof itsexerciseonthesuppositionoftheexistenceofsin.Thoughhehadthe Socinians chiefly in his eye, it was understood that some veryrespectabletheologiansinOxford,entertaineddifferentsentimentsfromthosewhichhethenexpressed.202Agooddealofdiscussionensued,inconsequenceofwhichhepublishedthisDiatriba.It isalmostentirelyofascholasticnature,revealingmuchacuteness and a profound acquaintance with the subject; but it is notlikelytobereadwithmuchinterestnow.Itresolvesitselfentirelyintoasingle proposition: — Whether God, considered as a moral Governor,couldforgivesinwithoutanatonement,orwithoutsuchaprovisionforthehonourofhisjustice,asthatwhichismadebythesacrificeofChrist?Owen, as we apprehend, scripturally and successfully maintains thenegative of this proposition (God could not). The affirmative had beenheld by Dr. Twisse of Newbury (Prolocutor

377 of the Westminster

Assembly) in a work entitled “Vindiciae Gratiae, potestatis, acProvidentiaeDivinae,”etc.publishedinreplytoArminiusin1632;andby

Samuel Rutherford of St. Andrews, in his “Disputatio Scholastica deDivina Providentia,” published at Edinburgh in 1619. Both Twisse andRutherfordwerelearnedandablemen;buttheywereonthewrongsideinthispoint,andappeartobeatsomedisadvantageasdisputantswithOwen.Hehadbeen a gooddealmolestedwith the reference tohumanauthorityonthissubject,onwhichheveryproperlyremarks—“Thatgiganticspectre, ‘It iseverywherespokenagainst,’ shouldhaveoccasionedmenodelay,haditnotcomeforthinscribedwiththemightynamesofAugustine,Calvin,Musculus,Twisse,andVossius.And,althoughIcouldnothelpbutentertain,forallthosepersons,thatreverenceandhonourtowhichtheyareentitled—yet,Ieasilygotridofthatdifficulty.Itwaspartlybyconsideringmyself ashaving a right to ‘that libertywithwhichChristhasmadeus free;’ andpartly by opposing to these, the names of other very learned theologians— such as Paraeus,Piscator,Mohnaeus,Lubbertus,Rivet,Cameron,Maccovius,Junius (professor-atSamur),andotherswho,afterthevirusofSocinianismhadspread,clearedupthistruthwithgreataccuracy

andcaution.”378

203The subject is confessedly a difficult and abstruse one, in the presentimperfectstateofourfaculties.“Forwhatwe call darkness and obscurity inDivine things,” saysOwen, “is nothing else thantheircelestialgloryandsplendourstrikingonourfeebleeyes,theraysofwhichweareunabletobearinthisevanescentlife.Hence,Godhimself,whoislight,and‘inwhomisnodarknessatall,’and ‘who clothes himselfwith light aswith a garment’ in respect to us, is said to havemade

‘darknesshispavilion.’”379

I cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting another passage of hispreface,onaccountofbothitsbeautyanditstruth.“Iconfess therearemanyothersubjectsofourreligiononwhichwemightdwellwithgreaterpleasure and satisfaction ofmind. Such, Imean, as afford freer andwider scope for ranging

throughthemostdelightfulmeads380

of theHolyScriptures,andcontemplating in themthetransparentfountainsoflifeandriversofconsolation—subjectswhich,unencumberedbythethicketsofscholastictermsanddistinctions,unembarrassedbytheimpedimentsandsophismsof an enslaving philosophy, lead sweetly and pleasantly into pure, unmixed, and delightfulfellowshipwiththeFather,andwithhisSon.”

204The work is dedicated “To the most illustrious, and noble OliverCromwell, commander in chief of the army of the Parliament of theEnglishRepublic,andthemosthonourableChancelloroftheUniversityofOxford.”Itwentthroughthepress(theprintertellsthereader)whilethe “authorwas absent in London, about the affairs of the university.”Thisaccountsforsomeerrorsintheprintingofthebook;afaultwhichistoochargeableonmanyoftheworksofOwen.Ashortanswerto itwas

publishedbyMr.ThomasGilbert,theninShropshire,aparticularfriendofDr.Owen’s,andtheauthorofhisEpitaph.

381ThedesignofthisTractis

toshowthepossibilityofpardonwithoutsatisfaction;andthatthedeathofChristwasnotabsolutelynecessary,butofDivine freechoice.BaxtersaysthathealsowroteananswertothatbookinabriefpremonitiontohisTreatiseagainstinfidelity,todecidethatcontroversy.

382Iapprehend

the best decision will be found in the reasonings of the Epistle to theHebrews, chap. 10.1-14, which the reader may consult for his ownsatisfaction, with the assistance of Owen’s Exposition. An EnglishtranslationoftheDiatriba,byMr.Hamilton,waspublishedin1789witha recommendatory preface by Drs. Stafford and Simpson, and Mr.Ryland,Senior.“Itwillbegranted,” theysay, “byall competent judges, that theauthorrevealsanuncommonacquaintancewith his subject; that he has clearly explained the nature ofDivine justice, anddemonstratedittobe,notmerelyanarbitrarythingdependinguponthesovereignpleasureofthesupremeLawgiver,butessentialtotheDivinenature.”

Thetranslation,onthewhole,iswellexecuted,butrathertooliteral.205The next work which the Doctor produced is a more elaborateperformance,inEnglish.“ThedoctrineoftheSaints’Perseverance,ExplainedandConfirmed;or,thecertainpermanencyof their acceptance with God, and sanctification from God,manifested and proved from theeternalprinciples,theeffectualcauses,andtheexternalmeansofit;intheimmutabilityofthenature,decrees,covenant,andpromisesofGod;theoblationandintercessionofJesusChrist;thepromises,exhortations,andthreateningsofthegospel:improvedinitsgenuinetendencytoobedience and consolation; and vindicated in a full answer to the discourse of Mr. JohnGoodwin against it, in his book entitled, ‘Redemption redeemed.’ “With some digressionsconcerningtheimmediateeffectsofthedeathofChrist,personalindwellingoftheSpirit,unionwithChrist,thenatureofgospelpromises,etc.”—Foliopp.444.Oxford1654.

Itdeserves tobenoted thathedoesnotassumethe titleofD.D.on thefirstpage—aproofof the truthofhis reply toCawdryalreadyquoted;and thathe counted it ahigherhonour tobe “JohnOwen, a servantofJesus Christ, in the work of the gospel,” than a Doctor of Divinity byhumancreation.I have given the extended title of thework, because itmay serve as ananalysis of its contents which, even if it were practicable withinreasonablelimits,itwouldnotfitourdesigntoattemptit.Wehavefirstadedication to “His Highness, Oliver, Lord Protector of theCommonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” in which he

expresses his confidence in Cromwell’s Christian character, and hisinterestinthesubjectofthework.Thenfollowsanothertothe“HeadsofCollegesandHallsintheUniversity,”inwhichhecomplimentsthemontheirlearning,orthodoxy,andsteadfastnessinthefaith.206He assures them that “no small portion of the work owed its rise tojourneys, and similar avocations fromhis ordinary course of studies—withsomesparehours,forthemostpart,whileabsentfromallbooksandassistancewhatever.”WethenhaveaPrefacetothereader,offortyfoliopages,inwhichhegivesasortofhistoryofthedoctrinedefended;orofthereceptionithadformerlymetwith.Andbytheway,heentersthelistswith Dr. Hammond, on the Episcopal controversy, and the epistles ofIgnatius.There is a greatdeal of learning in thePreface;but it is in soexceedinglyruggedastate,astorequirenosmallexerciseofpatiencetolabourthroughit.John Goodwin, whom he chiefly opposes, was one of the mostextraordinarymenofhisageandprofession.HewasanArminian,andarepublican;amanofviolenceandwar,bothinpoliticsandreligion.Hisopinions, talents, and contests, according to Owen, rendered him anobjectofnoordinaryattention;andhiscontroversialpowerswereofthehighest order. He had a great command of language “trimmed andadornedwithallmannerofsignalimprovements.”Hisexpressionsswellover all boundsand limits—metaphors, similitudes,parables, all pushthecurrent—shallowandwide,butabundantlynoisyandimposing—“Montedecurrensvelutamnis,imbresQuemsupernotasaluereripas,Fervet,immensusqueruitprofundoPindarusore.”

One great object of his ‘Redemption redeemed,’ which is neithermorenorlessthananArminiansystemofdivinity,istoexhibitthedoctrineofhisadversaries,as207“Monstrumhorrendem,informe,ingens,cuilumenidempium”— a dismal, uncomfortable, fruitless, death-procuring system. Owentakeshimuponly ononepoint, and alongwith the examinationofhisarguments, brings into view everything of importance which had beenurgedonthesubjectbymenofthesamesentimentsinformerorinlatter

times.Theworkcontainsaveryaccuratestatement,andamostmasterlydefence, of the doctrine of perseverance. Every scriptural argument isjudiciouslybroughtforward,andnopointorcircumstanceofimportancecalculated to establish the doctrine, is omitted. Though there is a gooddealofcontroversy,thereisnotmuchoftheodiumtheologicum.

383The

doctrine is satisfactorily vindicated from its alleged tendency to inducecarelessnessorungodliness;and isshowntobeeminentlyconducive tothecomfortandpurificationofthepeopleofGod.Itisrathersurprising,whensomanyoftheDoctor’sWorkshavebeenabridgedorrepublished,that this still remains in the first edition, and is less known than itsimportance demands. It would be easy to abstract from it all thetemporary argumentation with Goodwin, and to leave behind thevaluabletheologicalillustrationofthedoctrine.The perseverance of the saints is the last of the five contested pointsbetween Calvinists and Arminians. But, like all the rest, its defencenecessarilyinvolvesthediscussionoftheotherfour.Ifthesalvationofasinner is wholly amatter of favour, then it is not conceivable that thisfavour would commence its operations, and either fail in its ultimatedesign, or be aborted by the untoward dispositions or fickleness of thecreature. This would imply either deficiency in the plan of Sovereignmercy,orcapriceinitsadministration.208Itforgetsthatgraciousinfluenceisbestowedtocorrectthetendenciesofhuman corruption, and to preserve from falling, as well as to secureeternal happiness. What is the doctrine of perseverance, but God’smethod of preserving and perfecting that which he had the exclusivehonourtobegin?Ifindeedsalvationcommenceswithman,iscarriedonbyhisowneffortsandcompletedbyhisresolution,thematterisentirelyaltered; and nothing would be more contingent or hopeless than thesalvationofanyoneindividual.Itmaysafelybelefttothedeterminationof every Christian reader, whether such a scheme has the support ofScripture, is fitted to promote the glory of God, or is adapted to thepresentstateofhumannature.The perseverance of the saints is a doctrine which, rightly understood,hasaffordedmuchsolidcomforttoChristians;andinitsverynatureitisfitted to produce this effect. The conviction that the unchangeable loveand the almighty power of God are engaged for the preservation and

eternal happiness of a fallen creature, must produce the strongestemotions of gratitude, and the highest feelings of moral obligation, inthosewhohave scriptural evidence that they are the subjects ofDivinemercy. That the doctrine has often been injudiciously stated and notinfrequentlyabused,isanadmissionthatwillnomoreinvalidateitstruththanthatofanyotherdoctrineofgrace—toeveryoneofwhichthesameremarkwillapply.Aremarkableillustrationisaffordedofthepervertedapplication of the doctrine, in the reported conversation between Dr.ThomasGoodwinandtheProtectorCromwellonhisdeathbed.Iamfarfrombeingsatisfiedofthetruthoftheanecdote,asitistold.209Itisveryprobablethatsuchaconversationtookplace,andIdonotdoubtthatGoodwinmightusesomeratherunsuitableexpressions.ButneitherCromwell nor Goodwin was so fanatical as to believe that a state ofsalvation was compatible with living in sin, and dying impenitent.Wemayhavebeentoldthetruth,butnotthewholetruth.TheomissionofafewsentencesmayhaveconcealedtheexplanationgivenbyGoodwinofthe sentiment that he is said to have uttered, and the cautions againstself-deceptionwhichheveryprobablyaddressedto thedyingProtector.The condition of that man must be awfully dangerous, whose pastexperienceofDivinegoodnessencouragespresentdelinquency;orwhomthe securities of the covenant of mercy lead to presumptuoustransgression.Owenhadnosuspicionofsuchbeingthetendencyofhisviews of this doctrine. That is evident from the whole treatise, andespecially from the awful description which he gives of the fearfulapostasy of many who had made a profession of the truth. These areoccurrenceswhicharenotparticular toanyageorplace—though theymaybemorenumerousandapparentatonetimethanatanother.Theseare thestumbling-blocks,bywhichwoecomesuponan ignorantworld;andbywhichmenareprejudicedagainstthedoctrineofChrist.ButstillthefoundationofGodstandssure.Itwouldbehighlycriminaltoexplainawayimportanttruth,ortodeprivethegenuineChristianofalegitimatesourceofcomfort,becausethehypocritemaysoothehimselftosleepbyit, or the licentiousmay profane it. It is the glory of the gospel that itprovidesmercyfortheverychiefofsinners;butifanymanisencouragedby this, to continue in sin, the same gospel pronounces his doom. ThedoctrinewhichOwendefends,encourageshopeinGod,butitinculcatesfearinrespecttoourselves;itcherishesconfidence,notbyleadingusto

look back on the past, but forward to the future; and it justifies theexpectationoffinalperseveranceonlywhilemencontinuetopersevere.210Owen was not the only opponent of Goodwin. Dr. George Kendallattacked his ‘Redemption Redeemed’ in another quarter, in his“Vindication of the doctrine commonly received in the Reformedchurches,concerningGod’s intentionsofspecialgraceandfavourtohiselect,inthedeathofChrist,”etc.fol.,1653.IthasOwen’simprimatur,asVice-chancellor,prefixedinLatin.Inithespeaksveryhonourablyoftheauthorandhiswork.AnotherreplycamefromthepenofazealousandpopularBaptistminister,Mr.ThomasLamb, 4to. 1656.RichardBaxtertried his middle course on this, as on other subjects. He published in1653, his “Judgment about the perseverance of believers,” to whichKendall replied in his “Sanctis Sancti.” —Dr. Kendall, he says, “was alittlequick-spiritedman,ofgreatostentation,andaconsiderableoratorandscholar;hethoughttoadvancehisreputationbyatriumphoverJohnGoodwinandme.”Baxter intendedtodeprivehimofthis.Butforonce,he allowed his adversary to have the last word by submitting to thearbitrationofArchbishopUsherwho,hesays,ownedhis judgment,butdesired us to write against each other no more.

384 After two or three

years’consideration,GoodwinreturnedascoffingreplytosomuchofthePerseverance of the Saints, as was written (according to Owen) in aquarterofanhour.

385

211Beforethisworkwaspublished,Owenhadanothertaskimposedonhim— to reply to John Biddle, the Socinian. This singular person, theacknowledged father of English Anti-trinitarians, was born atWotton-under-edge, in the county of Gloucester. He was educated in Oxford,whereheobtained the reputationofagoodscholar.By the influenceofleadingmen in theuniversity,hewaselectedMasterofa freeschool inthecityofGloucesterin1641.TherehesoonbegantointimatehisdoubtsrespectingthedoctrineoftheTrinity.ThecommunicationofasmallMS.containing twelveargumentsagainst theDeityof theHolySpirit, led tohis imprisonment as the means of his conviction. After obtaining hisliberty, he was brought before Parliament; and by its orders, he wasdetainedincustodyforfiveyears.Whileinprison,however,hepublished“A Confession of Faith, concerning the Holy Trinity,” 1648. In

consequence of this, his life was in imminent danger. For thePresbyterian party

386 in the Long Parliament procured an act to be

passedbywhichthepersondenyinginwords,orinwriting,theBeingofGod,theDeityoftheSonorHolySpirit,thedistinctionofthetwonaturesinChrist,orhisatonement—iftheindictmentwerefound,andthepartydidnotabjuretheerror—shouldsufferdeath,withoutbenefitofclergy.In other parts of this unmerciful statute, Baptists, Independents,Episcopalians,andArminians,aresubjectedtoinferiorpunishments.Sothat, had it been enforced, all except Presbyterians would have beenexposed to suffering in their persons, liberty, or property.

387 It was in

reference to such measures, that Milton remarked indignantly, “NewPresbyterisbutOldPriestwritlarge.”

388

212The friends of orthodoxy, however, had not allowed Biddle to writeunanswered.HewastakenupbyNicholasEstwick,inhis“ExaminationofMr.Biddle’sConfessionofFaith;” alsobyMr.MatthewPoole, inhis“PleafortheGodheadoftheHolyGhost;”andbyFrancisCheynel,inhis“DivineTrinityof theFather,Son,andHolyGhost.”Thisexchangewasmore to the purpose than imprisoning or hanging the unfortunatedefenderofheresy.Biddlestillwentonpublishing,andproducedin1654,“aTwofoldCatechism: theonesimplycalledaScriptureCatechism, theotherabriefScriptureCatechismforChildren.”Forthislastpublicationhe was again brought before Parliament, his books condemned to beburned, and he was himself once more committed to prison. Greaterextremities would probably have followed, if the Protector had notbefriended Biddle, and finally sent him out of the way. After therestoration,thisunfortunatemanat lastdiedinprison.

389Biddlewasa

manoflearning,andofaboldandindependentmind.Byhissufferings,perhaps asmuch as hiswritings, he attracted attention to a creed thatwasthenlittleknowninEngland;butitsprevalenceinthatcountrysincethen, has almost blotted out the existence of the party in which hissufferingscommenced.SomysteriousandunexpectedaretherevolutionsandarrangementsofProvidence.TheprogressofSocinianisminEnglandaboutthistimeappearstohaveexcitedconsiderablealarm.Someoftheforeigndivinesinterferedinthecontroversy,suchasJohannCloppenburg,ProfessorofDivinityinWestFrisia.HepublishedaLatinVindicationof theDeityof theHolySpirit,

againstJohnBiddle,4to.1652.213Nicholas Arnold, Professor of Theology at Franeker, harshly criticizedBiddle’sCatechisms,inthePrefacetohis“ReligioSociniana,”1654.AndMaresius, Chief Professor ofDivinity atGroningen, attacked them verylargely in his “Hydra Socinianismi,” published that same year. In thecourseofdoingthat,hedeploresthesadstateofEnglandonaccountofwhathesupposedtobetheprogressofthisdestructivesect.Athome,theprovincial Assembly of London issued particular instructions for theeducationandcatechisingofyouth.

390 TheCouncil ofState, conceiving

thatsomemorecompleteexposureofSocinianismwasnecessary,laiditscommandsonDr.Owentoundertakethisimportanttask.The Doctor lost no time in executing the work which he had been sohonourablyinvitedtowrite.Fortheverynextyearheproducedaquartovolume of seven hundred pages, full of profound erudition. “VindiciaeEvangelicae, or themystery of theGospel Vindicated, and Socinianismexamined; intheconsiderationandconfutationofaCatechism,calledaScriptureCatechism,writtenbyJohnBiddle,M.A.,etc.;Oxford,1655.”Itis dedicated to theCouncil of State, atwhose request itwas published.Next,wehavealetterto“hisbrethrentheheadsandgovernorsofcollegesand halls in Oxford.” And then follows a historical preface of seventypages, addressed to all “who labour in word and doctrine in GreatBritain.” In this part of the work, he gives a learned and importantnarrative of the progress of Anti-trinitarianism in the world; butparticularlysincethereformation.214It is replete with curious information respecting the characters andproceedingsofthefirstfoundersoftheparty,andcertainlydoesnotplacetheminaveryfavourablelight.Idonothavethemeanstoascertainhowfar all the sources fromwhichOwen derived his information are to bedepended on. Some abatement should always be made from ex partestatements; but I have no doubt, he was fully satisfied with theauthenticity and correctness of the testimonies onwhich he depended.After the historical Preface, we have an examination of Mr. Biddle’sPreface, which extends to forty-four pages more of preliminarydiscussion.Itconcludesthus:—“Havingbrieflywashed thepaint from theporchofMr.Biddle’s fabric; and shown it to be a

composition of rotten posts and dead men’s bones, whose plaster being removed, theirabominationliesnakedtoall.Iwillenterthebuildingitselftoconsiderwhatentertainmenthehasprovidedthereforthosewhom,intheentrance,hesosubtlelyandearnestlyinvitestoturnin,andpartakeofhisprovisions.”

Inprosecutingthisdetermination,theDoctordoesnotconfinehimselftoBiddle’sCatechisms.HetakesinwithittheRacovianCatechism,thejointworkofSmalciusandMoscorovius,PolishSocinians.It isconsideredtocontainthesentimentsofthegreatbodyofforeignAnti-trinitarians.HealsonotesthattheAnnotationsofGrotiusarestronglytincturedwiththepoisonofSocinianism.WhereverGrotius’commentsareatvariancewiththetruth,orconcealit,theDoctorfaithfullypointsitout,andendeavourstoconfutethem.The body of the work is divided into thirty-five chapters in which hetreatsatgreatlength,andwithgreatminutenessandability,everypointoftheSociniancontroversy.215TheSociniansentimentsrespectingtheScriptures;theDivinenatureandcharacter; the original and present condition of man; the person,character,andundertakingofChrist;thedoctrinesofgrace,election,andperfectobedience;theresurrectionofthedead,andthefutureconditionofthewicked,etc.—allundergothefullestandmostrigidscrutiny.Theyareproved tobeverycontrary towhat is taught inScripture,aswellassubversive of the foundations of Christianity. It is among the mostcomplete productions in this department of polemical theology. Andconsidering thecircumstances inwhich itwascomposed,and the shorttimedevotedtoit, itisamemorableproofofthepowerfulintellect,andindustrious habits of the celebrated author. It is also the first Englishwork in which the Socinian system is fully examined, and fairlyoverthrownonScripturalprinciples.Asnumerousandimportantastheworksonthiscontroversyare,whichhavesincebeenpublished,IdonothesitatetoaffirmthatsofarastheargumentfromScriptureisconcerned,there is scarcely anything of importance in those later ones,whichwillnotbefoundintheVindiciaeEvangelicaeofOwen.TothehonouroftheEvangelicalDissenters,itoughttobementionedthatfromtheperiodofthis publication to the present day, they have never lacked a man todefendwith learning and ability, the great truths of our common faith.FromtheVindiciaeof theVice-chancellorofOxford, tothepublicationsofFuller,andWardlaw,andSmith,aseriesofworkshasappearedamong

them which will not be easily matched by the writers of any body ofChristians,domesticorforeign,inancientorinmoderntimes.216OnethingintheVindiciaerevealstheauthor’ssagacity,andlooksalmostlike a prediction. Referring to the fearless speculations in whichmanythen indulged, andwhichwere thenatural results of the freedom fromecclesiasticaltyrannywhichthecountryhadonlybeguntoenjoy,heasks,“Arenot thedoctrinesof freewill,universal redemption,apostasy fromgrace, the mutability of God, the denial of the resurrection, with thefoolishconceitsofmanyaboutGodandChrist,readytogatherundertheheadofSocinianism?”—“IfeverSatansettlesonastatedoppositiontothegospel,Idareboldlysay,itwillbeonSocinianism.”

391Itisasingular

fact that the career of many has been substantially what the Doctordescribeshere:fromCalvinismtoArminianism,toArianism,andfinallyto Socinianism. Biddle himself is an example of this course. ThecelebratedDr.Priestly,thelearnedandindustriousKippis,theeloquentand eccentric Robert Robinson, were all, I believe, illustrations of thesamekind.Ifweadvertfromindividualstotheprogressofcommunities,thehistoryofmanyof theoldPresbyteriansocieties inEngland,andoftheoncecelebratedchurchofGeneva, itwill illustratethesamegradualandfataldeterioration.Inconductingthiscontroversy,IwillnotsaythatOwenalwaysmaintainsthatunruffledcalmnessandplacidgood-naturewhichdistinguishmanyother publications of his. At times, he shows in the selection of hisepithets, and the structure of his sentences, that he was aman of likepassionswithothers.Thereisnothing,however,ofscurrilityorpersonalabuse. He was too much a Christian and a gentleman to indulge thetemperofmalevolence,orthelanguageofBillingsgate.217Whereimportanttruthisconcerned,hereprovessharply.Andwherehediscovers Latet Anguis in herba [a snake in the grass], he makes noscruple todrag itout,and tostrangle it.Heusesnoceremonywith thegreatestnames,wherethegloryofhisMasterandthesoulsofmenareatstake.Hewasastrangertothatkindofcourtesywhichcomplimentsmenas“Christians,”whomanapostlewouldhaveconsideredenemiestothecross of Christ. But at the same time, he reveals that the object of hishostilitywastheirsentiments,nottheirpersons;andthatwhilehecould

shownomercytotheformer,hecouldpityandprayforthelatter.The following passage contains so much important instruction on themodeofconductingreligiouscontroversy,thatIhavenodoubtthereaderwillbegladtomeetwithit.“Thatdirectionwhichwithmeisinstaromnium[equivalent],isadiligentendeavourtohavethepowerofthetruthcontendedfor,abidingonourhearts,thatwemaynotcontendfornotions,butforwhatwehaveapracticalacquaintancewithinourownsouls.Whentheheartiscastintothemould of the doctrinewhich themind embraces;when the evidence andnecessity of thetruthabideinus;whenitisnotthesenseofthewords,butofthethingsinourhearts;whenwehavecommunionwithGodinthedoctrinewecontendfor—thenwewillbegarrisonedbythegraceofGodagainstall theassaultsofmen.Withoutthis,allourcontendingisofnovaluetoourselves.HowamIbetteroffifIcandisputethatChristisGod,buthavenosensethatheisaGodincovenantwithmysoul?Whatwill itavailmetoevincebytestimoniesandarguments,thathehasmadesatisfactionforsin,ifthroughunbeliefthewrathofGodabidesonme?

218Willitbeanyadvantagetomeintheend,toprofessanddisputethatGodworkstheconversionofasinnerbytheirresistiblegraceofhisSpirit,ifIwasneverexperientiallyacquaintedwiththatopposition to the lawofGod,which is inmyownsoulbynature,norwith theefficacyof theexceedinggreatnessofthepowerofGodinquickening,enlightening,andproducingthefruitsofobedience?Itisthepowerofthetruthintheheartalone,thatwillmakeusindeedclingtoitin

thehouroftemptation.”392

Theseremarksareequallyapplicabletoeveryreligiousdiscussion,aswellas to the Socinian controversy — and indeed, to the whole system ofChristianity.HeisnotaChristianwhoisoneoutwardly;religiondoesnotconsist inaspirit,orevenacapacityfordisputingabout it.Wehavenomore Christian knowledge than what influences the dispositions, andregulates the conduct — all the rest is but barren speculation whichinflates the mind, and is opposed to the love which builds up. It ispossibletocontendfortruthinaspiritthatismostoppositetoitsnature;andtomosthotlyadvocatetherightsofacausefromwhichweourselvesmay derive no benefit. In all cases, it should be remembered that thewrathofmandoesnotworktherighteousnessofGod.No answer that I can find,was evermade to thiswork. I do not knowwhether thisarose fromthecircumstancesofBiddleat the time (whichcertainlywerenotfavourabletothedefenceofhissentiments),orfromaconscious inability to meet the body of argument contained in theVindiciae. But so it is: the first complete examination of Socinianism,publishedinEngland,remainsunansweredtothisday;andImayadd,itwillremainunanswerable.219

Thenext thinghepublished is a short treatise “On theMortificationofSin in Believers,” 1656. He was led to this by observing the generalbehaviour of professors of Christ, the snares by which they wereentangled, and the injudicious attempts of some tomortify sinwithoutthe influence of the gospel principle.

393 Too much reason has always

existed for this complaint.Selfishness, the loveof easeandofpleasure,fear of the world’s frown, and desire for its applause, have an awfultendency to cherish that self-delusion by which, it is to be feared, toomanywhoprofessChristianityare finallydestroyed.This treatise is thesubstanceofsomesermonsonRomans8.13.Atthedesireofthosewhoheardthem,Owenwasinducedtocommitthemtothepress.Hewasalsoinfluencedbyanotherconsideration.Havingbeenengagedforsometimeinthediscussionofvariouscontroversies(insomedegreeimposeduponhim),hewishedtoproducesomethingofadifferentnature,andlikelytobemoregenerallyuseful.“Ihope,”hesays,“Imayowninsincerity,thatmyheart’sdesiretoGod,andthechiefobjectofmylifeinthestationinwhichthegoodProvidenceofGodhasplacedme,arethatmortificationanduniversalholinessmaybepromoted inmyown life,and in thatofothers, to thegloryofGod.”

ItiscertainlyoneofthestrongestproofsofthegreatnessofOwen’smind,andof theeminentdegreeof spirituality towhichhehadattained, thatamidst the multiplicity of his public labours in which he was deeplyengaged — the cultivation of general knowledge, the noise of politicalwarfare, and theperplexitiesof theologicalwarfare—he foundnotonlythetime,butthecapacityforthinkinguponsuchsubjectsasthis.220Tomaintain the life of godliness and the ardour of devotional feeling,amidstthebustleofacourt,orsurroundedbythecoolingatmosphereofa college — these are attainments of no ordinary kind. Yet, if wemayjudge of the state of his mind from the tract before us, he must havepossessed the faculty of looking off from “things seen and temporal,”whenexposed to the full forceof their influence, “to thingsunseenandeternal.” It reveals a profound acquaintancewith the corruption of thehuman heart, and the deceitful workings of the natural mind. Itsprinciples are equally remote from the superficiality of generalprofession, and from ascetic austerity. It is not the mortification of avoluntaryhumility,ortheinflictionofself-devisedandunnecessarypain,which it recommends. Rather, it is the gradual weakening and final

destructionoftheprincipleofsin,bytheoperationofspiritualinfluence,andtheapplicationofDivinetruth.ThelifeofChristianityconsistsinthisprocess; and where it is not going on, neither the practice nor theenjoymentofthegospelwillbefound.About this time, also, he was involved in a controversy with Dr.Hammond, concerning the sentiments of Grotius about the Deity andatonement of Christ. Grotius was one of the most elegant anddistinguishedwritersof theseventeenthcentury.Duringaperiodwhichabounded with critics and commentators, civilians and theologians, heappeared in the first rank in all those classes.Hisname still carries aninfluence and authority which, comparatively, few others enjoy. He,undoubtedly,studiedthesacredbookswithdeepattention,andbroughtthevastextentofhiscriticalandclassicalattainmentstobearwithhappyeffectonmanyobscureanddifficultpassages.221In the elucidationof theBible from the classic literatureofGreece andRome, he may be considered almost the founder of a school on theContinent,fromwhichhaveissuedmanylearnedandimportant(andnotafewexceedinglypernicious)worksontheScriptures.Theseareworksinwhichthesacredvolumeisconsideredmerelyasanancientclassic—inwhich its inspiration and all its peculiar doctrines are either denied, orsubmerged in critical contention about itswords and idioms— and allthat is interesting to a sinner or a believer, has been cooleddownby afreezing mixture of Arminianism, Socinianism, and Infidelity. TheScholiaofGrotiusontheOldTestament,

394werefirstpublishedin1644,

andthoseontheNew,in1641,1646,and1650.Thetwolastvolumeswereposthumous, as their author died in 1645. They excited, as might beexpected, great attention in the learned world. But in both these, andsomeotherofhiswritings,Grotiusexposedhimselftovariouscriticisms.Suspicions had been long entertained that his views of the Divinecharacter,andtheatoningsacrificeofChrist,werenotstrictlyorthodox— though these suspicions had been excited by his silence, or his veryguarded language on these subjects, rather than by what he actuallyadvanced. He had published in 1617, a Defence of the Catholic Faith,concerning thesatisfactionofChrist,againstFaustusSocinus.Whileheopposed the Socinians, some friends to the atonement were doubtfulwhether he had rendered any important service to the orthodox belief.

Ravensperger,atheologicalprofessoratGroningen,soonafterpublishedhis“Judgment”ofthis“DefensioFidei”byGrotius.222This occasioned Gerardus Joannes Vossius to publish an answer, indefence of Grotius. Crellius replied to Grotius, on the part of theSocinians. He was not answered by Grotius himself — who wrote acomplimentarylettertoCrellius,andtooknofurthertroubletoputeitherhis friends or his enemies right — but by Andreas Essenius, in his“Triumphus Crucis.” While he defends the atonement, and repelsCrellius,heisextremelysparingofhispraisesofGrotius.

395

In thePreface tohisworkon thePerseveranceof theSaints,Dr.Owenhadmade some observations on the epistles of Ignatius, in connexionwith theEpiscopal controversy; and also of some of the annotations ofGrotius on the Socinian tendency. Hammond, the champion ofEpiscopacy at the time, took up both these subjects in, “A Defence ofGrotius, and an Answer to the Dissertations concerning the epistles ofIgnatius.” 1655. Owen, in his “Vindiciae,” goes into the sentiments ofGrotiusmorefully.WithoutallegingtheevidenceagainstthatcelebratedmanfromhisepistletoCrellius,andhisconversationonhisdeath-bed,Owen examines all the passages of Scripture which treat the deity andatonement of Christ. And as he goes along, he notes how generallyGrotius,inhiscommentaries,agreeswiththeSocinians;andthatthereisscarcelyapassageintheOldorNewTestamentonthesesubjects,whichhedoesnotdarken,explainaway,orexpresslycontradict.Againstthesecriticisms,Dr.HammondpublishedasecondDefenceofGrotius,in1655.That produced, in 1656, a quarto pamphlet byOwen: “AReview of theAnnotations of Grotius, in reference to the doctrine of the Deity, andsatisfactionofChrist;withadefenceof thecharge formerly laidagainstthem.”223In this treatise, he reaffirms and successfully establishes what heformerly asserted; and as Hammond had not met the charge againstGrotiusdirectly,Owenintimatesthathewaslikelytocontinuehavingthesamesentiments,shouldheseeevena“ThirdDefence.”Accordingly,thatsoonappearedin“AcontinuationoftheDefenceofGrotius,inananswerto the Review of his Annotations.” 1657. Here Hammond rests thedefenceofhisheroonGrotius’work“DeSatisfactione;”andonthedenial

that Grotius’ posthumous work on the epistles was properly his, as itcontained sentiments contrary to his declared opinions in his life.Withoutpronouncingapositiveopiniononthesubjectofdispute,itmustbeadmitted thatGrotiusaffordedstrong reasons for suspecting thatheeither did not believe the doctrines referred to, or that he consideredthem of inferior importance.Dr.Hammond, the opponent ofOwen onthisoccasion,wasamanoftalents,learning,andcharacter.Hewasoneofthemostardentdefendersofhischurch,andamostdevotedservantofCharles, its royalhead;hehadno seriousobjections toCharles’ loveofpowerandpopery.HisNewTestamentcommentaryshowshimtohavebeen a considerable critic, though influenced by strong systematicprejudices. His controversial writings reveal more of learning than ofjudgment,andmarkagreaterdeferencetotheauthorityofFathersandCouncils,thantothatofChristandhisApostles.Itwouldbe improper to conclude thispartof the lifeofOwen,withoutnoting the death of three eminent individualswithwhomhehad someconnexion,andwhopossessedthegreatestshareoflearning,perhaps,ofanypersonsinEnglandduringthatperiod.224Thefirstoftheseisthewell-knownpuritan,ThomasGataker,whodiedin1654,inthe80thyearofhisage.This learnedandlaboriousmanwasamember of the Westminster Assembly, but more celebrated for hiscritical writings than for his connexion with that body. He wasundoubtedly themost enlightened biblical critic of his day in England.His treatise, “On the Nature and Use of Lots,” 1619, established hischaracter as a theologian. His “Dissertatio de Novi Testamento Stylo,”1648;andhisCinnus,1651(completedbyhissonin1659,underthetitleof “Adversaria Miscellanea Posthuma”), contained remarks on difficultpassagesofScripture,andofotherGreekandLatinWriters.Theyexhibithis profound acquaintance with the Bible, and with the principles ofenlightenedinterpretation.HisadmirableeditionoftheemperorMarcusAntoninus’s Meditations, with a Latin translation, commentary, andintroductory dissertation, 1652, exhibit his vast acquaintance withancientphilosophy,aswellashisentirecommandofGrecianliterature.In1698, thecelebratedWitsiuspublishedallhiscriticalwritings inonevolume, folio, entitled, “Opera Critica,” which will long remain amonument of his vast erudition, and accurate judgment. Owen andGataker are introduced in a rather singular connexion, asopponentsof

that knavish impostor,William Lilly, the astrologer. Strange as it mayseem,thisfellowwasconsultedbysomeofthegreatestmenoftheage—LordFairfax,KingCharlesI,GustavusAdolphusofSweden,SirBulstrodeWhitelocke,Cromwell,etc.ThestudyofastrologywasmuchcultivatedinEngland about this time. John Booker, Dr. Dee, Dr. Forman, SirChristopher Heydon, are all noted for their practice and defences ofjudicialastrology.225ThechiefopponentsofLilly,accordingtohisownaccount,wereGataker,with whom he had a lengthened controversy — Philip Nye, who also“bleated forth his judgment publicly, against him and astrology— andDeanOwenofChristChurch,who,hesays,hadsharpinvectivesagainstme in his sermons; I cried quittance with him by urging AbbotPanormitam’s judgmentofastrologycontrary toOwen’s,andconcludedthatanAbbotwasanaceaboveaDean.”

396Theseareonlysomeofthe

manyproofs that thePuritansandIndependentswerenot thevisionaryfanaticsoftheage.SeldendiedinthesameyearasGataker.HewasthegloryofEnglandasapatriot, lawyer, andwriter.—No layman of the age possessed half theeruditionofSelden,andfewmenhavebenefittedtheircountrysomuchby their pen as he did. His “Uxor Hebraica,” his “Libri deSuccessionibus,” “De Diis Syris,” “De Synedriis VeterumHebraeorum,”etc.showhisvastacquaintancewithJewishandOrientallearning;whilehisworks“OnTithes,”“TitlesofHonour,”and“MareClausum”—ortherightofBritaintothedominionofthesurroundingseas—affordnolesspowerfulevidenceofhisresearchesasanantiquary,andhisattainmentsasageneralscholar.AlongwithOwen,hewasthestaunchfriendoftheuniversity of Oxford. They appear to have combined their influence tosaveitfromvariousdangerstowhichitwasexposed.

397

226Intheyear1656,thelearnedandamiableArchbishopUsherdied.Hewasa loverofpeace,ofmoderation,andofall goodmen.His chronologicallaboursaloneareampleproofofhislearningandindustry.Andsomeofhis minor productions afford satisfactory evidence that his criticalattainmentswerefarabovemediocrity.HewastheobjectofCromwell’sfavour,whoorderedhimapublic funeral.Andthe languageofOwenin

oneofhisworksshowsthattheremusthavebeenaconsiderableintimacybetweenUsherandhimself.

398 Thedeathof suchmenmusthavebeen

felt as a public calamity. Their talents were exerted for their country’sgood, their learning adorned the age in which they lived, and theirvenerablepietygracedtheprofessionofthegospel.

CHAPTERIX.The Independents propose to publish a Confession of their faith — Their sentiments on thissubject — Confessions published by them on various occasions — Cromwell consents to theirmeetingforthispurpose—TheyassembleattheSavoy—AgreetoadeclarationoftheirfaithandOrder — Its sentiments on several subjects — Extracts from the Preface written by Owen —Baxter’s displeasure with the meeting — Defence of it by Forbes — Chief objection to theDeclaration — Not much known even among Independents — Death of Cromwell — State ofreligionduringhisGovernment—HisinfluenceonIndependency—Tillotson’saccountofafastin the familyofRichardCromwell—Strictureson thataccount—OwenpublisheshisworkonCommunion—On Schism— Is answered by Hammond— by Firmin— by Cawdry— Owen’sReviewofCawdry—Cawdry’srejoinder—Owen’sdefenceofhimselfandCotton—PublishesontheDivineOriginoftheScriptures—HisconsiderationsonthePolyglot—Walton’sReply—HiscontroversywiththeQuakers—RichardCromwellsucceedshisFather—OwenpreachesbeforehisfirstParliament—ChargedwithpullingdownRichard—Defendedfromthischarge—Assistsin restoring the long Parliament — Preaches before it for the last time — The IndependentsentertainfearsoftheirlibertyfromMonk—SendadeputationtohimtoScotland—Hisconductand character —Owen ejected from the Deanery of Christ Church — Remarks on his politicalconduct.

In the year 1658, the leading men among the Independent Churchesprojected a General Meeting for the purpose of publishing a uniteddeclarationoftheirfaithandorder.ThepartwhichDr.Owentookinthismeeting,themisunderstandingwhichprevailsrespectingthesentimentsof Independents on the subject of Confessions of Faith, and theimportance of the document published by the Savoy Assembly (forascertaining their sentiments at this time on various points), aresufficientreasonsforgivingadetailedaccountofthisaffair.No onewho requires a Confession of Faith in order to enjoy Christianprivileges can consistentlyobject to aChurch confessing the faith in itscorporatecapacity.228IfoneSocietymaylawfullydothis,noreasonableobjectioncanexistwhyanynumberof Societies, holding the same sentiments,maynot exhibittheir common belief. The public teaching and practice of a Church areconstantdeclarationsof itsprinciples;and it surelycannotbewrong todobythepress,thatwhichisconstantlydonebywordandactionintheplace of worship. Independents have never held the unlawfulness ofpublishing declarations or expositions of their existing sentiments andpractice.AndifthisisallthatismeantbyConfessionsofFaith,thenitiswrong to represent Independents as enemies of them.But these publicformulariesaregenerallyviewedinaverydifferentlight.Theyareusedasstandards and tests by which the faith and orthodoxy of present and

futuregenerationsaretobetried;andtowhichasolemnsubscriptionoroath is required, binding the subscriber to abide all his life in theprinciplesthusprofessed.

399Whenextending toa largebookofhuman

composition,whenmadeatestofcharacter,andaqualificationforoffice,andanevidenceofunity—thisiswhatIndependentsobjectto—aswhatthe law of Christ does not enjoin; and what has never promoted thepeace,purity,orunityof theChurch;andwhathaspowerfullyretardedtheprogressoftruth.TheproperviewofaConfessionofFaith,andthedistinctionthatisnownoted,areveryaccuratelystatedinthePrefacetotheSavoyDeclaration.“ThemostgenuineandmaterialuseofsuchConfessionsisthatunderthesameformofwords,they express the substance of the same common salvation or unity of their faith; andaccordingly,suchatransactionistobelookedupononlyasameansofexpressingtheircommonfaith,andinnowayisittobemadeuseofasanimpositionuponanyone.Whateverisofforceorconstraint inmatters of this nature, causes them todegenerate from thenameandnature ofConfessions,andturnsthemintoexactionsandimpositionsofFaith.”

229Withtheseviews,Independentshavealmostfromthecommencementoftheir existence, published declarations of their belief. In 1596 waspublished,“AtrueConfessionoftheFaith,andhumbleacknowledgementof the allegiance, which we, her Majesty’s subjects, falsely calledBrownists,holdtowardGod,andyieldtoherMajestyandallotherswhoareoverusintheLord.”In1604,ifnotearlier,appearedan“apologyordefenceofsuchtrueChristians,asarecommonly,buterroneouslycalledBrownists,”etc.ThisworkwaspublishedbothinLatinandEnglish,andwas addressed to the Continental and British Universities.

400 In 1611,

“The English people remaining at Amsterdam” (Baptist Independents)published a declaration of their Faith. In 1620, King James’ “Loyalsubjects,unjustlycalledAnabaptists,presentedtohimandtoParliamenta Confession of their Faith.” A Confession of Faith of seven BaptistChurches in London was published in 1646; and another of severalCongregationsinthecountyofSomerset,in1656.Inallthesedocuments,themostexplicitavowalismadeofallthedoctrinesoftheGospel,andoftheleadingpointsofChristianpractice.230NoraretheylessexplicitonthesubjectofobediencetoGovernment,thanof faith in God. So false have always been the charges of disloyaltybroughtagainstthisbody.

In the year 1648, the Congregational Churches inNew England held ameeting at Cambridge, where they agreed to the doctrinal part of theWestminster Confession, and formed a platform of Church disciplinesuitedtotheirownprinciples.VariousreasonsmightbeassignedwhytheBritishCongregationalistshadnotsoonerdonethesame.Theprofessionhadbeen longprosecuted—most of theChurchesowed their origin topeculiarcircumstances,werefarscatteredfromeachother,andhadnotenjoyed the opportunity of meeting together for any common object.TheythusalludetothesethingsinthePrefacetotheSavoyDeclaration.“Weconfessthatfromtheveryfirst,all,oratleastmostofourChurcheshavebeeninaway,likesomanyships.Thoughflyingthesamegeneralcolours,theywerelaunchedsingly,sailingapartand alone on the vast ocean of these tumultuous times. Theywere exposed to everywind ofdoctrine,undernootherconductthanthatofthewordandspirit,andoftheirparticulareldersand principal brethren. They were without Associations among themselves, nor so much asholding out common lights to others bywhich to knowwhere theywere. Yet, while we thusconfess to our shame thisneglect, let all acknowledge thatGodhas ordered it for his greaterglory, in thathis singular careandpower shouldhave sowatchedover eachof these, that allshouldbefoundtohavesteeredtheircoursebythesamechart,andtohavebeenboundforoneand thesameport—and thatupon thegeneral searchnowmade, thesameholyandblessedtruthsofallsorts,whicharecurrentandwarrantableamongtheotherChurchesofChristintheworld,shouldbefoundtobeourlading.”

231During the latter years of Cromwell’s government, they appear to havefelt thenecessity topublish theirunitedbeliefonaccountof theirgreatincrease,exhibitingtheirunioninthefaithandobediencetoChrist,andputtingdown themanycalumniousmisrepresentationswhichhadbeenindustriouslydisseminatedtotheirdisadvantage.Forthispurpose, theyappliedforlibertytomeettotheProtector,withoutwhosesanctiontheydarednot tohaveassembled.Eachard representsCromwell as grantingpermissionwithgreatreluctance.Thiswasperhapsthecase,thoughnotfor the reason which this Historian puts into his mouth — “that therequestmustbecompliedwith,ortheywouldinvolvethenationinbloodagain.”

401 Oliver knew well that they were not the persons who had

involved the country in its calamities; but his security consisted in thedivision of religious parties rather than their union — and as he haddiscouragedPresbyterianAssociations, consistency required thathenotappearfriendlytoIndependentconventions.Hisconsentbeingobtained,however,apreparatorymeetingwascalledatLondon,bythefollowingletteraddressedtotheministersinthecityanditsneighbourhood,bytheClerkoftheProtector’sCouncil.

232Sir,

TheMeetingoftheEldersoftheCongregationalChurchesinandaboutLondon,isappointedatMr. (George)Griffiths (preacher in theCharterHouse)onMondaynext, at twoo’clock in theafternoon,whereyouaredesiredtobepresent.

Yourstolove,andserveyouintheLord.

HENRYSCOBELL.402

June15,1658.

Thispreliminarymeetingaccordinglytookplace.Byitsdirection,circularletterswereaddressedbyMr.GeorgeGriffiths toall theCongregationalChurches in England andWales, inviting them to send Messengers toconstituteageneralmeetingtobeheldattheSavoy,onSeptember29thfollowing. From a number of the letters in answer to the circular,preserved in Peek’s Desiderata, it appears that the Churches weregenerally favourable to themeasure. But some of them very prudentlyexpressed their fears, lest anything of a political nature should beconcealed under the cover of this proposed Assembly; and lest it wasdesignedtopromotesomecoalitionwiththestate.Theeventshowedthatnothingofthisnaturewasintended.About two hundred Elders and Messengers, from over one hundredChurches,assembledat theSavoyon thedayappointed,andcontinuedtogethertillthetwelfthofthefollowingmonth.Theyfirstobservedadayof prayer and fasting, afterwhich they consideredwhether they shouldadopttheWestminsterConfession,ordrawupanentirelyoriginaloneoftheirown.Theypreferredthelatterresolution,butagreedtokeepasnearthemethodoftheotheraspossible.Mr.Griffithswaschosenclerk,andDoctorsOwen andGoodwin,Messrs.Nye, Bridge, Caryl, andGreenhillwereappointedasaCommitteetopreparetheheadsofagreement.Thesewere brought in every morning, discussed, and the statement to beadoptedwasunanimouslyagreedto.233The whole of it was afterwards published in 4to, under the title, “Adeclaration of the Faith and Order, owned and practised in theCongregationalChurches inEngland; agreeduponandconsented tobytheirElders andMessengers in theirmeeting at the Savoy,October 12,1658.” The Preface is long, and said to have been written by Owen,though subscribed by the whole Committee. The next year it wastranslatedintoLatinbyProfessorHornbeck,andannexedtohislettersto

Dury,respectingIndependency.403

TheSavoyDeclarationcontains thesameviewsofChristiandoctrineastheWestminster Confession; but omits those parts which relate to thepower of Synods, Church censures, Marriage and Divorce, and theauthority of the civilmagistrate in purely religiousmatters,andwhichwereneverratifiedbyParliament.

404Insteadofthese,ithasachapterat

theend,ontheInstitutionofChurches,andtheorderappointedinthem.Itmaybeproper to extract somepassages from this,which convey theviewsoftheChurchesatthattime,andfromwhichitwillappearwhethertheIndependentsnowholdthesameleadingprinciples.OntheconstitutionofchurchesinstitutedbyChrist,itdeclares,“To each of these churches, he has givenall that power and authority which is in any wayneedful for their carrying on that order inworship anddisciplinewhichhehas instituted forthemtoobserve,withcommandsandrulesforthedueandrightexertingandexecutingofthatpower.”Sect.4.

234“Besidestheseparticularchurches,”itmaintains,“Christhasnotinstitutedanymoreextensiveor catholic church, entrusted with power for the administration of his ordinances, or theexecutionofanyauthorityinhisname.”Sect.6.

“Themembersofthesechurches,”itdeclares,“aresaintsbyeffectualcalling,visiblymanifestedbytheirprofessionandwalking.”Sect.8.

Ofoffice-bearers,itaffirmsthat,“TheofficersappointedbyChristarepastors,teachers,elders,anddeacons.”Sect.9.

From the terms employedhere, itmight be supposed that fourdistinctofficeswereheldby the framers, tobeappointed for thechurch.But inthefollowingsections,theyspeakoftheofficeofpastor,elder,orteacher,only as distinct from that of deacon. Whatever distinction they mighthave contended for in the eldership orPresbytery of a congregation, intheexerciseofgifts,theyappeartohaveviewedthepersonscomposingitasoccupyingthesameoffice.WhiletheDeclarationspeaksoflayingonofhands,alongwithfastingandprayer,astheusualmodeofappointmenttothepastoraloffice;italsodeclaresthat,“Those who are chosen by the church, though not set apart by the imposition of hands, arerightlyconstitutedMinistersofChrist.”Sect.13.

Andthat,“noordinationofothers,bythosewhohavebeenformerlyordained,byvirtueofthepowertheyhavereceivedbytheirordination,constitutesthemchurch-officers,withoutpreviousconsentofachurch.”Sect.15.

Intheadministrationofthechurch,itdeclaresthat,“Nopersonought tobeadded to thechurch, exceptby itsownconsent; so that love,withoutdissimulation,maybepreservedamongallthemembers.”Sect.17.

Onthesubjectofchurchcensures,andcombinationsofchurchesbytheirmessengers,itslanguageisworthyofattention.235“The power of censures being seated byChrist in a particular church, is to be exercised onlytowardsparticularmembersofeachchurchrespectivelyassuch;andthereisnopowergivenbyHimtoanySynodsorecclesiasticalassembliestoexcommunicate,orbytheirpublicedicts,tothreaten excommunication or other church censures, against churches, magistrates, or theirpeople, on any account — no man being liable to that censure, except upon his personalmiscarriageasamemberofaparticularchurch.”Sect.22.

But,“Incasesofdifficultiesordifferenceseitherinpointofdoctrineoradministrations—inwhicheither the churches in general are concerned; or any one church in its peace, union, andedification;oranymemberormembersofanychurchareinjuredbyanyproceedingincensuresthat are not agreeable to truth and order— it is according to themind of Christ thatmanychurches, holding communion together, by their messengers, meet in Synod or council, toconsiderandgivetheiradviceaboutthatmatter,tobereportedtoallthechurchesconcerned.However, theseSynodssoassembled,arenotentrustedwithanychurchpower, properly so-called,norwith any jurisdictionover the churches themselves, to exerciseany censures overanychurchesorpersons,ortoimposetheirdeterminationonthechurchesorofficers.”

“BesidestheseoccasionalSynodsorCouncils,ChristhasnotinstitutedanystatedSynodsinafixedcombinationofchurches,or theirofficers, in lesserorgreaterassemblies;norare thereanySynodsappointedbyChristinawayofsubordinationtooneanother.”Sect.27.

236This language is so very explicit, that it is scarcely possible tomisunderstandit.Ifanyareafraidofsuchmeetingsofmessengers,theyhaveonlytoconsiderthattheyaremerelyforcounselandadvice,andareinvestedwithnoauthorityorpoweroverthechurches.Theyareentirelyof a voluntary nature, resulting not from systematic organization, butfromthelove,union,andagreementexistingamongthechurches.Thisisa very different thing from the authority claimed by the ecclesiasticalassemblies,andtheregulargradationofcourtsinthePresbyterianbody.The Savoy Declaration pronounces its disbelief in the entire system ofstatedandorganizedsubordination.Independents have always recognised the propriety of meeting whenthereisanyseriousevilrequiredtobeinvestigatedorremoved,orwhenany general object called for combined exertion. To meet withoutsufficient business, would only produce evil, and lead to improper

interference. A greater degree of union than prevails in some places,would perhaps be desirable. But if this can be obtained only bysurrendering the rights of the churches, or by putting power into thehandsoffalliblemen,nodoubtcanbeentertainedthatitisbettertobewithout it. Theunionof love and cordial esteem, and thatwhich is themereresultofsystemorauthority,areverydifferentthings.The preface to the Savoy Declaration, from which some extracts havealreadybeenmade,containsvariousimportantstatements.Itavowsthatthe Independents had always maintained — though at the expense ofmuchopposition—“The great principle that, among allChristian states and churches, there shouldbe allowed aforbearanceandmutual indulgencetosaintsofallpersuasions,whokeeptoandholdfast thenecessary foundationsof faithandholiness.”—“Wearenotashamed toconfess to thewholeChristianworld,thatthishasbeenourconstantprinciple.”

237Theyassertthat,“AllprofessingChristians,withtheirerrorswhicharepurelyspiritual,anddonotentrenchandoverthrow civil society, are to be borne with, and permitted to enjoy all ordinances andprivilegesaccordingtotheirlight,asfullyasanyoftheirbrethrenwhopretendtothegreatestorthodoxy.”

Andtheysolemnlydeclarethat,“Iftheyhadallthepowerwhichanyoftheirbrethrenofdifferentopinionshaddesiredtohaveoverthem,orothers,theywouldfreelygrantthislibertytothemall.”

I apprehend that this is the firstwork of the kind inwhich these trulynoble andChristian sentiments are announced.Happily, it isno longernecessarytodefendtheirjustnessoradvocatetheirimportance.Referringtotheprognosticationsoffutureevil,whichmenwhowerenoprophets had presumed to utter, respecting the tendencies ofIndependentprinciples,thePrefacerssaythis:

“From thebeginningof the rearingof these churches, thewordsof theapostle405

havebeenappliedtous,‘Thatwhilewepromisedlibertytoothers,weourselveswouldbecomeservantsof

corruption, and be brought in bondage to all sorts of fancies and imaginations.’406

Yet thewholeworldmaynowsee,aftertheexperienceofmanyyears,thatthegraciousGodhasnotonlykeptus in thatcommonunityof the faithandknowledgeof theSonofGod,which thewholecommunityofsaintshave,butalso in thesametruths,bothsmallandgreat, thatarebuiltonthem—thatanyofthebestreformedchurcheshavearrivedatintheirbesttimes,whichweretheirfirsttimes.”

238

The short time they were together — with the business they had toexecute,withoutanypreviousconcert;and theunanimityandharmonywhichpervadedall theirproceedings—theyconsiderthesethingstobeevidenceof thepresenceandgoodnessof theLord,andproof that theydidnothavetoseektheirfaithwhentheyassembled.Itwouldbefoolishtoexpectthatthismeeting,oritsproceedings,shouldescapecriticism.ButitisratherstrangethatsogreataloverofpeaceasRichard Baxter, should have been its greatest enemy. His languagerespecting its leading members, particularly Dr. Owen, and respectingsomeoftheexpressionsinitsdeclarationofFaith,isaltogetherunworthyof Baxter’s piety and his understanding.

407 Instead of quoting his ill-

natured reflections,which really carry theirownconfutationalongwiththem,thereaderwouldperhapsbebetterpleasedwiththetestimonyofthe Rev. James Forbes of Gloucester (one of the members), who wascalled out by Baxter’s misrepresentations. Making every reasonableallowance for the influence of imagination and party feeling, thisGentleman’s account impresses us strongly in favour of the piety andsolemnprocedureofthismeeting.Hesays,“Generally,inthefirstplace,Ideclarewithallthesolemnseriousnessthatthecaserequires,thatthoughIhavenowturnedseventy,throughthegoodnessofGod—andhavehadoccasioninthedays of my pilgrimage, to be present at several Synods and meetings of ministers andmessengersofchurches—therewasthemosteminent presence of the Lord with those whowerethenassembled,thatIeverknewsinceIhadabeing.

239Ineversawthe likebeforeorsince,andIquestionwhetherIshallseethe likeonthissideofglory. Itwas a kindof heavenon earth, I think, to allwhowerepresent. Such rare elaboratespeechesmyearsneverheardbefore,norsince.Allalong,therewasamostsweetharmonyofbothheartsandjudgmentsamongstthem.Mr.Howe,thenChaplaintoRichardtheProtector,satwiththem.Wehadsomedaysofprayerandfasting,keptfrommorningtillnight;whenonehadprayed(Ispeakthetruthanddonotlie),Ithoughtnoonecouldoutdothatperson;andso

tooinpreaching.Yet,ordinarily,thosewhofollowed,excelledthosewhowentbefore.”408

If I were disposed to state any particular objection against the SavoyDeclaration,itwouldbeonethatisnotmoreapplicabletoitthantomostoftheproductionsofthesamenature:itsexcessiveminuteness.Thereistoomuchofdetailunderthegeneralheads,andtoomanyexplanations—asifitwerenotenoughtobelievethegeneraldoctrine,butalsonecessaryto receive all the reasonswhich are assigned for it, and everything it issupposedtoimply.Thisspecialityhasbeentheoccasionofinnumerablecontentions;andthemultiplicationofexplanationstopreventthem,has

onlymadethemmorefertilesourcesofdivision.Theconfessionsoffaith,recorded in Scripture, are all extremely brief, but very comprehensive.And the truths necessary to be believed by all Christians, are oftensummedupinasinglesentence.Ifall thecompilersofConfessionshadstudied thisScripturalbrevity, insteadofsystematicextension, itwouldhavedonewellforthepeaceandunityofthepeopleofGod.240AcopyofthisConfessionfellintothehandsofPeterduMoulin,aFrenchProtestantclergymanofsomeeminence,whichitappearsheintendedtotranslate intoFrench, I suppose.Buthavingsentover toEnglandsomeremarksonit,eitheraddressedtoOwen,orwhichfellintoOwen’shands,theDoctorwrotehimaletter,whichIapprehendputastoptohisfuturecriticisms.Fromthis letter, it isevidentthatMoulinhadeithergottenacorrupted copy of the Savoy Declaration, or that he was disposed tocorrupt it himself — in his remarks, he charges that it is filled with“palpable contradiction,nonsense, enthusiasm,and falsedoctrine.”Theletter has no date, but from its repeated references toOwen’swork onJustification,itmusthavebeenwrittenneartheendoftheDoctor’slife.409

The SavoyDeclarationhas never beenmuch known, or generally used,evenamong Independents.As itwasnot intended tobea testorbond,and couldnot be enforced, it hasnever been regarded as authoritative.Theprinciplesof thebodyareadverse toallsuchviews,oruses,ofanymerely human production. Being substantially the same as theWestminsterConfessionandCatechisms,whicharemoreeasilyfound,itseemstohavegraduallygivenwaytothem.

410Thereasonmay, inpart,

alsobe found in the verymoderate zeal of theCongregational body forthepromotionofitsdistinctiveprinciples.241Whetherthiscircumstanceistoitscreditoritsdisgrace,isdeterminedasmen consider whether these principles are great, or little, or of noimportance. It is surely desirable that the members of a Christiancommunity should be able to give a reason for the faith and practicewhichtheyfollow;andnomanshouldfeelindifferenttotheprogressofwhathebelievestobetruth.ChristianityteachesthatthekingdomofGoddoesnotconsistinmereexternalorderorordinances;butitalsoteachesthatineverythingwhichheobservesintheworshipofGod,“everyman

shouldbefullypersuadedinhisownmind.”Rom14.5

Thepreparatorymeasures for themeetingat theSavoyhadtakenplaceduring the lifeofOliverCromwell;but themeeting itselfwasheldafterhisdeath.ThiseventoccurredonthethirdofSeptember;adaywhichtheProtector customarily reckoned fortunate, because some of his mostcelebratedvictorieshavingbeenachievedon it. It is tobehoped itwasso, even in the end, notwithstanding the language and opinions of hisenemies respecting Cromwell. We have frequently spoken of thisextraordinaryman.Itisnottheobjectofthisworktodetailthedeedsofhispubliclife,northeanecdotesofhisprivatelife;todefendhisvirtues,norextenuatehis faults.Theserviceswhichherenderedtohiscountry,andtoreligion,arenotunknown;andwhateverhismotiveswere,thoseservices were neither few nor small. To the last, his private moralsremained untainted; his public regard for religion, and for religiouspersons, was maintained; and he died with a prayer becoming of aChristian,andnotunworthyoftheProtectorofEngland.242Baxter’s characterisation of him, though he was never intimate withCromwell,isperhapsjust,onthewhole;buttoolongtobeinsertedhere.411WehavefrequentlyquotedtheopinionofOwen—anopinionformed

frommuchpersonalintercoursewiththeProtector,bothbeforeandafterhe rose to that high situation — an opinion, uniformly favourable toCromwell’scharacterasaman,andasaChristian—andwhich,thoughitmay have been moderated, was never retracted. I am not prepared toassert that he retained it, in its full extent, to the end.WhileCromwellappeared humble, disinterested, and sought his country’s good, Owengloried in him, and viewed him in the light of a saint and a deliverer.When Cromwell’s ambition got the better of his patriotism, and madehimforgethisformerprofessions,Owenlefthimtodefendhimself,andtheirintercoursewasinterrupted.Whenafterwardsaccusedofbeingoneofthose“whopromisedCromwellhislife,onhislastsickness,”

412Owen’s

replywasshort,butsatisfactory,“Ididnotseehiminhissickness,norforsomelongtimebefore.”

413ThereportsofthefanaticalprayersofOliver’s

chaplainsare,perhaps,littlebetterfoundedthanthischarge.It is difficult to form an accurate estimate of the true state of religionduring the period of Cromwell’s government. Judging from certain

external appearances, and comparing them with the times whichfollowed, the opinion must be highly favourable. Religion was thelanguageandthegarbof thecourt;prayerandfastingwere fashionableexercises;aprofessionwastheroadtopreferment.NotaplaywasactedinallEnglandformanyyears.243Andfromtheprince,tothepeasant,tothecommonsoldier,thefeaturesof Puritanism were universally exhibited. Judging again from thewildnessandextravaganceofvariousopinionsandpracticeswhichthenobtained—andfromthefanaticalslangandhypocriticalgrimacewhichwereadoptedbymany,merely to answerapurpose—ouropinionwillnecessarily be unfavourable. The truth, perhaps, lies between theextremesofunqualifiedcensure,andundistinguishingapproval.Makingalldueallowancefortheinfirmityandsinwhichwerecombinedwiththeprofession of religion—making every abatement for the inducements,whichthenencouragedtheuseofareligiousvocabulary—admittingthattherewas evena largeportionofpure fanaticism—we still apprehendthat an immense mass of genuine religion would remain. There musthave been a large quantity of sterling coin, when there was such acirculationofcounterfeit.Inthebestofthemenofthatperiod,therewasdoubtless a tincture of unscriptural enthusiasm, and the use of aphraseology revolting to the tasteofmodern times. Inmany, therewasperhaps nothing more. But to infer that, therefore, all was base andunnaturaldeceitwouldbeunjustandunwise.“A reformation,” says Jortin, “is seldom carried on, without a heat and vehemence whichbordersonenthusiasm.AsCicerohasobserved,thereneverwasagreatman,sineafflatudivino[withoutdivineinspiration];sotoointimesofreligiouscontests,thereseldomwasamanwhowasveryzealousforliberty,bothcivilandevangelical—andwhowasadeclaredactiveenemytoinsolenttyranny,blindsuperstition,politicalgodliness,bigotry,andpiousfrauds—whodidnothaveafervencyofzealwhichledhim,onsomeoccasions,beyondtheboundsofsobertemperate

reason.”414

244Theremarkofanotherprofoundreasoner,farremovedfromenthusiasmhimself,arealsodeservingofattention.“Manyerrorsinjudgment,andsomedelusionsofSatanintermixedwiththework,arenotanyargumentthatthework,ingeneral,isnottheworkoftheSpiritofGod.HowevergreatapouringoutoftheSpirittheremaybe,itisnottobeexpectedthatitshouldbegivennow,asitwastotheapostles,infalliblytoguidetheminpointsofChristiandoctrine.AndifmanydelusionsofSatanappearat thesametimethatagreatreligiousconcernprevails, it isnotanargument that thework, in general, is not thework of the Spirit of God, anymore than it was an argument in

Egypt,thattherewerenotruemiraclesworkedthere,becauseJannesandJambresworkedfalsemiracles at the same time, by the hand of the devil. Indeed, the same persons may be thesubjectsofmuchoftheinfluencesoftheSpiritofGod,andyet,insomethings,beledawaybythedelusionsofthedevil;andthisisnomoreofaparadox,thanmanyotherthingsthataretrueofrealsaintsinthepresentstate,wheregracedwellswithsomuchcorruption,andthenewmanand theoldmansubsist together in thesameperson. If someof thosewhoare thought tobeworked upon, fall away into gross errors or scandalous practices, it is no argument that thework, in general, is not the work of the Spirit. Such things are always expected in a time ofreformation.Ifwelookintochurchhistory,wewillfindnoinstanceofgreatrevivalofreligion,thathasnotbeenattendedwithmanysuchthings.ThusitwaswiththeGnosticsintheapostles’time;andthusitwaswiththeseveralsectsofAnabaptistsinthetimeofthereformation.SotooinEngland,whenvitalreligiongreatlyprevailedinthedaysofCharlesIandOliverCromwell,

suchthingsastheseabounded.”415

245The application of these judicious remarks is obvious. It is freelyadmitted that no religion was necessary to make a man talk about“seekingGod”— to leadhim tohearmany sermons, andeven tomakelongprayers.Allthesethingsweredonebymanywhoseconductrevealedthat their pretensions weremore than questionable. But whenwe findalongwiththese,ferventzealforthefruitsofrighteousness,thegloryofGod, and the spiritual and temporal well-being of men; or find activelabours inpreaching thegospel, orpatient sufferingonaccountof it—theaspectofreligiousprofessionbecomesverydifferent.Itisimpossibletodoubt the sincerity of suchpersons.Yet suchweremultitudes in thedaysofCromwell,whoarereckonedfanaticalprecisians,

416ordesigning

knaves.Theseverypersonsbecame,inthedaysofCharlesIIandJames,confessorsandmartyrsforthetruth.Thetwothousandejectedministers,andthetenthousandpeoplewhosufferedthelossofgoodsandofliberty—ofcountry,andevenlifeitself—wereforthemostpart,thegenerationoftheCommonwealth.Theirconduct,perseverance,andsufferingsshowthat they were not the sickly dreamers and visionary enthusiasts theyhavebeenreckoned,butmenofelevatedandscripturalpiety.246During the Commonwealth no system of church government can beconsidered as having been properly or fully established. ThePresbyterians, if any, enjoyed this distinction. But the ministers whooccupied the parish churches were of very varied sentiments.Many ofthem were secret friends to the old Episcopacy and the liturgy. Manywere for a reformedEpiscopal government.Others thought no form ofecclesiasticalpolitywasofDivineright,nordidtheygivethemselvesany

concern about the matter. Some were Independents, and a few wereBaptists.

417 Cromwell’s policy encouraged this diversity; as he dreaded

theascendencyofanyoneparty. If theministersattended to theirowndutyanddidnotinterferewithhisaffairs,thenwhatevertheirsentimentswere on church government, it did not prevent the enjoyment of hisfavour.Thisstateofthingsmaybeconsideredanarchyandconfusionbymany; but it may be questioned whether the great ends of the gospelministrywere evermore effectually accomplished in this country, thanduring this period. No sacrifice of conscience was demanded — noencroachments on religious liberty were practised — no bounds wereprescribed to zealous exertion for the good of the souls ofmen. Everymansatunderhisvine,andhisfig-tree,withoutfear.—ThewordoftheLordhadfreecourse,andwasglorified.The influence of the life and death of Cromwell on the profession ofIndependency,whichheissupposedtohaveparticularlyfavouredhas,Iapprehend, been greatly exaggerated. He has been represented as thechief instrument of promoting the increase and respectability of thatparty;andhisdeathhasbeenspokenofasthemostdisastrouseventthatcouldbefallthem.247InasmuchasIndependentsenjoyedfulllibertyandprotection,andwereconsidered capable of serving their country under the government ofCromwell,theyweredoubtlessindebtedtohim.Itwouldbeexceedinglyungrateful to deny that they enjoyed these blessings in amuch greaterdegree then, in commonwithothers, than theyhave ever since.For allthis, letCromwell receive thepraise towhichhe is entitled. Itdoesnotappear that theywere indebted toCromwell for anythingmore; and insomerespects,hispatronagewashurtfultothemratherthanuseful.Asabody, they had existed long before his name was known; and theirincreaseandrespectabilityarose fromcausesaltogether independentofhim.Hemight, indeed,besaidtohaveraisedhimself ingreatmeasure,by their means. He took advantage of their reputation and influence,their loveof liberty,andhostilitytoecclesiasticaldomination,toshelterhimself and gain his own ends. He climbed on their shoulders to thesummit of ambition, and then he unceremoniously discarded or forgotthem.Theenjoymentofhisfavourandpatronage,toacertainextent,musthave

beeninjurioustothegenuineprofessionofapostolicalprinciples.Itmayappearstrange thatanIndependentshoulddeclare thathehasnowishthat Independents, as such, should become the objects of politicalpatronage.If indeedthegloryofaChristianprofessionconsistsinmerenumbers,or intheenjoymentofwealth,or inthepossessionofworldlyhonours, then these views must be extremely foolish. But if its gloryconsists in the spiritual character and disposition of its members,whetherfewormany,thenthehonoursofatemporalkingdomhavenotendencytopromoteit.AningeniousmemberoftheChurchofEnglandsays,248“PureandgenuineChristianityneverwas,norevercanbe,thenationalreligionofanycountryonearth. It isagold toorefined tobeworkedupwithanyhuman institution,withouta largeportion of alloy. For no sooner is this small grain of mustard-seed watered with the fertileshowersofcivilemoluments,thanitgrowsupintoalargeandspreadingtree,undertheshelterofwhosebranchesthebirdsofpreyandplunderwillnotfailtomakecomfortablehabitationsfor

themselves,andfromtheredefaceitsbeautyanddestroyitsfruit.”418

When any party of Christians becomes exclusively the object of statefavour, it immediately operates as a bounty on that profession. Everymanwhowishes or hopes to rise, has an inducement to enroll himselfunder its banners. There will be a visible increase of number andrespectability, but a proportional decrease of piety and purity. TheIndependentsneverweretheobjectsofthisexclusivepatronage;butinsofaras thatprofessionwasconsidered,during theCommonwealth, tobemoreacceptabletotherulingpowersthananyother,Iconceive itmusthavederivedinjury ratherthanbenefit fromthecircumstance.Itwouldinducesomeofthosevolatileandunprincipledspirits,whichalwaysfloatinthecurrentofstate favour, tohoist thecoloursofIndependency.Buttheywouldbepulleddownthefirstchangeofwindthatoccurred.Suchadventurers, whatever their rank, add no real strength to the effectiveforceofaChristiancommunity;andtheirdispersionisablessingratherthanapunishment.249Inanotherpointofview,also, thepatronageofCromwellandhispartyhas been injurious to the character of Independency. In the opinion ofmany, it has confounded it with revolution and republicanism. To thisday,itistheoccasiontorepresentitsadherentsasenemiestoestablishedgovernment,oratleasttomonarchicalgovernment.Ifeelnoconcernto

deny that there were Independents thenwho preferred a republic to amonarchy,especiallyanunlimitedmonarchy—asmanyof thegreatestmen of the age, though not Independents, did the same. But I feelconcerned to maintain that there is no link or connexion between thereligioussentimentsofIndependents,andtheirviewsofanyformofcivilgovernment.And if the favourofCromwellhas ledmen tobelieve thatIndependentsarenaturally,ornecessarily,republicans,ithasdonethema material injury. In consequence of this mistake, everything of arevolutionaryandsanguinarynatureduringtheaboveperiod,has,beenfearlessly charged by some, against this body. To vindicate it is nowunnecessary.Ithasflourished,intheScripturalsenseoftheword,moreunder amonarchy than ever it did under a Protector. And the body ofBritishIndependentshasalwaysbeenreckonedamongthefriendsoftheHanoverian succession, and the steady, uniform, and conscientioussupportersofthatillustrioushouse.

“Tillotson told me,” says Bishop Burnet,419 “that a week after Cromwell’s death, being at

Whitehallbyaccident,andhearingthattherewastobeafastthatdayinthehousehold,hewentoutofcuriosityintothepresencechamberwhereitwasheld.Richardwasplacedononesideofa table,with the restofCromwell’s family, andsixof thepreacherswereon theother side—ThomasGoodwin,Owen,Caryl,andSterry,wereoftheirnumber.

250Thereheheardagreatdealofstrangestuff,enoughtodisgustamanforeverofthatenthusiasticboldness.Godwas,as itwere, reproachedwithCromwell’sservices,andchallenged for takinghimawaysosoon.Goodwin,whohadpretendedtoassuretheminaprayer,thathewasnottodie,whichwasbutaveryfewminutesbeforeheexpired,nowhadtheimpudencetosay,“Youhavedeceivedus,andweweredeceived.”

Sterry, praying forRichard, used those indecentwords, “Make him thebrightnessoftheFather’sglory,andtheexpressimageofhisperson.”Thesame story is repeated on the authority of Burnet, in Birch’s life ofTillotson.

420

Without impeachingtheveracityeitherofTillotsonorBurnet, therearecircumstances which induce a strong suspicion of the accuracy of theanecdote.ThegossipingdispositionofBurnet ledhim to commitmanymistakes, and writing down conversations about others long after theywereheld,wasnogreatsecurityforfidelity.

421Thatsuchameetingtook

placeishighlyprobable;butitlookssomewhatsuspiciousthatTillotson,whowasthenonlyadivinitystriplingwithoutaname,should,frommerecuriosity, presume to go into thepresence chamberof theProtectoronsuchanoccasion.Burnetdoesnotseemtohaveadvertedtothefactthat

Goodwin’swords,withwhichTillotsonwasoffended,aretheverywordsof the prophet Jeremiah, chap. 20.7; and they were used, in allprobability, intheverysenseinwhichtheprophetemploysthem—notasdenotingwhatGodhaddone,butonlywhathehadpermittedmentodo. “You have allowed us to deceive ourselves, and we have beendeceived.”251NothingisputintothemouthofOwen;andIamquitesatisfiedthathewas not there. We know from himself, that he had not been withCromwell on his death-bed, nor long before. He was not one of thehouseholdchaplains,andthiswasaprivatehouseholdfast.Hewasnotafavourite of Richard’s, and therefore not likely to be asked on such anoccasion;andstill less likelytobeavolunteer.Theentirestoryseemsacompoundofimperfectrecollections,exaggeratedintherepetition,withaviewtogetahitatthefanaticismofCromwell’schaplains.Thedenial,on the part of Owen, of assertions as positively made as those above,leadsustoreceivethetestimonyoftheoppositepartywithgreatcaution;andwherethecharactersofothersareinvolved,thetestimonyofbishopsandarchbishopsoughttobesubjecttothesamelawsofevidencewhichregulatethatofothermen.

422

252Besides the works which Dr. Owen published during his Vice-chancellorship, and already noted, he had been engaged in preparinganother elaborate performance, which appeared soon after he hadrelinquished thatoffice: “OfcommunionwithGod theFather,Son,andHolyGhost,eachpersondistinctly, in love,grace,andconsolation,etc.”4to.Oxford,1657.Itappears,fromashortpreface,thathehadpreachedonthesubject,andthenextendeditintoaconsiderabletreatise.HefirstshowsthatthesaintshavecommunionwithGodinhismanifestationsoflove and grace toward them, and in their returns of holy gratitude,confidence,andjoy.HethenendeavourstoestablishfromScripture,thatthisfellowshipiswitheachoftheDivinepersonsdistinctly,asthetitleofhisworkimports;anditproceedsatgreatlengthtoillustratethenatureofthisfellowshipwiththeFatherinlove,withtheSoningrace,andwiththeHolySpiritinconsolation.Thereismuchdelightfulandimportantinstructioninthiswork.Thoughthesubjectarisesfromthefirstprinciplesoftheeconomyofsalvation,it

embraces matter which is only adapted to the higher form of theChristian profession. For the full understanding of it, it requires thepossession and vigorous exercise of that spiritual faculty which thenaturalmandoesnotenjoy;andwhichconstitutes thevitalprincipleofthenew creature. There is nothing inChristianity corresponding to theMusthxiu(silence)ofancientpaganism—noesoteric

423doctrines,which

are concealed from the common believer. But there are things whichthosewhoonlystandintheoutercourtofthetemple,donotknow;andwhich are the singular privilege of those who occupy thepenetralia.

424

There is an initiationwhichmust take place,which is thework, not ofman, but of God; and without this, the visible apparatus of the gospelappears only like pantomimic exhibition,

425 unintelligible and

unimpressive.253Theeyesofanatural,sinfulcreature,cannotlookattheinvisiblethingsofGod.Theymustundergoanoperationsimilartounsealingtheorgansofvision,asthoughtheireyeswerecoveredbyafilmwhichshutsoutthelightofheaven.Inplainterms,themindofmanmustundergoanentiremoral revolution—a renewal

426— in order to understand, relish, and

approve therevelationsand felicitiesof thekingdomofGod.Thegrandobject of this dispensation is not to restore the doctrines of naturalreligion;nortoexhibitaperfectcodeofmorallegislation;nortoestablishthecertaintyofa futurestate. Itdoesembraceall these;andmostmenconsidered learned in Christendom rest in these — but its sublimedesigns reach far beyond these narrow views. They comprehend thecommunication of a Divine nature to a sinful creature, and thebestowmentofallthingsnecessaryforitssupport.Thisprogressestill,Phi1.6 being completely delivered from the corruptions of this world, thecreature receives anabundant entrance into the everlastingkingdomoftheLordandSaviour.2Pet1.11SindestroyedordefacedtheworkofGod.Itis the design of the system ofmediation to remake it, to create a newworld,consistingofonevastrenewedfamily.Attheheadofthisfamilyisplaced,notanearthlyman,frailandmutable,buttheonlybegottenSon—“theLordfromheaven.”1Cor 15.47Man’srebellionoccasioneddisorderintheuniverse,andinterruptedtheintercoursebetweentheCreatorandthe creature. By Christ, all things are again reconciled and re-united.

Harmonyisagainrestored,andGodoncemorepronouncesHisworktobeverygood.Gen1.31

254

Onlythosewhoareperfect,1Cor2.1thatis,divinelytaught,1Th4.9willenterinto these views; and only those are likely to understand the work ofOwenonCommunion.ForwhatdoesfellowshipwithGodconsistin,butGod’s enjoyment of us, and our enjoyment of God, according to theestablishedprinciplesoftheministryofreconciliation?Someonewhoisdestituteofthis,knowsnothingofthegospeloritsgreatdesign.Hemaydiscuss its evidences, speculate about its doctrines, and observe itsinstitutions,butwhileheiswithoutitsimmortalisingprinciple,heisonlyamusinghimselfwith the leaves, insteadof feeding on the fruits of thetreeoflife.Asevidenceofhowlittleunderstoodthesesentimentsare,evenbythosewho think they are (almost) the only true Christians, I may quote theaccountwhichWoodgivesofthiswork.“In this bookhe strangely affects, in ambiguous anduncouthwords— canting,mystical, andunintelligiblephrases— toobscure, sometimes, theplainest andmost obvious truths.Andatothertimesheendeavours,bysuchamistandcloudofsenselessterms,todrawakindofveil

overthemosterroneousdoctrines.”427

Idonotknowthattherearehalf-a-dozenwordsinthewholebook,whicharenotperfectlyintelligibletoanypersonwhounderstandsEnglish.Noris there any peculiarity of phraseology, except what distinguishes theauthor’sstyleinallhiswritings.ThedarknesswhichAnthonycomplainsof,isinthesubject,orrather,itwasinhimselfinrelationtothatsubject.It isnotsurprisingthatablindmandoesnotunderstandadissertationonthenatureofcolours,orthatadeafmanimperfectlycomprehendsthedoctrine of acoustics — the lack of the faculty sufficiently explains thereason.255ItisinnodegreemoresurprisingthatamanwhoisaChristianmerelybyhereditarydescent,orbyanominalprofession,doesnotunderstandtheessential glory or excellence of the gospel. “The natural man does notreceive the thingsof theSpirit ofGod;norcan heknow them,becausetheyarespirituallydiscerned.” 1Cor2.14Thedeficiency in theonecase isphysical, and in the other it is moral — which equally affect the

perceptions of their subjects. But these are materially different in theresponsibility which they involve, as the one is amisfortune, and theotherisacrime.ThestrongestobjectiontotheworkonCommunionisthatitistoorigidlysystematic.Few,perhaps,willfollowouttheDoctor’sviewstotheextenttowhichhecarriesthem,ofdistinctfellowshipwiththeFather,Son,andSpirit.ThegroundworkofhisillustrationsisindeedinScripture;butthesamesortofsuperstructuredoesnotseemtoberearedonit.Toomany,orfinedistinctions,injuretheunityandDivineharmonywhichpervadethe system of revealed grace; and they ill correspond with that lovelyfreedom and unfettered phraseology, which distinguish the inspiredwritings. To be indifferent to the importance of correctly expressingourselvesonallthedoctrinesofrevelation,andtoaffectgreateraccuracyintreatingthemthantheapostlesemploy,areextremeswhichareequallyimproper and pernicious. If the latter was the fault of Owen and thetheological writers of that period, the former is the great evil of thepresent. Itwas then impossible tomisapprehend the sentiments of theleadingwritersoneverytopicofimportanceconnectedwithChristianity.256In regard to many of our most popular theological writers now, it isextremely difficult to ascertain what is their belief on various subjects,and those not of trifling importance — yet they glory in this verycircumstance! Whether this arises from imperfect knowledge, fromundervaluingsomepartsoftheChristiansystem,fromfearoflosingtheirpopularity by boldly avowing objectionable truths, or from all thesecombined,itisdeeplytoberegretted.Whenthewritingsofsuchpersonshaveapowerfulinfluenceindirectingthetoneofthepublicmind,theevilalludedtoisofseriousmagnitude.ThisproductionofOwen’spenisparticularlygratifying,consideringthesituationoftheauthorwhileitwascomposed,andasaspecimenofthediscourseshewasinthehabitofdeliveringatOxford.Howevermuchhemusthavebeeninvolvedinthedrydetailsofsecularbusiness,orsecularlearning,itshowshowhismindwaschieflyaffected.Nomancouldmoreboldly contend for the cause of liberty, or more warmly advocate theinterests of learning. He was equally an enemy to despotism andVandalism.But thesalvationofChrist,and thespiritual interestsofhispeople, were still the grand objects of his attachment and pursuit. His

heartwas in hisMaster’swork, and hewas alive to all the glory of hisundertaking.Nosubordinateobjectwasallowedtooccupy thatplace inhismind,whichspiritualthingsaloneoughttoenjoy.Andinnoneoftheextendedcontroversiesinwhichheengaged,doeshewritewithsuchzeal,asoncommunionwithGod.Thisinvaluableprivilegemusthavebeenhissolace amidst the distracting labours in which, contrary to hisinclinations,hehadbecomeinvolved.257Hecouldprobablysayoftheexerciseitself,andthelabourofwritingit,whattheamiableBishopHornedoesofhisworkonthePsalms:“Theemploymentdetachedhim from thebustle andhurryof life, thedinofpolitics, and thenoiseof folly.Vanityandvexation flewaway fora season;careanddisquietudedidnotcomenearhisdwelling.Hearosefreshasthemorningtohistask;thesilenceofthenightinvitedhimto pursue it; and he can truly say that food and restwere not preferred above it. Every partinfinitely improveduponhisacquaintancewith it,andnonegavehimuneasinessbutthe last;

forthenhegrievedthathisworkwasdone.”428

Afternearlytwentyyearshadpassed,thisworkonCommunionwasstillunmercifullyassailed,andbecamethesubjectofaprotractedcontroversywhichwillafterwardsbeexamined.Anotherwork,whichheproducedthisyear,isofaverydifferentnature.And it immediately occasioned a controversy to which it will now benecessarytoattend.Thiswas:“OfSchism,thetruenatureof itrevealedand considered, with reference to the present differences in religion.”12mo.pp.280.Ox.1657.Thissubject—whichsomebodyjustlyobservesoccasionedaschismaboutthemeaningoftheword—Owenendeavoursto illustrate entirely by the light of revelation. He notes the primaryimportoftheterm(arentorseparationofpartsinaunitedsubstance);anditsmoraloranalogicalmeaning(adivisionofsentimentoraffection,in a religious or political body). He then proceeds to show that theapostles use the term schism,merely to describe “causeless differencesandcontentionsamongthemembersofaparticularchurch,contrarytothat love, prudence, and forbearance, which ought to be exercisedtowardsoneanother.”258ThatanyonemaybeguiltyofthesinofSchism,“hemust be amember of some one church, constituted by Jesus Christ; and in it, he raisescauselessdifferenceswithothers, to the interruptionofChristian love,and thedisturbanceof

thedueperformanceofthedutiesrequiredofthechurchintheworshipofGod.”429

Hence, it follows that the separationof one church (ormany churches)from other churches, is never described as schism in Scripture —especiallyifthebodythatissecededfromisnotofDivineappointmentinits constitution.And it also follows that the separationof an individualfromanychurch,onaccountofwhataffectshisconscience,isnotthesinof schism. Hence, all the abusive language of Romanists againstProtestants, andEpiscopaliansagainstPresbyterians, andPresbyteriansagainst Independents — as being schismatics — is utterly misplaced.Whetheranyareguiltyofthisevil,doesnotdependonthecircumstanceofseparation,butonthemeritsof thecase,andotherpartsofconduct.Owen’sviewofthesubjectispreciselythesameasDr.Campbell’sinhisvaluabledissertationonthiswordschism;thereaderisreferredtoitforfurthersatisfactionastoitsscripturalimportanduse.

430

Whatafruitfulsourceoftheologicalaltercationwouldbedriedup,ifthisweretheinterpretationofthetermthatisadheredto!Butthiswouldnotsuitthepurposeofthosewhomostdelightinhurlingthebrutumfulmen431againstothers.Itisafinethingtomakeanadversaryodious,tofixon

himthecharacterofaschismatic—thoughitmaymorejustlybelongtotheonewhoseunchristianconductprobablyoccasionedtheseparation.259“Schism,”saysthecelebratedHalesofEaton,“haslongbeenoneofthosetheological scarecrowswithwhich thosewhowish to uphold a party inreligion, use to frighten those who, making any inquiry, are ready torelinquishoropposeit,ifitappearseithererroneousorsuspicious.”

432It

isworthyofremarkthatthehideousnatureofitisseldomurged,excepttoward thosewho leave a community. Let asmany schismatics as theyplease, come from other bodies into their own community; it is neverhintedthattheyhavebeenguiltyofthiscrime.Thisisastrongproofthatthesinofschismisdeploredchieflywhenit isanoffenceagainstmen’sinterests, feelings, or authority. Such persons should think of thewittyVincentAlsop’sremark:—“Schismisanecclesiasticalcannonwhich,beingoverchargedandillmanaged,recoilsandhurtsthecannoneer.Hethatundertakestoplaythisgreatgunneedstobeverycareful,andspongeit

well,lestitfireathome.”433

Owen’s work had little connexion with any party sentiments, as its

principle was equally available to all parties of Protestants. Yet, all ofthembeingschismaticsintheordinarysenseoftheterm(intheirrelationtoothers),itsoonmetwithseveralopponents.ThefirstofthesewasDr.Hammond,whosubjoinedtohiscontinuationoftheDefenceofGrotius,“AreplytosomepassagesoftheReviewerinhislatebookaboutSchism.”hisreplyrelateschieflytothestateofEpiscopacyinthetimessucceedingtheapostles;andonthisaccount,Owentooklittlenoticeofit.260Another answerwas from the pen ofMr.,Giles Firmin,whowrote “OfSchism,ParochialCongregations,andOrdinationbyimpositionofhands,inwhichDr.Owen’srevealingofthetruenatureofSchismisbrieflyandfriendly examined.” 8vo. pp. 157. 1658. The book correspondswith thetitle,and iswritten inaveryChristianspirit.Theobjectof it is toshowthat Schism may be a more extensive evil than Dr. Owen’s definitionadmits. He therefore defines it, “The dissolution of that unity whichChrist, our Lord, requires in his church” — which may extend to thewhole visible profession of Christianity. This of course depends on theextensionoftheanalogicalmeaningoftheterm.Butonthewhole,thereisnoverymaterialdifferencebetweenOwenandFirmin.Alludingtohim,theDoctorsaid,ratherseverely,thatFirminneitherunderstoodhim,northethingswhichhewroteabout.

434Mr.FirminhadbeeninNewEngland

severalyears;butwhenhewrotethistreatise,hewaspastorofthechurchatShalford,inEssex.Hewasaveryrespectableman;aneminentscholar,especially in theOriental languages—well read in theFathers,Churchhistory,andreligiouscontroversies.

435IfhewasaPresbyterian,hewasso

moderateaone,astobemistakenbyEdwards(ofGangrenecelebrity)foranIndependent.But themost violent adversary of theDoctor on this occasion,wasMr.Daniel Cawdry, “Preacher of the word at Billingmagn,Northamptonshire” — a high-flying Presbyterian. He produced, in thesameyear inwhichtheDoctor’sworkappeared,apamphlet,thetitleofwhichatoncebegsthequestion,andforestallstheproof;“Independencyagreatschism.”12mo.pp.200.Lond.1657.261ThefirstsentenceofthisworkcorrespondswithwhatwesaidabouttheusemadeofthechargeofSchism,andwiththedogmatictitleofthebook.

“The crime of Schism is so heinous in itself, and so dangerous andnoxioustothecauseofGod,thatnoinvectivesagainsttheevilsofitcanwellbetoogreatorhigh.”Soallpartieshaveexclaimed(whoarrogatetothemselvestheexclusivecharacterofthetruechurch)againstthosewhohave had the temerity to call into question their claims, and to dissentfromtheirfellowship.Whenitisstatedthatthisfieryzealotspeaksof“reapingwithlamentationthe cursed fruits of toleration and forbearance in religion;” that herepresents tolerationas“doingmoretowardsrootingreligionoutof theheartsofmeninsevenyears,thanenforcinguniformitydidinseventy;”and that he generally terms it “a cursed, intolerable toleration;”— thereaderwilleasilyguessathisspirit,andperhapshavelittleinclinationtoexamine his arguments. The design of the pamphlet is to prove thatIndependentshadbeenguiltyofagreatschismingatheringchurchesoutof Presbyterian congregations. Thiswas the unpardonable sin ofwhichtheywereconsideredguiltyatthisperiod.Inmanyinstances,itwasnottrue. For in reply to this very charge, the Prefacers to the SavoyDeclarationsay:—“Let it be further considered that we have not broken from them, or their order, by thesedifferences—rather,theybrokefromus.Andinthatrespect,welessdeservetheircensure,ourpracticebeingnoother thanwhat itwas inourbreaking fromEpiscopacy—and longbeforePresbytery,oranysuchformastheyarenowin,wastakenupbythem.Andwewillnotsayhowprobable it is thattheyokeofEpiscopacywouldhavebeenuponournecktothisday, ifsomesuchway,asformerlyandisnowtermedSchism,hadnotbeenpractisedwithmuchsuffering,andsincecontinuedin.”

262But Cawdry had more objects than one to accomplish by his work. ItcontainedanAppendix,“ShowingtheinconstancyoftheDoctor;andtheinconsistencyofhis formerandpresentopinions.”TheproofofOwen’sinconstancy and inconsistency amounts to this: in 1643, being thenconnected with the Presbyterians, he published a Treatise in which hespeaks on some points as a Presbyterian. In 1657, having been anIndependentforatleasttenyears—asalltheworldknew—hepublisheda book which contains sentiments bearing upon Independency. Ergo,Owen is inconsistent and unstable! Alas! for the logic of poor DanielCawdry.Mensometimesendeavourtobringanopponentintodisgracebysuchpitifulmeans.Owenwasnothesitanttoreply.Inthecourseofafewweeksheproduced,“A Review of the true nature of Schism, with a Vindication of the

Congregational Churches in England, from the imputation thereof,unjustly charged on them byMr. Daniel Cawdry. Ox. 1657.” 12mo. pp.181.HeassuresusinthePreface,thatitwastheworkofonlyfourorfivedays,whichwasall the timehecoulddevote to it,andallhe thought itdeserved.Hemeets and repels the charges of his adversarywithmuchfirmness, and strengthens his original position. He informs us, “Thatsuch was his unhappiness, or rather happiness, in the constantintercourse he hadwith Presbyterians, both Scotch andEnglish,whichwasutterlyofanotherframeofspirit—that,tillhesawthistreatise,hedid not believe there remained one godly person in England of suchdispositions,inreferencetopresentdifferences.”263Hesuccessfullyshows thatCawdryhadcompletely failed inmakingouthis charge of Schism and of inconsistency, against his brethren andOwen. He concludes the defence of his changes, which we have fullynarrated,bysimplyremarking,“Whoevercanglorythatinfourteenyearshehasnotalteredhisconceptionsofsomethings,shallnothavemeforhisrival.”

436

Thecontroversydidnotterminatehere.ThenextyearCawdryreturnedto the charge, in “Independency further proved to be a Schism, etc.”12mo.1658.pp.158.Thisproductionaboundswithpersonalities,thoughtheauthorfeelsthathehadalreadycommittedhimself.Indeed,Cawdryseemstohavebeenacontradictionhunter,forthisisnothisfirstattackof the same kind on Independency, and on the personal characters ofthose who professed it. He had published, in 1645, a 4to. volume,“VindiciaeClavium,”against“Cotton’sKeysofthekingdomofHeaven.”—Andin1651,another4to. invindicationof it—“Theinconsistencyofthe IndependentwaywithScriptureand itself;” inwhichhe reveals thesamerancorous spirit againstCottonandHooker,whichhedoes inhisattackonOwen;andthesamezealousdesiretofindcontradictions,withlittle more success. The manuscript of Cotton’s reply to the personalcharges of Cawdry, had come into Dr. Owen’s hands, just as his ownanswer had gone through the press. Therefore, immediately after thesecondattackofCawdryappeared,Owenpublished—“ADefenceofMr.JohnCotton from the imputationof self-contradiction, chargedonhimbyMr.DanielCawdry:writtenbyhimself,notlongbeforehisdeath:Towhich isprefixed,anAnswer toa lateTreatiseof thesaidMr.,Cawdry,

aboutthenatureofSchism.”12mo.Ox.1658.264This small treatise isnearly equallydividedbetweenCotton andOwen.TheDoctorshowsthatCawdryandhisbrethrenwereasloudly,andwithmore apparent justice, charged with being Schismatics by theEpiscopalians,astheIndependentswerebythePresbyterians.“Forwedeny,”hesays,“thatsincethegospelcameintoEngland,thePresbyteriangovernment,as statedby them,was ever setup exceptby thewishes of aparty ofmen.So thathere still,unless as it lies in particular congregations, where our right is as good as theirs, none haveseparatedfromitthatIknowof,thoughmanycannotconsenttoit.Thefirstageswepleadare

ours;thefollowingwereunquestionablyEpiscopal.”p.79.437

Cotton, whose defence the Doctor published, was a person for whomOwenhad veryhigh respect.Hewas amanof extensive learning, solidpiety, and laborious exertion in the causeofChrist.Owenhadbeen, inpart,indebtedtohiswritingsforhisownsentimentsasanIndependent.HewasoneofthefirstoftheNewEnglandCongregationalistswhowroteon the subjectof churchgovernment.Hiswritingshadaveryextensiveinfluence,bothinthatcountry,andinEngland.Hisworkon“TheKeysofthekingdomofHeaven,”containsthesubstanceoftheargumentfortheIndependentpolity.ThoughheoccasionallyuseslanguageinitwhichfewIndependents would now be disposed to employ; and he speaks of thepower of councils in a way that is not consistent with his leadingprinciples.265OnthesubjectoftheMagistrate’s interferenceinreligion,also,bothhiswritings andhis conduct prove that, in some respects, hewas far fromperfection.ThiswasnotthefirstattackhehadtosustainonhisWorkonthe Keys. It had been taken up by Baillie in his “Dissuasive from theerrorsofthetimes;”inwhichCottonandhisbrethrenwereloadedwithcalumnies and defamation; — and by Samuel Rutherford, with moreargumentandmoderation, inhis “DuerightofPresbyteries;”—andbyCawdry,asIalreadynoted,inhis“VindiciaeClavium.”CottonrepliedtoallthesewithmuchChristiantemper,inhis“WayoftheCongregationalChurches cleared” from the aspersions of Baillie, the contradictions ofCawdry, and the misconstructions of Rutherford. These works, whichwere mostly considerable volumes, show how deeply the controversyabout Church Government then occupied the minds of men; and how

keenlysomeoftheleadingwritersoftheperiodengagedinit.Thosewhowish to know all that is possible to be said for Presbytery andIndependency,haveonlytoconsultthem.Theycontainmuchextraneousmatter, and a great lack ofmoderationonboth sides.But they literallyexhaustthesubject,andIsupposetheymusthaveexhaustedthewritersthemselves,nearlyasmuchastheynowexhaustthereader.Itismatterofwonder and regret, that the subject could not be disposed of with lesslabour, and less acrimony. The last defence of Cotton, and Owen’svindicatorypreface,putanendtohiscollisionswithCawdry,andtotheSchism controversy. And here terminates our account of it. “Gaudeteomnesarenamvideo.”[Rejoiceallinthearena,whoseeit.]266Owen’snextwork,whichwasproducedpartlyin1658,andpartlyinthefollowingyear, isa thick12movolume.Thenatureandobjectsof itarefullyexplainedintheextendedtitlepage.“Of the Divine origin, authority, self-evidencing light, and power of the Scriptures. With anAnswertothatEnquiry,HowweknowtheScripturesarethewordofGod.Also,aVindicationofthepurityandintegrityoftheHebrewandGreektextsoftheOldandNewTestament;insomeconsiderationsontheProlegomena,andAppendixtotherecentBibliaPolyglotta.Towhichare

subjoined some exercises438

about the nature and perfection of the Scripture, the right ofinterpretation,internallight,revelation,etc.”

This is rather a curiousmiscellany. Prefixed to thewhole contents is adedication to, “Hisreverendandworthy friends, thePrebendsofChristChurchCollege,withall theStudents inDivinity inthatSociety.”Inthefirst tract are some very excellent observations on what is generallyunderstoodbytheinternalevidenceof theBible;orthatwhichsatisfiesthe mind of a Christian, that in trusting to the revealed method ofsalvation,heisnotfollowingacunninglydevisedfable.TheDoctorrestshis reasonings chiefly on two things: the light and the efficacy of thetruth.Asitisthenatureoflightnotonlytomakeotherthingsmanifest,but to bring the evidence of its own existence along with it; so thebeamings of the majesty, truth, holiness, and authority of God in theBible, distinguish it from all counterfeits, and commend it to theconscience—which it illuminates, sanctifies, and judges. The effects itproduces in subjugating human antipathies to itself, and the cure ofmoraldisease,arealsostrongproofsofitsheaven-derivedpower.Itistheforce of this internal evidence — the perception of the excellence,suitableness,andgloryoftheDivinerevelationofmercyinthegospel—

thatinducesthegreatbodyofChristianstoreceiveit.267Beingmade,“thewisdomandthepowerofGod”totheirsalvation,theyhave the strongest possible evidence of its Divine nature and origin.However complete and satisfactory the external testimony is, it doescomparatively little for the conversionofmen;as inmost instances thegospel is rejected, not from lack of evidence, but from hatred orindifference to its subject. The argument of Owen has been largelyaddressed by others, though by fewmore fully or satisfactorily than byhimself.ThesameviewsarebroughtforwardbyProfessorHalyburtoninaTreatiseontheReasonofFaith(appendedtohisworkonnaturalandrevealedreligion),andbyPresidentJonathanEdwardsinhisTreatiseonReligiousAffections.Whilethistractwasinthepress,theProlegomenaandAppendix totheLondonPolyglot,wereputintoOwen’shands.Inconsequenceofthat,hedelayedthepublicationofhistracttillheexaminedthatvolume;andhisexamination produced the second tract in this work. The object of theformer treatisewas toevince, “Thatas theScriptureswere immediatelygivenbyGodhimself,Hismindbeing represented tous in them;sobyHisprovidentialdispensation,hiswholeword ispreservedentire in theoriginal languages.” He now contended that if any corruption wereallowed to creep into the text of Scripture, all his reasoningswould besubverted,thefoundationoffaithweakened,andtheprovidenceofGodwould appear to have been careless concerning the preservation of theDivineword.HewassadlyafraidthatifsomeofWalton’sprincipleswereadmitted, that Popery would obtain advantage on the one hand, andinfidelityontheother.268The “Biblia Polyglotta Waltoni,” is by far the most valuable andimportantbiblicalworkthateverissuedfromtheBritishpress.

439 Ithas

rendered immense service to the criticism and interpretation of theScriptures,andconferred immortalhonouron itsprojectorsandeditor.Severalworksofthesamenaturehadbeenpreviouslypublishedabroad:such as the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, in 1517; theAntwerpPolyglot,publishedattheexpenseofPhiliptheSecondofSpain,in 1572; and theParis Polyglot of Le Jay, in 1645. Theseworks had allbeenedited in themost sumptuousmanner, andat great expense.And

whatisveryextraordinary,theworldhadbeenentirelyindebtedforthemto the zeal and liberality of Catholic princes, prelates, or privateindividuals.

440NoneoftheProtestantprincesorpatronsoflearning,had

yet attempted any work of this nature. It was reserved for England towipeawaythisreproach;andthatwasnotdoneduringthereignofherroyal “Defenders of the Faith,” nor under the auspices of her richlybeneficed Bishops; but during the reign of fanaticism, and under thepatronage of the Prince of fanatics — OLIVER CROMWELL — though hisnamewasafterwardsungraciouslyblottedout!Brian Walton, D.D., afterwards Bishop of Chester, was the principalprojectorandeditorofthework;buthewasassistedbyanumberofthelearnedmembersofCambridgeandOxford,inconductingitthroughthepress.ItwasthefirstBritishworkpublishedbysubscription[£50each].TheProtectorallowedfivethousandreamsofpapertobeimportedforit,freeofduty;andheotherwiseassistedindefrayingitsexpense.269It was finished in 1657. By its fulness, accuracy, and convenience forconsultation,itfarsurpassedallformerworksofthekind,anditremainstothisday[1820]themostcompletecollectionofthesacredwritingseverpublished.It appears, at first, somewhat surprising that Dr. Owen would haveviewed thisworkwith jealousy or disapproval. But this surprise ceaseswhenwe reflect on the school of sacred learning inwhichhehadbeenbred;andtowhich,fromprinciple,hewasstillattached;andtowhichthegreat body of Hebrew scholars then belonged. Upon the revival oflearning,HebrewliteraturewasalmostentirelyinthehandsoftheJews.The few Christians who acquired from them any acquaintance with it,receivedimplicitlythedogmasoftheRabbins,whoweresupposedtobeprofoundly versed in the criticism of their sacred books. Two of thesedogmaswere inculcatedasmattersof faith, aswell asquestionsof factand criticism: — the immaculate purity of the Hebrew text, and theDivineoriginof thepointsandaccents.Littleknowledgeof the stateoftheHebrewmanuscriptsthenexisted(thescienceofcriticismwasinitsinfancy). There was no knowledge whatever of some of the ancientversions; andknowledgeabout all of themwas exceedingly limitedandimperfect. The Controversies between the Catholics and the Reformedaffected this as well as other subjects. The former unduly extolled the

meritsoftheVulgate,anddepreciatedthevalueoftheoriginalScriptures.The latter went to the other extreme, and treated with unmeriteddisrespect, the Latin version, the Septuagint, and all the other earlytranslations. It was looked on as a point of the Protestant faith tomaintaintheseviews;anditwasdangeroustoanindividual’scharactertodeviatefarfromthem.270Asgeneralknowledgeincreased,thetrueprinciplesofcriticismcametobebetterunderstood; the importanceof the ancient versionswasmorejustlyestimated;anddoubtsbegantobeentertainedrespectingthetwopositionswhich,tillthen,hadbeenmostsurelybelieved.SeverallearnedmenhadhintedtheirsuspicionoftheDivineoriginoftheHebrewpoints;but the firstwhoassailed itatany lengthwasLewisCapel,ProfessorofHebrewintheProtestantcollegeofSaumur.His“ArcanumpunctuationisRevelatum,”publishedin1624;andhis“CriticaSacra,” in1650,maybesaid tohavebegunand finished thecontroversy.The latterwork— thelabourofthirty-sixyears,broughtsuchamassof learningandevidencetobearuponthecontestedsubjects,thatitleftcomparativelylittletobedonebyothers.Yet,suchwasthestateoftheliteraryrepublicatthetime,that the work was refused admission to the press by the prohibitoryprinciples of foreignProtestants.After ten years of fruitless applicationforanimprimatur,

441itwasatlastprintedatParisbyhisson,whowasa

Catholic.442

The cause of the points, and of the Hebrew verity, was warmlymaintainedbytheBuxtorfs,bythecelebratedGlassius,andmanyothers.The doctrines of Capellus were adopted and defended by Morinus,Vossius, Grotius, and other names of great celebrity. It is therefore noimpeachmentofDr.Owen’s learning, thathewasof theancient, ratherthan of the modern opinion on this question. It was that which wassupposed to bemost advantageous to theProtestant interestwhich theloversofthewordofGodwereconsideredboundtomaintain,andwhichmanyofthegreatestscholarsandtheologianstheninEurope,mosthotlysupported.271Thequestionofthevariousreadingshaslongsincebeensettorestbytheimmense collections ofMill andKennicott, ofDeRossi andGriesbach.

Onthesubjectofthepoints,differentopinionsarestillentertained;buton all sides, less importance is attached to them than when thecontroversy was first agitated. The progress of Hebrew literature hasrevealed that the fears entertainedbyOwen respecting thedoctrines ofthePolyglot,werewhollygroundless;andhislanguage—thatthosewhoasserted that the Scriptures had suffered in the samemanner as otherbooks,borderedonatheism—wasrashandimproper,astheeventhasproved.Hedisclaims all personalmotives in the considerationshewasledtothrowoutonthePolyglot;heprofessesnottohavebeenacquaintedwith Walton, and little acquainted with his chief co-adjutors; and hepretends to no profound acquaintance with the class of literature towhichtheProlegomenaandAppendixofthePolyglotproperlybelong.Itis unnecessary now to canvass his objections. His fears magnified hisexpectationsofdanger,andmultipliedhisdifficulties.Neitherthecauseofsacredlearning,norhisownfame,wouldhavesufferedifhehadneverwrittenasentenceonthesubject.Hewasnotallowedtopassunanswered.Waltonimmediatelypublishedan able, but ill-tempered reply. “The Considerator considered, and theBiblia Polyglotta Vindicated,” etc. 12mo. 1659, pp. 293. It cannot beconcealed, and shouldnot bedenied, thatWaltonhad thebetter of hisantagonist in this controversy. He possessed eminent learning, greatcriticalacumen,andallthatpatientindustrywhichwasnecessaryforthesuccessfulprosecutionofhisveryarduousundertaking.272Thesequalifications,combinedwithabundanceofleisure,theassistanceoflearnedassociates,andenthusiasticdevotednesstothecausewhichheespoused,enabledWaltontobringhisoriginalworktoaperfectionthatleft all its predecessors far behind— and tomeet any antagonist, withadvantagesofwhoseimportancehewassufficientlyaware.Thetimeandtalents of Owen had been chiefly devoted to very different pursuits. Indoctrinal, exegetical, and controversial theology, he then had but fewequals, and no superior. In these departments, he shone withdistinguished lustre; he consecrated all the faculties and ardour of noordinary mind, to their cultivation. His public labours and numerouswritings must have left him but little time or inclination for the drypursuitsofverbalcriticism.Onthisaccount,itwouldhavebeenbetterifheleftthesubjecttoothers.ButwhileIfreelyconcedethepalmofvictoryin this contest toWalton, it is impossible to compliment the spiritwith

whichhefoughtforandachievedit.HenevercondescendssomuchastonameOwen, although theworkwhichhe answerswasnot anonymous.He breathes a tone of defiance and contempt, both uncalled for andunsuitable.Butitwasprobablydictatedasmuchbythepoliticalchangesinprospect,asbyapersonaldislikeofOwen.Theex-Vice-chancellorofOxford, thoughnot then “A sonof theChurchofEngland,”—a title towhichWaltonattachednoordinary importance—wasnotunworthy tobenamedwith themost learnedofherprogeny.Even theEditorof thePolyglotwasnotentitledtoschoolhimlikeadunce.HisremarksonthemotivesanddesignsofOwenarebitterandunchristian,andonlyreflectdishonouronhimself.273Andsurelythemanwho,afterenjoyingthefavourofCROMWELL,hadtheingratitudetoerasehisacknowledgmentofit,andtoinsertthenameofCHARLES,fromwhomhisworkhadderivednobenefit(thoughafterwardsit procured its author a bishopric) does not have the highest claims tocreditforChristiansimplicityandsincerity.

443Letitonlyberemarked,in

conclusion,thatifJohnOwencouldnothaveproducedthePolyglot,stilllesscouldBishopWaltonhavewrittentheCommentaryontheHebrews.“TheRestorationwhichsoonfollowed,”saysBishopMarsh,“putanendtothecontroversy;andwithinafewmonthsafterCharlestheSecond’sreturn,Dr.WaltonwaspromotedtotheSeeofChester.TheprejudicesexcitedbyOwen’spamphlet,andthe falseconclusionswhichhedrewfromthatvarietyofreadings,unavoidablyresultingfromamultitudeofcopies,didnotindeedimmediately subside. But those prejudices and apprehensions were at leastmitigated by theendeavours of Dr. Fell, who published (as he relates in his Preface) an edition of the Greek

Testamentforthatpurpose.”444

274The third Tract in this volume of Owen’s, is in Latin, and is chieflydesigned for the Quakers. It is rather singular that he should havecriticised thePolyglot inEnglish, and theFriends inLatin; and thatheshouldhavejoinedastheobjectofthesameattack,thegreatestlearningand the greatest fanaticism in the country.Walton took care to noticethis,andnottotheadvantageoftheDoctor.His“ExercitationesadversusFanaticos,” roused an adversary among the Quakers, whowas not lessfiery (though less learned) than the Editor of the Polyglot. This wasSamuelFisher,originallyaMinisterof thechurch,afterwardsaBaptist,andfinallyaQuaker.Hewasamansaidtohavebeenofeminentvirtue,piety,andlearning.

445ThereplytoOwenispartofa4to.volumeof600

pages,thetitleofwhichIquotefortheamusementofthereader.“TheRusticsalarmtotheRabbis:or,theCountrycorrectingtheUniversityandClergy,andnotwithoutgoodcause,contestingforthetruthagainstnursingmothersandtheirchildren;infourapologetical exercises in which is contained, as well, a general account to all inquirers, as ageneralanswertoallopposersofthemosttrulyCatholic,andmosttrulyChrist-likeChristians,calledQuakers,andof the trueDivinityof theirdoctrine.Bywayofentire intercourseheld inspecialwithfouroftheClergies’chieftains,vizJohnOwen,D.D.,recentDeanofChristchurch;ThomasDanson,M.A.,onceFellowofMagdalenCollege,sinceoneoftheSeersforthetownofSandwich;JohnTombes,B.D.,onceofBewdly,sinceofLemster;RichardBaxter,MinisteratKidderminster,anothereminentmaster inthisEnglishIsrael—whichfourfore-menholdthesenseandsenselessfaithofthewholeFry,andwriteoutthesumofwhatis,oristobesaid,bythewhole fraternity of fiery fighters against the true light of Christ, and its true children.BySamuelFisher,whosometimeswentastray,asalostsheepamongthemanyshepherds,buthasnowreturnedtotheGreatShepherd,andOverseerofthesoul.”1660.

275Theconfidence,abusivelanguage,andabsurditiesofthisproduction,arebeyond all description.Had Samuel Fisher designed to show howwiseandrighteoushewasinhisownestimation,andhowentirelyhedespisedothers,hecouldnothavetakenamoreeffectualmethodofdoingit,thanby writing this book. Yet, this strangeman was a distinguished leaderamongtheQuakers;heendeavouredtodelivertheburdenofthewordofthe Lord to Parliament, and actually attempted a mission to Rome toconvert thePope!

446 It is extraordinary that a body someasured in its

phrases, andmeek in itsmanners, as theQuakersappear tobe, shouldhaveproducedsuch fiery spiritsasFisher,whose intemperate languagecertainlyaffordsstrongproofthathedidnotspeakbytheSpiritofJesus.RichardCromwellsucceeded inpeaceto thechairofhis father.Butnotpossessing the talents or the courage necessary to occupy it he soondeserteditforthequieterandmorecomfortablereposeofprivatelife.Tofollowtheever-shiftingscenesofthepoliticalstage,betweenthedeathofCromwell and the restoration of themonarchy, would leadme too faraway from the immediate design of thiswork. I shall therefore confinemyself entirely to theconductofOwenduring thisbusyandperplexingperiod,asfarasitcanbeascertained.276Among the first acts ofRichard’s governmentwas the summoning of aParliament, which met on the 27th of January, 1659. On the 4th ofFebruaryfollowing,wefindDr.Owenpreachingbeforeitataprivatefast.Thesubjectis,“ThegloryandinterestofnationsprofessingtheGospel.”FromthededicationtotheHouse,itappearsthatsomefalsereportshad

beencirculatedaboutthesentimentsofthediscourse,respectingformsofcivil government. Nothing of a political nature, however, occurs in thesermon—andOwendeclares thatnosentimentsofhiswould interferewith any form of civil government on earth, righteously administered.Theminds ofmenwere then in a state of great agitation; and in suchcircumstances, it is scarcely possible to speak publicly withoutoccasioningsuspicionormisconception.The army was divided into two factions: the Wallingford-house partywhichwasforaCommonwealth;andthePresbyterianpartywhich,alongwith themajority of the Parliament, was for the Protector. The formerparty, ofwhichFleetwood andDesboroughwere the heads, invitedDr.Owen andDr.Manton to their consultations.Dr.Owenwent to prayerbeforetheyenteredonbusiness;butManton,beinglatebeforehecame,heard a loud voice from within, saying, “Hemust down, and he shalldown.” Manton knew the voice to be Owen’s, and understood him tomeanthedeposingofRichard;andthereforehewouldnotgoin.

447

277SuchisNeal’saccountofaverysingularaffair.IfMantonheardnomorethan the words printed in italics, it is strange that he should have putsuchaconstructiononthem.TheymightalludetothePope,ortheGrandTurk, as much as to Richard Cromwell. It is not like Owen’s usualprudence to vociferate sedition at a privatemeeting, so loudly as to beheardoutside thedoor;anddo thatbefore theCouncilhaddeliberated.448

In Baxter’s own life, the most positive charges are preferred againstOwen,asthegrandinstrumentinpullingdownRichard.“HegatheredachurchatLieut.-GeneralFleetwood’squarters,consistingoftheactiveofficersofthearmy.Inthisassembly,itwasdeterminedthatRichard’sParliamentmustbedissolved;andthen he quickly fell himself.—Dr. Owenwas the chief that headed the Independents in thearmy;andafterwardshehadbeenthegreatpersuaderofFleetwood,Desborough,andtherestofthe officers of the army (who were his gathered church), to compel Richard to dissolve his

Parliament.”449

In attending to these statements, it must be remembered that theyproceed from amanwho, though honest in his intentions, entertainedvery violent prejudices against the Independents, and Dr. Owen inparticular.TheywerenotmadepublictillafterOwen’sdeath,whenOwencould not defend himself. And though Sylvester, the Editor of Baxter’s

life,appliedtotheDoctor’sWidowtoexplainthesepassagesifshecould,probablythinkingitaninvidioustaskforanyonetorakeuptheashesofherhusband,shelefthimtodowhathepleased.278Butthe internalevidence isbynomeans infavourof thecorrectnessofthese statements. It would appear from them, thatOwen had collectedthe Wallingford-house party, instead of being called in to pray at itsdeliberations. According to Neal, this party was Owen’s church, andamongtheotherdeliberationsofthisbody,theproprietyofdeposingtheProtectorwas introduced!CredatJudaeusApella!OwenhadnochurchatWallingford-house; his stated residence was in Oxford. Some of theofficersof thepartywereIndependents,andprobably lookeduptohimforoccasionaladvice.This,Ibelieve,wastheextentofhisconnexionwiththeirproceedings.But we do not need to rest the defence of Owen on these generalreasonings.We can adduce evidence of themost conclusive nature, inreply to these charges of political interference.Hewas accused inFiatLux (a book we will speak about later), of being part of that dismaltempest which overbore not only church and state, but reason, right,honesty,alltruereligion,andevengoodnature.Tothissweepingcharge,theDoctorreplies:“Letmeinformyou,thattheauthorofthecriticisms,(onFiatLux)isaperson,whoneverhadahand in, nor gave consent to the raising of any war in these nations; nor to any politicalalterations in them,no—not to anyonewhowas amongus during our revolutions. But heacknowledges that he lived and acted under them, the things in which he thought his dutyconsisted; and challenges allmen to charge himwith doing the least personal injury to any,

professinghimselfreadytogivesatisfactiontoanyonethatcanjustlyclaimit.”450

279In Vernon’s letter to a Friend, the charge of pulling down Richard isdirectlypreferredagainsthim.Towhichheanswers:“Of the samenature iswhat he affirms—ofmybeing the instrument in the ruin ofRichardCromwell,withwhosesettingupandpullingdownIhadnomoretodothanhimself;andthe

sameanswermustbereturnedagain,astotheFriar,Mentiturimpudentissime.”451

Knowingthesesolemnasseverations452—asBaxtermustormighthave

known;andashisEditor,Sylvester,probablyknew—thereissomethingveryunchristianinstillmaintainingchargesofsoseriousanature,ontheauthorityofreports.

“Toallthese,”saysthewriterofOwen’sMemoirs,“wemayaddthetestimonyoftheRev.JamesForbes of Gloucester, in a letter to aminister now living in London. ‘There is still a worthyminister alive who can bear witness that Dr. Owenwas against the pulling down of RichardCromwell;foramessagecametohim:YoumustpreachforDr.OwensuchadayatWhitehall,forheissick,andthecauseofhispresentillnessishisdissatisfactionatwhattheyaredoingat

Wallingfordhouse.’”453

Notwithstanding the strength and fulness of the above evidence, inCalamy’scontinuationofBaxter’sLife,thereisanotherlabouredattemptto fix the above charge onDr.Owen.

454 All the circumstanceswehave

notedarebrought forward;withanother—anacknowledgment said tohavebeenmadebyOwentoBaxter,thathewasanagentinpullingdownRichard’s Parliament, and Baxter. But can it be conceived that Owenshould have made such an acknowledgment in private, and publiclydeclarewhatBaxtermusthaveknowntobefalse?280Tosaynothingofhischaracter,therewouldbeadegreeoffollyinsuchconduct,ofwhichwecannotsupposehimtobeguiltyFromwhatheknewofBaxter’sitchforscribbling,hecouldnotdoubtthathewouldembracethefirstopportunitytoproclaimfromthehouse-topwhathadbeentoldinhisear.Andaccordingly,theDoctorwasscarcelyinhisgravewhenthisungenerousattackwasmadeonhismemory.

455Baxterwasarashman,

andhisrepetitionofaconversationmanyyearsafterithadbeenheld,isnot to be comparedwith the public and solemn testimony of aman ofOwen’sestablishedreputationforreligionanduprightness.Dr.Calamy’sattempt to prove that Owen had told a public lie, is by no meanshonourabletohim,anditsavoursstronglyofthatpartyprejudicewhichismarkedinseveralpartsofhisotherwisevaluablework.InthememoirsofLudlow,wehavesomeaccountofthepartwhichOwentookintherestorationoftheLongParliament,aneventwhichoccurredafter the deposition of Richard. And if Owen favoured it, then it is astrongproofofhisdisinterestedness,becauseheandhispartycouldhopeforlittlefavourfromtheLongParliament.FromLudlow’saccount,whichwe have every reason to believe is correct, the fall of Richard wasoccasioned by various concurring circumstances: the indecision of theProtector himself; divisions in the army, and offence given by him tosomeof the leadingofficers;his takingpartwiththePresbyterians,andtherebyexcitingfearsamongtheIndependentsforthesafetyofreligionandofreligiousliberty.

281Afterhewasbroughtdown,andhisParliamentdissolved,therepublicanpartywasstronglypressedtorestoretheLongParliament.Itwasallegedthat there was not a sufficient number of members left to make up aParliament. “Upon this,Dr. JohnOwen,” says Ludlow, “having desiredmetogivehimalistoftheirnames,Ideliveredhimone,inwhichIhadmarkedthosewhohadsatinthehousesincetheyear1648,andwereyetalive,amountingtothenumberofabout160.TheDoctorhavingperusedit, carried it to those at Wallingford-house.”

456 In the end, the Long

Parliament was restored; it rewarded its restorers with restrictive lawsanddeprivationofplaces.We need not wonder at the misrepresentations to which Owen, andothers similarlyplaced,were exposed.Theperiodbetween thedeathofOliver and the restoration of Charles was exceedingly unsettled. Owenmust have been filledwith various fears and anxieties. The return of acivil war, or the establishment of Presbyterian uniformity, or therestorationofmonarchicaldespotism,musthavebeenequallyfrightfultocontemplate;andyetoneoranotheroftheseeventsseemedunavoidable.Itwas theduty of everymanwhowishedwell to his country, andwholoved religion, to prevent, if possible, the effusion of blood, thereorganization of civil tyranny, or the exercise of ecclesiasticaloppression. To err in such circumstances by giving well-meant advice,thoughitmighteventuallyproveinjudicious,ismorehonourablebothtothe patriot and the Christian, than cold neutrality, which looks withindifferenceonthetempest,andafterwardssmilesatthecalm.282Owen preached before Parliament for the last time on the 8th ofMay,1659; the second day after it had met.

457 In the month of August

following,theCongregationalChurchesinLondondesiredleavetoraisethreeregimentsfortheParliament,andobtaineditsconsenttodoso.

458

Theyhadbecomeexceedinglyalarmedfortheir liberty,andnotwithoutcause.Monk

459hadforsometimebeenplayingapart.Formerlyheacted

with the Independents; now hewas seemingly disposed to support thePresbyterians. Apprehensions were entertained about themarch of hisarmyintoEngland.Toascertainhisrealsentimentsandintentions,Caryland Barker were dispatched to Scotland with a letter to him from Dr.

Owen, in name of the Independent Churches, to which it was thoughtMonk belonged. Colonel Whally and Major-General Gough wereassociated with the ministers, and both were members of the samecommunion. At Newcastle they were joined byMr. Hammond, and inScotlandbyMr.Collins—bothveryrespectableandusefulIndependentministers.

460TheyhadaninterviewwithMonkandsomeotherofficersof

thearmyatHolyroodhouse.Caryltoldhimtheydidnotcometodelivertheir sense of theGeneral’s proceedings, but the sense of the churcheswhich had given them no commission to enter into the merits of thecause, nor to debate whether Lambert’s action in turning out theParliament were justifiable or not. They were only to present to hisLordshiptheiropinionthathedidnothaveacalltoappearagainstitinthatmanner—thathisLordshiponlyhadchargetokeepScotlandquiet— and that he was not bound to take notice of any differences thathappenedinEngland.CarylproceededtoassignreasonswhytheGeneralshould go on no farther. Ad finally, he assured him that whateverhappened, it would be laid at his door, as he would be considered theoriginatorofthewar.

461

283ThereasoningsoftheCommissionerswithMonkproceedentirelyonthegroundoftheconnexionsubsistingbetweenthechurchesandhim.Fromthis they considered themselves bound to expostulate with him on theimproprietyof involvingthenationinwar,occasioningmuchevil tohisbrethren, and perhaps being instrumental in bringing back a state ofthings that would be ruinous both to civil and religious freedom. TheycouldmakenothingofMonk,however.Hesent thembackwitha letteraddressedtoDr.Owen,Mr.Greenhill,andMr.Hook,fullofmeaninglesscompliments, hypocritical professions, and promises that he neverintendedtofulfill.

462Itmusthavesatisfiedthemthattheyhadeverything

tofear,andnothingtohope,fromhismarchintoEngland.Hischaracterwas a compound of selfishness and hypocrisy. He swallowed oathswithout ceremony, and broke them without remorse. He deceived allparties, but stood true to his own interest to the end.

463 The

IndependentsofferedtostandbytheirfriendsinParliament,andtoforceMonkbackintoScotland.OwenandNyehadfrequentconsultationswithWhitelocke and St. John. And at a private treaty with the officers atWallingford-house, they offered to raise one hundred thousandpounds

fortheuseofthearmy,provideditwouldprotectthemintheirreligiousliberties — apprehensive thatMonk and the Presbyterians designed tosubvertthem.284Butthoseofficershad lost theircredit; theirmeasureswerebrokenanddisconcerted.Onepartywasforatreaty;andanotherforthesword.Theirold veteran regiments were dislodged from the city, andMonk was inpossession.

464

The anxiety of the Independents is easily accounted for. Their veryexistence was at stake; for they had nearly as much to fear from thepower of the Presbyterians, as from the return of the king. They onlywantedprotectionand liberty.But theyknewneitherpartywouldagreeto these moderate demands, once they obtained power. It does themhonour that they were willing tomake any sacrifices, rather than partwithprivilegesmorevaluablethanlifeitself.ThePresbyterians,however,completelypredominated.Everythingwasinatrainfortherestorationofthe king, to whom they looked forward with all the fondness andconfidence of a promised saviour. Among other preparations for thisevent,onthe3dofMarch1660,thequestionbetweenDr.ReynoldsandDr.Owen,abouttheDeaneryofChristChurch,wasreferredbytheHouseofCommonstoaCommittee.Onthe13thofthesamemonth,byavoteoftheHouse,OwenwasdischargedandReynoldsrestoredtohisplace.

465

Previous to this, Wood says he and Goodwin had been removed frompreaching at St.Mary’s, by the endeavours of the Presbyterians. If thiswas so, it was amost ungrateful return for the kindness and liberalitywithwhichOwenhaduniformly treated that party.TheDoctordidnottakehisejectionverymeekly,according toVernon,whorepresentshimassaying:“IhavebuiltseatsatMary’s,butlettheDoctorsfindauditors,forIwillpreachatPeter’sintheeast.”

466

285Thus terminated Dr. Owen’s connexions with the Commonwealth, andwiththepublicpoliticsofhistime.Iamunabletoaffirmthattheyneverproved a snare to him, nor involved him in conduct and discussionsforeign to the business of the Christian ministry. We have his ownauthorityforbelievingthatmanyofthescenesthroughwhichhepassedwerenot tohis liking; andhiswritings sufficientlyprove thathismind

sustained little injury from his circumstances. The very reports andmisrepresentations towhich his conduct gave rise, however, show howdangerousathingitisforaMinisteroftheGospeltobeconnectedwithpolitical parties, or concerned in their proceedings. In ordinarycircumstances,thiscanbeeasilyavoided;butOwenmusthavebeenoftenso situated as not to have the power to act entirely in his own hands.When this is the case, itbecomesus to judge charitably, evenwhenwecannotfullyapprove.Withhistalents,andthedegreeofpopularitywhichhe obtained, in the providence of God, he probably could seldom haveacted differently from what he did. And wherever our information issufficient,hisconductallowsforadefence,ratherthananapology.It isbeyonddoubtthathismotiveswerepure,andhisaimsdisinterested;thathehadathearttheinterestsofreligion,andthewelfareofhiscountry.Ifhe could not keep himself entirely unspotted from the world, or at alltimesjustlyavoiditscensure,wehaveonlytorememberwhathehimselfwould have been the first to confess — that he was a sinful, falliblecreature,whomadeno claim to perfection.But how comparatively fewhave acted such a part, on such a theatre, and borne away so large aportionoffairandsolidreputation.Ifourknowledgeofhishistoryweremore perfect, I am satisfied that it would be increased, rather thandiminished.286Fromhere,wemustfollowhisstepsthroughotherscenes.Theyarelesssplendid in the estimation of the world, but more important inthemselves,andmoregloriousintheeyeofGod:

defendingthefaithfromthepressillustratingitintheconventicle

467

andexemplifyingitsinfluenceinthetribulationandpatienceofJesusChrist.

CHAPTERX.Owen retires to Stadham — Effects of the Restoration — Venner’s insurrection — The fifthmonarchymen—Difference betweenOwen and Clarendon— The Act of Uniformity—OwenwritesontheMagistrates’powerinReligion—HisPrimerforchildren—HisTheologoumena—HisCriticismsonFiatLux—Cane’sReply—Owen’sVindication—Difficultyoffindingalicensefor it — Interview with Lord Clarendon — Invitation to New England — Sufferings of theDissenters—RelievedforatimebytheplagueandfireofLondon—OwenwritesvariousTracts—PreachesmoreregularlyinLondon—PublishesaCatechismontheWorshipandDisciplineoftheChurch—AnsweredbyCamfield—DiscussionsbetweenBaxterandOwen,respectingaunionofPresbyteriansandIndependents—Failureoftheattempt—OwenreceivesaLegacy—PublishesonIndwellingSin—Onthe130thPsalm—ThefirstvolumeofhisExpositionoftheHebrews—Reviewofthewholework.

AftertheDoctorwasdeprivedoftheDeaneryofChristChurch,heretiredtoStadham,theplaceofhisbirth,wherehehadpurchasedanestate,andwhere he had collected a small congregation during his residence inOxford.He continued to preach to this society for some time, andwasresortedtobymanyfromOxford,towhomperhapshehadformerlybeenuseful,andwhonowfollowedhimtobecomfortedandinstructedbyhislabours.Thecongregation,however,wasinashorttimebrokenupbytheOxfordMilitia,andthepersecutionbecamesoviolentthattheDoctorhadtomovefromplacetoplaceforsecurity.

468

The Restoration of Charles II brought many woes to Britain. He wastotally destitute of religion, without sincerity, and indifferent toeverythingbutpleasure and sensual gratification.Thedespotic spirit ofthe Stuarts had suffered no depression by their misfortunes andsufferings.288Hereturnedlikeaconquerorratherthananexile,totakepossessionofahereditary throne and an unlimited sceptre, instead of accepting theconditional and defined sovereignty of a free and independent people.Themania of royaltywas now aswild as the phrensy of republicanismhadeverbeen;andunderitsexcitementthepeopleforgotthattheyhadrightstomaintainandconditionstoprescribe,aswellasgiftstobestow.Whatwas thusgenerouslysurrendered,Charleshadneither thehonournor the generosity to respect. He made a large importation of Frenchpolitics, licentiousness, and irreligion; so that in a very short time theappearance of the court, and the aspect of the country were entirelychanged. The decidedly religious characters of the former period nodoubtheldfasttheirintegrity;butthelukewarm,orthosewhohadonly

adoptedtheprofessionoftheday,eitherlaiditquietlyasideorturnedoutbitter enemies to their former friends. But just as all was not genuinereligionwhich had assumed its appearance during theCommonwealth,somoreofitremainedafterwardsthanmighthavebeensupposedfromtheopenprofanenesswhichabounded.Anumerousbodyofenlightenedandconscientiousmenpatientlyenduredthetrialofcruelmockings,andbonds and imprisonments, andmany of them the loss of all things forChrist’s sake. They steadily resisted the torrent of infidelity andcorruption,andultimatelyobtainedanimportanttriumph.Shortly after the Restoration, the insurrection of Venner and the Fifthmonarchy men

469 brought much reproach on the Dissenters, and

afforded the court a favourable andwished-for opportunity to interferewiththeirprivileges.289Baptists andQuakers, aswell as themonarchymen,were forbidden toassemble publicly; and Independents, though not named, wereconsideredasinvolvedinthesamecondemnation.TherespectivebodiesofDissenters published declarations expressing their detestation of theprinciples andpracticesof thesewild fanatics.Thedocument issuedbytheIndependents,disownsthepersonalreignofJesusontheearth,

470as

dishonourable to him, and prejudicial to his church; and it abhors thepropagationof thisoranyotherprincipleby forceorblood. It refers totheSavoyDeclarationforthesentimentsofIndependentsrespectingcivilmagistracy,andtheobligationtoobeyit.Anditdeclaresthattheydonotcease to pray for all sorts of blessings to the king and his government.Thispaper issignedbytwenty-fiveof theirministers,amongwhomthenameofOwendoesnotoccur.It isprobable thathewas inthecountrywhentheinsurrectiontookplace,andmightnothaveanopportunityofbeingpresentatthemeetinginwhichthedeclarationwasdrawnup.Hissentiments,however,werequiteinunisonwithit.

471

In justice to the FifthMonarchymen, it ought to be stated that all thepatronsofthissentimentcannotbeconsideredfriendlytothemeasuresofVenner,Harrison,andtheotherfiercerepublicansandvisionariesbywhom this uproar had beenmade. The religious sentiment is as old assomeoftheFathersofthechurch.ItisonlyamodificationofthedoctrineoftheMILLENNIUM,whichhasbeenheldbyhighlyrespectableindividuals

of various communions both before and since theCommonwealth. Thelearned and celebrated JosephMede, and his contemporaryDr.HenryMore, held sentiments nearly allied to those of the persons whocontendedforthepersonalreignofJesusonearth.290I have now before me a folio volume by Nathaniel Homes, a fifthmonarchyman: “TheResurrectionrevealed,or thedawningof theday-star,”etc.Itisabookfullofcuriouslearning,inwhichthesentimentsofMede are advocated— butwithout any of that grossness and carnalitywhich are supposed to have distinguished this class of persons. Othersalsodeservedrespectbothforlearningandpiety.Itisonlywhenreligioussentiment induces those practices which are incompatible with publicpeace or good morals, that the restraints of authority are called for.Among the German Anabaptists, and English Fanatics — whosesentimentswerethesameonvariouspoints—therewereprobablymanywhose private characters, another day, would have been very differentfrom that which the judgment ofman has pronounced, and which theproceedingsofthegeneralbodywouldseemtowarrant.WoodexpresseshisastonishmentthatOwenwasnotexceptedfromthebenefitoftheActofOblivionpassedaftertheking’sreturn.

472ButthisI

suppose was never contemplated. The royal party knew too well thecharacterandconductoftheDoctor,toinvolvethemselvesunnecessarilyintheodiumofsuchameasure.ThesamewritertellsusthatSirEdwardHyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon, then Chancellor, treated Owen withgreatkindnessandrespect,andwishedhim,ifhewouldnotconform,toemploy his time in writing against the Roman Catholics, and not todisturb thepublicpeacebykeeping conventicles.Owenpromised todothis.Butafterwards,being foundpreaching to thirtyor fortypersonsatStadham,hewascomplainedoftotheChancellor.291When Owen understood this, he wrote to Dr. Barlow, whom he hadobligedinthesamemannerinCromwell’stime,toendeavourtomakehispeacewithHyde.Inconsequenceofwhich,BarlowwentfromOxfordtoCornburyforthepurpose.ButtheChancellortoldhimthatDr.Owenwasaperfidious(treacherous)personwhohadviolatedhisengagements,andthereforehewould let him suffer thepenalty of the lawswhichhehad

broken.473

Independent of any positive evidence, we might be fully assured fromOwen’s well-known principles, that he would never have promised toabstain frompreachingwhen he had an opportunity. But hemeets thechargedirectlyhimself.Wood’saccountisborrowedchieflyfromVernon,inreplytowhomtheDoctorsays,“ThereisnothinginsubstanceorcircumstancethatcanlaytheleastpretencetotruthinwhathereportstohavehappenedbetweenthethenLordChancellorandme.AsIhavegoodwitnesstoprove that themistakewhich felloutbetweenuswasnotoccasionedbyme, ImuchquestionwhetherthisauthorwasinformedoftheuntruthshereportsbyDr.Barlow;orwhetherheever

gavehisconsenttousehisnamepubliclytocountenancesuchadefamatorylibel.”474

As Owen held no living in the Church, he was not involved in theconsequencesoftheActofUniformity.Allthatheandthosewithwhomheactedsought,wastolerationorlibertyofconscience.Acomprehensionwithin the pale of the establishment was incompatible with theirprinciples,andunsuitedtotheirwishes.Itdoesnotfallwithinthedesignof this work to note the discussions between the Court and thePresbyterians, about the Act of Uniformity, as the subject of thesememoirshadnoconnexionwiththem.292But the discussions themselves, and the treatment which followed,suggestsomeimportantreflections.TheyshowthefollyofattemptingtoreconciletheprinciplesandpracticeofthekingdomofChrist,withthoseofaworldlygovernment.TheCourtwasdeterminedtoyieldnothing;theNon-conformists were disposed to yield everything they could in goodconscience, in order to retain the patronage of the state. ExpediencyratherthanScripturewastherulebywhichbothpartiesproceeded.Theydidnotperceive,orwereunwillingtoacknowledge, thatthechurchisasociety altogether different in its principles and constitution from thestate; and therefore it ought to be independent of its interference. TheMinisterswishedtoomuchtogettheearthtohelpthewoman,whilethecourt was determined to make the woman help the earth. Hence thedisputes between them were interminable; for the further theyproceeded,themorewidelytheydiverged.TheBartholomewejectionwasastrongmeasure,butnaturallyexpectedfromthespiritof thecourt.Except for the individual sufferingwhich itoccasioned, it should not be deplored. The Church of England was

unworthy of the men whom she cast out. Their ejection taught thembetterviewsoftheChristiandispensation.Andintheenjoymentofapureconscience,andinthelibertyofChrist,theypossessedahappinesswhichthe benefices of the church without them could not confer. Theyoriginated many of those societies which have preserved the light ofEvangelicaltruthinthecountry,andwhichwouldnot,inallprobability,haveexistedwithoutthatevent.Theirconductwasanobletestimonytothepowerofreligion,towhich,asmighthavebeenexpected,thesealofDivineapprovalwasattached.293Soon after the Doctor had left Oxford, he wrote a paper containing“Resolutions of certain questions concerning the power of the supremeMagistrateaboutreligionandtheworshipofGod,withoneabouttithes.”Lond.4to.1659.ItwasansweredshortlyafterbyaQuakerina“WindingsheetforEngland’sministry,whichhasanametolive,butisdead.”Thefollowing year he produced “a Primer for Children.” It was written,according to Wood, though he confesses he had not seen it, for thepurposeoftrainingupchildreninIndependency;averyheinouscrimeinthe opinion of some people — as if it were more unlawful to educatechildren in Independency than in any other system. Owen was fullyconvinced that if children were not trained up in the fear of the Lord,whateverelsetheywereinstructedin,wouldsignifylittle.Hisnextworkwasoneofhismost learnedand labouredperformances,andshows the transitionsofwhichhewascapable, fromwritingTractsandPrimers,toLatinsystemsofTheology.“TheologoumenaPantodapa,etc.OrsixBooksonthenature,rise,progress,andstudyoftrueTheology.Inwhichalsotheoriginandgrowthoftrueandfalsereligiousworship,andthemoreremarkabledeclensionsand restorationsof theChurchare traced from their first sources.TowhichareaddeddigressionsconcerningUniversalgrace—theoriginofthesciences—notesoftheRomanChurch—theoriginofletters—theancientHebrewletters—HebrewPunctuation—VersionsoftheScriptures—Jewishrites,etc.Oxford,1661,4to.pp.534.”

294Itwas reprintedatBremen in1684,andatFraneker in 1700. Ithasnodedication;butthereisalongPrefaceandaLatinPoemattheendofit,eulogizingthework,andgivingakindofanalysisofit,byT.G.,whomhecalls “Clarissimus Symmystes,” and whom I suppose to be ThomasGoodwin.The titlepageof thiswork,whichIhave translatedat length,explains the nature and variety of its contents. It is in fact a critical

History of Religion, somewhat of the same nature as Jurieu’s CriticalHistoryofReligiousworship,withsomeofthediscussionsofGale’scourtoftheGentiles.Inthefirstbook,OwentreatsTheologyingeneral:thenaturaltheologyofthefirstman,andthecorruptionandlossofitbytheentranceofsin.Inthe second book, he discusses Adamic or Antediluvian Theology. ThethirdBook treatsNoahic orPostdiluvianTheology, and theprogress ofIdolatrytillthetimeofAbraham.ThefourthBookisonAbrahamicandMosaic Theology. In the next book he examines the corruption,reformation, and abolition of the Mosaic system. The last book treatsEvangelical Theology and the proper method of studying it. The workreveals a vast extent of reading and a profound acquaintance with thewholecompassofprofaneandsacred learning.Ondoctrinalsubjects, itcontainsthesamesentimentsashisEnglishworks;inthedigressionsaresome curious speculative discussions; his notes of the Roman Churchaccuratelymarkhercharacterandcorruption;andhisviewsofthestudyofTheologydeservetheattentionofeverystudent.Whathissentimentswere at this time, respecting the constitution of the New TestamentChurch,thelearnedreaderwillperceivefromthefollowingparagraph:295“Christnowhere taught thatone family,city, town,district,nation,people,orkingdom,madeoneChurch.ButthegrandprincipleoftheconstitutionofeveryGospelChurchisthevoluntaryobedience of his faithful disciples.Resting on his sole authority, they form themselves into asociety, such as he himself has prescribed. For he expressly taught, as we have alreadymentioned, that all believers in every part of the earth should form societies of this kind; inwhichtheyshouldattendtothatGospelworshipwhichisofhisownappointment;exercisethediscipline instituted by himself; carefully promote the preservation and comfort of thewholechurch, togetherwith the increaseofbelievers; submit to thosewhopresideover thembyhisappointment,accordingtotheruleslaiddowninhisword;helponeanotherbyallthedutiesoftheirsacredfellowship,suchascounsels,prayers,andalms;declarethetruthinthemostpublicmanner;diffusethesweetodouroftheGospel;andfinallyconvinceandjudgetheworldbythesanctityof their lives,bytheirattentiontogoodworks,andbythemostcarefulobservanceofpeaceandloveamongthemselves.Adheringtothisrule,believersformerlyerectedsocietiesofthisdescriptionineverypartoftheworld;andthustheyoughttobeconstitutedtotheendof

time.”475

Thisworkisveryincorrectlyprinted.InanadvertisementtothreepagesofErrataattheend,theDoctorblamestheprinterforgreatcarelessness;atthesametimehementionsthathewasabsentduringtheprintingofit,“a capite ad calcem.” There aremistakes or blunders on almost everypage; on this account, the continental Editions are preferable to theauthor’sown,astheyarefreefromthenumerouserrorswhichdeformit.

296Unlessmymemorymisleadsme, aminister inScotland is said tohavepreparedatranslationofthisworksometimeago.Butunlessagooddealoffreedomwasusedwiththeoriginal,IquestionwhetheritwouldbeareadablebookinEnglish;andtheinformationwhichitcontainshaslongbeen superseded by numerous valuable works in every department ofTheologyofwhichittreats.FollowingtheadviceofLordClarendon,hisnextpublicationwasonthePopishcontroversy.In1661,a12mo.volumeappeared,entitled“FiatLux,or a general conduct to a right understanding between Papist andProtestant,PresbyterianandIndependent,byJ.V.C.afriendtomenofall religions.” The author of this work was John Vincent Cane, aFranciscan Friar, who wrote several things before on the Catholiccontroversy.FiatLuxcontainsagreatdisplayofmoderation,andalargeportion of craft. It proposes to show that there is no reason for menquarrellingaboutreligion;—thateverythingissoobscure,nooneshouldset himself up as a guide to another; — that the various sects ofProtestantshavenoadvantageoveroneanother,andnoneof themanyadvantage over Popery, which is innocent in its principles andunblameable in its conduct toward themall.The inference tobedrawnfromitsmiscellaneousdiscussionsisthattheonlyremedyforallexistingevils and differences, is returning to the bosom of an infallible church.RomealoneisTerrafirma,andallisseabeside.297Thestateofthecountryrenderedanyproductionofthisnature,howeverfeebleandcontemptibleinitself,anobjectofattention.Thewell-knownleaningsofthecourt,theincessantvigilanceandcraftoftheemissariesofPopery, and the tendency of human nature to embrace its mostunscriptural anddangerous sentiments, justified an immediate reply tothispretendedfriendoflight.ItwasputintoOwen’shandsbyapersonofhonour (probably Clarendon), with a request that he answer it.Accordingly in 1662, appeared “Criticisms on Fiat Lux by a Protestant,12mo.pp.440.”Inanaddresstothereader,hesays,“theauthorofFiatseemsatfirsttobeaNaphtaligivinggoodlywords;butthoughthevoicewehearissometimesthatofJacob,thehandsarethehandsofEsau.”Heextracts out of the mass of confusion of which it is composed, all theleadingprinciplesorstatements,andrepliestothemwithgreatspiritand

pertinency.Hedoesnot pretend to defend theparticular sentiments ofany party, but joins issue on the grand principles of Protestantism. Itcontains a larger portion of irony than is usually found in theDoctor’swritings, which renders it tolerably pleasant to read (though on a nowstale,butstillimportantsubject).Cane published a short reply to Owen’s criticisms, in an epistle to theauthor. He seemed less anxious to defend his former treatise than todiscoverwhothecriticwas,andtoexcitepopularodiumagainsthimasoneofthedemagoguesofthecommonwealth.ThisledOwentomeethimagaininalargerwork,withhisnameprefixedtoit.“AvindicationoftheCriticismsonFiatLux,inwhichtheprinciplesoftheRomanChurch,astoModeration,Unity,andTruthareexamined;andsundryimportantcontroversiesconcerningtheRuleofFaith,PapalSupremacy,theMass,Images,etc.areexamined.Lond.1664,8vo.pp.564.”

298WehavealreadyextractedsomepassagesfromthisworkinreplytothepersonalchargesoftheFriar;itisthereforeunnecessarytorefertothemagain.TheworkitselfisnotlimitedtoreplyingtoCane;itembracesthesubstance of the Popish controversy. It is divided into twenty-fourchapters, ineachofwhichhe treatssome important factorprinciple indispute. Itaboundswith learningandstrongreasoning,andshowshowmuch the author was at home on the minutest parts of that widelyextended controversy. He had cultivated every department of theologywith diligence, and had only to bend his mind for a little to any onesubject,inordertomaketherichstoresofhisvariedlearningbearuponitwiththehappiesteffect.For thiswork, strangeas itmayappear, theDoctor found itdifficult toprocure an imprimatur. The Bishops, who were privately enemies toOwen’sreputation,andsomeofthemsecretfriendstoPopery,hadlittleinclination to promote the one, or to assist in injuring the other. Theyalleged that he did not give the title of SAINT to the apostles andevangelists, and that he attempted to prove there was no evidence ofPeter’s having been at Rome! To the first objection the Doctor repliedthatthedesignationofApostlewasmoredistinguishedthanthatofSaint,in which all the people of God were included. But to please them, heyielded tomake that addition.Hewould,however, consent tomakenoalteration on the other point, unless they could prove that he wasmistaken; and he would rather that his work never see the light, thanexpunge what he had written. Such was the temper of the Episcopal

Inquisitionatthistime,thatinallprobabilityhisbookwouldhavebeensuppressed,hadnotSirEdwardNicholaswrittentotheBishopofLondonto license it—hewasoneof theprincipalsecretariesofstate,amanofunblemished character, and highly esteemed for his public and privatevirtues. The work accordingly appeared with the imprimatur of Thos.Greig,domesticchaplaintohisLordship.

476

299TheseworksappeartohavegainedOwenthefavourofLordClarendon,who employed Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke, to procure an interview withhim. His Lordship expressed his approval of the service done by theDoctor’sAnti-popishwritings,andintimatedthathehadmoremeritthananyEnglishProtestantoftheperiod.Atthesametime,heofferedOwenprefermentinthechurchifhewouldconform.HadOwencomplied,thehighesthonoursofthehierarchywoulddoubtlesshavebeenopentohim.However,theDoctordeclinedforobviousreasons.HewastoomuchanIndependent in every sense to barterhis freedom for office, honour, orwealth.HisLordshipexpressedhissurprisethatapersonofhislearningwouldhaveembracedthenovelopinionof Independency.Towhich theDoctor replied that he had indeed spent some part of his time inacquiringanacquaintancewiththehistoryoftheChurch;andhewouldengage toprove against anyBishop thathisLordshipwould appoint tomeet him, that the Independent form of ChurchGovernment prevailedforseveralhundredyearsafterChrist.Theyalsoconversedonthesubjectof religious toleration. The Chancellor asked Owen what he wouldrequire.Heanswered,“LibertytothosewhoagreedindoctrinewiththeChurch of England.” This was all, probably, which he then thought itprudent or necessary to mention — with the exception of the Papists,there were very few in the country who held doctrines different fromthoseoftheChurchofEngland.300HowClarendonunderstoodor repeated this remark isuncertain;but itseemstohaveoccasionedareportthattheDoctorwasunfriendlytothetoleration of any but those who held the doctrinal sentiments of theChurch. This, however, is so contrary to his avowed sentiments andgeneralconduct,astorequirenorefutation.HewasperhapsunfriendlytothetolerationofCatholics,forreasonsinwhichmanyofthewarmestfriendsoflibertyareunitedwithhim.Poperyhasbeentheinvariableand

universal enemy of civil and religious freedom, and the strongestsupporterofoppressionandarbitrarypower.It isadeadlynight-shade,underwhosebanefulinfluenceallthemoralandsocialvirtuesofmanareeither stunted in their growth, or entirely destroyed. The very love ofliberty must induce aversion to the encouragement of a sect which, ifconsistent,mustwageeternalwarwithfreedom.Anditcanonlyflourishby prostrating the understanding, enslaving the conscience, andextinguishingthemoralfeelingsofmen.In the endof the year 1663, theDoctor receivedan invitation from thefirst Congregational Church of Boston, in New England, of which Mr.Cotton, and afterwards Mr. John Norton, had been Pastor. The latterhavingdiedinthemonthofAprilpreceding,thechurchdesiredtofillhisplacewithDr. Owen. Their applicationwas seconded by the following,very respectful letter from the General Court of Massachusetts. In it,Owen is urged to accept the call, both from the important field ofusefulness itpresented,and fromthesimilarityof their sentimentsandcircumstancestohisown:—301“ReverendSir,

IthaspleasedtheMostHighGod,possessorofheavenandearth,whogivesnoaccountofhismatters,totaketohimself,thatpiousandeminentministerofthegospel,Mr.JohnNorton,lateteacheroftheChurchofChristinBoston,whosepraiseisinalltheChurches.Thesuitableandhappyrepairofthisbreachisofgreatconcern,notonlytothatChurch,buttothewholecountry.Now,althoughmostofusarestrangerstoyou,yethavingseenyour laboursandheardof thegraceandwisdomcommunicatedtoyoufromtheFatheroflights,wethoughtfittowritethese,tosecondthecallandinvitationofthatchurchtoyourself,tocomeoverandhelpus.WeassureyouitwillbeveryacceptabletothisCourt,andwehopetothewholecountry,iftheLorddirectsyour way here, and makes your journey prosperous to us. We confess the condition of thiswildernesspresentslittlethatisattractiveastooutwardthings;norareweunmindfulthattheundertakingisgreat,andthatmanytrialsaccompanyit.Thepersonswhocallyouareunworthysinfulmen,ofmuchinfirmity,andmaypossiblyfallshortofyourexpectation(consideringthelongandliberaldayofgraceaffordedus).Yet,asAbrahamandMoses,beingcalledofGod,byfaithforsooktheircountryanditspleasuresandfollowedtheLord—theonenotknowingwherehewent, theother tosufferafflictionwith,andbear themannersof, thepeopleofGod in thewilderness; andGodwaswith themandhonoured them— sowedesire that theLordwouldclarifyyourcall,andgiveyouhispresence.Youmaypleasetoconsiderthosewhogiveyouthiscallasyourbrethrenandcompanionsintribulation.Weareinthiswildernessforthefaithandtestimony of Jesus, andwe yet enjoy, through the distinguishing favour ofGod, the pleasantthingsofZioninpeaceandliberty.

302Andwhile theLord sees fit to entrustuswith thismercy,wehopenodue carewill be foundlacking in theGovernment establishedhere, to encourageand cherish the churchesofChrist,and theLord’s faithful labourers inhis vineyard.Thuspraying to theGodof the spiritsof all

flesh,tosetamanoverthiscongregationoftheLord;thatHemaygoinandoutbeforethem,andmakeyourcallclear,andthevoyagesuccessfultous;andthatiftheLordgrantsussuchafavour,youmaycometousinthefulnessoftheblessingofthegospelofChrist.Withourverykindloveandrespect,

Weremain,yourverylovingfriends,JohnEndicott,

inthename,andbyappointmentoftheGeneralCort,

sittingatBoston,inNewEngland,the20thOctober,1663.”477

IamunabletosaywhatanswertheDoctorreturnedimmediatelytothisaffectionate invitation. Itwould seem froma letter ofCaptainGookins,one of theAssistantGovernors ofMassachusetts, dated July 1666, thatafter some time, he had been inclined to complywith the request; butcertaincircumstancesdeterredhim.Hesays,303“Dr.Owen,andsomechoiceoneswhointendedtocomewithme,arediverted.AndthatisnotfromhopesofbettertimesinEngland,butfromfearsofworseinAmerica—whichsomenewcounsels gave them occasion for— so that in all probability a new cloud is gathering, and a

stormispreparingforus.”478

479

ItissaidhewasstoppedbyordersfromCourt,aftersomeofhispropertywasactuallyembarked.ThesufferingstowhichconscientiousDissenterswereexposed,were increasing in severityeveryday. Itwasnotdeemedsufficient to drive them out of the church; it was thought necessary tomake themmiserable afterwards.Dr.Owenhadhisown shareof thesesufferings. He preached at Stadham as long as he was able, and thenremoved to Londonwhere he livedmostly in private, and preached asoften as he conveniently could. The Act of 1664, for suppressingConventicles, was designed (according to Rapin) to drive the Non-conformiststodespair,ortocommitrealcrimesagainstthestate.ManywereledbyittoadoptaspeciesofconformitytowhichIndependentsandBaptists objected as unscriptural — as countenancing the measures ofGovernment,andapprovingofapersecutingchurch.Toevade the lawsand enjoy the privilege of worshipping God, many and ingeniousmeasureswere resorted to.However, theOxfordAct (orFiveMileAct)was intended to cutoff all these resources.Allwho refused to swear topassive obedience in the most absolute sense, were prohibited fromcomingwithinfivemilesofanycorporatedtownorborough.TheiniquityoftheActwasallthegreater,becauseitwaspassedduringtheplagueofLondon,wheremanyoftheNon-conformistministershadcourageously

venturedtopreachtotheliving,andadministerconsolationtothedying.304The plague was followed by the terrible fire of London, in which thegreaterpartof thecitywasdestroyed,andmostof theChurches laid inruins.Thisdisastrouseventwasplaced,perhapsunjustly,tothechargeofthe Papists, and it raised a terrible storm against them — while itoccasioned a partial mitigation of the laws against the Dissenters.Temporaryplacesofworship,calledtabernacles,werefittedup,inwhichmany of the Non-conformists preached to crowded and attentiveaudiences. Owen, Goodwin, Nye, Griffiths, Brooks, Caryl, Barker, andother Independents, fitted up rooms or other places for public service;and for a short time, they were permitted tomeet unmolested. BaxtersaysOwenhadkeptoffbeforethis—asifhehadbeenmoreashamedorafraidofsufferingthanhisbrethren.ButIapprehendthisisonlyoneofthemanyinstancesofBaxter’sprivatefeelingtowardsOwen.

480

ThefallofLordClarendoninthefollowingyear,whohadbeenthechiefadviser of the unconstitutional and rigorous measures pursued by theCourt,togetherwiththetemporarydisgraceofArchbishopSheldon,andBishop Morley, who were guilty actors in the same proceedings,contributedtorelaxtheexertionsmadetoruintheDissenters.ClarendonissaidtohaveremarkedthathisaffairsneverprosperedaftertheOxfordAct.Thekingbegan,orpretended,toseetheselfishandunjustpolicyofsomeofthelateproceedings,andprofessedawillingnesstogiverelieftohispersecutedsubjects.305About this time (I cannot ascertain the exact dates of all of them),Dr.Owenwroteseveraltractswhichtendedtoenlightenthepublicmind,andto soften the hearts of adversaries:— “AnAccount of theGrounds andReasons on which the Protestant Dissenters desire their liberty.”— “ALetter concerning the present Excommunications.” — “The presentDistressesonNon-conformistsexamined.”Theseareprintedinthefoliovolume of his sermons and tracts; but without dates. In 1667, hepublished“IndulgenceandTolerationConsidered,inaLettertoapersonofhonour,”4to.pp.31.And“APeaceOffering,inanApologyandhumblepleaforIndulgenceandLibertyofConscience.”4to.pp.37.Thegeneraldesignofallthesetractsis,

— to promote peaceable obedience to the civil enactments ofGovernment;— to show the injustice and impolicy of subjecting conscientious andusefulmentosufferingonaccountoftheirreligioussentiments;—toexposetheunconstitutionalnatureoftheproceedingsagainstthem,byinformersandsecretemissaries;—togiveaviewofthenatureandbenefitsoftolerationinformerages,andinotherplaces;—tovindicateitfromvariouscharges,and—topointoutthefollyofattemptingtosettlethepeaceofthecountryonthebasisofreligiousuniformity.Theycontainsomeofthoseenlightenedprinciplesandreasoningsonthesubjectofreligiousliberty,whicharetobefoundinhisformerwritings;andnoticewhattheeventhasproventobetrue:thatthereisnonationwhere religious liberty would be more conducive to tranquillity, trade,and wealth, than England. All the tracts were anonymous, for veryobviousreasons.306Aboutthis timeheappears tohavebeenpreachingprettyregularly toacongregationofhis own forming. It consisted, amongotherpersons, ofmanyofficersof thearmy,withwhomhehadformerlybeenconnected.Healsosetupalecturetowhichmanyresorted—personsofquality,andeminent citizens; some account will afterwards be given of several ofthem.Anyeasewhichwasenjoyed,however,wasbutofaverytemporarynature. No legal protection had been obtained, and the most valuablerights and privileges of the communitywere at themercy of interestedinformers, and of ignorant and intolerant magistrates. The DoctorhimselfmadeaverynarrowescapefrombeingapprehendedwhenonavisittohisoldfriendsintheneighbourhoodofOxford.Heendeavouredtokeepasprivateaspossible;buthewasobserved,andinformationwasgiven about the house in which he lodged. Some troopers came andknocked at the door for admittance. On the landlady opening it, anddemandingwhat theywanted, they toldher they soughtDr.Owen.Shetold them he was not there, supposing he had gone off early in themorning,asheintended—uponwhich,insteadofexaminingthehouse,theyrodeoff.TheDoctor,learningwhathadtakenplace,immediatelygothis horse and returned to London.

481 How dreadful the state of the

countrymust have been, when such amanwas under the necessity ofsculkingandmovingfromplacetoplaceforsecurity!307In 1667, he published “A Brief Instruction in theWorship of God, andDisciplineoftheChurchesoftheNewTestament,bywayofQuestionandAnswer.”12mo.pp.228.Ithasneitherhisnamenorthatoftheprinter,northeplaceofprinting,—evidencesofthedangerofbeingknownastheauthororpublisherofaworkonsuchasubject,at that time.Thestyle,however, betrays the writer in every page. It contains only fifty-threequestions, the answers to which (with their explications) are of courseabundantly long, and are frequently divided into several sections. HissentimentsasanIndependent,asmightbeexpected,areplainlystate—but more in the way of practical explanation, than of controversy ortheoretical defence. I think it right to quote his answers to severalquestions, because the work is now scarcely known, and because theystateveryexplicitlytheDoctor’sviewsonsomedisputedpoints.“Quest.19.WhatisaninstitutedChurchofthegospel?

Ans. — A society of persons, called out of the world, or their natural worldly state, by theadministration of the word and Spirit to the obedience of the faith, or the knowledge andworship of God in Christ, joined together in a holy bond, or by special agreement, for theexerciseofthecommunionofsaintsinthedueobservationofalltheordinancesoftheGospel.

“Quest.23.Who are the ordinary officers orministers of Christ in the Church, always to becontinuedtherein?

Ans.—ThosewhomtheScripturecallsPastorsandTeachers,Bishops,Elders,andGuides.

ExplicationByallthesenames,andsundryothers,thesamesort,order,anddegreeofpersonsisintended.Norisanyoneofthesenamesappliedoraccommodatedtoanyoneunlessalltherestare also applied in like manner; so that he who is a Pastor orTeacher, is also a Bishop orOverseer,aPresbyterorElder,aGuideorRuler, aMinister or servant of theChurch for theLord’ssake.

308“Quest.30.Are there anydifferences in theoffice, or offices of theGuides,Rulers,Elders, orMinistersoftheChurch?

Ans.—TheofficeofthosewhoareTeachers, isoneandthesameamongthemall;butwherethere are many in the same Church, it is the will of Christ that they should be particularlyassignedtosuchspecialworkinthedischargeoftheiroffice-power,astheirgiftsreceivedfromhimparticularlyfitthemfor,andthenecessitiesoftheChurchrequire.

Explication. — They are all alike Elders, alike Bishops, alike Guides, have the one office incommonamongthem,andeachonethewholeentiretohimself.

“Quest.40.HowoftenistheOrdinanceoftheLord’sSuppertobeadministered?

Ans.—-Everyfirstdayoftheweek,oratleastasoftenasopportunityandconveniencemaybe

obtained,1Cor11.26;Act20.7.

“Quest52.InwhatdoesthedutyofanyChurchofChristconsisttowardsotherChurches?

Ans.—1.Inwalkingcircumspectly,soastogivethemnooffence.2.Inprayerfortheirpeaceandprosperity.3.Incommunicatingsuppliestotheirwantsaccordingtoability.4.Inreceivingwithloveandreadinessthemembersofthemintofellowship,asthereisoccasion.5.Indesiringandmakinguseof theircounselandadvice insuchcasesofdoubtanddifficultyasmayariseamongthem.6.Injoiningwiththemtoexpresstheircommunioninthesamedoctrineoffaith.”

Itsurelycannotbematterofdoubt,whichdenominationofChristianstheperson belonged to, who could express himself in this manner. TheCatechism altogether contains an excellent view of the constitution,ordinances,andofficersofaChristianChurch.309Anditsre-publicationmightservetoconvincesome,thatthesentimentsof certainmodern Independents are not so remote from those of theirmore “learned and celebrated” predecessors, as has been ignorantlyalleged.The publication of this Catechism, Baxter tells us, “was offensive tomany.”This seems tohavebeen the lotof all IndependentCatechisms.Among the rest, it gave great offence to Benjamin Camfield, Rector ofWhitby inDerbyshire,whopublishedanoctavovolumeof347pages inreplytoit.“AseriousexaminationoftheIndependents’Catechism,andofthe chief principles of Non-conformity to, and separation from, theChurch of England. 1669.” By this gentleman’s account, “the bookexamined is the sink of all Non-conforming and separating principlesfrom the Protestant religion established in the kingdom!” He isexceedinglyangrywiththeCatechistthroughout.Hedeclaresheneitherknowsnorcarestoknowhim,andlabourshardtoconvicthimoferrororinconsistency inmaintaining the sufficiencyof theHolyScriptures!Butthe body of the Doctor’s work remained untouched. Nothing is moreamusingthantoseeahighchurchmaninarage,whenweknowhecanonlystormandrevile,nothavingthepowertobanishorimprison.ThepublicationoftheCatechismledMr.BaxtertoproposetoDr.Owenaunion between the Presbyterians and the Independents. That singularmanwasforevercontrivingschemesofunion,butveryseldomemployedthe means which were most likely to accomplish them. He seemsinvariablytohaveforgottenthatunionwillneverbeeffectedbydisputingforit,andthatchiding(whichhecalled‘plaindealing’)wasveryunlikelytobringitabout.

310Hispresentattemptwasnomoresuccessfulthanmanyothers.“ItoldDr.Owen,”hesays,“thatImustdealfreelywithhim,andthatwhenIthoughtofwhathehaddoneformerly,Iwasmuchafraid,lestonewhohadbeensogreatabreaker,wouldnotbemadeaninstrumentinhealing.”

Thiswascertainlynogreatencouragement.“Butinotherrespects,IthoughthimthefittestpersoninEnglandforthework;partlybecausehecouldunderstandit;andpartlybecausehisexperienceofthetemperamentofmen,andofthemischiefsofdividingprinciplesandpracticeshadbeensoverygreat,thatifexperienceweretomakeanymanwiseandfitforahealingwork,itwouldbehim.”

ThismusthavebeenvastlyflatteringtotheDoctor.“AndthataCatechismforIndependency,whichhehadrecentlywritten,wasmychiefmotive—because therehehadgivenup twoof theworstprinciplesofpopularity”—acknowledging—“that the people do not have the power of the Keys, and they do not give this power to thepastor.”

HedoesnotinformusthatOwenadmittedhehadgivenupanything,orretractedany sentiment forwhichhehad formerly contended.NorhadOweninfactdoneso.Owenmaintains,intheCatechism,“ThatwhateverthePastorsdointheChurchaccordingtorule,theydoitnotinthenameorbyauthorityof thechurch,bywhich theirpower isderived to them;noronlyasmembersof thechurch, by their own consent; but theydo it in thenameandauthority of JesusChrist, fromwhom,byvirtueofhislawandordinance,theirministerialofficeorpowerisreceived.”

311Thisisasentiment,whichIbelieveOwenheldfromthebeginning,totheendofhiscareer.Strippedofthesuperfluouslanguageinwhichhisideasareallclothed,itamountsmerelytowhatIapprehendallIndependentshold:thatthePastorofachurchinleadingittoobeythelawsofChrist,doesnotactfromapowercommunicatedbythechurch;butbyvirtueofaspecialappointmentofChrist,whoseauthorityisinterposed.Mr. Baxter soon drew up an “abundance of theses, as the matter ofcommon concord,” and left them with Owen, who objected to theirnumber. On this he produced another draft of the things in whichPresbyteriansandIndependentswereagreed,andtowhichherequestedthe Doctor’s exceptions. Owen wrote him at some length, pointing outseveral things whichwould require reconsideration— and at the sametimeexpressinghiscordialapprovaloftheobjectandofthegeneralplanproposed.ThisproducedalongletterfromBaxter,inreplytohisdoubtsandexceptions.Hestill insinuatessuspicionsofOwen’ssincerity,which

must have rendered the correspondence very unpleasant to him. This,and the difficulty of accomplishing the object, perhaps together withdoubtsofthegoodlikelytoresultfromitsattainment(ascircumstancesthen stood), seem to have discouraged the Doctor. After more than ayear’sdelay,BaxtersaysOwenreturnedthepaperswiththesewords:“Iam still a well-wisher to thesemathematics.” A reply sufficiently brief,expressiveofhisgeneralapprovalofthescheme,butofhisdoubtsaboutthe calculating process of his ingenious correspondent. “This was theresult,” says Baxter, “of my third attempt for union with theIndependents.”

482

312Mr.Baxter’sfirstattemptatunionwiththeIndependents,seemstohavebeenmadewithMr.PhilipNyeabout1655.WehaveafullaccountofthecorrespondencebetweentheminhisLife.

483Thesecond,Isuppose,was

madewithMr.GeorgeGriffith,sometimeaftertheformer.484Neitherof

those individuals could enter into Baxter’s proposals. It would be veryunfair,however, toattachtheblameofbeinghostiletounion,toOwen,Nye,orGriffith,ortotheIndependentsatlarge,justbecausetheycouldnotgo into thesemeasures.Mr.Baxter’s schemesoften looked fair andplausibleonpaper;buttheirpracticabilityinthepresentstateofhumannatureisaverydifferentthing.TheIndependentswerethesmallerbody,and were naturally afraid of being borne down by numbers, if theyformed a union by conceding any of their leading principles. TheyattachedlessimportancetoexternaluniformitythanBaxterandmostofhis brethren did. Whatever evils occasionally result from disunion, islikelytocurethemonlybyinflictingagreaterevilintheirplace.Thiswasa scheme which would comprehend in one body Episcopalians andBaptists, Presbyterians and Independents. The sentiments of theIndependentsonthesubjectofunion(expressedinthetwolastarticlesoftheSavoyDeclaration),embraceeverythingforwhichitisofimportanceto contend.And Ibelieve theyare the sentimentsheldandactedonbythatbodytothisday.“Those reforming Churcheswhich consist of persons sound in the faith, and of conduct thatbecomes the Gospel, should not refuse the communion of each other, so far it as it may beconsistent with their own principles respectively, even though they do not walk in all thingsaccording to thesamerulesof churchorder.Churchesgatheredandwalkingaccording to themindofChrist,judgingotherchurchestobetruechurches,thoughlesspure,mayreceiveintooccasionalcommunionwiththem,suchmembersofthosechurchesasarecrediblytestifiedtobegodly,andtolivewithoutoffence.”

313Whattheseeminentpersonscouldnoteffectbydisputation,wasbroughtaboutshortlyafter theirdeath in1696.ThatwaswhenthePresbyterianandIndependentchurchesinLondonandtheenvirons,unitedoncertaingeneralprinciples.

485ThisillustratesthejustnessofaremarkofOwen’s,

inaSermonpreachedontheoccasionoftwoChurchesuniting.“Iwould be very sorry that anyman livingwould outdome in desires that allwho fearGodthroughout theworld, especially in these nations,were of oneway, aswell as of one heart. IknowIdesireitsincerely.ButItrulybelievethatwhenGodaccomplishesit,itwillbetheeffectoflove,notthecauseoflove.Itwillproceedfromlove,beforeitbringsforthlove.Thereisnotagreatervanityintheworld,thantodrivemenintoaparticularprofession,andthensupposethatlovewillbethenecessaryconsequenceofit—tothinkthatiftheycanbutdrivemenintosuchandsuchpracticesbysharprebukes,bycuttingandbitterexpressions,thenlovewillcertainly

ensue.”486

It is very probable that this language alludes to the failure of this veryattempt between Baxter and himself; and it seems to explain the truecause of it. Baxter also refers to these failures in his Cure of ChurchDivisions, published in 1670. In that text, he fights the EstablishedChurch with the one hand, and the Independents with the other. Heconfesses that for twenty years he had been writing, preaching, andprayingfortheChurches’peace,buttonopurpose.314“Ihavebutmadeawedgeofmybarehand,”hesays,“byputtingitintothecleft;andbothsidesclosinguponittomypain,Ihaveturnedbothparties—whichIendeavouredtopartinthefray

—againstmyself.Whileeachsidehadbutoneadversary,Ihadtwo.”487

Bagshawrepliedtothe“Cure;”and“Dr.Owen,”Baxtersays,“spokeverybitterlyagainstitinprivate,anddivulgedhisdissentfrommyproposalsof concord, though he never said more to myself than was beforeexpressed.”

488Baxter, thoughamostdevotedservantofChrist,put too

muchkeenness of temper into all his peaceableproposals; and this, nodoubt, was one of the main reasons for their frequent failure. Inpromotinglove—whilehealwaysactedfrompureanduprightmotives—hedidnotsufficientlystudytheprincipalmeansofaccomplishingit:

“Utamerisamabilisesto.”[Tobeloved,belovable.]

In1668,OwnsucceededtoalegacyoffivehundredpoundsbythedeathofMartynOwen,arichBrewerinLondon,andarelationoftheDoctor’s.489 This, together with his landed property and the proceeds of his

numerous writings, enabled him to live, while enjoying probably littleemolumentfromhislaboursintheGospel.Asthesemusthavebeenveryirregular and frequently interrupted, more time was left for privateapplication, which he appears to have employed with the mostconscientiousdiligence.Someofhismost importantpublicationswhichhad been long in preparation,made their appearance during this year.Theremainderofthischapterwillbedevotedandtoanaccountofthem.315The first of these is, “The nature, power, deceit, and prevalency of theremainders of Indwelling-sin in believers, etc.” 8vo. This work is thesubstanceofaseriesofSermons(asmostofhispracticalwritingswere).The text is Rom. 7.21. It assumes the innate and universal nature ofhumandepravity,andconfinesitselfentirelytotheexperiencebelievershaveoftheconflictbetweensinandgrace,towhichtheyareperpetuallysubject.Itrevealsadeepacquaintancewiththemalignityofsin,andthedeceitfulnessanddesperatewickednessofthehumanheart.It iscloselyconnectedin itsnaturewithhistreatiseonMortification—towhichherefers the reader, and of which we have already given some account.There aremany fine and important passages in thiswork, attention towhichwould leadtomuchself-examination,watchfulness,andhumilityon the part of believers. The remains of inbred corruption sufficientlyaccount for the little progress which is too generally made in theChristianprofession—forthefearfulmisconductandfallstowhichmenwhohavenamedthenameofChristarefrequentlyleft—forthelackofthatsolidpeaceandenjoymentofwhichbelieversoftencomplain—andfor that conformity to the world, in its pleasures and vanities, whichdistinguishmanywhowouldbeoffendediftheirChristiancharacterwerecalled into question. These things were matters of complaint andlamentationinthedaysofOwen,andarenolesssonow.Itistruethatwenow have a larger portion of public zeal, and bustling activity, inpromoting the interests of religion. This is good; it ought to beencouraged; and it must be a matter of thankfulness to every sincereChristian.Butthedeceitfulnessofsinmayoperateaseffectually(thoughlessobviously) inmanywhose “zeal for theLordofHosts”mayappearvery prominent, as it operates in times when such exertions were notmade.316

Itismucheasiertodonatemoneytoreligioussocieties,tomakespeechesatpublicmeetings,touniteinplansofassociatedusefulness,thanitistositinjudgmentoverourhearts,ortocorrecttheaberrationsofconduct,spirit,anddisposition.Theremaybemuchpublicprofessionalwarmth,andyetgreatinward,privatedecay.Inshort,theremaybeamergingofindividual,secretreligion, inthebustleandcrowdofgeneralprofessionand public life. These things are not suggested for the purpose ofdiscouraging public exertion and association for the diffusion of truth;but for the purpose of leading men to consider that, in our currentcircumstances, genuineChristianity is not necessary to domany thingswhicharenowtheobjectsofgeneralapproval;andtoconsiderthatsuchthings,howeverexcellentinthemselves,arebutpoorsubstitutesforalifeofholyobedience, andconversewithourselvesandwithheaven.ThosewhoengageintheseobjectswoulddowelltoreadOwenonIndwelling-sin.Thissameyearhepublished,“APracticalExpositionofthe130thPsalm,inwhich the nature of the forgiveness of sin is declared, the truth andrealityofitasserted,andthecaseofasouldistressedwiththeguiltofsin,and relieved by a discovery of forgiveness with God, is discoursed atlarge,” 4to. This work largely partakes of both the faults and theexcellencies of its author. It partakes of his prolixity, verbosity, anddiffusion;butitalsopossessesalargeshareofhisknowledgeofGodandof man, and of the Divine ways of working with sinful creatures.Consideringthetopicswhichitembraces, itmighthavebeenoneofthemost valuable and useful of hiswritings—had he limited himself to ashortillustrationofthegreatleadingpoints.317Buthisdispositiontoweaveanentiresystemintoeverywork,extendshisreasonings and illustrations so much, that the minds of most of hisreaders become fatigued and perplexed long before they arrive at theconclusion. The prevailing disposition of the present age is to reduceeverything to Tracts. This mode of treating Divine subjects suits thesuperficialityandindolenceofwriters,andthetriflinghabitsofreaders;whileatthesametime,itisattendedwithveryconsiderableadvantages.IntheageofOwen, theopposite tendencyprevailed: thewritersof thatperiod seldom knew when to stop. They never supposed they couldexhaustasubject.Theyweredissatisfiedtilltheyhadproducedafoliooraquarto,andhadsaideverythingthatcouldbesaidonthepointinhand.

Thisdidnotrequireallthelabourandgeniusthatsomemaysuppose.Infact, the bulk of the work was often a saving of labour to them. Theynever thought of dressing or revising their thoughts. A whole chaptermightoftenhavebeencondensedintoaparagraph,andhaveretainedallitssentimentandagreaterportionofspirit.Withoutmeaningtodetractfrom themerits of Dr. Owen, I am convinced that it would have beenmuch more difficult for him to abridge than to expand. And I amconvinced that he would have beenmore exhausted by the attempt toreconsiderandcondensehisreasonings,andtopolishhisstyle,thanbythefirstproductionofanyofhisworks.A judicious Christian who has much leisure and some taste forTheological reading,will derivebenefit from such a treatise as this onethe130thPsalm.Butitmaybeofimportancetonotethattherearesomeevilswhichtheveryextentandmodeoftreatingthesubjectarecalculatedtoproduceonothers.As thepointswhich it treatsembrace the leadingsubjectsofsalvation,aninquirermaybeimpressedwiththefeelingthatthey are involved in great obscurity,when they require so extended anexplanation;—hemaybe led todoubtwhetherhewill ever arrive at asatisfactoryknowledgeofthem.318We consider this a very hurtful mistake, which too many of the olderworksofDivinityhavetendedtopromote,andinnosmalldegree.Theyare unfavourable, we conceive, to those clear and simple views ofsalvation which the Bible itself contains, and which it ought to be thegreatobjectofwritingandpreachingtopointout.Inthisview,wehavelong thought thewordsofourChristianbard tobeas theologicallyandpracticallyjust,astheyarepoeticallybeautiful:Ohowunlikethecomplexworksofman,Heaven’seasy,artless,unencumber’dplan*Nomeretriciousgracestobeguile,Noclusteringornamentstoclogthepile;Fromostentationasfromweaknessfree.Itstandsliketheceruleanarchwesee.Majesticinitsownsimplicity.Inscrib’dabovetheportal,fromafarConspicuousasthebrightnessofastar,Legibleonlybythelighttheygive.Stand—thesoulquick’ningwords—“Believeandlive!”

—COWPER.

We apprehend that a work which describes a minute and extensive

processofGod’smannerofdealingwithasinner,orofkeepingabelieverin the truth, is likely to operate injuriously upon both sinners andbelievers. On the former, it is in danger of producing the belief thatconversionisaworkwhichthesinnerhastoeffect,eitherinthewayofbeginningit,orofcarryingiton.Theauthormayperhapsguardagainstthisabuseofhisperformance.Butwhilehedescribesalengthenedtrainoffearsthatmustbeentertained—ofconvictionsthatmustbefelt—ofdifficulties that must be subdued— of means that must be used— ofduties that must be performed— there are a thousand chances that apartially enlightenedmindwill suppose that all thesemust bedone, orgonethrough,inordertofindrepose.319Andsoitwillbereadyeithertosinkintodespairfromtheirmagnitude,or else take comfort from brooding over its own feelings and duties—instead of looking for enjoyment from an Almighty Saviour, and afinishedredemption.Suchanindividual,andevenonewhohasobtainedpeace through faith in the blood of Christ, will be in danger of beingexceedinglydiscouragedatnotfindinginhimselfthosefeelingsormarkswhich are attributed to the childrenofGod.And if his experiencedoesnotcorrespondwiththedescriptiongiven,hemaybereadytoconcludethatsomethingmustbemateriallywrong.Apersonofcultivatedtalentswhohasbeeninthehabitofpayingcloseattentiontotheworkingsofhisownmind,may describe all his own feelings at great length, and withmuch accuracy — and these may perhaps be tolerably suited toindividualsofthesamedescription,placedinsimilarcircumstances.Butif this is made the rule of determining God’s method of dealing withothers,itwouldbefarfromjust,orgenerallyapplicable.We have no doubt that such books as Doddridge’sRise and Progress,Alleine’s Alarm, Baxter’s Call, and Owen’s 130th Psalm, have beeneminently useful to many. They have roused attention, and producedconviction in multitudes. But we put it to any enlightened Christian,whether theattempt to followall thedirections in thesebooks,and theapplication of all the principles they record, to the characters andexperience ofmen in general—whether thatwould not have themostinjurious consequences. God’s methods of “convincing of sin, ofrighteousness,andofjudgment,”areexceedinglydiversified.320

There is a disposition in men to make their personal and individualexperiencetheruleandthetestofthatofothers.Therevelationofmercyis beautifully simple andplain. Yet, the process bywhichwemayhavearrived at the understanding of it, may have been very circuitous andcomplicated. Insteadofdirecting the attentionofmen to the revelationitself,inthefullblazeofitssplendour,andtheunadornedsimplicityofitsstatements — inviting them to follow the windings of our path whiletracingitout,andtheharassingperplexitiesofourmindswhileseekingfor rest — there can be little doubt that we would injure rather thanbenefit. Christians have too generally fallen into the mistake ofrecommending theological treatises to inquirers, and the experience ofeminent individuals, instead of pointing them to the Cross of Christitself, or directing them to the record of inspiration. Much good hascertainly been done by the formermethod. But it can scarcely remaindoubtfulwhetherequalgood,withoutanyportionofevil,mightnothavebeendonebythesimplermethodoftheapostles.Wecanmakegreatallowanceforenlargementondoctrinalorexegeticaltheology; but conciseness is of vast importance in an experiential orpractical treatise, such as the one on the 130th Psalm. To offer anyanalysisofabookwhichscarcelyallowsforit,andwhichissogenerallyknown,wouldberenderingnoservicetothereader.Itspraise,thewriterof that memoir says, has been in all the churches; and to those whoexercise the patience which a careful perusal of it requires, andwhose“sensesareexercisedtodiscernbetweengoodandevil”—perusingitwillberewardedwithprofit.Inallthelanguagewhichoccursinit,itwouldbewrongforustoprofesswhatwedonotfeel,whichisentireacquiescence.321At the same time,ourdifference isnot somuchabout the substanceofthesentiments,asaboutthemodeofcommunicatingthem,andsomeoftheexpressionsemployed.Wecannot, for instance, see theproprietyofthe“distinctionbetweenfaithandspiritualsense,”forwhichtheDoctorcontends. Faith is opposed to sense, just as it is opposed to sight andhearing.And it isonly inopposition to themthat theapostle says, “Wewalk by faith, not by sight.” There can be no spiritual exercise orenjoyment,exceptthroughthemediumoffaith.Andthestrongerfaithis,the higher our enjoyment of spiritual blessings will rise. We indeedquestion whether the Doctor’s views on the subject of faith are alwaysconsistentwith themselves.He sometimes speaks very simply about it,

andatother timesmoremysteriously.Thiswasprobablyoccasionedbyhispropensitytoenlargeandtorefine—where,inmanycases,asimpleradherence to the written record, and to the dictates of a commonunderstanding, would have been at once a shorter and more effectualmethod.Inthisimportantandbusyyear,thealsoappearedthefirstvolumeofhisgreatand longprojectedworkon theEpistle to theHebrews.As this isthemostvaluableaswellasthemostextensiveofallhiswritings,itwillmerit(aswellasrequire)particularnoticehere.Itisdesignated,“An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, — in which the original text is opened andclarified, ancient and modern translations are compared and examined — the design of theapostle with his reasonings, arguments and testimonies is unfolded, — the faith, customs,sacrifices,andotherusagesoftheJudaicalChurch,areopenedanddeclared,—thetruesenseofthe text is vindicated from the twistings of it by Socinians andothers,— and lastly, practicalobservationsarededucedandimproved.WithpreliminaryExercitations:”folio.

322The second volume appeared in 1674, the third in 1680, and the last(whichhe left fit for thepress) in 1684,afterhisdeath.For the sakeofunity,andtopreventrepetitions,wewillconsider thewholeatpresent.490

The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of themost important and difficultportions of the New Covenant Scriptures. Its subjects are of particularinterest,andthemannerinwhichtheyaretreatedbytheinspiredauthor,rendersnoordinarydegreeofscripturalinformationandcriticalacumennecessaryforitsinterpretation.Itisdevotedtotheillustration,notoftheelementsorfirstprinciplesofChristianity,butofitshigherdepartments— what the apostle calls “the perfection” of the Christian system. TheproofswhichitadducesfromtheOldTestament,—oftheSupremeDivinityoftheSonofGod;—ofhisinfinitesuperiorityasaProphetorLawgivertoMoses;—asaPriesttoAaronandallhissuccessors;— the views which it affords of the mystical design of the ancientdispensation;—ofthenatureandservicesoftheearthlyTabernacle;—itsreasoningsrespectingtheSacrificeofChrist;—hisMediationinheaven;and—andthesuperiorprivilegesofNewTestamentbelievers;exhibit the depth of his knowledge in themystery of Christ. These are

calculated to exercise theminds of themost intelligent Christians, andare eminently fitted to enlarge our conceptions of the grandeur of thatheavenly economywhichwas establishedby thebloodandperpetuatedby the ministry of Jesus in the sanctuary of God. An intimateacquaintancewith itwilldomore toestablish the faithandcomfort themindofanenquirer,thanallthathasbeenwrittenonDivinetruthsincethedaysoftheapostles.323Itmustbeacknowledgedthattheinterpretationofthisepistleisattendedwithdifficultiesofconsiderablemagnitude.Itaboundsinpeculiaritiesofstyle and sentiment; it treats subjects which are little noticed in otherpartsoftheNewTestament;anditcontainsprofoundandsingularviewsofmanypartsof theOldTestament, andof its services.There is alsoaparticular closeness in the reasoning, which requires the most fixedattention in tracing it, to avoid mistakes. While these things havedeterred many from attempting to explain it, they have operated asinducementstootherstoendeavourtounfolditsbeautiesandunveilitsobscurities.Thus,thoughmuchofithasbeenmisunderstood,fewbooksof Scripture have had more labour bestowed on them by learned andingeniousmen.Itemployedthepensofanumberoftheancientwriters.PriortothetimeofOwen,manyoftheforeignDivines,bothCatholicandReformed,hadbestowedmuchattentiononit.Inourowncountry,too,ithadnotbeenneglected. In1635,DavidDickson,aScotchminister,andtheauthorofseveral exegetical works, published at Aberdeen an octavo volume ofexplanations of this epistle. William Jones, D.D., is the author of acommentaryonit,alongwithoneontheepistletoPhilemon,andonthesecondandthirdepistlesofJohn,whichappearedinonevolumefolioin1636.ThomasLushington,D.D.,published in1640,a foliocommentaryon the Hebrews. George Downhame, Bishop of Derry, and author ofseveralother theologicalworks,alsopublishedacommentaryon it thatyear. William Gouge, D.D., a learned Puritan and a member of theWestminster Assembly, was the author of another which appeared in1655.Andin1662,anotherfolioexpositionoftheepistleappearedfromthepenofMr.GeorgeLawson.324All of these elaborate (and someof themvaluable)workswereprior to

theattemptofOwen,andweredoubtlessknowntohim.Inhispreface,hespeaksof someof themas “composedwithgood judgment,and toverygoodpurpose.”Referring to theentirebodyofprecedingcommentatorsontheepistle,hesays:“Some I found had critically examined many of the words, phrases, and expressions of thewriter.SomecomparedhisquotationswiththeplacesintheOldTestamentfromwhichtheyaretaken. Some had endeavoured an analysis of the several discourses of the author, with thenatureand forceof thearguments insistedonbyhim.The laboursof somewere toapply thetruths contained in the epistle to practice; others have collected the difficulties which theyobservedinit,andscannedthemwithobjectionsandsolutionsintheScholasticmanner.OthershadaspecialregardtothepassageswhosesenseiscontrovertedamongtheseveralpartieswhoareatvarianceintheChristianreligion.All,intheirwayandmanner,endeavouredtogivelighttotheintentionoftheHolyGhost,eitherinparticularpassages,orinthewholeepistle.”

Hewasencouragedbythehelptobederivedfromallthesequarters,forthe interpretation of the epistle. On the other hand, for a time hewasdiscouraged from theattempt,by the idea that after somuchhadbeendone, any further labourwasunnecessary.But afterhehadperusedalltheworkshecouldobtain,hesays,“Ifoundtheexcellenceofthewritingtobesuch;thedepthofthemysteriescontainedinittobesogreat;thecompassofthetruthasserted,unfolded,andexplainedtobesoextensive,andsodiffusedthroughthewholebodyoftheChristianreligion;

325theusefulnessofthethingscontainedinit,tobesoimportantandindispensablynecessary;thatIwasquicklysatisfiedthatthewisdom,grace,andtruthtreasuredinthissacredstorehouse,arefarfrombeingexhaustedbytheendeavoursofallwhohadgonebeforeus.Sofardidallthesetruths then seem frombeingperfectlybrought to lightby them, that Iwasassured therewassufficientgroundleftforarenewedsearchafterrichoreinthismine—notonlyforthepresentgeneration,butforallthosethatwillsucceed,totheconsummationofallthings.”

The Doctor brought no ordinary qualifications to this important andinterestingwork.Toeminentpietywasnowaddedamindenrichedwithall the various stores of theological learning — matured by years andexperience,andenlargedbythemostcorrectandextensiveviewsofthewholeschemeofDivinerevelation.Hepossessedanunderstandingthatwasnaturallyacute,andsharpenedbyconstantandextendedintercoursewith enlightened and cultivated society; a habit of application andperseveranceofunspeakable importance to suchanundertaking; andacopiaverborum

491whichsuppliedaninexhaustiblefacilitytoconveyhis

sentiments on every subject.Even a slight acquaintancewith thework,mustshowhowwelltheseadvantageswereemployed.The exerciseswhich accompany thiswork, andwhichmakeup the twofirst volumes of Wright’s 8vo. edition, are particularly valuable. They

containavasttreasureofsolidlearningandlaboriousresearch.326Independent of the Commentary, they may be of much service to theelucidationofotherpartsoftheSacredrecord:—theyexamineandestablishtheCanonicalauthorityoftheEpistle;—theyinquireintoitswriter,andshowhimtohavebeenPaul;—theyinvestigatethetimeinwhichitwaswritten,andshowittohavebeenshortlyafterPaul’sdeliverancefromhisfirstimprisonment— they consider the language inwhich itwaswritten, andprove itwasGreek.The citations made from the Old Testament in it are the subject ofparticular attention. They are the subjects of extended and accurateillustration,throughthefirstvolume:—theonenessoftheChurch;— theJewishdistributionof theOldTestament,and theiroral lawandtradition;—theMessiah,andthepromisesoftheOldTestamentconcerninghim;—hisappearancesundertheformerdispensation;—thefaithoftheancientChurchrespectinghim;—theevidencethathehaslongsincecome;—theconsiderationandvindicationofDaniel’sprophecyofthe70weeks;—JewishtraditionsabouttheMessiah;—proofthatJesusofNazarethistheMessiah;—ObjectionsofJewsagainstChristianity;—thestateandordinancesoftheChurch,before,andduringthetimeofthelaw;—thelawitself,itsprecepts,promises,andthreatenings;—theTabernacle,thepriesthood,anditssacrifices;The second volume is entirely occupied with the consideration of thePriesthoodofChrist,andthedayofsacredrest.Respectingtheformerofthesesubjects,heremarksinhispreface:“It is wholly outside the compass ofmy knowledge, if the reader can find any otherwork inwhich the doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ has been so handled in its proper order andmethod,astoitsorigin,causes,nature,andeffects.”

Without professing to be entirely of Dr. Owen’s views in every part oftheseprolixdissertations, itmustbeadmittedthat it isbutasmallandcomparatively unimportant part to which any Christian can take

exception; and the richness and scriptural pietywhich run through thewhole,renderthemparticularlyinteresting.327Thesubjectsareinthemselveshighlydelightful;andfewhumanwritingsexist, in which they are so ably treated. They abound in Rabbinicallearning,particularlythefirstpartofthem.Thiswas,perhaps,necessary,as they involve sominuteadiscussionof theJewish controversy.But Iamnotawarethatthisbranchoflearningisofsomuchimportancetotheelucidation of Scripture, aswas then supposed.Owen, if anyman,wasqualified tobring it tobearupon theNewTestament.Andyet Idonotperceivethatmuchinformationcanbederivedfromhisuseofit.LetanymanexaminethewritingsofLightfoot,andPococke,andSchoetgen,thegreatmastersofRabbinicallore,andhewillperhapsbeastonishedatthelittleadvantagethataccruestoBiblicalinterpretationfromtheirlabours.Indeed, it is scarcely reasonable to expect anythingbutdisappointmentfromthem.TheancientJewishwritersorcritics,withtheexceptionoftheearlierTalmuds,arealllost.AndthemoremodernRabbinsweresucharaceofdrivellers, thattheirwritingscontainthe largestportionof trashandnonsense tobe found in theworld.A littleacquaintancewith themwillgratifycuriosity,andattimesperhapssupplyahintoranargument—but toexpectanything likeenlightenedcriticism in them, isaboutasreasonableastolookforitfromchildren.The Exposition itselfmay be considered in a three-fold light: (1) as anexplanationofaportionofScripture;(2)asabodyofcontroversy,and(3)asapracticalapplicationofDivinetruth.Asanexplanation,orexegeticalillustration of an important epistle, it is distinguished by the generalaccuracy of its interpretations, and the conscientiousmanner in whichtheauthorendeavouredtotraceoutthemeaningoftheDivinewriter.328There are works of this nature, and on this very book, which reveal agreaterparadeoflearning;andinwhichthemeaningofparticulartextsismore accurately defined. For example, Pierce andHallet’s work on theHebrewscontainsmorecritical learning;andtheworkofMr.ArchibaldM’Lean of Edinburgh frequently corrects theminormistakes of Owen.But neither of them, on the whole, compares with his. The leaven ofArianism in the former, and thedryness of the latter, render them lessuseful,andalsolessinteresting.ThefollowingpassageofOwen’spreface

deservestheattentionofallhisreaders,andespeciallyofallwhoattemptto expound theword ofGod. It gives an admirable view of his state ofmind,andoftheprinciplesonwhichheproceededinhisinterpretation,“Fortheexpositionoftheepistleitself,Iconfess,aswassaidbefore,thatIhavehadthoughtsofit formany years, and I have not beenwithout regard towards it, in thewhole course ofmystudies. Yet I must now say that, after all my searching and reading, prayer and assiduousmeditationhavebeenmyonlyresort—andbyfarthemostusefulmeansoflightandassistance.By these,my thoughts have been freed frommany entanglements intowhich thewritings ofothershadthrownme,orfromwhichtheycouldnotdeliverme.IhavebeenascarefulasIamoflifeandsoul—tobringnoprejudicialsensetothewords;toimposenomeaningofmyownnorothermen’suponthem;nortobeimposedonbythereasonings,pretences,orcuriositiesofany—but alwayswent nakedly to theword itself, to humbly learn themind ofGod in it, and toexpress it as He enabled me. To this end, I always considered in the first place, the sense,meaning, and import of the words of the text — their original derivation, their use in otherauthors—butespeciallyintheLXXoftheOldTestament,inthebooksoftheNewTestament,andparticularlythewritingsofthesameauthor.

329Oft-timesthewordsexpressedoutoftheHebrew,orthethingsalludedtoamongthatpeople,Ifound to givemuch light to thewords of the apostle. To the general rule of attending to thedesign and scope of the passage, the subject treated, mediums fixed on for arguments andmethodsofreasoning,Istillkeptinmyeyethetimeandseasonofwritingthisepistle,thestateandconditionofthosetowhomitwaswritten,theirpersuasions,prejudices,customs,light,andtraditions;Ialsokeptinmyview,thecovenantandworshipofthechurchofold;thetranslationofcovenantprivilegesandworshiptotheGentilesonanewaccount;thecourseofprovidentialdispensations that the Jews were under; the near expiration of their church and state; thespeedyapproachoftheirutterabolitionanddestruction,withthetemptationsthatbefellthemonall these variousaccounts—withoutwhich it is impossible for anyone to justly follow theapostlesoastokeepclosetohisdesign,ortofullyunderstandhismeaning.”

Such views, under the Divine blessing, and directed by the judiciousperseverance of Owen, could not fail to be attended with the mostimportant result: they embrace everything that could be necessary orusefultotheinterpretationofScripture.The Exposition also contains a large portion of controversy, chiefly ontwosubjects,orembracingtwoclasses:JewsandSocinians.Itisobvioushowtheformercametooccupysomuchofhisattention;butthereasonforhis introducing the lattermay require someexplanation.ThePolishSocinians had directed all their strength and ingenuity against theScripturedoctrineofthesacrificeandpriesthoodofChrist.330They endeavoured to make out that the language of Scripture on thatsubject,wasnot tobeunderstood literally,butmetaphorically—andofcourse, that there is no such thing as a real sacrifice or priesthood

belonging to Christianity. Owen considered these things to be at thefoundation of all Christian faith and hope, and to constitute the grandsubjects of the Epistle. He could not allow so fair an opportunity toescape, of vindicating from such Socinian glosses, the importantstatementsanddoctrinesofrevelation.Ifhiszealforwhathebelievedtobe truth sometimes carried him rather far, and led him to occasionallyfind fault with some sentiments that were not very remote from truth,andtoexpresshimselfstronglyagainst thembecausetheywereheldbypersons infectedwith heresy— it is onlywhatwemight expect from amindsoardentlyattachedtoevangelicaldoctrine.WithoutadoptingallofDr.Owen’ssentiments,theChristianwhowishestobeestablishedinthetruthsthatwerecontrovertedbytheSocinians,willfindinthisworksuchabodyofevidenceandargumentinsupportofthem,thatitmustremoveanyreasonablegroundforscepticismandunbelief.WedonothesitatetoaffirmthattheproperunderstandingoftheEpistletotheHebrewsalone,isamplysufficienttoputtoflightallthesophistryanddeclamationoftheadversaries of the Deity, sacrifice, and priesthood of Christ — fromFaustusSocinustoThomasBelsham.OntheJewishcontroversy,thereisalmosteverythingthatisofimportance.Infact,itwillbefoundthatonanumber of subjects, a satisfactory reply to a Jew, is also a sufficientanswertoaSocinian.The practical tendency and application of the whole, are not the leastimportant features of this work. The eminent godliness, as well as theauthor’slearning,conspicuouslyappearoneverypage.331“Hisreasoningsalwaysterminateinsomeholyresult.Afterreadingthecriticismsofanaccuratescholar, the arguments of a sound logician, and the illustrations of a fertile mind, we arefurnishedwithdirectionsforself-examination;orwearesentawaytoourclosetswithawarm

exhortationtoaboundinprayerifwehopetounderstandthemindoftheSpirit.”492

This is just as it ought to be. The theory of Christianity without thepractice, is like a bodywithout the spirit; and the practicewithout thetheory is not a reasonable service. To treat the Bible like an ancientclassic, is using an unholy freedom with its sacred contents; whileindifference to the precise meaning of the Holy Spirit, manifestsignorance of the important connexion that subsists between rightsentimentsandsuitablepracticeinreligion—aswellasalackofregardfortheauthorityofGodspeakinginhisword.Notwithstanding this threefold division of the work, and the intimate

connexion of its several partswith each other, it is so constructed thatanyofthedepartmentsmaybereadseparately.“Themethodofthewhole,”saystheauthor,“issodisposed,thatanyone,bythesoleguidanceofhiseye,maycarryonhisreadingofanyonepartofthewholewithoutinterruption,ormixinganyotherdiscourseswith it.Thushemay, in the firstplace,gooverour considerationof theoriginal text, with the examination of ancient andmodern translations, and the grammaticalconstructionandsignificationofthewords,withoutdivertingtoanythingelsethatisdiscoursedonthetext.Inlikemanner,ifanydesiretoperusetheexpositionofthetextandcontext,withthe declaration and vindication of themeaning of theHolyGhost in them,without the leastintermixture of any practical discourses deduced from them, he may — under the sameguidance,andwiththesamelabour—confinehimselftothisfromthebeginningtotheendofthework.

332Andbecausethepracticalobservations,withtheirimprovements,virtuallycontaininthemthesense and exposition of thewords, and give light to the intention of the apostle in hiswholedesign, forall Iknowsomemaydesire toexercise themselvesprincipally in thosediscourses.Theymaydothisbyfollowingtheseriesanddistinctcontinuationofthem,fromfirsttolast.”

Thus, the Critic, the Expositor, and the plain Christian, may all findsomethingtotheirtaste,andtoexercisetheirminds.Itwouldbesuperfluous labour toenlargeontheexecutionof thework,after what has been already said, and the high rank it has long heldamongthestandardbooksofexegeticaltheology.Thisismoreespeciallyso, because the improvedandmoreportable editionofDr.Wright,hasnowbroughtitwithinreachofmanywhootherwisemusthavejudgeditsmeritsentirelyfromreports.However,itmaynotbeunnecessarytostatethat it is the fruit ofmore than twenty years’ labour of the industriousauthor. It was a long and chequered period, during which Owencomplains of “straits and exclusion from the use of books” whichoccasioned“uncertainties,failings,andmistakes”—whichheprays“thereadermayneverexperience.”Withoutanyexaggeration,wemayapplyto this undertaking, the elegant and sorrowful language of our greatEnglishlexicographer,“TheexpositionoftheHebrewswaswrittenwithlittleassistancefromthelearned,andwithoutany patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter ofacademicbowers,butamidstinconvenienceanddistraction,insicknessandinsorrow.”

333Suchwastheimportance-whichtheauthorhimselfattachedtoit,thathesaidwhenitwasfinished—“Nowmyworkisdone, it is timeformetodie.”

493OntheContinent, theworkhasbeenlonghighlyvalued.Walch

says of it, “Egregium est opus hoc, locuples testis de auctoris singulari

eruditione,atqueindustria,quamadilludconficiendumadhibuit.”It was translated into Dutch and published in quarto at Rotterdam in1733.LeLongalsomentions theproposalof aLatin translationof it atAmsterdamin1700;butwhetheriteverappearedIamunabletosay.

494

ThelateDr.Williams,ofRotheram,publishedanabridgementofitin4-vols.8vo. in theyear1790.Thiswasrenderingaservice to thecauseofsacredliterature,whenthefolioeditionwassoscarceandsoexpensive.Some also may be disposed to read the abridgement rather than theextendedoriginal.While itmerits thepraiseof fidelity, so faras Ihaveobserved,thosewhowishtoascertainthesentimentsandenterintothefeelingsofDr.Owen,willfinditnecessarytoconsulttheoriginalwork.Iknownoancientormodernworkofanexpositorynature,thatwillbearafaircomparisononthewhole,withtheExpositionoftheHebrews.Carylon Job, is fully equal to it in magnitude; but he falls far short in theinterest which it excites, and the ability which it displays. Its author,thoughalearnedandpiousman,wasfarfrombeingequaltoOwen.Andthesubjectonwhichhechosetoexercisehisownpatienceandthatofhisreaders, cannot be considered so valuable to the church as that of hisfriendandsuccessor.334The celebrated work of Vitringa on Isaiah, has deservedly obtained anequalreputationwiththatofOwenontheHebrews.Itcontainsalargerportionofcritical learning,anddisplaysnolessofacutenessandtalent.ButitisstillmoresystematicthanOwen’swork—oftenfanciful—-andsometimeserroneous.Itis,however,instaromniumonIsaiah.TheworkofProfessorLampeontheGospelofJohn,withitsvaluabledissertations,issomewhatsimilartoOwen’s.Belongingtothesameschool,possessedofvariedlearning—andofpatientindustry—heisstrictlyorthodox,andexhaustsalmosteverytopicofimportanceintheEvangelist.Buthedoesnot always interest the mind sufficiently in his discussions, and isoccasionallyratherfondofmysticalinterpretations.ThechiefobjectiontotheExpositionoftheHebrewsisitsvastextent—fourfolio,orsevenlarge8vo.volumesononeepistle—andthatnotthelongest in the New Testament. It appears to be a rather cumbrousapparatusofexplanation.Muchofthework,itmustbeacknowledged,isnot necessary to the interpretation of the apostle’s language. Yet, ingeneral, theconnexionbetween the textand thecommentary isneither

forcednorunnatural; it issurprisinghowlittleoccurs thatwewishhadbeen omitted. Like several other larger productions of the author, itcontains a very entire and valuable system of Divinity. There are fewpoints of Divine truth on which the reader will not find importantinformation.On this account, the indexbelonging to theoctavoeditionwill be found of particular service. If the fame ofWalton rests on thePolyglot,andthatofPooleontheSynopsis,

495thentheExpositionofthe

Hebrews—evenifOwenhadwrittennothingelse—formsapedestalonwhichhewillappearanobjectofadmirationtoallfuturegenerations.

CHAPTERXI.

PersecutingconductoftheCongregationalistsinNewEngland—RemonstrancesofOwenandhisbrethrenon thesubject—Owenpublisheson theTrinity—HiscontroversywithParker—HisTruthandInnocencevindicated—Publicationsofothersonthesameside—MarvelandParker—ConductofParliament toward theDissenters—Vernon’s attackonOwen—Owen’sdefence—Alsop — Owen invited to the Presidency of Harvard College — Publishes on the Sabbath—Correspondence on this subject with Eliot— Charles publishes a Declaration of Indulgence—Address from the Dissenters on this account presented by Owen — Owen’s attention to themeasuresof theCourt—Becomesoneof thepreachersof theMorningExercise—PublishesonEvangelicalLove—DeathofCaryl—UnionofCaryl’s andOwen’sChurchunder theDoctor—Noticesofpersonsofdistinctionwhoweremembersof theChurch—TheParliamentoffendedwiththeKing’sIndulgence—NoticesofdistinguishedNoblemenwhosefriendshipOwenenjoyed—HisinterviewswiththeKingandDukeofYork—WorkonCommunionattackedbySherlock—Owen’svindication—ControversyoccasionedbySherlock’sbook—OwenpublishesontheHolySpirit—Reviewofallhiswritingsonthatsubject—AttackedbyClagett—PublishesonApostasy—Marrieshissecondwife.

For several years, the New England Congregationalists had beenemploying very oppressive measures to suppress the Baptists andQuakers.TheirhighlyimproperandAntichristianconducthasoftenbeenalleged as evidence of the persecuting dispositions of Independents (aswellasothers)whentheyarepossessedofpower.ItwouldbefoolishtodenythatmencallingthemselvesIndependentsmaybepersecutors;butallwhounderstand theprinciplesand the spiritof Independency,mustever maintain that such conduct is inconsistent with it. A littleacquaintance with the proceedings in New England, against which Dr.Owenandhisbrethrenprotested,will satisfyus that Independencyhadalmostnothingtodowiththem.TheBrownists,whocolonizedNewEngland,understoodmostthoroughlytheprinciples of religious liberty.But theyhadmoved fromHolland toAmerica, as a church, and were little conversant in the science oflegislationandpoliticaleconomy.336TheythereforeformedstatelawsontheprinciplesoftheNewTestament,andthedisciplineof thechurchofChrist.Theydidnotperceive(whichshould scarcely surprise us) the impossibility of managing a growingpopulation by such means, in a new country, without sacrificing thelibertyofthesubject,orthepurityofthechurch.Atfirst,thebodyofthepeople were Christians, and of onemind. A considerable time elapsedbefore the erroneous principles on which their legislative code wasfounded, made their appearance. It was still longer before theyunderstoodtheproperremedy.ThesubsequentemigrationsfromBritainconsistedofmanypersonswhogreatlydifferedfromtheoriginalsettlers

onvarioussubjects—eventhoughthey fell into theirgeneralmeasuresand views. Most of the Puritans who went over to New England wereattached to a species of Presbyterianism, rather than to Independency.From this arose the peculiar complexion which the churches thereexhibited after a time. They had their regular meetings of synods andcouncils, inwhichthecivilmagistrateoccupiedaplace;andthe lawsorregulations of these groups were enforced by his authority. It is anobviousmisapplicationoftheterm“Independency,”toapplyittosuchaprocedure,andit isunjusttomakeitaccountablefortheconsequences.496Itisnotthename,butthespiritandconduct,whichrevealthesystem

towhichwebelong.497

337TheirbehaviourwasconsideredsocontrarytothewordofGod,thatonhearing of it, a letter was written by the Independent ministers inLondon.AttheirheadwasDr.Owen,remonstratingwiththeirbrethren,and entreating them todesist from suchproceedings.Without enteringinto the merits of the differences between them, and the persons whowere suffering, they urge a variety of suitable and importantconsiderations to convince them of the necessity of altering theirmeasures.Andthustheyconclude:“Youhavetheadvantageoftruthandorder;youhavethegiftsandlearningofanableministrytomanage and defend them; you have the care and vigilance of a veryworthymagistracy tocountenanceandprotectthem,andtopreservethepeace;andaboveall,youhaveablessedLordandMasterwhohasthekeysofDavid,whoopensandnomanshuts,livingforevertotakecareofhisownconcernsamonghissaints.Andassuredly,youneednotbedisquieted,thoughafewpersons,throughtheirowninfirmityandweakness—orthroughtheirignorance,darkness,andprejudices — should to their disadvantage turn out of the way, in some lesser matters, intobywaysoftheirown.WeonlymakeitourheartyrequestthatyoutrustGodwithhistruthandways,sofarastosuspendallrigorousproceedingsimposingcorporalrestraintsorpunishmentson persons who dissent from you, and who practise the principles of their dissent without

dangerordisturbancetothecivilpeaceoftheplace.”498

Dr.Matheracknowledgesthatthisletter,datedthe25thofMarch,1669,wasnotattendedatthetimewithalltheeffectsitshouldhaveproduced.But at length, it andothermeans contributed to give theNewEnglandchurchesbetterviews.338It shows, however, what the sentiments of Dr. Owen and his brethrenwere, respecting coercivemeasures; and it completely exculpates themfrom all participation in conduct which cannot be too severely

reprobated.499

In 1669, Owen published “A Brief Declaration and Vindication of theDoctrineoftheTrinity,asalso,ofthePersonandSatisfactionofChrist.”18mo. pp. 252. It was occasioned, he tells us in the preface, “by noparticular provocation he had received, nor by any particular work inopposition to the doctrine contended for; but entirely by his desire topromote theedificationandestablishmentof theplainChristian.”AfterwhathasbeensaidontheTrinityinouraccountofthecontroversywithBiddle, and because we must resume it again in reviewing a largersubsequentperformanceoftheDoctor’s,itisunnecessarytoenteruponitnow.This contains the same sentiments, strippedof their controversialdress,andillustratedsimplyfromtheScripturesthemselves.Ithasbeenfrequentlyreprinted,andwasalsotranslatedintotheDutchlanguage.

500

Thenextyear,Owenwasengaged inavery ill-temperedcontroversyonthe subject of Non-conformity. The High Church party was constantlyincreasingtheirmalignanthostilitytothepoorsufferingDissenters,andresorted to every mode of aggression that was likely to make themmiserable. It was impossible, however, to ruin them entirely, till everyprincipleoflibertywasrootedoutofthecountry.339To consummate this execrable project, Samuel Parker (whom we havespoken of before), published “A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politic, inwhich the authority of the Civil Magistrate over the Consciences ofSubjects in matters of external religion, is asserted; the mischiefs andinconveniencesofTolerationarerepresented,andallpretencespleadedinbehalfofLibertyofConsciencearefullyanswered.”8vo.pp.326,1670.Inthisvileproduction,theNon-conformistsaregrosslyslandered,

501and

theirsentimentsrepresentedasincompatiblewiththepeaceandsecurityof government. The most extravagant powers are ascribed to themagistrate in all things civil and religious, and the blindest and mostabjectsubmissiontohisauthorityisenjoined.It was imperiously necessary to meet this attack. Dr. Owen applied toBaxtertoundertakethedefenceofNon-conformity.Buthedeclinedthetask, consideringhimselfexcepted fromthe reproacheswhichhadbeenthrownout;andhefeltthatifheweretoanswerParker,theywouldsoonmakehimasodiousastherest.

502TheDoctorthereforetookhimupon

it, and acquitted himselfwith great credit in his “Truth and InnocenceVindicated;inaSurveyofaDiscourseonEcclesiasticalPolity,”etc.8vo,pp.410,1670.OwenludicrouslysumsupthesubstanceofParker’sworkinthefollowingRoyaldecree:—“We have a universal and absolute power over the consciences of all our subjects in thingspertaining-totheworshipofGod—sothat,ifweplease,wecanintroducenewdutiesneveryetheardof,inthemostimportantpartsofreligion.Andwemayimposeontheminthepracticeofreligion and divine worship, whatever we please; so that in our judgment, it does notcountenancevice,nordisgracetheDeity.Thispowerisnaturallyinherentinus;itwasnotgivenorgrantedtousbyJesusChrist,butbelongedtousorourpredecessorsbeforehewaseverborn.

340And this is such thatweourselves, ifwewould,mightexercise thespecialofficesordutiesofreligion in our own person — especially that of the Priesthood — though we are pleased totransfertheexerciseofittoothers.Allourprescriptions,impositions,andinjunctionsonthesethings, immediately affect and bind the consciences of our subjects, because they are ours.Whethertheyarerightorwrong,trueorfalse,weenactandordainasfollows:—[Hereinsert,ifyouplease,theauthor’sschemeofreligion,giveninthesecondchapter.]Thateverymanmay,anddoesthinkandjudgewhateverhepleasesconcerningthethingsenjoinedandenactedbyus.Forwhat havewe to dowith their thoughts and judgments? They are under the empire anddominionof conscience,whichwecannot invade, even ifwewould.Theymay, if theyplease,judgetheminconvenient,foolish,absurd—indeed,contrarytothemind,will,andlawofGod.Ouronlyintention,will,andpleasureistobindthemtotheconstantobservationandpracticeof

them,andthatisunderthepenaltiesofhanginganddamnation.”503

Extravagantasthisstatutemayappear,itiscomposedchieflyofParker’sownwordsandphrases,andinthesensetooinwhichheusedthem.Itisscarcely necessary to say that Owen’s Vindication is a triumphantexposureofthefollyandiniquityofsuchsentiments.Indeedtheycannotbear examination; and the chief difficulty in replying to them is theirintrinsicabsurdityandmadness.341YetsuchwastheconfidenceorvanityofParker,thatafterthepublicationof his Polity, he said to the Earl of Anglesea, “Let us see, my Lord,whetheranyofyourchaplainscananswerit.”Parkerlookedupwardsforsupport, and did not care at what expense he wrote himself into aBishopric.The substanceofhisPolitywaspreachedatLambeth; and itwasprintedby theorders ofSheldon, aman of similar sentiments andspirit.TheDoctor’sworkgreatlytendedtopromotehiscelebrityamongtheDissenters; and did great credit to his talents and spirit, aswell asgoodtothecause.Besides,byDr.Owen’s“TruthandInnocence,”Parkerwasveryroughlyhandledbyseveralanonymousantagonists.“Insolenceand Impudence triumphant: Envy and Fury enthroned: the Mirror of

Malice andMadness, in a late Treatise entitled,” etc. 1670. “TolerationDiscussed in twoDialogues.” 1670. “Criticisms on a new book, entitledEcclesiasticalPolity.”1670.“AFreeInquiry into theCausesof thatverygreat esteem theNon-conformistministers are inwith their followers.”1673.TheseareonlysomeoftheproductionswhichappearedonthesideoftheNon-conformists.Next year, Parker published “A Defence and Continuation of theEcclesiasticalPolity,”againstDr.Owen;andinthefollowingyear,astillfurtherattackonhiminaprefacewhichhewrotetoaposthumousworkof Bishop Bramhall.

504 These works abounded in the lowest abuse of

Owen.Hecallshimthe“GreatBell-weatherofdisturbanceandsedition.”— “The viper,” he says, “is so swelled with venom that it must eitherburst, or spit its poison.” — “The dunghill is his only magazine, andcalumnyhisonlyweapon.”342Heopenlyavowsthat,“IfDr.Owenhadbeentreatedasillorworsethanisalleged,yetitcanneverbepretendedthathewas treatedworse thanhedeserved.Forhewasapersonof soperniciousa temper, of somuch insolence, of such a restless implacable spirit, of such a sworn and inveterate hatredtowardthegovernmentofthechurchandstate, thatwithoutceremonyorfearof incivility,heoughttohavebeenpursuedasthegreatestpestandmostdangerousenemyofthechurchandcommonwealth;andwhoeverwisheswelltohiscountry,canneverdoitgreaterservicethanbybeatingdowntheinterestandreputationofsuchsonsofBelial.”

Thiswasspeakingoutwithavengeance,andsilencewastheonlyreplytosuch shocking language., All this is prefixed by Bramhall’s defence ofhimself andhis brethren against the charge of Popery.Hewas the fastfriendofLaudandtheotherUltrasof thatperiod.Hewasoneof thoseardent and secular spiritswhomainly assisted in stretching thebowofEcclesiastical prerogative, until it finally broke in their hands. Parkerimitatedhis“PatronLord,”andproducedthesamegloriouseffect.Although Owen appeared nomore in this controversy, it by nomeansterminatedhere.ThevaingloriousChurchmanwasdoomed to receiveascourging from the hands of a Layman, which must have made himwritheineverysinew.Charlesandhiscourtwerepassionatelydevotedtowitandraillery.TheygloriedinaButler,whoseburlesquepoetryexposedthePuritans to contempt, andbroke the edgeofpublic censure againstthemselves.Theotherparty,however,couldboastaMarvel

505—whowas

a wit and a poet too, — the most patriotic senator of his time, whose

ironicmuseoftenlashedthefolliesandthevicesofthecourt.Thiswittywriter took up the conceited clergyman, and in his “RehearsalTransprosed.”Itturnedallthelaughersagainsthim,anditwasreadwithdelightfromthekingdowntothetradesman.

506

343Therearetimesandsubjectswhichrequiretheuseofridicule;anditwillsometimessucceed,ifjudiciouslymanaged,whengraverargumentfails.—“Ridiculumacri

Fortius,etmeliusmagnasplerumquesecatres.”507

Parkerandhispartywerenowdriventothenecessityofadefenceagainstthisunexpectedmodeof repelling them.Victorywasno longer thoughtof,ifadecentretreatcouldonlybeeffected.TheyassailedMarvelwithallmanner of weapons. In a twinkling there appeared, A Reproof to theRehearsal Transprosed; Rosemary and Bayes; The TransproserRehearsed;GregoryFatherGreybeard,withhis vizoroff;ACommon-placeBook,outoftheRehearsalTransprosed;StoohimBayes;etc.Marvel,undismayedbysuchashowerofmissiles,returnedtothecharge.InasecondpartoftheRehearsal,heagainoverwhelmedhisadversaries,andeffectuallysilenced theirbattery. Itwasgenerallyadmitted that theoddsandvictorywereonhisside.AndithadthiseffectonParker,saysWood: that he judged itmore prudent to lay down the cudgels than toenterthelistsagainwithanuntowardlycombatant,sohugelywell-versedin the thenbutnewly refinedartof sportingand jeeringbuffoonery.

508

AlthoughParkerretreated fromanyfurtherattackafter thesecondpartoftheRehearsalappeared,intruthheonlysuppressedthosepassionstowhich he was giving vent in secrecy and silence. Indeed, that was notdiscoveredtillaposthumousworkofhiswaspublished,inwhichoneofthemoststrikingpartsisadisgustingcaricatureofhisoldantagonist.344Marvelwas indeedarepublican, thepupilofMilton,andheadoredhismaster.ButhismoralsandhismannerswereRoman—he livedontheturnip of Curtius, and he would have bled at Philippi. We do notsympathisewiththefiercespiritofthoseunhappytimes,thatscalpedtheheadfeeblyprotectedbyamitreoracrown.Buttheprivatevirtuesandtherichgeniusofsuchamanarepurelyfromthespiritofparty.

509

TheParliamentwhichmet in1670, fellupontheNon-conformistsmorefuriouslythanever.TheyrevivedtheActagainstConventicles,andmadeit severer thanbefore.After ithadpassed the commons,Dr.Owenwasrequestedtodrawupsomereasonsagainstit,whichwerelaidbeforethehouseof lordsbyseveralpersonsofdistinction.Hepointedoutinplainandstronglanguage,itsunjustandimpoliticnature.

510Butitwasall in

vain—thebillpassedthelords,thewholebenchofBishopsvotingforit,exceptWilkins, Bishop of Chester, andRainbow,Bishop of Carlisle. BythisiniquitousAct,thepersonswhoattendedanymeetingsforreligiousworship,otherthanthoseoftheChurchofEngland,weremadeliabletoheavyfines:thepreachertwentypoundsforthefirstoffence,andfortyforthe second. To encourage informers, theywere entitled to one-third ofthat; and it was provided that all the clauses in the Act should beconstruedmostlargelyandbeneficiallytosuppressConventicles,andtojustifyandencourageallpersonstobeemployedinitsexecution.

511

345Neal justlyremarksonthisAct, thatthewitofmancouldhardly inventanythingshortofcapitalpunishment,thatwasmorecruelandinhuman.Nothing less than the extermination of Dissenters seemed to bedetermined; and only He who restrains the wrath of man could haveprevented its having that effect. It is scarcely conceivable how menpossessing the leastparticleofChristianprincipleor feeling, could takepartinsuchameasure.Yetsuchistheblindinginfluenceofpower,andthe deceitfulness of the heart, that professed Christians have supposedsuch enactments are a service to the cause of God. Joh 16.2 These andsimilar deeds of oppression in support of Ecclesiastical establishments,bymen connectedwith them, independent of other considerations, areenoughtoblasttheirreputation,andtoinduceaconvictionthatthecausewhichrequiressuchsupportcannotbethecauseofGod.

Nontaliauxilio,necdefensoribusistis…512

Attempts to ruin their fortunes, and injure their usefulness, werecombined with the cruelest machinations to blacken their privatecharacter. So long as the Dissenting ministers stood high in publicestimation, it was found impossible to accomplish by state edicts, thedestruction of their cause. In abuse and detraction, auxiliaries weresoughttoaidthecommonobject.Parker,aswehavealreadyseen,wasa

leader inthisspeciesofgloriouswarfare.Hewas joinedthatyearbyanable andhearty co-adjutor, towhosepages Ihaveoftenbeen indebted,theRev.GeorgeVernon,aGloucestershireRector,whowaseducatedatOxfordwhileOwenpresidedintheuniversity.

513Heproduced,“ALetter

toaFriend,concerningsomeofDr.Owen’sprinciplesandpractices.”4to.pp. 78. Owen is here described as “the Prince, the Oracle, theMetropolitan

514ofIndependency.”

346Heisdenouncedas“theAhithophelofOliverCromwell—ablasphemerand perjured person, and a libeller of authority after the restoration ofCharlesII.”Heisaccusedofhaving“praisedGodforsheddingthebloodof Christian kings and their loyal subjects — and of being guilty ofreiteratedperjuriesagainstthatGod,whomheconfidentlyaffirmedtobethe inspirer of all his prayers.” In short, the state is invoked to takevengeanceonamiscreantwhosecrimesdeservedthehighestpunishmentthelawscouldinflict.WeareaccustomednowtohearthenameofJohnOwenpronouncedonlywith respect. But these things show that he partook largely of thecommontreatmentofallthedisciplesofChrist.Hisnamewascastoutasevil, and allmanner of reproachwas poured out onhim falsely for theSonofMan’ssake.Theverdictofposterityisoftenmorefavourable,andalwaysmoreimpartial,thanthatofthepresentgeneration.Thememoryofthejustisblessed,whilethatofthewickedislefttorot.Theviolenceofthis attackwas such that theDoctor found it necessary tomeet it in ashort letter to Sir Thomas Overbury, from which we have frequentlyquoted.

515Vernonhadstudiedattentivelytheoldwickedmaxim,

Calumniareaudacter,aliquidhaerebit.516

AndOwenhad learnedfromFatherValeriantheuseofanotherphrase,which he very decidedly applies to his clerical opponent. To someimpudent slanders which were propagated against him, that Fathersimply replied, “Mentiris impudentissime;”

517 so said the amiable and

wittyBlaisePascal, inanswerto thecalumniesof theJesuits;518andso

saidOwen,sansceremonie,tothelibeloftheRev.GeorgeVernon.347ThesituationofthepoorDissenterswastrulypitiable.Theywerebaited

byallsortsofantagonists,fromtheroyalmastiff,readytodevour,tothecontemptiblechurchcurwhocouldonlybarkorsnarl.Whatever lineofconduct theypursued, theyweresure tobeabused. In the truespiritofProcrustes,

519 their enemies were determined to stretch them, or lop

them.“Theychallengeus,”saidAlsop,“toapaperduelinthemostprovokinglanguage,suchaswouldsetanedgeonthemostobtusecoward.Ifmodesty,anambitionforpeace,orloveofretirement,temptustodeclinethecombat,wearethenpostedupforcowardice;butifweawakensomuchspiritastotakeupthegauntlet,andreturnthemildestanswer,thentrustyR.getsitinthewind,and immediately summons his hamlets, raises thewholeposse ecclesiae and spiritualmilitiaupon us, and strangles the helpless infant in the cradle. If it escapes, and is written withbecomingseriousness,theyhaveonereply,‘thisisnothingbutwhiningorraving!’Ifthestyleisbrisk,theyhaveonewordreadytoconfuteit,‘thisisdrollery,burlesque,buffoonery.’Againstallof this I seenoother remedybutsilentcomplaints;or itmaybe this short rejoinder:—Tolle

Legem,etfiatdisputatio.”520

ThelearnedMr.CharlesChauncey,PresidentofHarvardCollege,diedinFebruary,1671.ItmusthavebeenaboutthistimethatOwenwasinvitedto become his successor— unless, because of his advanced age (Mr.Chauncey was eighty-two at his death), Owen had been invited to theofficeduringhislifetime.

521

348Dr. Owen was particularly qualified for such an office. His learning,talents, and experience, together with the knowledge he must havepossessed of academic affairs from his situation in Oxford, all pointedhimouttohisbrethreninNewEngland,asamostsuitablepersontofillthe important trust. Harvard College was founded about 1630, andderived itsname fromMr.JohnHarvard,aworthyminister,who leftaconsiderablesumofmoneytolaythefoundationofafundforitssupport.Many persons in England contributed both money and books to theinfant institution.Among themwereMr.Baxter, SirKenelmDigby, SirJohnMaynard, ArchbishopUsher,Mr. JosephHill, and the celebratedTheophilusGale,wholeftthegreaterpartofhisvaluablelibrarytoenrichit. The first PresidentwasMr.Nathaniel Eaton, whowas succeeded in1640,byMr.HenryDunstar;hecontinuedinofficetillhebecameBaptistin1654.HewassucceededbyMr.Chauncey,whoremainedtillhisdeath.Fromthis collegemanyof themostvaluableministers inAmericahavecomeforth;anditcontinuestoenjoyconsiderablereputation.

522

IhavediscoverednodocumentascertainingthefactofOwen’sinvitation

to fill thePresidency.Yet, as theMemoirsprefixed tohis Sermons andTractsassertit,aswellasassertingthathehadaninvitationofasimilarnature from some of the Dutch universities, little doubt can beentertainedofitstruth.349In the month of August 1671, the Magistrates and Ministers ofMassachusetts Bay, addressed a letter to their brethren in England,imploringassistanceforthesupportofHarvardcollege—thesupplyofaPresident,andthatyoungmenmightbesentovertobeeducated.Areplytothis letterwaswrittenandsubscribedbyDr.Owenandtwelveof theLondon Independent Ministers. It is dated February 5th, 1672. Theydeplore their great inability toaffordall the relief thatwasneeded,butintimate that they were doing something for their assistance, whichwouldbesentafterwards.TheyregretthedifficultyoffindingaPresident,andrecommendDr.Hoar—amemberofMr.Collins’church,whowasthen proceeding to New England. It is an exceedingly Christian andaffectionateletter,andshowshowcordiallythechurchesonbothsidesoftheAtlanticwere disposed to support and countenance each other.Dr.HoarwasaccordinglychosenPresident.

523But inconsequenceof some

misunderstanding between him and the students, he resigned early in1675, and died soon after.He had been originally educated inHarvardcollege himself, but came over to England in 1653, where he took hisdegreeofM.D.,andmarriedaladyofrankofthenameofLisle.

524

This same year, 1653, the Doctor published his work on the Sabbath,which he had originally designed to form part of his Exercises on theEpistle to theHebrews; but for particular reasons he now issued it byitself.Hisgreatobjectinit,istoestablishtheauthority,andillustratetheduties and privileges of the day of sacred rest. The fanatics of theCommonwealth, among their other extravagances, had disputed itsDivineobligation,andcontendedthatitwasapartoftheceremonialLawabrogated by Christ. From maintaining that every day alike was holy,theyhadproceededtomakeeverydayalikeprofane.Rom14.5

350The publications and conversation of such persons had stumbled andshaken many; but they were not the chief causes of the relaxedobservationoftheLord’sday,whichwasthenprevailing.Thespiritofthe

BookofSports525stillinfluencedtheBritishcourt;andEpiscopalwriters

had done much to shake the faith of the country in the privilege andsacredobligationoftheChristianrest.ThedesignandtendencyofPeterHeylin’sHistoryoftheSabbathweretodestroyitssanctification,andtorootuptheprinciplesgenerallyentertainedbyChristiansonthatsubject.AlldecentregardfortheSabbathwascompletelythrownoffbythekingandhisministers.Theirprivateconductonthatday,asitappearsfromanoteinaformerpartofthiswork,wasexecrablyimmoral.AndwhentheyattendedtheworshipofGod,itseemedtobetheirchiefdesigntoaffordapublic exhibitionof thehighest contempt ofGod, andof sacred things.The effect of such an example may easily be conceived. The seriousobservation of the first day of the week was a decided evidence ofPuritanism, which was held in more abomination than the grossestdebauchery. A general looseness of manners began to prevail, and themightytorrentofiniquitythreatenedtosweepallsobrietyandgodlinessfromtheland.It was the duty of all who feared God, and desired to promote theinterestsofreligion,tocounteractthisgrowing,andverydangerousevil.The work on the Sabbath was peculiarly calculated to repress iniquity,and to establish truth. It abounds in learned and judicious reasoningswhich, in general, without quoting opponents, Owen effectuallydemolishestheirscepticaldoubts,orsophisticaldeclamations.351ItrevealshismightyacquaintancewiththeScriptures,andwithallsacredand profane antiquity, as well as with the history of the church. Heestablishes,by incontrovertibleevidence, theDivineappointmentof thefirstdayoftheweekasthedayofholyrest.Andinhisillustrationofitsnature,heisequallyremotefromboththeceremonialrigidityofjudaicalworship,andtheloosenessofpopishandprelaticalallowance.Henotes,ononehand,theevilwhich,“consistsintheaccommodationofthelaws,andprecepts,andinstitutionsofGod,tothelusts,and present courses and practices of men. A mystery of iniquity to this purpose has beenrevealedof late, tending to theutterdebauchingof the lives and consciencesofmen.Aworkexceedinglyacceptabletoallsortsofpersonswho,ifnotgivenuptoopenatheism,wouldrejoiceinnothingmore, thaninareconciliationbetweentheruleof theirconscience,andtheir lusts,thattheymightsinfreelyandwithoutremorse.”

Ontheotherhand,heacknowledges,thatsome,“have collectedwhatever they could thinkof that is good,pious, anduseful in thepracticeof

religion, andprescribed it all inamultitudeof instances, asnecessary to the sanctificationofthisday—sothatamancanscarcely,insixdays,readoverallthedutiesthatareproposedtobeobservedontheseventh.Theyhavelabouredmoretomultiplydirectionsaboutexternalduties—givingthemout,asitwere,bynumberorlist—thantodirectthemindtoadueperformanceof thewholedutyof thesanctificationof theday,according to thespiritandgeniusofgospelobedience.Andsomemeasuringothersbythemselves,andbytheirownabilities,havebeenapttotiemenuptosuchlongtiresomeduties,andrigidabstinences,thathavecloakedtheirminds,

andturnedthewholeserviceofthedayintoawearisomebodilyexercisethatprofitslittle.”526

352Theseandsomeotherexpressionsinthiswork,occasionedanunpleasantmisunderstanding of his meaning among several of his brethren, andbrought upon theDoctor great distress and vexation.He had also saidthat,“TheobservationoftheLord’sdayistobecommensuratetotheuseofournaturalstrengthonanyotherday,frommorningtonight.TheLord’sdayistobesetaparttotheendsofaholyrestunto God, by everyone, as his natural strength enables him to employ himself in his lawful

occasionsanyotherdayoftheweek.”527

Weshouldthinkthereisnothinginthislanguageveryliabletoexception,or capable of beingmisunderstood. That God does not require greaterexertioninhisserviceontheSabbath,thanwearecapableofmakinginourownserviceonotherdays,wouldseemtobethedoctrineofcommonsense,aswellasoftheScriptures.Thesentiment,however,producedanexpostulatory letter fromEliot, the apostle of theAmerican Indians, towhich the Doctor wrote a reply. This claims our attention, not onlybecause it vindicates Owen from unfounded suspicion of beingunfavourabletothemoralobligationoftheLord’sday;butalsobecauseitaffords a fine specimen of the tenderness of his feelings, under thesufferings and unjust reproaches with which he had been frequentlyloaded.353“As to what concerns the natural strength ofman, either I was under somemistake in myexpression,oryouseemtobesoinyourapprehension.Ineverthought,andIhavenotsaid,thatthecontinuanceoftheSabbathistobecommensuratetothenaturalstrengthofman,butonlythatitisanallowablemeansofmen’scontinuanceinSabbathduties.This,Isuppose,youwillnotdeny, lestyoucast theconsciencesofprofessors into inextricabledifficulties.When first Iengagedinthatwork,Ididnotintenttohavespokenonewordaboutthepracticalobservationoftheday;butonlytoendeavourtherevivalofatruthwhich,atpresent,isdespisedamongus,andstrenuouslyopposedbysundryDivinesoftheUnitedProvinces,whocallthedoctrineofthe

Sabbath,FigmentumAnglicanum.528

Itwasonthedesireofsomelearnedmenintheseparts,thatIundertookthevindicationofit.HavingnowdischargedthedebtwhichIowedtothetruthin thismatter, and to the church ofGod, I suppose I shall not again engage on that subject.Though it was not as I ought, it was donewith such a composition that I hope, through the

mercyofourLordJesusChrist,itmightfindacceptancewithGod,andwithhissaints.

“I suppose there is scarcely anyone alive in theworld,whohasmore reproaches cast onhimthanIhave—thoughuptonowGodhasbeenpleased,insomemeasure,tosupportmyspiritunderthem.Istillrelievedmyselfbythis:thatmypoorendeavourshavefoundacceptancewiththechurchesofChrist.Butmyholy,wise,andgraciousFatherseesitneedfultotestmeinthismatteralso.AndwhatIhavereceivedfromyou—which,itmaybe,doesnotcontainyoursensealone— has printed deeper, and left a greater impression onmymind, than all the virulentrevilingsandfalseaccusationsIhavemetwithfrommyprofessedadversaries.Iacknowledgetoyou,thatIhaveadryandbarrenspirit,andIheartilybegyourprayersthattheHolyOnewould,notwithstanding all my sinful provocations, waterme from above. But that I should now beapprehendedtohavegivenawoundtoholinessinthechurches,isoneofthesaddestfrownsinthecloudybrowsofDivineProvidence.

354:IhaveassertedthedoctrineoftheSabbath,thoughnotasitought,yetaswellasIcould.Ihavepleadedfortheobservationofitinholyduties,totheutmostofthestrengthforthosewhomGodshallbepleasedtogiveus.Ihavealsodeclaredthenecessityofaseriouspreparationforit, insundrypreviousduties.Butnow, tomeetwithsevereexpressions— itmaybe, ‘tis thewillofGodthatvigourshouldherebybegiventomyformerdiscouragements;andthatthereisacallin

ittoceasefromthesekindsoflabours.”529

While we sympathise with Owen in the sufferings which this letterdescribes,andadmiretheChristianfeelingwhichitreveals,wearetaughtby it the impropriety of forming rash judgments, and of condemning awriterforthesupposedmeaningofaninsolated

530paragraph,towhich

his general character and sentiments are decidedly opposed. Hislanguagerespectinghissufferingsandreproaches,isfullyjustifiedbythestatementswehavegiven.Andweplacehiminapointofviewinwhichhe is now seldom contemplated: a companionwith his brethren in thetribulation and patience of Jesus Christ. The splendour of an objectfrequentlydiminishesthenearerweapproachit.Theglorywithwhichafuture generation sometimes encircles a devoted minister of heavenlybenevolenceis,inmanyinstances,moretheeffectoftheirdistancefromhim,thanoftheir justappreciationoftheactualvalueofhisservices.Itis,at times,asdangerous toresist the tideofpopulareclat,

531as it isat

othertimestostemtheswellofpopularprejudice.355MayitnotbefearedthatsomeofthosewhonownevermentionthenameofOwenexceptwithanepithetofdistinction,hadtheylivedbesidehim,wouldhavebeenamonghisbitterestenemies?Buthowsmallamatteritis, to seek or to obtain the honour of man during any period of thistemporarydispensation!

532

Inthebeginningoftheyear1672,Charlesperceivedthebadeffectsofhisseverity against the Dissenters, or he was desirous to promote theinterests of Popery.He issued a declaration of indulgence, inwhich heassumedtherighttodispensewiththelawsofParliamentinecclesiasticalmatters.Byhisownauthority,hesuspendedtheexecutionofallthepenallaws against Non-conformists and Recusants,

533 and allowed them to

meetforpublicworshipupontakingouta license tobegrantedforthatpurpose.Manyof theNon-conformistsscrupledabout the lawfulnessofavailing themselves of the privilege thus granted, because it proceededfromtheassumptionofanillegalpoweronthepartofthecrown.Butasitonly enabled them to enjoy what they were naturally entitled to, andwhichtheycouldnotlawfullybedeprivedof;andastheenjoymentofthisprivilegewas not an act of injustice to others; it seems useless to haveperplexed themselves on this subject. They were all sufficiently awarethatthegrantwasnotmadefromanygoodwilltowardthem;butitwastheirbusinesstoaccepttheboon,eventhoughbestowedwithanillgrace,orfromabaddesign.356“Wedid,indeed,”saysOwen,“thankfullyaccept,andmakeuseofthisroyalfavour.Forsomanyyears,wehadbeenexposedtoallmannerofsufferingsandpenaltiesbywhichmultitudeswereruinedintheirestates;andsomelosttheirlives.WewerewithouthopesofanyremissionfromtheParliament,bytheirmistakingthetrueinterestofthekingdom.So,weweregladtotakealittlebreatherfromourtroubles,underhisMajesty’sroyalprotection.Itwasdesignedonlyasanexpedient, aswasusual in former times, for thepeace and security of thekingdom,until the

wholemattermightbesettledinParliament.”534

WhentheDeclarationofIndulgencewaspublished,theNon-conformistministersofLondondesired to return thanks tohisMajesty;but foundsomedifficultyinagreeingtothetermswhichtheyoughttoemploy.AnaddressdrawnupbyDr.SeamanandMr.Jenkinswastooeulogistic,andcouldnotbeagreedto.Baxtersaysthatwhentheycouldnotcometoanagreementabouttheform,theyconcludedonacautiousacknowledgmentof the king’s clemency, which was delivered extempore, having beenintroducedbyLordArlington to the royalpresence for thispurpose.

535

This, however, is not strictly correct. An address was drawn up byDr.Owen,agreedtobytheministers,andpresentedbyhimtohisMajesty.Iamhappytobeabletopresentacopyofthisdocumenthere:357MayitpleaseyourMajesty,

Wehumbly thank you for the favour of this opportunity, inwhichwemay acknowledge thatdeepsensewhichwehaveofyourgraciousclemency,theeffectsofwhichweeverydayenjoy.Itisthatalonewhichhasinterposedbetweentheseverityofsomelaws,andsomemen’sprinciplesandus,whichotherwisewouldhaveeffectedourruin—thoughwearepersuadedthatneithertheonenortheother,couldcountervailyourMajesty’sdamagethereby.

It is this, principally, inwhich the kings of the earthmay render themselves like theKing ofheaven,whenbytheirpower,wisdom,andgoodness,theyrelievethemindsoftheirpeaceablesubjects from fear, distress, and distracting anxieties, and trials on their persons (renderingtheir lives burdensome to themselves, anduseless to others)—which yourMajestyhasdonetowards multitudes of your subjects in this nation. And we do rejoice in this advantage, todeclaretoyourMajesty,thataswehaveaconscientiousrespecttowardallthoseobligationstoloyaltywhichlieonthecommonaltyofyoursubjects,sobeingcapableofaparticularoneinthegreatest of our concerns: the liberty of our consciences and assemblies,which others are not(theydesirenomorethanwhattheyesteemtheirrightbylaw).Weholditourduty,whichweengage in before you, not only to be partakers with them, but to preserve in our minds aparticularreadinesstoserveonyourMajesty’scommandsandoccasions,asweshallberequiredoradvantagedforit.Andwehumblypraythecontinuanceofyourgraciousfavour,andweshallpraythatGodwouldcontinueHispresencewithyouinallyouraffairs,andcontinueyourroyalheartinthesecounselsandthoughtsofindulgence,whosebeginningshaverestoredquietnesstoneighbours,peacetocounties,emptiedprisons,andfilledhouseswithindustriousworkers,andengagedthehandsofmultitudesintotheresolvedandendeavouredreadinessforyourMajesty’sservice—asnotknowinganythinginthisworldthatisdesirabletothem,beyondwhattheymay

enjoyunderyourgovernment,andbyyourfavour.”536

358FromOwen’sconnexions, itmayeasilybesupposedthatheknewmoreabout what was passing at court and in Parliament, than most of hiscontemporaries intheministry.It iscurioustonoticetheaccountgivenbyadversariesofhisanxiety toascertainwhatwasgoingon,andof theusewhichhemadeofhisinformation.“Witnesshis fishingout theking’s counsels, and inquiringwhether thingswentwell as tohisgreat Diana, liberty of conscience? How hisMajesty stood affected to it?Whether he wouldconniveatit,andtheexecutionofthelawsagainstit?Whowere,orcouldbemadehisfriendsatcourt?What bills were likely to be put up in Parliament? How that assembly was united ordivided? etc. And, according to the current, and the disposition of affairs, he acquainted his

underofficers, and by their letters each post,537 they were to inform their fraternity in each

corner of the kingdom, how thingswere likely to gowith them, how they should order their

business,andforatimeeitheromitorcontinuetheirconventicles.”538

359Thisaccountis,nodoubt,exceedinglyexaggerated.Butifeverywordofitwere true, it only does honour to the Doctor’s vigilance, and hisdisinterested anxiety to promote the welfare of his brethren. In suchtimes, neutralitywas criminal, and themanwho did not employ everyhonourablemeans to avert the dangers which threatened the cause he

hadespoused,wasguiltyofbetrayingit.TheIndulgence,suchasitwas,promotedthecomfortandincreaseofthechurches. The Independents and Presbyterians set up a public weeklylecture to testify of their union on themost important subjects; and toresisttheprogressofPopery,Socinianism,andInfidelity.TheselecturesweredeliveredatPinner’shall,onTuesdaymornings;andcontinuedtobe carried on jointly till 1695, when the two parties divided inconsequence of the controversy about Crisp.

539 The first lecturers were

Doctors Owen, Manton, and Bates, and Messrs. Baxter, Jenkins, andCollins. Two of the discourses by Dr. Owen, were published in theMorning Exercises. The subject of the first is, “Howwemay bring ourhearts to bear reproofs?” The second is on the question, “How is thepracticalloveofTruththebestpreservativeagainstPopery?”Heentitlesit, “The Chambers of Imagery in the Church of Rome laid open; or anAntidote against Popery.” The one was preached in 1674, the other in1682.Thelastisaverylongandveryablediscourseinwhichhetraces,toits truesource,all theapostasyandabominationsof thepapacy,andofevery false systemofChristianity— the loss of thepersonalpower andenjoyment of the truth, and the substitution of something external intheir place. This affected their views of the object of worship, of itsspiritual nature, of the character of the church of Christ, of its properglory,anditsDivinelyinstituteddiscipline.360ThedangerfromPoperyatanytime,ariseschieflyfromtheprevalenceofignoranceandvice,andfromitsadaptationtothestrongestprinciplesofhuman depravity. Let the Bible be loved and circulated, and genuinereligionprosperinthosewhohavebeenthesubjectsofDivinemercy,andnodangermaybeapprehendedfromCatholicemancipation,oranyotherconstitutionalfavourbestowedonthefollowersofthebeast.Rev13.3

In 1672, the Doctor published anonymously, “A Discourse concerningEvangelical love, Church peace, and unity. With the occasions andreasons of present differences and divisions about things sacred andreligious.Written in vindication of the principles and practice of someministersandothers.”8vo.pp.258.Thisisaveryexcellentwork,thoughlessknownthanmostofOwen’sbooks,perhapsasaconsequenceof itsbeingwithouthisname.Hisviewsof loveandunityareadmirable;andthey are brought to bear on the controversy then warmly agitated by

Baxter and some others, respecting the Dissenters attending parishchurches—towhichOwen,forweightyreasons,wasdecidedlyopposed.In the most dispassionate, and Scriptural manner, Owen states thecorruptionsanddefectsofnationalchurches,andthereasonswhich(heconceived) justified his own separation, and that of his brethren, fromthem.Theadministration—thekindofconnexionbetweentheministersand the people which obtains in them; the entire destruction of theoriginal terms of communion — namely, evidences of faith and trueconversion,andthesubstitutionofotherthings intheirplace,bywhichthe church “becomesamereworldly society, andallChristian love andunityarecompletelydestroyed.”Thesearetheleadinggroundsonwhichhe rests thenecessity ofChristianswithdrawing from such institutions,andjoiningtogetherinvoluntarysocieties.361It isonly inchurchesconstitutedofspiritualpersons(as theapostolicalchurchesevidentlywere),whohavetheunrestrictedmanagementoftheirownaffairs,undertheregulationofthelawofChrist,thatallthebenefitsof Christian fellowship can be enjoyed, and all its duties properlydischarged.Itisstrange,thatmenseekingtoactsimplyastheprimitivedisciples did, should be charged with schism, and with introducing allmanner of evil. Voluntary societies are of apostolical institution, andnational churches are a human device of a subsequent age. These arematters of fact so palpably evident that whoever denies them scarcelydeservestobereasonedwith.Itcannotbematterofsurprisethatmanyshould choose to follow the former, rather than the latter. And as it isnow so publicly avowed by the advocates of Establishments, that they[national churches] are no part of Christianity, but only a wall for itsprotection,orthemeansofitspropagation,itcanstill lessbewonderedat, that many should object to such an unauthorised appendage. Thework of Owen is constructed on principles, the progress of which hasbeen widely extended since his time. And as these are founded on theinvincible basis of Scripture and of fact, theymust ultimately triumphover every secular ecclesiastical establishment on earth. Those whocontendfortheseprinciples,mayappeartobetheenemiesofpeace,andunity, and love. But in the end, they will be found to have been theirtruestfriends.“SpeciosumquidemnomenestPacis, et pulchraopiniounitatis; sedquis ambigat eamsolam

unicamEcclesiaePacemessequaeChristiest?”540

362Mr. Joseph Caryl died February 5th, 1673. He had been pastor of anumerousCongregation,which he collected soon after theRestoration,andwhichmetforsomeyearsinLeaden-hall-street.

541

“His labours,” says a friend who knew him well, “were great; his studies incessant; hisconversationunspotted;his charity, faith, zeal, andwisdom, gave a fragrant smell among thechurchesandservantsofChrist.—Hissickness, thoughpainful,wasbornewithpatienceandjoyinbelieving;andsohepartedfromtimetoeternityunderthefullsailofdesireandjoyintheHolySpirit.HelivedhisownSermons.Heatlastdesiredhisfriendstoforbearspeakingtohim,that so he might retire into himself; which time they perceived that he spent in prayer;oftentimes liftinguphishandsa little;andat last, findinghishandsdidnotmove, theydrewnearandperceivedhehadsilentlydepartedfromthem,leavingmanymourningheartsbehind.”542

Owenandhehad longbeen intimate friends; theyhad frequentlybeencolleagued together in the timeof theCommonwealth; theirhabits andsentimentswereverysimilar;andastheirchurchesassembledneareachother,

543theyproposedunitingtogetherunderDr.Owen,afterthedeath

of his esteemed friend and brother. As all parties seemedwell affectedtoward thisproposition, the two churchesmet for the first time for thejointworshipofGod,onthe5thofJunethatyear.Dr.Owenpreachedavery excellent and appropriate Sermon from Colossians 3.14. Heillustratesthenatureandexerciseoflove,astheprincipaldutyrequiredamongsaints,especiallyasconnectedinchurch-fellowship.Hesayswithmuchsolemnity,363“Ideclaretothiscongregation,thisday,thatunlessthisevangelicalloveisexerted,notlooselyand generally, but mutually among ourselves toward each other — we shall never give ouraccounttoJesusChristwithjoy;norshallweevercarryonthegreatworkofedificationamongourselves.AndifGodispleasedbuttogivethisspiritamongyou,thenIhavenothingtofearbut

themereweaknessanddepravityofmyownheartandspirit.”544

The united church consisted of one hundred and seventy-one persons,whichisreckonedaconsiderablesocietyamongIndependents;butitwasstillmoredistinguishedfortherankofsomeofitsmembers,thanforitsnumber.AmongthesewereLordCharlesFleetwood;SirJohnHartopp;ColonelDesborough(brother-in-lawtoOliverCromwell);JamesBerry(adistinguishedofficeroftheCommonwealtharmy);alsoLadyAbney;LadyHartopp;LadyVereWilkinson;LadyThompson;andthecelebratedMrs.Bendish,grand-daughtertoCromwell,andremarkablyliketheProtectorinsomeofthestrongfeaturesofhischaracter.

545Religionwasnotthen

so rareamongpersonsof rankand family, as ithas sincebecome.AndeventheNon-conformistscouldreckonamongtheirmembersnotafewindividualsinthehigherwalksofsociety,whoconsidereditanhonourtoshare their sufferings, as well as their privileges. The persons nowmentionedcontinuedtoadornthedoctrineofChristformanyyears,andthe Doctor remained in the oversight of them, till his death. I willintroducehere,afewgleaningsfromtheirhistory.364CharlesFleetwood,son-in-lawtoCromwell,wassprungfromanancientfamily, formerly inLancashire.Heheldapost in thecourtofCharlesI,butjoinedtheParliament,andsoonrosetothehighesthonourswhichitcould bestow. In 1647, he was one of the Commissioners appointed todealwiththeKing;hehadnoinvolvementintheking’sdeathafterwards.OnthedeathofIreton,hemarriedhiswidow;afterwhichhewasmadeCommander-in-chief of the army in Ireland,which he entirely secured.He wasmade one of Oliver’s Lords, and is therefore often called LordCharles Fleetwood.He obtained favour after theRestoration, and livedprivatelyforthemostpartatStokeNewington,wherehediedsoonaftertheRevolution,Hesufferedmuchforhisprinciplesasadissenter.Atonetime, the fines imposed on him and on Sir John Hartopp (who wasmarriedtooneofhisdaughters),andafewothers,amountedto£6000or£7000.

546,OwenappearstohavebeenstronglyattachedtoFleetwood,

assomeofhisletterstohimshow.547Heisaccusedofcowardice,though

I suspect unjustly— this was not a common vice in the leaders of theCommonwealth.Grangersayshehadnogreatskillasasoldier,andlessasapolitician;buthehadaverypowerfulinfluenceoverthebigotedpartof the army. He thought that prayers superseded the use of carnalweapons, and that it was sufficient to trust in the hand of Providence,withoutexertingthearmofflesh.

548This,however,isthecommonstyle,

inwhich themenof thatperiodarereproached forplacingdependenceon God for the success of their exertions. The measures which theyemployed,ingeneral,sufficientlyprovethattheyknewhowtousemeans,aswellastoexercisetrust.365Noble acknowledges that “he was religious, and had the greatestvenerationforcivilliberty.”Determinedthatwhatarevirtuesinordinary

men, shouldbedeformities inFleetwood,Noble adds, “buthis ideasofboth were so romantic, fantastical, and erroneous, that they wereblemishesinsteadofornamentstohischaracter.”

549

Major-GeneralBerrywasoriginallyaclerk inan ironwork,accordingtoBaxter; a wood-monger in London, according to Noble. He was at anearlyperiod thebosomfriendofMr.Baxter,whohighlyesteemedhim,andsays,“He was aman of great sincerity before the wars, and of very good natural parts, especiallymathematical and mechanical. Affectionate in religion, and while conversant with humblingProvidences,doctrines,andcompany,agreatenemytopride.ButwhenCromwellmadehimhisfavourite,andhisextraordinaryvalourwascrownedwithextraordinarysuccess,hismind,hisaim,histalk,andallwasaltered.”

In a word, he became an Independent, by which he lost Baxter’s goodopinionofhim;butitdoesnotthereforefollowthathedeservedtoloseit.HerepresentedthecountiesofHerefordandWorcesterin1656,andwasremovedtoCromwell’supperhousethefollowingyear.HewasaleadinginstrumentinpullingdownRichardCromwell,andanactivememberoftheCouncilofState.Baxteradmits,whichisastrongtestimonytoBerry’scharacter(consideringtheopinionwhichwejustquoted)—“thathelivedafterward as honestly as could be expected in one who takes error fortruth,andeviltobegood.HewasforsometimeaftertheRestoration,aprisoner in Scarborough Castle; but upon being released, he became agardener.” I do not know how to reconcile this with the fact thatParliamentorderedBerrytoretirefromLondontowhicheverofhisseatswasfarthestfromthecity.Itisprobablethathelostmuchofhisproperty,but not likely that he lost thewhole. I have not been able to ascertainwhenhedied.

550

366SirJohnHartoppwasdistinguishedbothforhisChristiancharacter,andfor the high respectability of his family.His grandfather was created abaronetbyJamesI in1619,onlya fewyearsafter the institutionof theorder.Hewasbornin1637,andatanearlyperiodofhislifecasthislotwith the Independents.Hemarried thedaughter ofCharlesFleetwood,Esq.andthusbecamealliedtotheCromwell family.LadyHartoppdiedNov. 9, 1711. It was after her funeral that Dr. Watts preached andpublished“Thelastenemyconquered.”

551SirJohnlivedtotheadvanced

ageofeighty-five,anduponhisdeath,April1,1722,Dr.Wattspreached

themostbeautifulofallhisdiscourses:“Thehappinessofseparatespiritsmadeperfect.”AsSirJohnandLadyHartoppwerenotonlymembersofthechurchofwhichDr.Wattswaspastor,butashehadresidedfiveyearsin their house as tutor to their eldest son, the Doctor was particularlyqualified to bear testimony to the character of these estimableindividuals.He says little ofLadyHartopp, thoughwhathedoes say ishighlytoherhonour;buthegivesafull-lengthportraitofSirJohn.“TheBookofGodwashischiefstudy,andhisdivinestdelight.Hisbible laybeforehimnightandday,andhewaswell-acquaintedwiththewriterswhoexplaineditbest.Hewasdesiroustoseewhat theSpiritofGod said tomen in theoriginal languages.To this end,he commencedsomeacquaintancewiththeHebrew,whenhewasmorethanfiftyyearsold;andthathemightbe capable of judging any text in theNewTestament, he kept his youthful knowledge of theGreeklanguage,insomemeasure,fortheperiodofhislife.

367Among the various themes of Christian contemplation, he took particular pleasure in thedoctrinesofgrace,inthedisplayofthegloriesofthepersonofChrist,Godinournature,andthewondrousworkofredemptionbyhiscross.Hisconversationwaspiousandlearned,ingeniousand instructive.Hewas inquisitiveabout theaffairsof the learnedworld, theprogressofartsandsciences,theconcernsofthenation,andtheinterestsofthechurchofChrist—andonalloccasions,hewasasreadytocommunicateashewastoinquire.Hiszealforthewelfareofhiscountryandofthechurchinit,carriedhimouttothemostextensiveandtoilsomeservicesinhisyoungerandmiddleage.Heemployedhistime,hisspirits,his interest,andhisriches, forthedefenceof thispoornation,whenitwas intheutmostdangerofpoperyandruin.HewasthreetimeschosenrepresentativeinParliament,forhiscountyofLeicestershire,inthoseyearswhenasacredzealforreligionandliberty,strovehardtobringinthebillofexclusiontopreventthe Duke of York from inheriting the crown of England. Nor was he ashamed to own andsupportthedespisedinterestoftheDissenters,whenthespiritofpersecutionragedhighestinthedaysofCharles,andKingJamesthesecond.Hewasapresentrefugefortheoppressed,andthespecialProvidenceofGodsecuredhimandhis friends fromthe furyof theoppressor.Heenjoyed an intimate friendship with that great and venerable man, Dr. Owen, and this wasmutuallycultivatedwithzealanddelightonbothsides,tilldeathdividedthem.

368Alongandfamiliaracquaintanceenabledhimalsotofurnishmanymemoirs,ormattersoffact,towardthatbriefaccountoftheDoctor’slifewhichwasdrawnupbyanotherhand.Now,canwesupposetwosuchsoulstohavebeensohappilyintimateonearth,andmaywenotimaginetheyfoundeachotheramongthebrighterspiritsonhigh?Maywenot indulgeourselvestobelievethatour latehonoured friendhasbeen congratulateduponhis arrival, by thatholymanwho

assistedtodirectandleadhimthere?”552

John Desborough was descended from a respectable family, and wasoriginallybredforthelaw.Onthebreakingoutofthecivilwars,hejoinedthearmyof theParliament inwhich,onaccountofhis valour,he soonobtainedaregimentofhorse;andin1648,herosetotherankofaMajorGeneral.HewasnamedoneoftheHighCourtofJustice,forthetrialoftheKing;buthehadthecouragetorefusetosit.Hemarriedthesisterof

Oliver Cromwell, and was one of the Lords of his upper house.Notwithstanding this, he opposed the Protector’s measures, andsuccessfully resisted his attempt to assume the regal dignity. At theRestoration,heattemptedtoleavethekingdom,buthewasarrested,andexcepted fromtheactof indemnity—thoughnot to forfeithis life.Thegovernments of Charles and James seem to have been very jealous ofhim,which isnot tobewonderedat, considering their conductandhisprinciples. Itwouldappear,however, thathe livedquietlyandprivatelyall the latter part of his life; and died shortly after the Revolution.

553

Grangersayshewasclumsyandungainlyinhisperson,clownishinhismanner,andboisterousinhisbehaviour.

554

369Lady,orratherMrs.Abney,asherhusbandwasnotknightedtillafterherdeath,wasadaughterofJosephCaryl,andapartakerofthepietyofherfather.SirThomaswasdescendedfromanhonourablefamilyatWilsley,in the county of Derby.He was born in January 1639.Having lost hismotherwhenyoung,hewassenttoschoolatLoughborough,tobeunderthecareofhisaunt,LadyBromley,whoseinstructionswereconducivetothosereligiousimpressionswhichdistinguishedhimthroughoutlife.Hebecame amember of the church in Silver-street, under the care of Dr.Jacomb,andafterwardsofMr.Howe.HewasknightedbyKingWilliam,andchosenLordMayorofLondonin1700.Asanevidenceofhispiety,ontheeveningofthedayonwhichheenteredonhisoffice,hewithdrewsilently fromthepublicassemblyatGuildhall, after supper,went tohisownhouse,andthereperformedfamilyworship;thenhereturnedtothecompany. After the death of his first wife, he married in 1700, thedaughterofJohnGunston,Esq.LadyAbneywas amember of the church inBury-street; andwhile thename of Dr. Isaac Watts continues to be respected, those too of SirThomas and Lady Abney, under whose roof he resided for thirty-sixyears,willbecherishedwithgratefulaffection.TheRev.JeremiahSmithwasthepastorof thechurchwhenSirThomasdied.TheaccountwhichhegivesofthefamilyreligionofthisNon-conformistKnight,deservestobequotedfortheinstructionofChristiansinsimilarcircumstances.“Herewere,everyday,themorningandeveningsacrificesofprayerandpraise,andreadingtheholyScriptures.HestrictlyobservedandsanctifiedtheLord’sday.Godwassolemnlysoughtandworshipped,bothbeforeandafterthefamily’sattendanceatpublicordinances.Therepetitionofsermons, the reading of good books, the instruction of the household, and the singing of the

Divine praises together,weremuch of the sacred employment of the holy day— variety andbrevitymakingthewholenotburdensomebutpleasant;leavingatthesametimeroomforthedevotionsofthecloset,aswellasforinterveningworksofnecessityandmercy.

370Personscomingintosuchafamily,withaserioustinctureofmind,mightwellcryout,‘ThisisnoneotherthanthehouseofGod;this is thegateofheaven!’Besidestheordinaryandstatedservicesofreligion,occasionalcallsandseasonsforworshipwerealsomuchregarded.Insignalfamily mercies and afflictions, in going on journeys, in undertaking and accomplishing anymatters of greater moment, God was especially owned by prayer and thanksgiving; theassistanceofministersbeingoftencalledinonsuchoccasions.Throughthewholecourseofhis

life,hewaspriestinhisownfamily,exceptwhenaministerhappenedtobepresent.”555

LadyThompsonwasadaughteroftheEarlofAnglesea,andwifeofJohnThompson, LordHaversham. This Nobleman belonged to a republicanfamily, andwashimself rather attached to that side inpolitics.HewasmadeabaronetbyCharlesI,andwasveryactiveagainstthemeasuresofCourtduringthetwoPopishreigns.HeaccordinglyjoinedthePrinceofOrange, by whom he was made a baron and Lord of the Admiralty.Towards the latter part of his life, he is said to have changed hisprinciples, and gone over to the Church party, though he sometimescontinued to attend themeetings.HisLordshipmoved in theHouseofPeers for thePrincessSophia’scomingover,asa thingnecessary to thepreservationoftheProtestantreligion.

556Mr.Howe’sfuneralsermonfor

Mr.MatthewMead,whodiedinOct.1699,isdedicatedtoLordandLadyHaversham.Hespeaksstronglyof thevaluewhichtheyattachedtoMr.Mead,andoftheintimacyoftheirfriendship:371“Your Lordship’s great respect,” he says, “to this servant of Christ, was even hereditary, anddescendedtohimbyyou,fromyourfamily.AndyourLadyship’sgreatvalueofhim,thoughitmight take its first rise from so dear and judicious a relative, could not but receive a great

increasefromhisknownworth,andyourowndiscerningjudgment.”557

Dunton’s character of his Lordship, represents him as a man ofpenetrationanddeepknowledgeintheaffairsofEurope;asapatriotwhoasserted the rights of the Church of England, without punishingDissenters; as possessed of all the tenderness of good nature, and thesoftnessoffriendship,andageneroussenseofthemiseriesofmankind.558

Mrs.Polhill,wifeofEdwardPolhill,Esq.ofBurwashinSussex,wasalso,Isuppose,amemberofthechurch.Atleast,theDoctoraddressesherina

beautiful letterwhichhewroteon theoccasionofherdaughter’sdeath,notonlyasasister,butastheobjectofspecialaffectionandcare.

559Her

husband,thoughafriendofOwen’s,andoftheDissenters,washimselfintheEstablishedChurch.AllthatIknowofhimwillbefoundattheendofthevolume.OfLadyVereWilkinson,Iknownothing.ShewasthewifeofaKnight,Isuppose,asIdonotobserveanytitleofthisdescriptioninthePeerageorBaronetageofEngland.OfMrs.Bendish,veryfullandamusingaccountshaveoftenbeengiven.Dr.Owen,itissaid,washerfavouriteauthor;buthercharacterwasmoremarked by the peculiarities of her grandfather, than by the constantinfluenceofOwen’sprinciples.372Dr.Wattsaddressesapoemagainsttearstoher,anditistobehopedsheis now where all eccentricities forever cease, and where all tears areforeverwipedaway.TheParliamentwhichmetthisyear[1672],werehighlyoffendedwiththeking’sdeclarationofindulgence,andinsistedonitsbeingrecalled.Theybegan,however,todistinguishbetweenprotestantandpopishdissenters,andwerewillingtoshowmorefavourtotheformerthantheyhadbeenaccustomedtodo.TheypassedtheTestAct[1673],bywhichdissenterswere rendered incapable of holding places of power or trust under thegovernment;andthecourtsoonafterreneweditsseverities,byrecallingthe licences which had been granted to the Non-conformist ministers,andby issuingadeclarationrequiring theexecutionof the lawsagainstConventicles.Bytheseunrighteousmeasures,manyweremadetosuffermost grievously. Among the first of them, was Mr. Baxter,notwithstandinghisrooteddislike torigiddissent.

560 Idonot find that

Dr. Owen suffered personally, but he was far from being unconcernedabout the sufferings of his brethren. He wrote a very spirited paper,“AdvicetothecitizensofLondon,”inwhichheexpressesverystronglyhisopinionof theunparalleled severities inflicted onprotestant dissenters.561Hissafetywasveryprobablyowingtothehighrespectabilityofsome

ofhis connexions.Heenjoyed the favourand friendshipof theEarlsofOrreryandAnglesea,LordsWilloughby,Wharton,andBerkely,andofSirJohnTrevor,oneofthesecretariesofstate.

562

373A short account of these noblemen, who were distinguished for theirattentions to theNon-conformists, andsomeof them for theirpersonalpiety,willperhapsbeacceptabletothereader.Roger Boyle, fifth son of the great Earl of Corke, and brother of thecelebratedRobertBoyle,wascreatedlordBroghillwhenonlysevenyearsofage,andunderthistitleheiswellknownfromtheconductofCromwelltoward him on several occasions. He was created Earl of Orrery byCharlesIIsoonaftertheRestoration,whichhehadzealouslypromoted.Hewaseminent forhisattachment to theprotestantcause,androse tothe highest posts in the government of Ireland. He never made a badfigure, except as anauthor.Asa soldier,hisbraverywasdistinguished,hisstratagemsremarkable.Asastatesman,it issufficienttosaythathehad the confidence of Cromwell. As aman, hewas grateful andwouldhavesupportedthesonofhisfriend.LikeCiceroandRichelieu,hewouldnotbecontentwithoutbeingapoet.LikeAtticus,heprudentlyadaptedhimself to the changes of the times; but not by a timid and cautiousconduct, or securing himself by inaction,much less bymean or sordidcompliances.

563

Arthur Annesley, son of Sir Francis Annesley, LordMountNorris, wasborninDublin,in1614.Whileaprivateyoungman,hewasonthesideofCharlesI;butafterwardsheembracedthatoftheParliament,towhichherenderedsomeimportantservices.HewasnottrustedbyCromwell,butwasmadepresident of the council of state after the fall ofRichard.Hewas active in this capacity for the Restoration. He enjoyed much ofCharlesII’sfavour,bywhomhewasmadeEarlofAnglesea,treasurerofthenavy,commissionerforresettlingIreland,andLordprivyseal.374He was a Calvinist in his religious sentiments, and from his liberalconduct towardmen of different parties, he left it doubtfulwhether hewasaConformistorNon-conformist inprinciple.Thedissentersalwaysconsidered him as their friend. And as his Lordship and Dr. SamuelAnnesley were cousins, and some of the Non-conformist ministersgenerally resided as chaplains in his house, he knew much about thedissenters, and interested himself greatly on their behalf. He left avaluablecollectionofbooks,whichhehadprocuredatgreatexpense,andwhich,aftertheexampleoftheDePuysandColberts,heintendedshould

nevergooutofhisfamily;butitwassoldafterhisdeath,whichtookplacein1686.

564TheCountessofAngleseawassomuchattachedtoDr.Owen,

that sometimebeforeherdeath, she requested that theDoctor’swidowallowhertobeburiedinthesamevaultwithhim—thatindying,aswellasliving,shemighttestifyofherregardtowardhim.

565

LordWilloughbyofParham,distinguishedhimselfgreatlyasanofficerintheParliamentaryarmy,atthebeginningofthecivilwar.Hisfather,lordLindsay,waskilledatthebattleofEdge-hill,andhimselftakenprisoner.He wasmade general of the horse under the Earl of Essex. But beingdisgustedby theCommons refusing apersonal treatywith the king, heassistedthetumultsinthecity,bywhichtheParliamentwasdriventothearmy,andforwhichhewasafterwardsimpeached.375Notchoosingtostandatrial,heretiredtoHolland,wherehewasmadeVice-Admiralof the fleet fittedoutbyCharles, thenprinceofWales. In1650,hewentoutprivatelytoBarbados,whereheproclaimedCharlesIIand assumed the office of governor.He defended the island for a timeagainst Cromwell’s fleet, but at last surrendered on condition of beingpermittedtoreturntoEnglandandenjoyhisestate.HewassentouttobegovernorofBarbadosbyCharlesin1666,wherehedied.

566TheParham

familyappeartohavecontinueddissenterstoaverylateperiod.Henry,LordWilloughby,whodiedin1775inthe79thyearofhisage,wasburiedin Bunhill fields, the receptacle of the ashes of the dissenters for twohundredyears.Philip,LordWharton,wasaPuritannoblemanofconsiderablenote.Hewas one of the laymembers of theWestminster Assembly, and took amostactivepartinsupportingtheParliamentagainsttheKing.Fortheseservices hewas created an Earl by theHouse.Hewas appointed, withseveralothers,residentcommissioneratEdinburgh,toattendtheScotchParliament.Hewassent to theTower forchallengingthe legalityof theLong Parliament of Charles II. After this, he travelled abroad, carryingMr.Howewithhim.Heseems tohavebeenadecidedNon-conformist,andhishousewasarefugefortheirministersinthetimeofpersecution.WhileattendingDr.Manton’smeetingonetime,theplacewasbeset,andhisnametakendown.Theplacewasfinedfortypounds,andtheministertwenty,whichhisLordshippaid.Mr.Lockedescribeshimas“anoldand

expertParliamentman, of eminentpiety andabilities, a great friend totheProtestantreligion,andtheinterestofEngland.”

567

376Inapostscript to a letterwritten fromhishouse to the church inBuryStreet,byDr.Owen,whenhewasill,—theDoctorthusexpresseshimselfrespectingthefamily:—“IhumblydesirethatyouwouldinyourprayersrememberthefamilywhereIam,fromwhomIhave received and do receive great Christian kindness. I may say as the Apostle said ofOnesiphorus, theLordgivetothem,that theymaythe findmercyof theLord inthatday, for

theyhaveoftenrefreshedmeinmygreatdistress.”568

Also, the Countess of Wharton appears to have been a very excellentwoman, and from the language of Mr. Howe, in the dedication of his“Thoughtfulness for the future,” shewasdecidedlyaNon-conformist, ifnot a member of his church. He speaks of her Ladyship having beencalled to serve the Christian interest “in a family in which it had longflourished;andwhichitdignifiedbeyondallthesplendourthatantiquityandseculargreatnesscouldconferuponit.”

569

GeorgeBerkely,createdEarlofBerkely,in1679,wasaprivycouncillorinthe reigns of Charles II, James II, and William. He was also LordLieutenant of Ireland for several years. He bestowed a very valuablelibrarywhichhadbeencollectedbySirRobertCooke,onSionCollege,fortheuseofthecityclergy.Ifwemayjudgeabouthisreligionfromasmallwork which he published in 1670, “Historical Applications, andOccasional Meditations upon several subjects,” we must think veryfavourablyofit.Alludingtothisbook,anditsauthor,Wallerexclaims,“BoldisthemanwhodaresengageForpietyinsuchanage.”

377He was a nobleman of strict virtue and piety, and of suchundistinguishing affability toward men of all ranks and parties, as tooccasionhisbeingexhibitedbyWycherly inhis “PlainDealer,” asLordPlausible.

570

SirJohnTrevor,wasabranchofanancientandnoble family inWales;andbothheandhisfatherwereparticularlyrespectedbytheProtectors,Oliver and Richard. He married Ruth, daughter of the celebratedHampden, and possessed a portion of his patriotism. Charles either

forgotTrevor’sservicestotherepublic,ordesiredtogainthefavourofapowerful family; forhenotonlyknightedhim,but in 1668senthimasAmbassador to theCourtofFrance—afterhis return,heraisedhimtohisprivycouncil,andmadehimoneofhisprincipalsecretariesofstate.His former connexions sufficiently explain his partiality for the Non-conformists.Hediedofafeverin1672.

571

Owen was not only known to several of the leading noblemen, ormembersofadministration;boththeKingandtheDukeofYorkpaidhimsomeattentions.Being in a very languishing state of health in 1674,

572

Owen was at TunbridgeWells when the Duke of York was there. TheDuke sent for him, and had several conversationswith him in his tentabout theDissenters andConventicles. After his return to London, theKinghimselfsentforOwen,andconversedtwohourswithhim,assuringhimofhisfavourandrespect,andtoldhimthathemighthaveaccesstohim whenever he pleased. Charles alsomade strong professions of hisregardforlibertyofconscience,anddeclaredhowsensiblehewasoftheinjuriesthathadbeendonetoDissenters.Asaproofofhisgoodwishestowardthem,hegavetheDoctorathousandguineastodistributeamongthosewhohadsufferedmostbythelateseverities.378The Doctor thankfully received his Majesty’s generosity, and faithfullyappliedittotheobjectsofhisbounty.

573Whenthiscametobeknown,a

great clamour was raised by the Churchmen, who reported that OwenandtheDissenterswerepensionedtoserve thePopish interest.But theDoctorafterwardsrepliedtothiswithconsiderablepassion,“Thatneveranyonepersoninauthority,dignityorpower,inthisnation,noranyonethathadanyrelationtopublicaffairs,noranyofthePapists,orProtestantseverspokeonewordtohimoradvisedwithhimaboutanyindulgenceortolerationtobegrantedtoPapists,andchallengesalltheworldtoprovethecontraryiftheycan.Thepersonsaresufficientlyknownofwhomthey

maymaketheirinquiry.”574

Notwithstandingthis,BurnetassertsthatStillingfleettoldhimtheCourthiredtheDissenterstobesilent,andthatthegreaterpartofthemwereso,andwereverycompliant.

575

Thissameyear,theDoctorhadtosustainaveryunexpectedattackonhiswork on Communion with God, published nearly twenty years before.This came from the pen ofDr. Sherlock, known as the author of some

worksonProvidenceandDeath,whichdohimmorecreditthanhisbookagainst Owen — though none of them reveal accurate views of thedoctrinesofthegospel.379His strictures on Owen are entitled, “A Discourse Concerning theKnowledgeof JesusChrist, andourUnion andCommunionwithhim,”etc. 1674. They are a confused mass of Socinianized Arminianism, inwhichthedoctrinesofimputationandofjustificationbyfaitharedenied;and language isemployedrespectingthepersonofChristandhiswork,whichIwillnotstainmypagesbyquotingthem.Owenappearstohaveconsidereditoneofthepitifulattemptstorunhimdown,andtodestroythecreditofhiswritings,towhichhehadforsometimebeendoomedtosubmit. He met it in, “A Vindication of some passages in a Discourseconcerning Communion with God, from the exceptions of WilliamSherlock,RectorofSt.George,ButtolphLane.pp.237,12mo.1674.”TheworkonCommunionissofarremovedfromcontroversy,thatitseemsawonder that it should have excited it; and as it had beenwell-receivedduring the whole period that it had been published, it seems evenstranger.Butwhenamatterforaccusationissought,nohumancharacteror production can be proof against its being found. Quoting some ofSherlock’sperversionsofhiswordsandsentiments,Owenexclaimswithconsiderablefeeling:“Whatdoesthismanintend?DoesheeithernotatallunderstandwhatIsay,ordoeshenotcarewhat he says himself? What have I done to him? In what have I injured him? How have I

provokedhim,thatheshouldsacrificehisconscienceandreputationtosucharevenge?”576

Inrailingandabuse,SherlockwasmorethanamatchforOwen;but inthelistsoftheologicalwarfare,hewasaverydwarfinthegraspofagiant.Owenexposeshisignorance,hispetulanceandvanity,theinconsistencyand absurdity of his statements in such amanner asmust havemadehim, ifhehadanysenseof shame left,blush thathehadevermeddledwithasubjectthathesoillunderstood.380ThecontroversywastakenupwithgreatspiritbyseveralothersbesidesOwen. Robert Ferguson published in a thick octavo, “The Interest ofReasoninReligion,withtheimportanduseofScriptureMetaphors,andsome reflectionsonMr.Sherlock’swritings, etc. 1675.”A secondattackonSherlockcamefromthepenofEdwardPolhill,Esq.“AnAnswertothe

DiscourseofMr.WilliamSherlock, etc.,8vo. 1675.”A thirdpublicationonthesamesidecamefromVincentAlsop,theSouthoftheDissenters,“Antisozzo, or Sherlocismus enervatus, etc.” This was the first work inwhichhecalledattentiontohimself.Bothbyhiswitandhis talents,onthis and some other occasions, he rendered important service to thecauseof truth.“SpeculumSherlockiantum:oraLookingGlass inwhichtheadmirersofMr.Sherlockmaybeholdtheman,”wassupposedtobethe production of Henry Hickman, a minister of learning andconsiderable controversial talents, who afterwards died in Holland.

577

“Prodromus,orthecharacterofMr.Sherlock’sBook,”wastheproductionof Samuel Rolle, who also wrote “Justification Justified,” in the samecontroversy. “A Friendly Debate between Satan and Sherlock,” and asubsequent defence of it, were written by Thomas Danson, the ejectedminister of Sibton. The object of his treatises was to show that on theprinciplesofSherlock,Satanmighthavethesamehopeofsalvationwiththehumanrace.381SherlockrepliedtoOwenandFergusonin1675,buttooknonoticeofhisother opponents. Another clergyman also, Thos. Hotchkis, Rector ofStaunton, intervenedinthecontroversyin,“ADiscourseconcerningtheImputation of Christ’s Righteousness to us, and our sins to Him, etc.1675.” In it, he takesupbothDr.OwenandMr.Ferguson.This authorseemssubstantiallyofMr.Baxter’ssentiments,andstatesthedoctrineofimputation in several places, with considerable accuracy. With thesepublications, the Communion controversy terminated. The subjectsdiscussedwereofgreat importance,and thezealwithwhich thedebatewasgoneinto,revealsthe interest thatwasthentakeninthem.Itmusthavecontributedgreatlytothecirculationoftheworkwhichoccasionedit,andwhichhas longout-livedthetempestof temporaryrage,andthechilling damp of personal detraction. It remains the object ofcommendation,whileitsantagonistsareforgottenandunknown.In1674OwenpublishedthesecondvolumeofhisworkontheHebrews;and in the same year, the first part of his elaboratework on the Spiritappeared.Itisentitled“A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit. In which an account is given of the Spirit’s name,nature,personality,dispensation,operationsandeffects.Hiswholework in theOldandNewCreationisexplained;thedoctrineconcerningitisvindicatedfromoppositionandreproaches.ThenatureandnecessityalsoofGospelholiness;thedifferencebetweengraceandmorality,ora

Spiritual life to God in Evangelical obedience, and a course of moral virtues, is stated anddeclared.Fol.pp.575.”

382The plan of this work embraced a number ofmost important subjects,eitherformingpartofthedirectworkoftheSpirit,orcollaterallyrelatedto it. The Doctor, not being able to finish the whole design at once,published the first part of it in this large volume; and at considerableintervals he published the remaining parts of his plan. As it will saverepetitions, and enable us to formamore consistent viewof the entirescheme,Iwillhereintroducealltheotherbranchesintheorderinwhichthey were published. The first of them is “The Reason of Faith, or ananswertothatinquiry,WhydowebelievetheScripturetobetheWordofGod?etc.,8vo.1677.”ThisisthefirstpartofhisviewoftheSpirit’sworkinillumination.Inthefollowingyearthesecondpartofthisbranchofthesubject cameout: “TheCauses,Ways, andMeans of understanding theMindofGod,asrevealedinhisWord;andadeclarationoftheperspicuityoftheScriptureswiththeexternalmeansoftheinterpretationofthem.”8vo.In1682came,“TheWorkof theHolySpirit inPrayer,withabriefinquiryintothenatureanduseofmentalprayerandforms.”8vo.Andin1693, two posthumous discourses — “On the Work of the Spirit as aComforter, andashe is theAuthorofSpiritualGifts,”—completed thedesign.TheseworksevidentlyembraceanextensiveandinterestingviewofthisgreatdepartmentoftheDivineadministration.Astheyarefilledupwiththeabilityandcopiousnessoftheirauthor,andarethefruitofhismostmaturedexperience,theyconstitutethemostcompleteexhibitionoftheScripturedoctrineofSpiritualagencyand influence, tobe found inanylanguage. Any analysis that I could give would afford a very imperfectview of theworks themselves; nor indeed is this necessary, as they arebetter known, either in the originals, or by some useful abridgements,than most of Owen’s writings. Therefore, all I will attempt is a shortnoticeoftherelativeconnexionoftheseveralsubjects.383The first part is properly occupied with an examination of the DivinenatureandpersonalityoftheSpirit,andhisoperationsinconversionandsanctification. The Doctor justly attaches much importance to correctsentiments on these subjects— for the Deity of Christ, the doctrine of

atonement, and the influence of the Spirit are closely connected, andconstitutetheleadingtruthsoftheRevelationoftheGospel.IftheSpiritisnotGod,hecannotbetheauthorofthoseeffectswhichareascribedtohim;andshouldnotbetheobjectofacknowledgementandsupplication.Ontheotherhand,ifthecorruptionofhumannatureisasextensiveandinveterateastheScripturesrepresentit,thenwithouttheprovisionofanAlmightyagent,whoseinfluence,whenputforth,mustproveirresistible,wecouldhavenosecurity forreceivingtheatonementandapplyingthegrace of Christ in the destruction of sin. Owen examines all thesesubjects,with everyplausible objection to them,with great carefulness,and at great length. Thewhole strength of his theological vigour is putforth,nowarrivedatitshighestmaturity;scarcelyanythingisleftwhichwecoulddesiretobesaid,eitherforillustrationordefence.FromtheSpiritandhisinfluence,heisnaturallyledtotreattheSpirit’sRevelation in the Scriptures; the kind of evidence onwhichwe believethem to be the word of God; and the consistency of using means forunderstandingthem,withdependenceonspiritualillumination;togetherwith thekind ofmeans we are required to employ. This branch of thesubject involves some of the finest and most abstruse points ofmetaphysicalandrevealedtheology.384-TosaythatOwenhasremovedeverydifficulty,anddisentangledall theintricacies of a subjectwhose difficulties and obscurities arise— partlyfrom the limited capacities of the human constitution; partly from thelimits which God has prescribed to himself in his communications tomen;andpartlyfromtheperversereasoningsofphilosophicaldivines—wouldbesayingtoomuch.Hehas,however,donethemostthatmancando. He has exhibited the doctrine of Scripture fairly and fully, andappealed to general experience for the truth of his representations.Ontheonehand,Owenwasnoenthusiast:heexpectednoillapses,

578ornew

revelations,orextraordinaryintimationsofthewillofGod.Ontheotherhand,heknowsthatmeansarenotpowers,justaslawsarenotenergies— they are merely the media through which a superior influence isexerted, and which is in all cases essentially necessary, to give them abeneficialresult.Thetruthorfactiseasilyestablished;butthenatureofthatmysteriouslinkwhichconnectsDivineinfluencewithhumanduty,isperhapsnotforustoexplain.

Owenisnaturally led inthe lastpartofhisundertaking, totheofficeofthe Spirit in exciting holy desires, forming religious habits, impartingconsolation, and building up the people of God. Here there is muchpracticalinstruction,combinedwithavaluableexplanationofthevariousparts of the heavenly economy. Speaking of thewholework,NathanielMather, who writes the preface to the posthumous volume, says withmuchjustnessandfelicity,“They are not the crude, and hasty, and untimely abortions of a self-full, distempered spirit,much less theboilingsoverof inwardcorruptionandrottenness,put intoa fermentation;butthemature, sedate, and seasonable issues of a richmagazine of learning, well-digested withgreatexactnessofjudgment.

385There is in themagreat light reflectedon,aswell asderived from theHolyScriptures, thoseinexhaustible fountains of light in sacred things. They are not filled with vain impertinentjanglings,norwithanoiseofmultiplieduselessdistinctions;norwithnovelanduncouthterms,

foreign to the thingsofGod, as themannerof some isadnauseamusque.579But there is in

them,ahappyandrareconjunctionofsolidity,clearness,andheart-searchingspirituality.”

Thisworkwasnotundertakenmerely for thesakeofwritingabookonthisimportantsubject;itwascalledforbythecircumstancesofthetimesinwhich theDoctor lived.During the period of England’s convulsions,manyextravagancesandabusesprevailed;andonnosubjectmorethanon that of Spiritual influence. The wildest doctrines and speculationsweresportedinthemostfearlessmanner,asifmenhadbeenresolvedtooutvieoneanotherinoutragesonScripturedoctrineandcommonsense.Prophecies and visions, dreams and voices from heaven were publiclyreported, to the astonishment of the multitude, the amusement of thescoffer, and thegrief of the soberandenlightenedChristian.Newsectswerespringingupeveryday,eachmore fanaticalorerroneous thantheformer.Andthoughingeneraltheyhadbutanephemeralexistence,theyproduced, while they lasted, injurious effects on true religion, and leftvery baneful consequences behind them.The violent excitement of thisperiodcouldnotbeof lastingduration.Butafteritsstrengthwasspent,its influencemightbetracedonthreedistinctclassesofpersons,whoseexistence,inoneformoranother,remainstothepresentday.

580

386The pretenders to high illumination and spiritual enjoyment,independently of the Scriptures and of other external means, settledunder the general denomination of Quakers. The incongruous atoms

whichhadfloatedaboutunderdifferentnamesandvariousforms,wereat length digested into a body combining the elements of fanaticism,philosophical calmness, andmoral propriety, in a very singular degree.Fromcarrying thedoctrineof invisibleandspiritualagency too far, theextremeofdenyingitaltogetherwaseasilygottento.HostilitytoreasonasagiftofGod, themeansofexamining theevidenceofhis revelation,andofascertainingitsmeaning,lednaturallytoitsdeificationasthesoleguideandinstructorofman.TheabettorsoftheseviewsfoundanasyluminthecoldregionsofSocinianism.TheSpiritwastreatedbytheformerclass as a kind of familiar,

581 and his written communications were

despised.Hisveryexistencewasdeniedbythelatter,andhisoperationswereblasphemed.Athirdclass,formingnodistinctsectorknownbyanyspecificdesignation(thoughmorenumerousthanboththeformer),alsoaroseout of the circumstances and changes of the times. Itwas a classwhich pretended respect for religion, and hatred of enthusiasm. Butunderthelattertermofreproach,wereincludedsomeofthemostsacredtruths of Christianity, and its most important influence on the humancharacter.SuchpersonsdidnotdenytheexistenceoftheSpiritinwords;butHis operations in converting, sanctifying, and comforting a sinner,were the objects of their unqualified and never-ending hostility. Thefolliesof the formerperiodandof the fewfanaticswhostill survived it,were exaggerated; and they were charged against the many whomaintained the proprieties and doctrines of Christianity. The Court ofCharlestooktheleadinthisrefinedsystemofirreligion.387Nothingwas heard of but philosophy and reason— not as opposed torant and nonsense; but as opposed to Scripture and scriptural piety.Genuine religion was run down under the pretence of laughing atfanaticism, and decrying sectarian folly. Fawning courtiers encouragedthewantonlevityofCharles;andworldlyecclesiastics,andhungrypoets,furnished his repasts, and regaled the depraved propensities of theadmiringanddeludedcrowd.SuchwasthestateofthecountrywhenOwenformedtheplanofhisworkon the Spirit. The objects which it embraced, included the errors andvices of the various classes nowmentioned. It was designed to furnishinformationtotheignorantbutwell-meaningenthusiast;asanantidoteto the wild sportings of deluded deceivers; as a defence of the Spirit’s

character and agency against Socinians; as a vindication of the truedoctrine of Spiritual influence against the increasing tide of CourtinfidelityandclericalArminianism;andasacombinedandharmoniousview of the truths connected with the main subject of discussion. Thework was loudly demanded. The qualifications of the undertaker werebeyondanythenpossessedby“hisequalsinhisownnation.”Andbesidesthesuccesswhichattended itat thetime, ithaseversincecontinuedtorender a most important service to the cause of pure and undefiledreligion.Itwouldhavebeentoomuchtoexpectthatthisworkwouldpasswithoutopposition. Although it professedly wages war with no one, it in factopposesmany. Fanatics and Socinians, indifferent to its reasonings foroppositereasons—theformerbelievingtoomuch,thelattertoolittle—allowed it to proceed unnoticed. But the High Church party feltdifferently.388WilliamClagett,“PreachertotheHonourableSocietyofGray’sInn,andone of his Majesty’s Chaplains in ordinary,” published “A DiscourseconcerningtheOperationsoftheHolySpirit;withaconfutationofsomepartofDr.Owen’sbookonthatsubject.”1678.TheobjectofthisworkistoshowthatOwenisveryignorantofthemeaningofScripture,abunglerinreasoning,andthathisviewsofthenaturalwickednessofman,andofthepowerofGodinconvertinghim,aremuchtoostrong!Thesentimentsof Clagett are a confused mixture of Pelagian Arminianism, whichdistinguishedthebodyoftheEnglishclergyinthedaysofCharlesII.Andso far as they have any fixed opinions, it seems to be their prevailingcreedstill.OnthisworkofClagett,Mr.JohnHumfrey(whowasbutamuddywriterhimself) made some observations in his “Peaceable Disquisitions.” HecomplainedoftheuncivilmannerinwhichDr.Owenhadbeentreatedbyhisopponent.ThisledClagetttopublishasecondvolumeofhiswork,inwhich he proceeds in his attack on Owen, and harshly criticizesHumfrey’sattackonhimself.Heoriginallydesignedthathisworkshouldextendtothreeparts.Attheendofthesecond,hetellsDr.Owen,“Itremainsonlytoshowyouthattheancientsarenotforyourturn[theDoctorhavingquotedthemoccasionallyinthemarginofhiswork];which,throughtheblessingofGod,Iintendtodoin another part of this discourse, which shall contain a history of their judgments on these

points.”582

Theauthorhadpreparedthisvolumeforthepress,butithappenedthatthemanuscriptwaslodgedwithafriendofhis,whosehousewasburned,andthebookperishedintheflames.

583

389An abridgement of the two first parts was published in 1719 byHenryStebbinor;butneithertheoriginalnortheabridgementwereevermuchknown.Clagett himselfwas a respectableman, andoneof thosewhomBishopBurnetspeaksofasanhonourbothtothechurchandtotheageinwhich they lived.Buthe certainlydidnotunderstand the subject onwhich he undertook to confute Dr. Owen, to whom he was very farinferiorasatheologian.The Doctor anticipated opposition to his work, both from his pastexperience of themood of the times, and fromwhat he knew ofman’snaturaldislike formanyof thedoctrineshehadendeavoured todefendandillustrate.IntheprefacetotheReasonofFaith,hesays,“WhereIdifferintheexplanationofanythingbelongingtothesubject,fromtheconceptionsofother men, I have candidly examined such opinions, and the arguments by which they areconfirmed,withoutstrainingthewords,cavillingattheexpressions,orreflectingonthepersonsof theauthors.And though Ihavebeenotherwisedealtwithbymany, anddonotknowhowsoonImaybedealtwithagain,Iherebyfreethepersonsofsuchtemperamentsfromallfearofanyreplyfromme,ortheleastnoticeofwhattheywillbepleasedtowriteorsay.Iconsidersuchwritingtobethesameasthosemultipliedfalsereportswhichsomehaveraisedconcerningme,mostofwhicharesoridiculousandfoolish,soalienfrommyprinciples,practice,andcourseoflife,thatIcannothelpbutwonderhowanypersonspretendingtogravityandsobriety,arenotsensiblehowtheircredulityisabusedinthehearingandrepeatingofthem.”

390Inpursuanceofthisresolution,andconsideringthattheworkofClagettis in some respects of this nature, he treated it with entire silence. Attimes it isnecessary todefend the truth to the last; at other times thatsilenceisthebestreplythatcanbemade.Asseverationblust’ringinyourface

Makescontradictionsuchahopelesscase.584

When the object of a controvertist is evidently to hit blots in hisopponent’scharacter,ortoquibblewithhiswordsandreasoningsforthesake of obtaining a pitiful and unworthy triumph, or of exciting publicodiumagainstthethingcontendedfor—itisbettertoleavesuchaonetoHim that judges righteously, 1Pet2.23 and towhom it belongs to avengeHisowncause, thanbyemployingsimilarmeasures togainavictoryat

theexpenseofprincipleandgodliness.ThenextworkwhichDr.Owenproducedis,“TheNatureandPunishmentof Apostasy, declared in an Exposition ofHebrews 6.4-6. 8vo. pp. 612.1676.” In the preface to this work, he complainsmost piteously of thestate into which the Christian profession had sunk— that the pristinegloryoftheChristianchurchwasgone,andthatthegreatbodyofthosewho assumed the name of Christ had degenerated into cold worldlyprofessors,destituteofthepower,andmanyofthemevenoftheformofgodliness.2Tim 3.5 Thework itself is only an enlargedExposition of thatpartoftheepistletotheHebrewswhichparticularlytreatsapostasy,andonwhichtheDoctorwasthenlabouring.Hethoughtthecircumstancesofthetimesrequired,andtheimportanceofthesubjectjustified,aseparatetreatise.He examines at considerable length, andwith great acuteness,thesecretcausesorreasonsfortheapostasyofchurchesandprofessors.Andhepointsoutthemeansofpreventionorcure,insuchamannerasiscalculatedtorendertheworkexceedinglyuseful.391Itcannotbeascertainedwhethertheawfulevilwhichisthesubjectofthistreatise, wasmore common in the days of Owen than our own. But itmust be admitted by all who pay any attention to what passes aroundthem, that of the numberwho set out in early lifewith a tolerably fairprofession,averylargeproportionmakeshipwreckofitbeforetheydie.Thisabandonmentofthetruthissometimessuddenandflagrant;butinmost cases it is gradual and almost imperceptible till the last. It is theresult of latent and unperceived causes which operate in secret longbefore their effects are externally visible. A Christian profession is soeasily taken up, the influence ofDivine truth and invisible things is sopartial,andthepowerofinwardcorruptionandoutwardtemptationissostrong, thatmuch as we deplore it, we can scarcely wonder thatmanybecomewearyofthewaysofrighteousness,andturnagaintofolly.Itisacomfort,however,toknowthatthe“foundationofGodstandssure,”2Tim2.19thatthosewhogooutfromthepeopleofGodwereneveractuallyofthem;1Joh2.19andthatwhileallarecallednottobehigh-minded,buttofear,“theLordknowsthosewhoarehis,”2Tim2.19andwillperfect intheday ofChrist thatwhichhehashere begun. Phi 1.6 Thosewho desire toexamine the subject fully, will find much valuable instruction andwarninginthisworkofOwen.

AtpreciselywhattimetheDoctorlosthisfirstwife,Ihavebeenunabletofullyascertain.InaletterwrittenfromStadham,unfortunatelywithoutadate,hespeaksofherasmuchrevived,sothathedidnotdespairofherrecovery;

585butitisnotimprobablethathewasdisappointedinthis.

392How long he remained a widower is uncertain. But as his numerousfamily had all been taken away, and age and infirmities were now fastcomingonhim,asecondconnexionseemstohavebeenindispensabletohiscomfort.InJune,1677,

586hemarriedthewidowofThomasD’Oyley,

Esq.,brother toSirJohnD’OyleyofChiselhamptonnearStadham.Hername was Michel, the daughter of a family of distinction at KingstonRussel, Dorsetshire. She was eminent for her good sense, piety, andaffectionate disposition, and she brought the Doctor a considerablefortunewhich,withhisownestate, andotherproperty, enabledhim tokeep his carriage and country house at Ealing inMiddlesex, where hemostly lived during the latter years of his life. This lady survived theDoctormany years.Her funeral sermonwas preached byDr.Watts onthe30thofJanuary,1704.Mr.Gilbert,whoprobablyknewherwell,givesin the following lines from one of his Epitaphs on the Doctor. Thecharacterofthesecond,ashehadgiventhatofthefirstwife,wasalreadyquoted.

“Dorotheavice,nonortu,opibus,officiusve,secundaLaboribus,Morbis,senioqueipsoelanguenti

Indulgentissimametiamsenutricempraestitit.”587

CHAPTERXII.Owen’s assistants — Ferguson — Shields — Loeffs—Angier—Clarkson — Intercourse betweenOwenandBishopBarlowrespectingBunyan—OwenpublishesonJustification—OnthePersonofChrist—TheChurchofRomenosafeGuide—DeathofGoodwin—OwenpublishesonUnionamongProtestants—ControversywithStillingfleet—Owen’sVindicationoftheNon-conformists— Publications of others on the same side — Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation—Owen’s Answer — Other Answers — Unfair conduct of Stillingfleet — Owen publishes onEvangelical Churches — His humble testimony — On Spiritual-mindedness — Account of theProtestantReligion—MeditationsontheGloryofChrist—Hisdeclininghealth—Lastsickness—LettertoFleetwood—Death—Funeral—Clarkson’sSermonontheoccasion—LastWill—SaleofhisLibrary—MonumentandInscription—PortraitsofOwen—GeneralviewofhischaracterasaChristian—AMinister—AWriter—Conclusion.

During the latter part of his life, Dr. Owen generally had some personassistinghiminhispubliclabours,andwhoalsoactedoccasionallyashisamanuensis.

588AmongthesewemaynoticeRobertFerguson,anativeof

Scotland,whopossessedalivinginKentbeforetheRestoration.Afterhisejectment,hetaughtUniversitylearningatIslington,andforsometimeassisted Owen. He afterwards involved himself deeply in politicalintrigues,bywhichhebroughthimselfintodanger,andneededtofleetoHolland. He took an active part in promoting the Revolution, andreturned toEnglandwithWilliam,bywhomhewas liberally rewarded.Afterthis,heturnedJacobite,andspenthislifeincontinualagitation.Hediedatanadvancedagein1714,pooranddespised,bothbyhisbrethrenand the world. He wrote various religious works of some merit, andseveral political treatises, among which were the Duke ofMonmouth’smanifesto,onhislandingatLynne,in1685.

589

394Another of the Doctor’s assistants, was Mr. Alexander Shields, aScotsmanalso,andamanwhosufferedmuchinthecauseofGodandhiscountry.HeiswellknowninScotlandastheauthorofsomeworkswhichwerelongpopular,andcontributedmuchtopromotetheantipathyoftheScotchtoepiscopacy—“TheHindletloose.”

590“Mr.Renwick’sLife,and

VindicationofhisdyingTestimony.”“AVindicationofthesolemnLeagueand Covenant,” etc. He became minister of St. Andrews after theRevolution,andwasmuchesteemedbyKingWilliam.Hewasappointedto go to Darien as minister of the Scotch colony there; but as theexpedition failed from lack of management and sufficient support, hewenttoJamaica,wherehedied.

591

IsaacLoeffsorLoafsactedinthesamecapacitytoOwenforatime.HewasM.A. andFellowofPeterHouse,Cambridge.Hewasejected fromtheRectoryofShenleyinHertfordshire,afterwhichhecametoLondon.FromtheChurchbooksofBury-street,itappearsthathewaspastorforatime,eitherwithDr.Owen,orMr.Clarkson,ashisnamestandsamongthelistofPastors,afterthelatter.Hewasarespectableman,andauthorofaworkin8vo.,“TheSoul’sascensioninastateofseparation.”HediedinJuly,1689.

592

395Mr.SamuelAngier,whohadbeenastudentatChristChurch,wherehecontinuedtilltheActofUniformity,alsoassistedDr.Owen;andlivedinthehousewithhim.Hewasexposedtofrequenttroubleonaccountofhispreaching.Warrantswere often taken out against him, and in 1680 hewasexcommunicatedatStockportChurch.Hewasanexcellentscholar,ajudiciousandlivelypreacher,aneminentChristian,andzealousofgoodworks.Hebecamepastorofoneof theoldest IndependentChurches inEngland,atDuckenfieldinCheshire,wherehediedin1713attheageofseventy-five.

593

His lastassistant,aspastorandsuccessor in theChurchofBury-street,wasDavidClarkson.ThisexcellentmanhadbeeneducatedatCambridge,and was a fellow of Clarehall, where he had under his charge thecelebrated Archbishop Tillotson; hemaintained the highest respect forhis pupil as long as he lived. He was, says Baxter,

594 a divine of

extraordinary worth for solid judgment, healing moderate principles,acquaintance with the fathers, great ministerial abilities, and a godlyuprightlife.Birch,thoughaHighChurchman,speaksofhimwithequalrespect, “Hewas eminent for hiswritings, particularly, ‘No evidence ofdiocesanEpiscopacyintheprimitivetimes,’inanswertoDr.Stillingfleet;anotheronthesamesubjectwasprintedafterhisdeath.”

595

396

He was ejected from the living of Mortlake, in Surry, in 1662,596 after

whichhelivedinconcealmentforsometime.InJuly1682,Clarksonwaschosenco-pastorwithDr.Owen,andsucceeded to theentirechargeonhisdeath.SuchacolleaguemusthavebeenagreatcomforttotheDoctor,whospeaksofhiminsomeofhisletterswithgreatrespectandaffection.Hedidnot,however,survivehimlong,ashediedsuddenlyonthe14thof

June, 1686, at the age of sixty-five. I cannot resist quoting part of theconclusion of the beautiful sermon which Dr. Bates preached on theoccasionofhisdeath.

597

“Hewasamanofsinceregodliness,andtrueholiness,whicharethedivinepartofaminister,withoutwhichallotheraccomplishmentsarenot likely tobeeffectual for thegreatendof theministry,whichistotranslatesinnersfromthekingdomofdarkness,intothekingdomofGod’sdearSon.Conversionisthespecialworkofdivinegrace,anditismostlikelythatGodwillusethoseasinstrumentsinthatblessedwork,whoaredeartohim,andearnestlydesiretoglorifyhim.Godordinarilyworksinspiritualthingsasinnatural: foras intheproductionofa livingcreature,besidestheinfluenceoftheuniversalcause,theremustbeanimmediateagentofthesame kind for forming it; so the Divine wisdom orders it, that holy and heavenly ministersshouldbetheinstrumentsofmakingothersso.

397Let aministerbemasterofnatural andartificial eloquence, lethimunderstandall the secretspringsofpersuasion,lethimbefurnishedwithlearningandknowledge,yetheisnotlikelytosucceed in his employment, without sanctifying grace. That gives him a tender sense of theworthof souls; thatwarmshisheartwithardent requests toGod,andwithzealousaffectionstowardmen for their salvation. Besides, an unholyminister unravels in his actions hismostaccuratediscourses inthepulpit;and likeacarbunclethatseemsanimatedwiththe lightandheatoffirebutisacolddeadstone;so,thoughhemayurgemen’sdutiesonthemwithapparentearnestness,heiscoldandcarelessinhisownpractice,andhisexampleenervatestheefficacyofhis sermons. But this servant of God was a real saint, a living spring of grace in his heart,diffusedintheveinsofhisconversation.His lifewasasilentrepetitionofhisholydiscourses.While opportunity lasted, with alacrity, and diligence, and constant resolution, he served hisblessedMaster,tillhislanguishingdistempersprevaileduponhim.ButthenthebestPhysicianprovidedhimthetrueremedyofpatience.Hisdeathwasunexpected;yet,ashedeclared,itwasnosurprisetohim;forhewasentirelyresignedtothewillofGod.Hedesiredtolivenolongerthanhecouldbeserviceable.HissoulwassupportedwiththeblessedhopeofenjoyingGodinglory.WithholySimeon,hehadChrist inhisarms,anddeparted inpeace to thesalvationof

Godabove.”598

398Aboutthistime,somecorrespondencetookplacebetweenOwenandhisold tutor Barlow, now advanced to the Episcopate, respecting JohnBunyan. This excellentman,more celebrated thanmost of the personswho ever wore a mitre, had suffered long and grievously fromimprisonment,bywhichtheservanthadbeenbound,butnotthewordoftheLord.Duringhisconfinement,heproducedthoseworkswhichhaveimmortalisedhisname,anddiffusedmostextensively theknowledgeofChrist.Bytheexistinglaw, ifanytwopersonswenttothebishopofthediocese,andofferedacautionarybondthatthepersonwouldconforminhalf a year, the bishopmight release himon bond.A friend of BunyanrequestedDr.Owentogivehimaletterofintroductiontothebishoponhis behalf, which he readily granted.When the letter was delivered to

Barlow,hetoldthebearerthat,“hehadaparticularregardforDr.Owen,andwoulddenyhimnothinghecouldlegallydo;andthathewouldbewillingeventostretchalittletoservehim.Butthis,hesaid,isanewthing.Imustthereforetakealittletimetoconsiderit;andifinmypower,Iwillreadilydoit.”

Beingwaiteduponabouta fortnight forhisanswer,Barlowrepliedthathe was informed he might do it; but as the law provided, in case thebishoprefused,applicationshouldbemadetotheLordChancellor,whothereupon would issue an order to the Bishop to take the bond andrelease theprisoner. “Now,as it isa critical time,”he said, “and Ihavemanyenemies,IdesirethatyouwouldmovetheChancellorinthecase,anduponhisorder,Iwilldoit.”Hewastoldthiswouldbeanexpensivemode of proceeding, that themanwas very poor, and that as he couldlegallyreleasehimwithoutthisorder,itwashopedhewouldrememberhis promise to Dr. Owen. But he would consent on no other terms —whichatlengthwerecompliedwith—andBunyanwassetatliberty.

599

399Igive this anecdote as it occurs inAsty’smemoirsofOwen, although Ifind somedifficulty in reconciling itwith the chronology of the period.Bunyanwasimprisonedin1660,andissaidtohavebeenkeptinduranceabouttwelveyearsandahalf.Hemustconsequentlyhavebeenreleasedin1673.ButBarlowwasnotmadeaBishoptill1675.WhetherBunyan’sfirst term of imprisonment was divided, or whether he was confined asecondtimeafterthefirsttwelveyears,Icannotascertain;butthisistheonly mode of obviating the difficulty. There must have been somefoundationforthereportedinterventionofOwenandBishopBarlow,asallthememoirsofBunyan,aswellasthoseofOwen,takenoteofit.ItissaidthatOwenwasinthepracticeoffrequentlyhearingBunyanpreachwhen he came to London; which led Charles II to express hisastonishment that a man of the Doctor’s learning could hear a tinkerpreach.TowhichOwenreplied,“HadIthetinker’sabilities,pleaseyourMajesty,Iwouldmostgladlyrelinquishmylearning.”

600Bunyanappears

tohavebeenaverypopularpreacher,andmusthavehadsomethingveryattractive in his address. In themiddle of winter, hewould sometimeshave more than twelve hundred hearers before seven o’clock in themorningonaweek-day.Andwhenhe visited themetropolis, oneday’snoticeofhispreachingwouldbringmanymorethantheplaceofworshipcould contain.

601 I do not know that anything of the same nature

occurredagaintillthedaysofWhitfieldandWesley.400Barlow’sconductintheaffairofBunyandidnotaltogetherbreakuptheintercourse between him and Owen. Being together afterwards, theBishopaskedtheDoctorwhathecouldobjecttotheirliturgicalworship,whichhecouldnotanswer?Owenreplied,“MeansappointedbymenforattaininganendofChrist—exclusiveofthemeansappointedbyChristhimself for attaining that end — is unlawful. And the worship of theliturgywithallitsceremonies,isameansappointedforanendofChrist— the edification of his church— exclusive of themeans appointed byChristforthatpurpose.Therefore,itisunlawful.”HeurgedtheargumentfromEph.4.8-12.“Hegavegifts tomenfor theperfectingof thesaints,fortheworkoftheministry,fortheedifyingofthebodyofChrist.”TheBishopanswered, “Theirministersmightpreachandpray.”TheDoctorsaid,“theadministrationofthesacramentsisoneprincipalmeansoftheedification of the church. But the use of the liturgy is exclusive of theexercise of all gifts in the administration of the Lord’s Supper.” TheBishop paused— “Don’t answer suddenly,” said theDoctor, “but thinkaboutittillournextmeeting,”whichnevertookplace.

602Liturgieswere

not introduced into the church till, from its corruption by secularinfluence, it began to be served by persons who could not lead itsdevotions. The great body of the English clergy after the Reformationwereinthiscondition.Theywereunfittopreach,andthereforethestateprovidedthemwithsermons;theywereunabletopray,andthereforeitprovided them with a service book. Suspicion of their capacity, orconsciousnessof theirunfitness, is implied inthatveryprovisionwhichtheChurchhasmadeforherclergy,andinwhich,notwithstanding,theyprofesstoglory!401ThelatteryearsofOwen’slifeweremostlydevotedtowriting,andtothelabours of theministry as hewas able to perform them.He appears tohavebeenfrequentlylaidasidefromhispublicwork.Buteverymomentofhisprivateretirementmusthavebeenemployed,becauseduringthisperiod, some of his most elaborate performances were published orpreparedforthepress.Itispropertonowdirectourattentiontothese,intheirorder.In1677hepublished,“TheReasonofFaith,”ofwhichwehavespokenin

our account of his work on the Spirit. This year also appeared, “TheDoctrine of Justification by Faith, through the imputation of therighteousness of Christ, explained, confirmed, and vindicated.” 4to. pp.560.ThesubjectofthisvolumeembracesthegrandtruthoftheGospel—whatLuther called “Articulus stantis et cadentisEcclesiae”— thegreatevidenceofa standingor fallingChurch.FromthedaysofPaul, ithasmetwith oppositionnot only from theworld, but frommenprofessinggodliness, who have not understood it. In proportion to how well thisdoctrine is known and believed, the religion of an individual will becomfortable to himself, and acceptable toGod.And from thedegree ofclearnessanddecisionwithwhichitispreached,wemayinferthedegreeinwhichtruereligionflourishesinanycommunity.Owenhadstudiedthesubject longandprofoundly.Thedoctrinewasdeartohisownheart,ashe derived from it all his comfort as a sinner; and it constituted thefavourite theme of his public labours. He had examined manycontroversial books on the subject, and attended to the innumerablescholastic and metaphysical arguments by which it had either beenattacked or defended. He derived little satisfaction from these. Heconsidered itadoctrine that isnotatall suited toaspeculativestateofmind.402“ButwhereanypersonsaremadesensibleoftheirapostasyfromGod,oftheeviloftheirnaturesand lives, with the dreadful consequences that attend it in the wrath of God, and eternalpunishmentduetosin,theycannotjudgethemselvesmoreconcernedinanything,thanintheknowledgeoftheDivinewayofdeliverancefromthiscondition.”

Entirelyforthesakeofsuchpersons,heinvestigatestheDivinerevelationonthissubject,andheendeavourstoascertain“howtheconscienceofadistressedsinnermayobtainassuredpeacewithGod,throughourLordJesusChrist.”To suchbelievers, and to themalone,will thisdoctrineappear tobeofimportance.Whenengagedintheseriousinquiry,“Whatmustwedotobe saved?” everything that explains the nature, certainty, and way ofdeliverance will be considered of unspeakablemoment. In prosecutinghis investigation, theDoctor does not allow himself towander throughthemazesandcontradictionsofhumanopinion.HeconstantlykeepsinviewthecharacterofGodasaJudgeandLawgiver,theactualconditionofmanasasinner,andthegloriousprovisionmadebytheplanofmercyfor securing the honour and harmony of the Divine perfections, and

extendingsalvationtoguilty,helplessrebels.Heexaminesthenatureanduse of faith — the import of the terms justification, imputedrighteousness, and imputation of sin to Christ. He points out thedifferencebetweenpersonaland imputedrighteousness;he illustratesanumber of passages of Scripture in which the subject is treated, andrefutestheobjectionsagainsthisviews.Hemaintainstheconsistencyofthedoctrinewithlivingsoberly,righteously,andgodlyintheworld;andshowsthereisaperfectagreementbetweenPaulandJames,astheyaretreatingthesubjectunderdifferentaspects.403The great extent of this work is one of the strongest objections to it.Written with the views that he had, it should have been his study toreduce the subject within the narrowest limits possible. An anxiousinquirerisindangeroflosinghimselfinthemultitudeofhiswords,andthevarietyandprolixityofhisdiscussions.ButOwencouldmoreeasilyexpand than contract, and the present volume is much fitter for anestablishedChristianwhoknowshow“todistinguishthingsthatdiffer,”thanforabewildered,distressedsinner,whowishesasimpleanswertothequestion,“HowmayIbejustbeforeGod?”The principalworks ofOwen, indeed, are to be considered as somanyBodiesorSystemsofDivinity,inwhichoneleadingprincipleisplacedinthe centre, and all the others are arranged round it — establishing itstruth, illustrating its importance, and exhibiting its influence on them,and their influence on it. This remark applies to his work onPerseverance—hisVindicias—thePersonofChrist—andtheSpirit,—aswellastothepresentwork.Inthisrespect,theyareveryvaluable,astheycontainamoreexpandedillustrationofthemagnitudeandrelativeconnexionsof theerrantpoints in theRevelationofHeavenwhich theytreat, than almost any other human productions. While this plan ofdiscussion has important advantages, it is also attended with variousinconveniences.ItisunfavourabletothatsimplicitywithwhichtheBiblestatesall itsdoctrines,andwithwhichit isofimportancethattheyeverbeviewed.ItgivesDivinetruthtoomuchtheappearanceofartificialorsystematic arrangement. By the very terms it employs, it exposes it toopposition, andoppresses itwith explanations that impede rather thanfurtheritsprogress.404

Fewpointsintheologyhavebeenmademoremysteriousandapparentlyinexplicable than those of imputation and justification. Perhaps, if wecoulddivestthemoftheembarrassmentsoftheoreticalspeculation,theywouldappearinadifferentlight.Iapprehendthattheimputationofguiltand of righteousness, in the Scripture use of these phrases, amountschieflytoatransfer—notofcharacterordeserving,butoftheireffectsorconsequences—eitherinthewayofenjoyment,orofsuffering.Righteousnessis imputed,orreckonedtous, justassinwasimputedtoChrist.Onouraccount, thoughwithout sin,hewas treated asa sinner.On his account, though sinners, we are treated as righteous. Hissufferings were the evidences of the imputation of our guilt — ourenjoyment of pardon, acceptance, and eternal life, are the evidences ofthe imputation of his righteousness to us. That is, it is entirely for hissake, and on account of his work, that we receive them. By voluntaryengagement,hebecamesubjecttotheone;andbyfaithwepartakeoftheother.Justification is anotherexpression for the same thing: for, according toPsalm 32.1-2, quoted inRom. 4.1-8. the justification of a sinner— theimputation of righteousness, — the non-imputation of sin — and theforgiveness, or covering over of transgression — are all tantamountexpressions;theyallconveysubstantiallythesameidea.Sanctificationisachangeofcharacter;justificationachangeofstate,orcondition.Thereisnodeclarationofinnocence—notransferofdesert—nocommunicationofpersonalmerit—nobestowmentofright—butanalteration of the relative situation ofGod and the sinner in their viewsandtreatmentofoneanother.Assoonasasinnerbelievesthetestimonyof God concerning Christ’s work, there is a deliverance from thedispleasure of God, and from all the penal consequences of histransgressions;heobtainstheenjoymentofpositivehappinessorfavourfromabove,andthehopeofeternallife.405This isGod’s revealedmethod of treating the ungodlywho believe.Ontheirpart,thereisaceasingtolookonGodasanenemy—theloveofhisrevealedandgraciouscharacter—anaversiontosin—andareadinesstoobeyDivineauthority.Thesinneriscondemnedinlaw,andfoundguiltybythejudge.ButheisforgivenandrestoredtofavourbythegraciousactoftheSovereign,inconsiderationofthegloriouscharacterandmediation

ofhisSon.Thecontinuanceofthistreatment,ortheperpetuationofthisstate, is secured by the particular provisions of the covenant ofmercy.And it constitutes that justification which commences with the savingbelief of the gospel, and will at last be declared before the augustassemblyoftheuniverse—whenthesolemnsentenceofacquittalwillbepronounced from the Throne of Mercy, upon the multitude of theredeemed.The following paragraph from the work now under consideration,containsalmosteverythingofimportanceonthesubject.Andasfarasitgoes,itagreeswiththesentimentsexpressedabove:“EverythingcontainedinScriptureconcerningjustificationisproposedunderajudicialscheme,oraforensictrialandsentence.

1.Ajudgmentissupposedinit,concerningwhichthePsalmistpraysthatitmaynotproceedonthetermsoflaw,Psa143.2.

2.TheJudgeisGodhimself,Isa1.7,8;Rom8.33.3.ThetribunalonwhichhesitsisthethroneofGrace,Heb4.16.4.Aguiltyperson.Thisisthesinner,whoisupodikovtwqeov—soguiltyofsinastobeliabletothejudgmentofGod,Rom3.19;1.32

5.Accusersarereadytoproposeandpromotethechargeagainsttheguiltyperson—theLaw,Conscience,andSatan;Joh5.45.Rom2.15;Rev12.10.

4066.Thechargeisadmittedanddrawnupintoahandwriting,intheformofLaw,anditislaidbeforethetribunalofGod,inbartothedeliveranceoftheoffender,Col2.14.

7.ApleaispreparedintheGospelfortheguiltyperson;andthisisgrace,throughthebloodofChrist,—theatonementmadebytheSuretyofthecovenant,Rom3.23-25;Eph1.7.

8.Thesinnerenters thisplea, renouncing all other apologies anddefenceswhatsoever,Psa130.2,3;Rom5.11,19;8.1,3;1Joh1.7,etc.ThereisnootherpleabeforeGod;andtheonewhoknowsGod,andknowshimself,willnotprovideortrustanyother.

9. Tomake this plea effectual, we have anAdvocate with the Father, who pleads his ownpropitiationforus,1Joh2.2.

10. The sentence pronounced on this is absolution, on account of the ransom, blood, orsacrificeofChrist;withacceptance into favour,aspersonsapprovedbyGod—Job33.24;

Psa32.1,2;Rom8.33,34;Gal3.13,14.”603

Owen proves successfully that the object of that faith by whichwe arejustified,isnotDivinetruthingeneral,towhichanassentisgiven;anditisnotthebeliefthatoursinsinparticulararepardoned,whichisnopartof the testimony of God; but “the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as theordinance of God in his work of mediation for the salvation of lostsinners, and as to that end proposed in the promise (testimony) of thegospel.”

604 It is justbelieving, onGod’s authority, that Jesus is the all-

sufficient and appointed Saviour of sinners. The long chapter whichfollows this, on thenature of justifying faith, is unnecessary, andmore

calculated to perplex than enlighten. His definition is clumsy andincorrect.Theapostlesneverenteredintosuchdefinitionsordiscussions407For,afterpointingout theproperobjectof faith,explaining thegroundonwhichitisthedutyofmentobelieveonChrist,anditsgenuineeffects,what use is there in endless disputes about the nature of the act ofbelieving? Why not also discuss the nature of understanding,willing,seeing, hoping, etc.? Such speculations may belong to the science ofmetaphysics,orpneumatology,buttheyhavenorelationtothedoctrineofChrist.Theyonlyconfoundthesimple,andbewildertheinquirer.Faithis connectedwith justification,because it isbyGod’s testimony thatwearemadeacquaintedwiththecharacterandworkofChrist;anditisonlyby faith that a testimony can be received. Salvation is through faith,merelyas faith isopposed toworksand tomeritofeverykind. “It isoffaith,thatitmightbebygrace,orfavour.”Paulanswersinonesentence,what the greater part of this thick quarto is engaged in ascertaining.“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” Thisdeclaration, without note or comment, conveyed so distinct andsatisfactory an idea to themindof the anxious inquirer, that it at onceallayedallhisfearsandperplexities,andfilledhimwithunspeakablejoy.WedonotseewhyitshouldrequiremoreexplanationtousthantothePhilippianjailor;orbeingreceived,whyitshouldnotproducethesameeffects.

605

408A feeble reply was attempted to this work by a clergyman namedHotchkis,whohadformerlyattackedsomethingsonthesamesubject,inOwen’sworkonCommunion.TheDoctorthrewoutafewremarksinthecourseof thediscussiononJustification,onHotchkis’ seeminglywillfulperversions of his words and sentiments. But he took no notice of thesecond attack, which does not seem to have deserved much attention.JohnHumfreyalsoharshlycriticizedsomepartsof it.Buthesays, “theDoctor, inpresence of SirCharlesWolsley, declared thathe couldbearwith him in the difference; and though one chapter of the ‘PeaceableDisquisition’ isprofessedlyagainst theDoctor,henever tookoffenceoroffered any vindication.”

606Humfreywasnearly ofBaxter’s sentiments

on the subject of Justification. The same remark applies to Sir CharlesWolsley,whospeaksofOwen’sworkonJustificationaswritteninreply

tooneofhis.607Thisishis“JustificationEvangelical:oraplainimpartial

account ofGod’smethod in Justifying a sinner.” 1677. The first part ofthissmallwork,whichtreatsjustificationandimputation,isonthewholeveryexcellent;but in the latterpartof it,he speaksvery improperlyonthesubjectoffaith,andonjustificationbyperformingtheconditionsofthegospel.SirCharlesappears tohavebeenapiousandwell-informedman, who took a deep interest in the state of religion, and in thediscussionsrespectingit,whichthenagitatedthecountry.409Besides this work, Wolsey wrote several others: — “TheUnreasonableness ofAtheism.” 1669. “TheReasonableness of ScriptureBelief.” 1672, which is a very excellent book, and frequently quoted byProfessorHallyburtoninhisworkonDeism.And“TheMountofSpirits,”1691,ofwhichIknownothing.TheworthyBaronetappearstohavetakenan active part in the civil wars on the side of the Parliament, andafterwards in the affairs of the commonwealth; but he was,notwithstanding, often employed by the Royal party after theRestoration.

608

In1679,appearedOwen’s“Christologia:oraDeclarationoftheGloriousMysteryofthePersonofChrist,GodandMan;withtheinfinitewisdom,love,andpowerofGod,inthecontrivanceandconstitutionofit.Asalso,ofthegroundsandreasonsofhisIncarnation,thenatureofhisMinistryinHeaven,thepresentstateoftheChurchabovethereon,andtheuseofhis Person in religion.With an account and vindication of the honour,worship,faith,love,andobediencedueuntohimfromtheChurch.”4to.Theprefacetothiswork,asusual,containssomehistoricalnoticesofthecontroversies respecting the person of Christ, which had agitated thechurch,andofthemeanswhichthefriendsoftruthhademployedinitsdefence.410Speakingof theCouncils,whichwerecalled in the fourthand followingcenturies, for the purpose of declaring the orthodox doctrines, and ofhealingdivisions,hesays,“Theyprovedthemostperniciousenginesforthecorruptionofthefaith,worship,andmannersof the church. Indeed, from the beginning, they were so far from being the only way ofpreservingthetruth,thatitwasalmostconstantlyprejudicedbytheadditionoftheirauthorityforconfirmingit.Norwasthereanyoneofthem,inwhichthemysteryofiniquitydidnotwork

towards layingsomerubbish in the foundationof that fatalapostasywhichafterwardsopenly

ensued.”609

The entire treatise is founded on our Lord’s declaration to Peter,respectingthefoundationofthechurch,Mat.16.16.TheDoctorconceivesthis declaration to contain three important truths— that the person ofChrist, the Son of the living God, as vested with his offices, is thefoundationofthechurch—thatthepowerandpolicyofhellwilleverbeexerted against the relation of the church to this foundation— but thechurch,builtonthisRock,shallneverbedisjoinedfromit,nordestroyed.Theworkisaccordinglydevotedtotheillustrationoftheseandtheothertopicsnotedinthetitle,whichIhavegivenatlength.Thevolumecontainsmanyimportant,andsomebeautifulpassages,bothin thedirect discussion of the subject, and incidentally introduced.Hisviewsof themediationandgloryofChrist inHeaven, areuncommonlyelevated. Losing sight of the refinements of a technical theology, hespeaksoutthefeelingsofhissoul,asonewhosefaithandhopehadlongbeenfixedonthatwhichiswithinthevail,andwhoseheartburnedwithlove for thatRedeemerwhosepresenceandglory fills theholiestofall.Theeternallife,andunlimitedpowerofJesussecuretheexistenceofthechurch,andencouragethemostperfectconfidenceinitsfuturetriumphs.411Amidstallitsdeclensionsandtribulations,itsperpetuityhasneverbeenendangered;andwhatevermaybethescenesof itsfuturecondition,weknowthat fullprovision ismade in theschemeofrevealed love, for theuniversalityofitsestablishmentonearth,andtheeternityofitsgloryinheaven.TheDoctor’s viewsof thepersonandundertakingofChrist, asmotivestolovehim,arealsoveryfine.“Thesethings,”hesays,“havenotonlyrenderedprisonsanddungeonsmoredesirabletothepeopleofGod,than the most goodly palaces — on future accounts — but have madethem really places of such refreshment and joy, thatmenmust seek invaintoextractthemoutofallthecomfortsthatthisworldcanafford.

Ocurvaeinterrisanimaeetcoelestiuminanes.”610

While thework,asawhole, is fullof instructionandconsolation, thereare parts of it which I either imperfectly understand, or cannot fullyapprove. I confess I amhostile to all prolix discussions, or attempts atexplainingthedoctrineoftheTrinity,orthemodeofsubsistence,eitherin theDeity or in the constitution of the person of Christ. In so far as

thesethingsareatallrevealed,theyaremattersoffactrequiringbelief.Insofarastheyremainmysteries,endeavouringtoexplainthemisuselessand absurd. The statements of Scripture on these subjects are all veryshort, and abundantly more intelligible than any human dissertationswhichhaveeverbeenwrittenonthem.WhenOwenspeaksoftheDivinenature of Christ as God, or of his human nature as man, or of thesenaturesunitedconstituting Immanuel, Iunderstand,andgoalongwithhim.Butwhenhespeaksofthe“EternalgenerationoftheDivinepersonof the Son, being a necessary internal act of the Divine nature, in thePerson of the Father,” he uses language, which I conceive to be bothunscripturalandunintelligible.412This is travellingout of the record, theonly effect ofwhich, in all suchcases,isdarkeningcounselbywordswithoutknowledge.Thelanguageoftheancientcreeds,andthediscussionsoftheschoolmenhave,Ibelieve,donemoretocausementostumbleatthedoctrineoftheTrinity,thanallotherthingsputtogether.Howdifficult,buthowimportantitis,tofollowrevelationfully,andtobesatisfiedwithinitslimits!Itisbutaverysmallportion of the volume, however, to which any objection can attach. Ajudicious Christian will derive no injury from any part of it, and mayreceivemuchcomfortandestablishmentfromthewhole.Theconcludingexhortation of his preface,which he quotes fromJerome, demands theattentionofall.“Whetheryoureadorwrite,whetheryouwatchorsleep,let the voiceof love towardChrist, sound in your ears: let this trumpetstirupyoursoul;beingoverpoweredwiththislove,seekhimonyourbed,whomyoursouldesiresandlongsfor.”

611

Thislargeworkwasfollowed,thesameyear,bya4to,pamphletofforty-sevenpages,“ThechurchofRomenosafeGuide,orreasonstoprovethatno rational man, who takes due care of his own salvation, can givehimselfuptotheconductofthatchurchinmattersofreligion.”Itwasthesubstance of two discourses preached to a private congregation, andwhich he published in consequence of the importunities of many whoheardthem.413Instead of recommending any church as a guide, he advocates theexclusive right of theHoly Scriptures to this office, and points out theextremedangerofmengivingthemselvesuptotheblindguidanceofthe

Romish church. As matters then stood in the country, a tract of thisnaturewasverynecessary,andmuchcalculatedtopromotetheobjecthehadinview.TheMorningExerciseagainstPoperyamongtheDissenters(inwhichtheDoctorwasengaged),hadbeenestablishedforsomeyears,and had already published several learned discourses on the popishcontroversy.Noclassofmen thenopposedsopowerfulabarrier to therestorationofPopery,or sovigorouslyexerted themselves indefenceofthe reformed faith, as the Protestant Dissenters. Most of the Churchclergy would have quietly submitted. And yet, though the morerespectableclassofthemfeltandownedtheservicesoftheDissenterstothecommoncause,theyafterwardsbaselydesertedthem,orunitedwiththe high church party in oppressivemeasures to crush them. It is thusthat the friendsof truth are often rewarded; their disinterested laboursandsufferingsaresoonforgotten.Buttheirrewardisinheaven,andtheirrecordisonhigh.This year, theDoctor lost his old friend and fellow-labourer atOxford,Dr. Thomas Goodwin, the last of the five Independent brethren of theWestminsterAssembly.AftertheRestoration,hewenttoLondon,wherehe founded theChurchwhich nowmeets in Fetter Lane.He lived veryprivately, and was employed chiefly in writing. The inscription on histomb-stone inBunhill fields,drawnupbyMr.Gilbert,giveshimaveryhighcharacter,whichhisnumerouswritingsveryamplysupport.Hehada most extensive acquaintance with church history — was profoundlyskilledintheknowledgeandinterpretationoftheScriptures.Thematter,form, discipline, and all that relates to the constitution of a church ofChrist,hethoroughlyinvestigated,andwaseminentlyusefulinhispubliclabours.414Hediedinhis80thyear.Inhislastmoments,heexpressedhimselfwithsomuch joy, thankfulness and admiration for the grace ofGod, that itextremelyaffectedallwhoheardhim.

612

In the beginning of 1680, the Doctor produced another Ecclesiastico-political tract, in reference to the fears still entertainedof the returnofPopery. It is entitled, “Some considerations about union amongProtestants, and the preservation of the interests of the Protestantreligion in thisnation.” It contains only thirteen4topages, andhasnonameprefixed.There are some very judicious observations in it on the

constitutionalprerogativesofthethrone—ontherightsandlibertiesofthe subject — and on the proper means of preserving the EstablishedChurch,andthetolerationofDissenters.Heprotestsagainsttheexerciseofcivilpowerinmerelyreligiousaffairs.“Letthechurchbeprotectedintheexerciseofitsspiritualpower,byspiritualmeansonly;suchas preaching the word, administration of the sacraments, and the like; whatever is furtherpretendedasnecessarytoanyoftheendsoftruereligion,oritspreservationinthenation,isbutacoverforthenegligence,idleness,andinsufficiencyofsomeoftheclergy,whowouldhaveanoutwardappearanceofeffectingbyexternalforce,thatwhichtheythemselvesbydiligentprayer,sedulous preaching of the word, and an exemplary conversation, ought to labour for in the

heartsofmen.”613

415Hecontendsthatmagistrates,bylimitingthemselvestothepunishmentofthecrimescognizablebyhumanjudgment,andconfiningthechurchtotheexerciseofherspiritualpowers

614—freedomofopinionandpractice

being enjoyed by others, Popery might be defied, and ProtestantismforevermaintainedinBritain.Ourpasthistoryillustratesthewisdomandjustness of these sentiments, and anydeparture from themmustproveequallydangeroustothethroneandthesubject,toreligionandliberty.On the 11thofMay, 1680,DeanStillingfleet—whohad formerlymadehimselfknownbypublishingwhatRobinsoncalls “anoilybook,withanasty title,”

615 preached a sermon before the Lord Mayor, “On the

MischiefofSeparation.”InithebrandsalltheDissenterswiththeodiouscrimeofschism. The peace-maker nowbecame a sower of discord, notwithout suspicion of being influenced by venal motives — because,accordingtoBurnet,“hewentintothemoodsofthehighsortofpeople,beyondwhatbecamehim,perhapsbeyondhisownsenseofthings.”Thisunexpectedanduncivilattack,rousedall theenergiesof theDissenters,andinashorttimeanumberofableandspiritedreplieswerepublished.Dr.Owenproduced“AbriefvindicationoftheNon-conformistsfromthecharge of schism, as itwasmanaged against them in a sermon, byDr.Stillingfleet.”4topp.56.1680.Thisisaveryexcellentpamphlet.SomeoftheDissentershadcomplainedoftheuntimelinessofthelearnedDean’sphilippic,

616 on account of the danger to the Protestant faith that was

apprehendedfromPopery.Owenwasofadifferentopinion.416“Foritismeet,”hesays,“thathonestmenshouldunderstandthestateofthosethingsinwhich

theyaredeeplyconcerned.Non-conformistsmightpossiblysuppose,thatthecommondangerofallProtestantshadreconciledthemindsoftheConformingministerstothem,andIwasreallyofthesamejudgmentmyself.Ifitbenotso,itiswelltheyarefairlywarned,whattheyhaveto

expect,thattheymaypreparethemselvestoundergoitwithpatience.”617

WeneednotbesurprisedatthefeelingsofDissenters,andtheconductofchurchmen then. Innumerable attacks of the same kind since, and ahundred years more experience, are scarcely sufficient to teach us thefolly of expecting forbearance or liberal treatment from an establishedchurch.OwenpointsouttheunfairnessofchargingtheNon-conformistswiththesinofschism,andtheirministerswithinsincerity.Heshowsthatthe tendencyof theDean’sdiscoursewas to stiruppersecutionagainsttheDissenters, of which they had already gotten quite enough; and heveryfairlyargueswithhimonthegroundthathehadhimselftaken,thesubject of schismatic separation. Towards the close, he replies to theDean’sadvice,thattheDissenters“shouldnotalwaysbecomplainingoftheirhardshipsandpersecutions.”“After so many of them have died in common jails, so many of them endured longimprisonments, not a few being at this day in the same imprisonment; somany driven fromtheirhabitationsintoawanderingcondition,topreserveforawhilethelibertyoftheirpersons;somanyhavebeenreducedtowantandpenurybytakingawaytheirgoods,andfromsometheveryinstrumentsoftheirlivelihood—aftertheprosecutionswhichhavebeenagainsttheminallcourtsofjusticeinthisnation;aftersomanyministersandtheirfamilieshavebeenbroughtintotheutmostoutward straitswhichnature can subsistunder; afterall theirperpetual fearsanddangers—theythinkithardthattheyshouldbecomplainedofforcomplaining,bythosewho

areatease.”618

417StillingfleetsaidofthisVindication,“Dr. Owen treated me with such civility and decent language, that I cannot but return him

thanksforthem,thoughIwasfarfromsatisfiedwithhisreasonings.”619

Dr. Owen was followed in the controversy by Mr. Baxter, who in his“AnswertoDr.Stillingfleet’schargeofSeparation,”didnottreattheDeanwith so much courtesy; who accordingly complains “of his anger andunbecomingpassion.”Athirdreplywasfromamanofbetterspirit,Mr.John Howe, who in “A letter written from the country to a person ofqualityinthecity,”expressedhimselfveryfirmly;butastheDeanhimselfacknowledged, he was “more like a well-disposed gentleman than adivine,withoutanymixtureofrancour,andevenwithagreatdegreeofkindness.” Vincent Alsop opposed his “Mischief of Impositions” toStillingfleet’sMischiefofSeparation.Hebrisklyturnsuponhimhisown

wordsandphrases,andretortshisaccusations.Thebook,saidtheDean,resembled the bird ofAthens, for it seemed to bemadeup of face andfeathers. The fifth antagonist, was Mr. Barret, of Nottingham, whopublished an ingenious exposure of Stillingfleet’s inconsistency andequivocation in “The Rector of Sutton (Stillingfleet’s parish when hepublished the Irenicum) committed with the Dean of St. Paul’s; or adefenceofDr.Stillingfleet’sIrenicum,againsthisrecentsermon.”418ThisseemstohavegalledthelearnedDeanexceedingly.Heremarked,itwasenoughtomakethecommonpeoplesupposesomebusyjusticeofthepeacehadtakenontheRectorofSutton,andDeanofSt.Paul’s,atsomeconventicle.Andasadefenceofhischanges,hegravely tells thereaderthattheIrenicumhadbeenwrittentwentyyearsbeforethelawsagainstDissentershadbeenestablished!

Temporamutantur,etnosmutamurinillis!620

In the following year, the Dean took up all his opponents, in the“Unreasonablenessofseparation,oranimpartialaccountofthehistory,nature,andpleas,ofthepresentseparationfromthecommunionofthechurch of England, To which several letters are annexed of eminentProtestantdivinesabroad,concerningthenatureofourdifferences,andthewaytocomposethem.”4to.Thisworkrevealsconsiderableacutenessand research. The historical part of it displays a minute acquaintancewiththesentimentsandwritingsoftheearlyseparatistsfromtheEnglishchurch,andwiththeverydifferentviewsofthePresbyterianPuritans.Heshows successfully that many of the Puritans employed the samearguments against the Brownists, which the churchmen now urgedagainstthemselves.Itcannotbedeniedthatontheprinciplesofmanyofhisadversaries,theDeanhadthebelteroftheargument.Thediscussionturnedchieflyonthispoint:Aretheparochialchurchestruechurches?Iftheyare,whydesertthem?Ifyoudenythattheyare,youareguiltyoftheuncharitableness which your forefathers charged on the separatists. Ifyouholdoccasionalcommunionwiththem,whichmanyofyoudo,andforthelawfulnessofwhichmostofyoucontend,whyseparatefromthematall?Suchwerethedilemmas,onthehornsofwhichthereverendDeanendeavouredtotosshisopponents.419

Dr. Owen met him again in reply to this work. — “An answer to theUnreasonablenessofSeparation,andadefenceoftheVindicationoftheNon-conformists from the guilt of schism.” 4to. Itwas published alongwithhis“InquiryintothenatureofEvangelicalchurches.”Inthiswork,Owen endeavours to avoid adopting any of the alternatives which theDeanhadpointedout.Heexplainswhatheunderstoodasnecessary tothecharacterofatruechurch,anddeclaresthatwhereverthescripturalevidencesof itwereafforded,hewouldmost gladly acknowledge it.Healsopointsoutwhatheconceivedtoaffectthecharacterofachurch,andwherevertheseevilsprevailed,hecouldnotbe.Onhisside,therefore,hepushes his adversary to make an election which must have greatlypuzzled him. Could he maintain that the parish churches of Englandgenerallyconsistedof“faithfulmen?”Couldhebelievethattheministrywasgenerallyblameless,thatdisciplinewasfaithfullyadministered,andthat no unlawful impositions were laid on the conscience? AlthoughOwendoesnotmakeanypositiveassertiononthesubject,itisquiteclearthat the established church was never conducted on the principles forwhich he contends; and his views of the character of churchmembers,andtheexerciseofdisciplinealone,musthavepreventedhis fellowshipwithanyparochialassembly.Thecontroversystillraged.“MoreworkfortheDean,”waspublishedbyMr. ThomasWall, in answer to some of theDean’s reports against theBrownists.Mr.Barretrepliedasecondtime,inan“AttempttovindicatetheprinciplesoftheNon-conformists,notonlybyScripture,butbyMr.Stillingfleet’sRationalAccount.”420Mr. Lob produced his “Modest andPeaceable inquiry;”Mr. Baxter, his“SecondTruedefenceofthemereNon-conformists;”Mr.Humphrey,his“Answer toDr. Stillingfleet’s book, as far as it concerned thePeaceabledesign;” andMr.GilbertRule, as late as 1689, his “Rational defence ofNon-conformity.” The Dean (now made Bishop as a reward for hisfaithfulservicestothechurch),wasnotlefttofightherbattlesalone.Anoctavo volume appeared from the pen of a Presbyter of the Church ofEngland, defending Dr. Stillingfleet’sUnreasonableness of Separation.Being takenupby someof theDissentingpamphlets alreadynoted, heproduced the next year, another thick octavo in its defence. ThisPresbyter, according to Baxter,was none other thanDr. Sherlock,whoperhaps was not displeased to secretly get at his old adversaries, on

accountoftheirtreatmentofhisbookontheKnowledgeofChrist.Theseareallthepamphlets,orvolumes,ontheStillingfleetcontroversy,whichIhave discovered. It must be admitted, they were numerous and prolixenough.Thecharactersengagedinit,andtheplaceitmusthaveoccupiedin thepublicmind,renderedsomeaccountof itnecessary.Manyof thepamphletswereanonymous;butIhaveassignedthemtotheirrespectiveauthors on evidencederived from the replies of their opponents, or forotherreasonstoounimportanttobringforward.Icannotdismissthesubjectwithoutnotinganotherpartofthedebate.ToStillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation, were subjoined someletters from foreign Presbyterians: Le Moyne, Professor of Divinity atLeyden,L’Angle,MinisterofCharenton,andthecelebratedClaude.Allthese letters seemed to condemn the conduct of the English Non-conformists, andwere evidently procured for the purpose ofmaking itappearthattheirseparationwasnottheresultofprinciple,butofcaprice,orsomethingworse.421Thebehaviourof these foreignDissentersappearedvery inexplicableatthetime.ItwasnottillavolumeofClaude’sletterswerepublished,longafter,thatitwasfullyexplained.Stillingfleet,saysRobinson,“Driven togreatdistress, gotCompton,BishopofLondon, towrite toClaude,LeMoyne, andother French Presbyterians, for their opinion of English Presbyterianism. They gavecomplaisant, but wary answers. These letters were published by Stillingfleet as suffrages forEpiscopacy,andagainstNon-conformity.Therecouldnotbeamoreglaringabsurdity;fornoartcanmake thata crimeatDover,which is at the same timeavirtueatCalais.EpiscopacyandNon-conformityrestonthesameargumentsinbothkingdoms;andamanwhodoesnotknowthis is not fit towrite on the controversy.Mr. Claude complained bitterly of this ungeneroustreatment;but the letters thatcontainedthesecomplaintswereconcealed tillhisdeath;whentheywereprintedbyhisson.”

Afterquoting some strongpassages from these letters to a lady, and totheBishopofLondon,Robinsonjustlyremarksinconclusion:“The case then is this. Episcopalians not being able to maintain their cause by argument,endeavouredtodoitbyamajorityofvotes.Inordertoprocurethese,theysentafalsestateofthe case to the French Protestants. The French, as soon as they understood the matter,complainedofhavingbeentreatedwithduplicity,declaredagainsttheBishops,andagainstthe

causetheywereendeavouringtosupport.”621

422Suchtricksareexceedinglydespicable,whetherresortedtobyBishopsorbymeanermen, and only tend, in the issue, to ruin the cause they are

designed to promote. Truth is equally independent of numbers and ofnames; but it is infamous to represent those as enemies to each other,whoarereallyfriends;andbyunprincipledartificetosowsuspicionanddiscordamongbrethren.Thenextworkwehavetonotice,whichwaspublishedpartlyduringtheDoctor’s life, and partly after his death, is the important Treatise onEvangelicalChurches. The first part of it, entitled “An Inquiry into theOrigin,Nature,Institution,Power,Order,andCommunionofEvangelicalChurches,”waspublishedin1681.Thiswascombined,ashasbeennoted,with his answer to Stillingfleet. The second part, entitled “The TrueNatureofaGospelChurch,anditsGovernment,”didnotappeartill1688,whenitwaspublishedwithapreface,byI.C.—whomItaketohavebeenIsaac Chauncey, who succeededMr. Clarkson in the pastoral charge ofthechurchinBuryStreet.Hetellsusthat,“the Doctor lived to finish it under his great bodily infirmities; whereby he saw himselfhasteningtotheendofhisrace.Yetsogreatwashis lovetoChrist, thatwhilehehadlifeandbreath,hedidnotdrawbackhishandfromhisservice.ThroughthegracioussupportofDivinepower,hecorrectedthecopybeforehisdeparture.Thereadermaybeassuredthatwhatishereishis—andlikewise,thatitoughttobeesteemedashislegacytotheChurchofChrist,beingagreatpartofhisdying labours.Therefore, it ismost charitable to suppose that thisworkwaswrittenwithnootherdesignthantoadvancethegloryandinterestofChristintheworld;andthatitscontentswerematterofgreatweightonhisownspirit.”

423We have ascertained the sentiments ofDr.Owen on the subject of theConstitution and Government of the Churches of Christ, at an earlyperiod of his career. We have seen what they were while he enjoyedhonourandpublicsupport.Itisgratifyingtohavesofullaviewofthemattheendofhislife,andintheveryprospectofeternity.HeadoptedhisviewsofthekingdomofChristwiththeprospectbeforehimoflosingallthatwasdear tohimon thataccount.Prosperityeffectednochangeonhis sentiments; amidst succeeding adversity and trouble he held themfast and defended them, and he took leave of theworldwith a solemntestimonyintheirsupport.Thesethingsareatleastproofsofhisgrowingconfidenceintheirtruthandimportance;andofthesincerityofhisownattachmenttothem.I shall thenendeavour toascertain, fromtheworknowbeforeus,whatwerethelastsentimentsoftheDoctoronthesesubjects.Inthefirstpart,heexaminestheoriginofachurch,orchurchstate—showsthat it isaDivine, and not a human appointment; and that all interferences of

humanauthoritywithitareunlawful.“Unlessmen,by theirvoluntarychoiceandconsent, froma senseofduty to the authority ofChristinhisinstitutions,enterintoachurchstate,theycannotbyanyothermeansbesoframedinto it, as to findacceptancewithGod in it.And the interpositions thataremadeby custom,tradition,theinstitutionsandordinancesofmen,betweentheconsciencesofthosewhobelong,orwouldbelongtosuchaslate,andtheimmediateauthorityofGod,arehighlyobstructiveofthis Divine order and all the benefits of it. For hence it comes to pass thatmostmen knowneitherhownorwherebytheycametobemembersofthisorthatchurch,exceptonthisground:

thattheywerebornwhereitprevailed.”622

424He denies the existence of aLegislative authority either in or over thechurch of God, and after briefly sketching the baneful consequenceswhich have resulted from Bishops and Councils, and civil Governmentusurpingthispower,hesays:—“This,therefore,isabsolutelydeniedbyus,namely,Thatanymen,underanypretenceornamesoever, have any right or authority to constitute any new frame or order of the church, tomakeanylawsoftheirownforitsruleorgovernment,thatshouldobligethedisciplesofChrist

inpointofconsciencetotheirobservation.”623

Heshowsfullyandsuccessfully,thatthechurchesofChristhavelawstoobserve,andnot laws tomake;and that theassumptionofanoppositeprinciple and conduct is derogatory to the glory of Christ, to theperfectionofScripture,andinconsistentwiththeacknowledgmentoftheinfallibility,faithfulness,andDivineauthorityoftheapostles.Hegoesonto inquire into “Thecontinuationof a church state, andof churches, totheendof theworld, and the causesonwhich theydepend.”He showsthattheydependontheFather’sgrantofthekingdomtoChrist—ontheSaviour’spromisetopreservehischurchtotheend—onthecontinuedexistence of thewordofChrist—and the communicationof gifts fromhim.Inregardtobelievers,itdependsontheirsenseofduty,theinstinctofthenewcreature,andthefactthatitisonlyinchurchesthattheycanattend to the will of Christ. He argues, therefore, that the idea of thecontinuance of the church depending on a regular succession of office-bearersfromtheapostles,isabaselessfigment;itisasunnecessarytotheexistenceofthechurch,asitisunsupportedbyScripture,contrarytofact,andperniciousinitsoperation.425Inchap.iv.heinquiresintothespecialnatureoftheGospelChurchStateappointedbyChrist,whichhethusdefines:

“An especial society, or congregation of professed believers, joined together according toHismind,with their officers, guides, or rulerswhomhe has appointed;which does ormaymeettogether for the celebration of all the ordinances of Divine worship, the professing orauthoritatively proposing the doctrine of the gospel, with the exercise of the disciplineprescribed by Himself, to their own mutual edification, with the glory of Christ, in the

preservationandpropagationofhiskingdomintheworld.”624

Having thus defined it, he goes on to explain his definition moreparticularly,concludingwithasserting“Thattosuchachurch,andeveryoneofthem,belongsofrightalltheprivileges,promises,andpowerthatChristgrantstothechurchinthisworld.”

625Hethenproceedstoprove

first, that “Christ has appointed this church state of a particular, orsingle congregation; and secondly, that he has appointed no otherchurch state that is inconsistentwith this,much less destructive of it.”These quotations must satisfy the reader, that Owen was not only anIndependent, but a firm believer in the jus divinum [Divine justice] ofIndependency.Comparing themwithour statementof theprinciplesofIndependencyinChapterIIIofthiswork,itwillappearhowfarDr.Owenand those now called Independents are of the same mind; and,comparingthemwithhislanguageinEshcol,publishedin1648;withhislanguagetoCawdryin1657;withthelanguageoftheSavoydeclarationin1658;withwhathesaysinhisTheologumena in1662; inhisCatechismin1667;andinhisDiscoursesonChristianLovein1673—itwillbeseenthat his sentiments throughoutwere radically, and Imay sayverbally,thesame.426In supportinghis viewsof the exclusiveappointmentofCongregationalChurchGovernment,heshows that it is suited to,andsufficient for,alltheSpiritualendsoftheDivineappointmentofachurch,and“thatitisinCongregational Churches alone that these ends can be done orobserved.”Hemaintainsthattheverymeaningofthewords להָקָ (qahal)and ecclhsia (ecclesia) establishes that they signify a particularcongregation — which he argues at great length from Mat 18.17, inconnexionwithotherpassages.Hemaintains,inthethirdplace,that“Allthe churches instituted by the apostleswere Congregational, and of noothersort.”

626Havingamplyillustratedthesevariouspositionsinaway

thatisfamiliartoallwhoareacquaintedwiththiscontroversy,inthefifthchapterheurgestheprecedentandexampleofthefirstchurches.Andheendeavours to show “that in no approved writers for the space of 200

yearsafterChrist,isthereanymentionmadeofanyotherorganic,visiblyprofessingchurch,exceptthatwhichisParochialorCongregational.”

627

Thisbeingdispatched,hereturns to illustrateatgreater lengthsomeofthe sentiments previously thrown out. In chapter 6, he shows that“Congregational churches alone are suited to the ends of Christ in theinstitutionofhischurch.”Thisbeingfullyconfirmed,thenextchapterisoccupiedinprovingthat“nootherchurchstateisofDivineinstitution.”In this chapter he denies that there are any such things as nationalchurches,orchurchesofofficebearersofanykind.427The remainingpart of thework is occupied in pointing out theduty ofbelievers to join themselves in church fellowship — and what sort ofchurches they ought to join; and in showing the impossibility ofconscientiously joining the Parish Churches in England (because theyconsisted mostly of improper persons), he shows it required areformationwhichtheyhadnopowertoeffectthemselves,andinvolvedtheobservationofmanythingsnotagreeabletothewillofChrist.Thesecondpart,orvolumeoftheworkisdividedintoelevenchapters,inwhichhetreatsthematerialofachurch—itsformalcause,itspolityordiscipline,officersandtheirduties;andtheruleofachurch—thedutyofeldersanddeacons,excommunication,andthecommunionofchurches.Thereis,inpartsofthisvolume,alackofthatrigidattentiontomethodor order which sometimes occurs in the writings of Owen, and whichoccasions both repetition and confusion, and even an apparent lack ofconsistency.Heclearlyestablishesaveryimportantprinciple,thatnonebutthosewhogiveevidenceofbeingregenerated,orholypersons,oughttobereceivedorcountedfitmembersofvisiblechurches;andthatwherethisislacking,thevery,essenceofachurchislost.“Ifthecorruptionofachurch,”hesays,“astothematterofit,issuchthatitisinconsistentwithandoverthrowsallthatcommunionwhichshouldexistamongthemembersofthesamechurch,in love and without dissimulation; — if the scandals and offences which must of necessityaboundinsuchchurches,arereallyobstructiveofedification;—ifthewaysandwalkingofmostoftheirmembersisdishonourabletothegospelanditsprofession,givingnorepresentationoftheholinessofChristorhisdoctrine;— if suchchurchesdonot,cannot,andwillnot reformthemselves—then it is thedutyofeverymanwhotakescare forhisownedification,and thefuturesalvationofhissoul,topeaceablywithdrawfromthecommunionofsuchchurches,and

tojoininothers,wherealltheendsofchurchsocietiesmayinsomemeasurebeobtained.”628

428Two things in thisvolumehaveaparticularclaimonourattention: theDoctor’s sentiments on the subject of ruling Elders, and of thecommunion of Churches — which have been supposed to be eitherpeculiarto,oraspeciesofPresbyterianism.Ifthiswerethecase,itwouldnot follow that either Independency or Presbytery, would be right orwrong, as the truthon these subjects is entirely independentofOwen’ssentiments or authority. But it would follow that the Doctor wasinconsistent with himself, presuming that we alleged incontrovertibleevidence that he held all the great and fundamental principles ofIndependency.Thereisnoroomtoallegeanychangeofmindonhispart,as the present volume is only a part of the former work on the samesubject;anditwaswrittennearlyatthesametime,thoughonaccountofhisdeath,publishedseveralyearsafter.AndastheDoctorneverhintsinthemostremotemanner,atanychangeofmindhavingtakenplace,weareboundtoconsiderhissentimentstohavebeenthesametotheendofhislife.Inconsequenceofthequantitywhichhewrote,therapiditywithwhich he composed, the little attention which he paid to revising orcorrecting his works, and the multitude of words which he generallyemployedoneverysubject,heisattimesliabletobemisunderstood.429Anditwouldbeaneasymatterforacaptiouswriter,oracontradiction-hunter, like Daniel Cawdry, to fasten the charge of inconsistency on avarietyofsentiments inOwen’snumerousproductions.Attentiontothescope of his writing, however, and a comparison of the parts, will ingeneralsatisfyusthatlittleactualinconsistencyorcontradictionexists.OnthesubjectofPastorsorElders,andthedistinctionbetweenteachingand rulingElders, oneor twoquotationswill enableus to ascertainhisreal sentiments. He lays it down, let it be observed, as an establishedposition,thattheNewTestamentacknowledgesnodistinctionofpower,office,orauthorityinthepastoraloffice.“In thewholeNewTestament, Bishops, and Presbyters, or Elders are in everyway the samepersons, in the same office; they have the same function, without distinction in order or

degree.”629

This isaclearanddecisivestatement,withwhicheverythingelse intheworkmustbemadeconsistent.Againhesays:“Theseworksofteachingandrulingmaybedistinctinseveralofficers,namely,ofteachersand

rulers. But to divide them in the same office of Pastors— that some Pastors should feed byteachingonly,buthavenorighttorulebyvirtueoftheiroffice,andthatsomeshouldattendinexerciseforruleonly,not considering themselvesobliged to labourcontinually in feeding theflock—isalmosttooverthrowthisofficeofChrist’sdesignation,andtosetuptwoinitsplace,

bymen’sownprojection.”630

ThesepassagesclearlyshowthatDr.Owenconsideredthepastoralofficeasoneoffice,includingbothteachingandruling.Now,theprinciplesandpractice of Presbyterians make them two. In the Confession of Faith,under the head of Church Government, after the office of Pastor andTeacher is spoken of, there is a section designated “Other ChurchGovernors;” whose office it is “to join with the Minister in theGovernment of the Church, which officers, Reformed ChurchescommonlycallElders.”430Accordingtothisstatement,whichisconfirmedbyotherchapters,thereare three offices in every congregation, Pastors, Elders, and Deacons.This accordingly corresponds with the general fact. A Minister, theElders, and theDeacons commonly exist in every regular congregation,andconstitutetheSession,or firstcourtof inspection.Theseofficesareheld to be so distinct, that the Ministers alone are ever considered asPastorsorClergymen, and theElders are consideredmereLaymen, forwhom it would be as unlawful to preach, baptize, or dispense Divineordinances,asforothermembersofthecongregation.Whetherthisplanis Scriptural or not, I do not now inquire; but certainly it was not Dr.Owen’s.“Iacknowledge,”hesays,“thatwhereachurchhasgreatlyincreased,soasthereisanecessityformanyEldersinitforitsinstructionandrule,thatdecencyandorderrequirethatoneofthempreside in themanagement of all church affairs.Whether the person that is to so preside, isdirectedbybeingthefirstconvertedorfirstordained,oronaccountofage,orgiftsandabilities;whetherhecontinuesonlyforaseason,andthenanotherisdeputedtothesamework,orforhislife,arethingsindifferentinthemselves.Iwillneveropposethisorder;butratherIdesiretoseeitinpractice;namely,thatparticularchurcheswereofsuchanextentastonecessarilyrequiremanyElders—both teachingandruling— for their instructionandgovernment.AndamongtheseElders,one shouldbechosenby themselves,with theconsentof theChurch,not intoanew order, not into a degree of authority above his brethren, but only into his part of thecommonworkinaparticularmanner,whichrequiressomekindofprecedency.Herebynonewofficer, no new order of officers, no new degree of power or authority, is instituted in theChurch;only,itsworkanddutyarecastintosuchanorder,astheverylightofnaturerequires.”631

431The ground on which he evidently rests here — the necessity and

importanceofanumberofpersonsbeingassociatedinthesameoffice—is the extent or number of the church. This is a sentiment far frompeculiaramongIndependents,andtoDr.Owen,Itisequallyclear,atthesametime,thatheconsidersthemallasholdingthesameoffice,names,and authority — though, with mutual consent, acting more or lessprominentlyinitsseveraldepartments.Italsodeservestobenoticed,inconnexion with considering his sentiments, that in his own church inBuryStreet, therewerenorulingElders.This isaproof thathedidnotconsider them essential to the management of the church, or that hefound it easier tomaintain his theory than to reduce it to practice, byfinding a number of persons suitably qualified for the office. To suchpersons, however few ormany, he ascribed no power or authority as abodydistinctfromtheirbrethren,orfromthechurch.“ThepoweroftheKeys,” he says, “as to binding and loosing, and consequently as to allother acts proceeding from there, is expressly granted to the wholechurch. Mat 18.17, 18.”

632 This right, he afterwards remarks, “is

exemplifiedinapostolicpractice.”633

HehasachapterontheofficeofTeachingElders,inwhichhediscussesvariousviewsofthesubject;andinwhichheprofessestothinkthatitis“of thesamekindas thatof thePastor, thoughdistinguished from it indegree.”

634

432After noting the question whether there may be one or many officers,Pastors,orEldersinachurch,hesays,“Therefore,letthestateofthechurchbepreserved,andkepttoitsoriginalconstitution,whichisCongregationalandnoother;andI judgethattheorderoftheofficers,whichwassoearly intheprimitive church,namely, of onePastororBishop, inone church, assisted in rule andallholyministrations,withmanyElders—teachingorrulingonly—donotsooverthrowchurch

order,astorenderitsruleordisciplineuseless.”635

The amount of the whole of his reasonings seems to be that in everynumerous or fully organized church, there may or ought to be anEldership,orPresbyteryofgiftedpersons.Allofthemholdsubstantiallythesameoffice,butsomeactmorestatedlyanddistinctlyinaparticulardepartmentofitthantheothers.ThosewhoareatallacquaintedwiththesentimentsofIndependents,wellknowthatthisviewofthesubjectisfarfrom peculiar to Dr. Owen. In fact, Independency has no necessaryconnexionwiththequestionrespectingthenumberofofficebearers.An

Independentchurchmayhaveone,oritmayhavesixPastors;oritmayhave one Pastor and Teacher, and any number of Elders formanagingothermatters—andstillactonthesameprinciples.ThelongchapteronrulingEldersmustbeexplainedconsistentwiththesentimentswehaveshowntobecontainedintheformerpartofthework—otherwisetheDoctormustnothaveclearlyunderstoodhimself.Inthatchapter,he seems tocontend foradistinctofficeof rulingElder,or forElderswhoarecalledtoruleandnottoteach;who“hadnointerestinthepastoral, or ministerial office, as to the dispensation of the word andadministrationofthesacraments.”

636

433Whoevercan,letthemreconcilethesethings.TheDoctorhimselfdidnot,or could not, act on these principles; nor dowe believe they have everbeenactedoninthemannerortotheextentheseemstopleadfor,byanychurches,whetherIndependentorPresbyterian.Thisisnottheplacefordiscussing the propriety or impropriety of any particular view of thesubject;thosewhowishtodoso,willeasilyfindwhatcanbesaid,inthenumerous works which have been published on both sides of thecontroversy.We pass on to his sentiments on the subject of the Communion ofChurches. From employing the term synod in the sense of council, ormeetingforadvice,andsomeotherphraseologymoreusualamongotherbodies than Independents, it has been inferred that the Doctor was abelieverintheDivinerightofecclesiasticalcourts,ormeetingsofchurchrulers, for the purpose of exercising authority over their respectivechurches.Itmustbeobviousthatsuchsentimentswouldbesubversiveofall his former views as a Congregationalist, inconsistent with thelanguagewehavealreadyquotedfromthisvolumeitself,andtheywouldplacehiminthestrangepredicamentofseekingtobuildagainthethingshehaddestroyed.TheDoctorisnotchargeablewiththesethings,furtherthan some peculiar phraseology is concerned. This will clearly appearfromafewpassagesinwhichwehaveprinted,initalics,thewordswhichshowthathecontendedfornomeetingsofcouncils,exceptthosewhichwere perfectly consistent with the freedom and authority of everyparticularchurch.434

HedefinestheCommunionofChurchesthus:“Theirconsent,endeavour,andconjunction inand for thepromotionof theedificationof theCatholicChurch,andthereintheirown,astheyarepartsandmembersofit.”

I presume every Independent will subscribe to this definition. Hecontendsfortheabsoluteequalityofallchurches,inrespecttopowerorprivilege.Speakingof theCatholicChurch,hesayswithgreatpropriety,“WhileEvangelicalfaith,holiness,obediencetothecommandsofChrist,andmutualloveabideinanyontheearth,thereistheCatholicChurch;and while they are professed, that Catholic Church is visible. I believethere is no other Catholic Church upon the earth; nor any that needsotherthingsforitsconstitution.”

637

When he comes to speak of outward acts of Communion amongChurches,herefersthemtotwoheads:“AdviceandAssistance.

638These

areevidentlyverydifferentthingsfrompowerorauthority.“Synods,” he says, “are themeetings of diverse churches by theirmessengers or delegates, toconsultanddetermineaboutthosethingswhichareofcommonconcerntothemall,byvirtueof

thiscommunionwhichisexercisedinthem.”639

He then proceeds to state the grounds on which he conceives thenecessityanduseofthemtorest.Inthecourseofwhichheremarks,“NoChurch,therefore,issoIndependentthatitcanalways,andinallcases,observethedutiesitowestotheLordChrist,andtotheChurchCatholic,byallthosepowerswhichitisabletoactinitselfdistinctly,withoutconjunctionwithothers.AndtheChurchwhichconfinesitsdutytotheactsofitsownassemblies,cutsitselfofffromtheexternalcommunionoftheChurchCatholic—

norwillitbesafeforanymantocommittheconductofhissoultosuchachurch.”640

435ThispassagehasbeenoftenquotedasthetestimonyofDr.OwenagainstIndependency.Howfaritcanbeso,consistentwithhissentiments,maybe judged from his previous language and history. But to what does itamount? — That the church which has no connexion with any otherchurches—whichholdsnocorrespondencewiththem—whichtakesnointerestintheiraffairsorcircumstances—whichrefusesallco-operationwiththem—separates itself fromthebodyof thepeopleofGod,and itmustfailinthedischargeofmanyimportantduties.Therefore,itcannotbesafetobeconnectedwithit.ButwhoarethedefendersofthisspeciesofIndependency?Letthosewhobelieveittobeinconsistentwithunion,andincompatiblewithco-operationdoso.NeedIsaythatthisisnotthefaithorpracticeofmodernIndependents,anymorethanitisofancient

Independents? If I should assert that for every practical and importantpurpose,thereisasmuchunionandco-operationamongthem,asamongany other body of professing Christians; and that these are no lesseffectivebecausetheyarevoluntary;Ishouldnotbeafraidofconfutation.What is themeaning of their local associations— of theirmeetings atordinations—oftheirunitedsupportofacademies—oftheirunionforthe support and diffusion of the gospel, both at home and abroad? Ifthesearenottheproofsandthebestfruitsofunion,letothersshowthemamoreexcellentway.Whenwecall theunionof IndependentChurchesvoluntary,wedonotmean to say that they hold it to be optional whether they havecommunionwithotherChurches—orasDr.Owenexpressesit,withtheChurchCatholic—onallproperoccasions.Theyacknowledge that theyareboundtoimproveforthispurposeasmatterofdutytothegreatHeadof theChurch,andfor thegoodof themselvesandtheirbrethren.Theironlymeaning is that theyacknowledgenohumanauthority,whether inindividualsorsynods,whetherbyofficeordelegation.436Dr. Owen has been represented, in the above passage, as making asingular concession to Presbyterianism, whereas he is expressing thegenuineprincipleofIndependency.Theconnexiontowhichhebelonged,whilehelived,andthestateofitatpresent,tosaytheveryleast,isasfarremoved from the insulated and selfish society he describes, as anydenominationofChristianswhatever.AftertheDoctorhasnotedsomeoftheendsorusesofsuchmeetings,heproceedstospeakofthepersonswhooughttoconstitutethem.“Itmustthereforebeaffirmed,”hesays,“thatnopersons,merelybyvirtueofanyoffice,havelighttobemembersofanyEcclesiasticalSynodsassuch.Noristhereeitherexampleorreasontojustifyanysuchpretence.Forthereisnooffice-powertobeexertedinsuchsynodsassuch,

eitherconjunctlybyallthemembersofthem,norsinglybyanyoneofthem.”641

Again, referring to the meeting at Jerusalem, of which we have anaccountinthefifteenthchapteroftheActs,hesays,“The Church of Antioch chose and sentmessengers of their own number, to advise with theApostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, at which consultation the members of theChurchwerealsopresent.AndthisisthewholeofthenatureanduseofEcclesiasticalsynods.”642

Nothing can show more evidently than this language, that the Doctor

considered themasentirely voluntarymeetingsof theChurches for thepurpose of advice, consultation, and cooperation about matters ofcommonconcern.He invests themwithnopowerover thechurches,ortheir office- bearers, further than that of advice, or of explaining andpersuadingtoobeythewillofChrist.437As an antidote to any use that might be made of his sentiments orauthorityonthissubject,thefollowingpassagewillshowhowlittlefaithhe himself had in the good such meetings had done, how jealous thepeople of God ought to be of them; and how little authority he wasdisposedtoascribetothem.“Hencenothingismoretobefeared,especiallyinastateoftheChurchinwhichitisdeclininginfaith, worship, and holiness, than synods — according to the usual way of their calling andconvention,wherethesethingsareabsent.Fortheyhavealreadybeentheprincipalmeansofleading on and justifying all the Apostasy which Churches have fallen into. For there wasneveryetasynodofthatnature,whichdidnotconfirmalltheerrorsandsuperstitionswhichhadincommonpracticeenteredintotheChurch,andopenedadoortotheirprogress;norwasever the pretence of any of them, for outward reformation. The authority of a synoddetermining articles of faith! — Constituting orders and decrees for the conscientiousobservanceof thingsof theirownappointment—tobesubmitted toandobeyedbyreasonofthat authority, under the penalty of excommunication — and the trouble annexed to it bycustom and tyranny, or enacted through jurisdiction over Churches or persons— is amerehumaninvention,forwhichnothingcanbepleadedbutaprescriptionfromthefourthcentury

oftheChurch,whentheprogressofthefatalapostasyhadbecomevisible.”643

Those who claim the suffrage of Owen in support of Ecclesiasticalauthority, are nowmade quite welcome to it. It must be very evident,whathethoughtofit,howfarhewouldhimselfhavesubmittedtoit,orhaverecommendedtootherstoacknowledgeit.438Thereisavastdifferencebetweentheunityoflove,ortheco-operationofvoluntaryagreement, and theunionofmere systematicarrangement—between application for advice, and the interference of uncalled forauthority — between a simple reference to brethren of reputation, forcounsel and assistance in cases of difficulty (which may occur eitheramong individuals or churches), and the multiplied forms, regulargradations,andinterminableappealsofEcclesiasticalcourts.ThosewhobelieveOwentohavebeenfavourabletothelatter,musthavepaidlittleattention to his sentiments or history. Those who believe modernIndependentstobeinimicaltotheformer,mustknowjustaslittleaboutthem. Apart from some of the language in which it was customary for

Owen to clothe his theological conceptions, we believe there are fewIndependentswhodonotholdsubstantiallythesamesentimentsonthesubject we have now so fully gone over. They may doubt some of hisarguments, and they could question some of his explanations ofScripture. These are only what might be remarked on many othersubjectsaswellasthis.Andtheywilleverbefoundwheremenaretaughttoacknowledgenoauthorityinreligion,butthatofChrist,asexhibitedintherevelationofHiswill.Thenextworkofourindefatigableauthor’spenis,“AHumbleTestimonytotheGoodnessandSeverityofGod,inhisdealingwithSinfulChurchesandNations.”1681.ItisthesubstanceofsomediscoursesonLuke13.1-5.The period was alarming. The dissolution of the Parliament called atOxford,withinsevendaysofitsmeeting—theevidentdeterminationoftheCourttosupportthepopishsuccessioninthepersonoftheDukeofYork—andtheoppressivemeasuresagainsttheDissenters,whichwerestillcontinuedandincreased,producedmuchalarmandsufferinginthecountry.439“Onvariousaccounts,”saystheDoctor,“therearecontinualapprehensionsofpubliccalamities,andallmen’sthoughtsareexercisedaboutthewaysofdeliverancefromthem.Butastheyfixonvariousandoppositemeansforthisend,theconflictoftheircounselsanddesignsincreasedour

danger,andislikelytoproveourruin.”644

Henoticesveryproperlytheinterestthatministersoughttofeel,notonlythat their congregations prosper during their own lives; but that theymightbepreservedforfuturegenerations.Andhenotesthatitisagreatmistaketosupposethatachurchcanbeinjuredonlybyheresy,tyranny,andfalseworship—while“aworldlycorruptconversationinmostofitsmembersmaybenolessruinous.”TheTestimonycontainsmuchofthatpracticalwisdomwhichtheDoctorhadacquiredfromhislonganddeepstudyofthewordofGod,andfromhisextensiveexperienceinthewaysofProvidence.Heverycautiouslyavoidsreferring to theconductof theCourt,and themeasuresofGovernment.Hewasawarehowready theyweretolayholdonallwhotooknoticeoftheirproceedings,andhowlittlegood was likely to result from political allusions on his part, andinterferenceontheirs.TheTestimonywasfollowedby“TheGraceandDutyofbeingSpirituallyMinded,” 4to. 1681. This is one of the most valuable and deservedlypopular of all theDoctor’s writings. It was originally the subject of his

privatemeditations,duringa time inwhichhewasentirelyunfitted fordoinganythingfortheedificationofothers,andlittleexpectinghewouldbeabletodomoreinthisworld.440Afterheobtainedapartialrecovery,hedeliveredthesubstanceof thesemeditationstohisowncongregation,partlyinfluencedbytheadvantagehehadderived fromthesubjecthimself, andpartly fromconsidering itsuitable to the circumstances of his people. The same considerationsinducedhimtopublish it for thebenefitofothers. IfOwenthought theworldwastookeenlypursuedinhistime(whichwasprobablythecase),andthatChristiansthenstoodmuchinneedofapowerfulcounteractivetoitsbanefulinfluence,whatwouldhehavethoughtofthestateofthingsnow,whenthespiritofspeculation,theloveofgrandeur,andconformityto theworld, seem tobe the snareswhichare entanglingand tryingallthosewhodwellupontheearth?Theonlyremedy,weapprehend,isthatwhichheproposedandexemplified.Scripturalspiritualitywillenableustobeartheperplexitiesandpressureofdistress,andtoresisttheelationsandotherunholytendenciesofprosperityandhonour.Thisstateofmindwhich is the opposite of earthliness as well as carnality; which is theresultofthepeculiarandhabitualinfluenceoftheSpiritofChrist;whichconsistsintheconstantexerciseoffaithontheDivinetestimony,ofhopeinthecertainpromisesofthegospel,andofdelightfulfellowshipwiththeFatherandwithhisdearSon—isadmirablydescribedbyOwen.ThisisthelifewhicheveryChristianiscalledtocultivate,andwithoutwhich,noname or profession is of any importance. Its operations may bemanifestedand its felicitiesenjoyed inapalaceor inacottage. It is thename which only he who receives it knows — the water of life whichproceedsfromthethroneofGodandoftheLamb,andofwhich,whoeverdrinksneverthirstsagainforworldlyorsensualhappiness.441It is, in aword, that immortal existence,which is begun on earth, andperfected in heaven. As Owen approached nearer and nearer to “thebosom of his Father and his God,” he appears to have improved inspiritualityofmindhimself,andinhisdesiretoimpartarelishforittoothers.Hisspiritwassoontoascendtothebrightnessofthateternalloveand glory on which it had long delighted to gaze. And before itsdeparture, it reflected a portion of its heaven-derived lustre for the

benefitofhisbrethrenleftbehind.Mayhismantlerestuponthem,andintheenjoymentofadoubleportionofhisspirit,maytheyexperiencethattheLordGodofOwenisstillthesame;andthatHeisabletodoforhispeopleinfinitelybeyondwhattheycanaskorthink!In 1683, he published a quarto pamphlet of 40 pages, “A Brief andImpartial Account of the Protestant Religion; its present state in theworld;itsstrengthandweakness,”etc.Inthistracthepointsoutwhatheconceives tobe thegroundsofProtestantismas contained in theBible;examines thedanger towhich itwas exposed froma generaldefection,fromtheoperationofforce,orfromareconciliationwithRome.Whileheintimateshisfearsfromthesecauses,hebalancesthembyothergroundsof confidence; such as the honour of Christ tomaintain his cause, theremnantofhispeople foundamong thenations,and themagnanimousspirit bywhich theywere actuated.He concludesby expressinghis fullconvictionthatitwouldultimatelyanduniversallytriumph.442The last work of his pen, was, his “Meditations andDiscourses on theGloryofChrist,”whichwerecommittedtothepressonthedayinwhichhedied.Theyconsistoftwoparts:thefirsttreatsthePerson,Office,andGraceofChrist;thesecond(whichdidnotappeartill1691)consistsoftheapplicationofthetruthscontainedintheformer,tosinnersanddecliningbelievers.Betweenthispublication,andthe“DyingThoughts”ofBaxter,aconsiderablesimilaritysubsists.Whateverthedifferenceswerebetweenthese eminent men on minor points, there was an intimate unionbetweenthem,inspiritualityofaffections,indeadnesstotheworld,andinlongingaspirationstowardthatheavenlyfelicity,solargeaportionofwhich they both enjoyed and diffused on earth. It has been remarked,thatdisputantswilloftenagreeintheirprayers,whentheydifferintheirwritings.Christiansmaydifferwhiletheylive;butwillgenerallyagreeintheirfeelingsandsentimentstowardseachotherinthenearprospectofdeath.Eternity,whencloselyviewed,mustmateriallyaffectourestimateofthetransactionsoftime;andonethingalonecanrendertheprospectofenteringit,pleasinganddelightfultothemind.ThegloryofChrist,likethat of the sun, increases in splendour as we advance upon it. Itincreasinglyrevealsthemeannessandpollutionofourearthlyresidence,and sheds a lustre over the “inheritance of the saints in light,” whichrenders it infinitely attractive. The exercise of faith, hope, and love,directedtowardsheavenlythings,acquiresthestrengthandinfluenceofa

habit—futurity,oftencontemplated,isfelttobepresent—andinvisiblethingsacquireaformandconsistencyinthemind.443It does not indeed appearwhatwe shall be; but aswe becomeweanedfromthissinfulworld,andfeelthatourlifeishidwithChristinGod,ourearnest of heavenly happiness not only becomes more sure, but it isbetterunderstood, andmoreabundant.The loveof life loses itspower,the fear of death diminishes; knowledge ripens to perfection, and thesongofvictorybeginstobesungonthebordersofthetomb.Inthislife,Christians suffer immense loss from notmeditating on the person andgloryofChristastheyoughttodo.Itisamistaketosupposethatthiswillbeeasyonadeathbed,ifthemindhasnotbeenpreviouslytutoredtoit.It is a subject which ought to become increasingly familiar, andincreasinglydelightful.Ifitconstitutestheperfectionandemploymentofheaven, it ought surely to be the subject of chief regard on earth. Themorethatitisso,themoreourconductwillbemarkedwiththedecisionofChristianity, and themore themindwillbe imbuedby its spirit; till,fromsippingthestreams,werisetothefullenjoymentoftheever-livingandinfinitefountainofheavenlyjoy.“Nowweseethroughaglassdarkly;butthenfacetoface:nowweknowinpart;butthenshallweknowevenasweareknown.”1Cor13.12

Besidesalltheworkswehavenoted,Owenwastheauthorofsomeotherproductionswhichappearedatdistant intervalsafterhisdeath.Healsowroteagreatnumberofprefaces,orcommendatoryepistlestotheworksofotherwriters.SomeaccountofallthesewillbefoundintheAppendix,as far as they are known tome. To have introduced them here, wouldhave diverted us too long from the concluding scenes of his earthlycareer,towhichwemustnowattend.444ThehealthofDr.Owenappears tohavebeenmuchreduced forseveralyearsbeforehisdeath.Hisintenseandunweariedapplication,thefruitsofwhichappearinhisnumerousandelaboratewritings,andhisanxioussolicitude respecting the affairs of his Master’s kingdom, must havedestroyed the vigour of any constitution.Hewas severely afflictedwiththestone,thatpainfulandcommonaccompanimentofastudiouslife.Tothis was added asthma, a complaint peculiarly unfavourable to publicspeaking. These disorders frequently confined him to his chamber; but

though they often prevented him from preaching, they must haveinterferedlittlewithhiswriting;otherwise,somanyworkscouldnothavebeencomposedduringthelastyearsofhislife.While triedby thesepainful afflictions, he experiencedmuch sympathyfrom his Christian friends. He had frequent invitations to the countryresidencesofpersonsofquality,andparticularlytothatofLordWharton,atWoburn, in Buckinghamshire.While occasionally at the seat of thisbenevolent andChristiannobleman, hewas often visited by persons ofrank,andenjoyedthecompanyofmanyofhisChristianbrethrenintheministry,who resorted there. Fromhis house, during one of his severeattacks,hewrotea lettertotheChurch,socharacteristicof theman,sosuitable to the circumstances of the times and of his people, that thereaderwillbegratifiedbyfindingitentireattheendofthisvolume.His infirmities rendering a fixed residence in the countrynecessary, hetook a house atKensington,where he lived for some time.During thisperiod,anaccidentoccurredwhichshowsthestateofthetimes,andthehardshipstowhichDissenterswerethenexposed.445GoingonedayfromKensingtontoLondon,hiscarriagewasseizedbytwoinformers.ThismusthavebeenexceedinglypainfultotheDoctoratanytime, but especially when in a state of health made him ill capable ofbearing theviolentexcitementof suchan interference,and itsprobableconsequences. It providentially happened, however, that Sir EdmundBuryGodfrey, a justice of the peace, was passing at the time. Seeing acarriage stopped, and amob collected, he inquired into thematter.HeorderedtheinformersandDr.Owentomeethimata justice’shouseinBloomsbury square, onanotherday,when the causewouldbe tried. Inthemeantime, theDoctorwas discharged. Andwhen themeeting tookplace, it was found that the informers had acted so illegally, that theywereseverelyreprimanded,andthebusinessdismissed.Inthelastyearofhislife,whenOwenwasprobablythinkingofanotherworld,ratherthanofthepoliticsofthisone,avileattemptwasmadetoinvolvehimandsomeoftheothereminentNon-conformists,intheRyehouseplot.

645Mr.Mead,Mr.Griffiths,andMr.Carstairs,werecharged

with meditating the assassination of the King and the Duke of York!Several distinguished individuals, among whom was the amiable andpatrioticLordRussel,weresacrificedfortheirsupposedconnexionwith

thisbusiness.Theministers,however,seemtohavebeen free fromanyother blame than that of conversing freelywith each other, aboutwhatthey ought to do in the event of things coming to a crisis.

646 The

testimonyofMr.Carstairs,whowasmoreconnectedwiththepoliticsofthe country than any of the other ministers, and who suffered mostseverelyandunjustlyonaccountofthissham-plot,isfullandexplicitastotheinnocenceoftheDissenters.446“Ishouldbeguilty,”hesays,“ofthemosthorridinjustice,ifIshouldaccuseanyoftheworthygentlemenofmyowncountry,thatweremyfellowprisoners,oranyoftheEnglishDissentingministers,ofhavingthe leastknowledgeof,orconcernintheabominableassassinationof theKingorhisbrother.ForIdidthen,asIdonow,abhorsuchpractices;norcanI,tothishour,tell

reallywhatwasinthatmatterthatmakessuchanoise.”647

Indeed,therecanscarcelybeadoubtthatitwasentirelyacontrivanceofthecourt,toinvolvethefriendsofreligionandlibertyindisgrace;andtogainsomeof itsowniniquitousends.Thebusiness isof too infamousanaturetoinducethesmallestsuspicionthatmenofreligiouscharacterorhonourcouldbeengagedinit.

648

FromKensington, theDoctormoved toEaling, a fewmiles farther intothe country,where he had someproperty and a house of his own; andwhere he was destined to finish his course. His state of mind in theprospect of eternity, might be inferred from his work on spiritual-mindedness,andhismeditationsonthegloryofChrist;so thatwithoutanyfurtherevidence,wemightbeconvincedofthefalsenessofAnthonyWood’sassertion,“Thatheveryunwillinglylaiddownhisheadanddied.”649Butwearenotdependententirelyontheevidenceoftheseworks,for

our estimate of the Doctor’s feelings in this interesting situation. Thefollowinglettertohisintimatefriend,CharlesFleetwood,dictatedthedaybefore Owen died, reveals the state of hismind to have been not onlycomposed,buthighlyanimatedbytheglorioushopeofeternallife.447“Although I amnot able towrite onewordmyself, yet I amverydesirous to speakonewordmore to you in thisworld, anddo it by the hand ofmywife. The continuance of your entirekindness,knowingwhatitisaccompaniedwith,isnotonlygreatlyvaluedbyme,butwillbearefreshmenttome,asitiseveninmydyinghour.IamgoingtoHimwhommysoulhasloved,or rather who has loved me with an everlasting love, which is the whole ground of all myconsolation.Thepassageisveryirksomeandwearisome,throughstrongpainsofvarioussorts,whichare all issued in an intermitting fever.All thingswereprovided to carryme toLondontoday, according to the advice of my physicians; but we are all disappointed by my utter

disabilitytoundertakethejourney.Iamleavingtheshipofthechurchinastorm;butwhilethegreatPilot is in it, the loss of a poorunder-rowerwill be inconsiderable. Live, andpray, andhope,andwaitpatiently,anddonotdespond;thepromisestandsinvincible,thatHewillneverleaveusnorforsakeus.Iamgreatlyafflictedatthedistempersofyourdearlady;thegoodLordstandbyher,andsupportanddeliverher.Myaffectionaterespectstoher,andtherestofyourrelations,whoaresodeartomeintheLord.Rememberyourdyingfriendwithall fervency;I

restuponitthatyoudoso,andamyoursentirely.”650

ThisletterexhibitsthegroundoftheDoctor’shope—thetranquillityofhismind—thehumilityofhisdisposition—hisinterestintheafflictionsof the church, but confidence in her security — his attachment to hisfriends and the pleasurewhich he derived from the fellowship of theirkindnessandprayers. It is justsucha letteraswemighthaveexpectedfromtheprecedinglifeandcharacterofthewriter.448His sufferings previous to his death, appear to have been uncommonlysevere, arising from the natural strength of his constitution, and thecomplication of hismaladies. But the blessed truth which he had longpreachedtotheedificationandcomfortofmany,andindefenceofwhichhe hadwritten somuch and sowell, proved fully adequate not only tosupporthim,buttomakehimtriumphintheprospectofeternity.Onthemorning of the day on which he died,Mr. Thomas Payne, an eminenttutor andDissentingminister, at SaffronWaldon, inEssex—who hadbeen entrusted with the publication of hisMeditations on the glory ofChrist—calledtotakehisleave,andtoinformhim,thathehadjustbeenputting that work to the press. “I am glad to hear it,” said the dyingChristian; and lifting up his hands and eyes, as if transported withenjoyment,exclaimed—“ButO!brotherPayne!thelongwishedfordayhascomeatlast,inwhichIshallseethatgloryinanothermannerthanIhaveeverdone,orwascapableofdoinginthisworld.”Thisexclamationremindsusof thebeautifulwordsofCicero, towhichthere isastrikingresemblance;butwhichhaveaverydifferentemphasisinthemouthofadyingsaint,fromwhattheyhaveinthemouthofaheathenphilosopher.“Opraeclarumdiem,cumadilluddivinumanimorumconciliumcoetumqueproficiscar,cumqueexhac turbaet colluvionediscedam!proficiscarenimnonadeos solumviros,dequibusante

dixi;sedetiamadCatonemmeum,”etc.651

449Itwasnot,however,theprospectofseeingaCato,thoughthatCatowasabeloved son;or aPaul, though thatPaulwas anapostle, that animated

thehopesofOwen;buttheprospectofbeholdinghimwhooncediedfortheguilty,whoisthesumofallperfection;andthesightofwhomimpartstoallwhobeholdhimimmortalhappiness,andheavenlypurity.Tohim,deathwouldbeadeliverancefromtheburdenofsin,fromtheanxietiesand cares which had long disturbed his repose, and from thoseexcruciating pains of body, which had been the long forerunners ofdissolution.Itwouldalsobe,whatismorethanalltherest,absencefromthebody,tobepresentwiththeLord.“Happydaythatbreaksourchain!Thatmanumits;thatcallsfromexilehome;Thatleadstonature’sgreatmetropolis,Andre-admitsus,throughtheguardianhandOfelderBrother’stoourFather’sthrone.”

His death took place on the twenty-fourth of August, 1683, theanniversary of the celebrated Bartholomew ejection, and in the sixty-seventhyearofhisage.Hewasspeechless forseveralhoursbefore;butshowed by lifting up his eyes and hands with great devotion, that heretainedtheuseofhismentalfaculties,andhisdevotionalfeelingstothelast.HewasattendedbyDr.CoxandDr.(afterwardSir)EdmundKing,who assigned a physical reason for the extreme severity of his lastagonies. “Mark theperfectman, andbehold theupright, for the endofthatmanispeace!”—“BlessedarethedeadwhodieintheLord—theyrestfromtheirlabours;andtheirworksfollowthem.”450From Ealing, where he died, his body was conveyed to a house in St.James’ where it lay some time. On the fourth of September, it wasconveyed to Bunhill fields, attended by the carriages of sixty-sevennoblemenandgentlemen;besidesmanymourningcoachesandpersonson horseback. Such a testimony to the memory of a man who dieddestituteofcourtandofchurchfavour—whohadbeenoftenabusedbythe sycophants of tyranny, and the enemies of religion; and at a timewhenitwasdangeroustotakepartwiththepersecutedNon-conformists—wasequallyhonourabletothedeadandtotheliving.Hewasdoubtlessdeartomanywhomhehadinstructedbyhispreaching,andcomfortedbyhiswritings.Theymusthavesorrowedoverhisgrave,as itclosedupontheremainsofavaluableandmostdevotedservantofChrist.But theirsorrow would be mingled with joy, when they reflected on hisdeliverance,andindulgedthesureandcertainhopeofhisresurrectiontoeternal life. He indeed left the church in a storm, when there were

comparativelyfewwhocaredforherstate.Butheenteredintorest,andinafewyearssheobtaineddeliveranceandrepose.HowhewouldhaveexultedifhehadlivedtilltheGloriousRevolution(1688),andenjoyedforalittle, thehappyeffectsofthat longandarduousstruggle inwhichthecountry had been engaged, and in which he and his brethren bore soprominentapart!Theywerehonouredtosustaintheburdenandheatofthe day, while we repose with comfort in the shade. They fought thebattle,andwereapthefruitofthevictory.They,however,willhavetheirdue reward when the reproach of the world, and the abuse of partyprejudice—aswellasalltheeffectstheyhaveproduced—willbeforeverdestroyedbytheapplaudingapprovaloftheRighteousJudge.451HisdeathwasimprovedtothechurchontheLord’sdayafterthefuneral,by his brother and colleague, Mr. Clarkson, from Philippians 3.21. —“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like hisgloriousbody.”Itisashort,butconsolatorydiscourse.Hedoesnotenterlargely intotheDoctor’scharacter,andgivesnothingofhishistory.Thelastparagraph is solemnandaffecting,andmusthavesensibly touchedthechurch,“His death falls heaviest and most directly upon this congregation. We had a light in thiscandlestick,whichnotonlyenlightenedtheroom,butgavelighttoothersfarandnear:butitisputout.Wedidnotsufficientlyvalueit;IwishImightnotsay,thatoursinshaveputitout.Wehadaspecialhonourandornament,suchasotherchurcheswouldmuchprize;but thecrownhasfallenfromourheads,indeed,mayInotadd,‘Woeuntousforwehavesinned.’Wehavelostanexcellentpilot,andlosthimwhenafiercestormiscomingonus.Idreadtheconsequences,considering theweakness of thosewho are left at the helm. If we are not sensible of it, it isbecauseourblindnessisgreat.LetusbegofGod,thatHewouldpreventwhatthisthreatensuswith,andthathewouldmakeupthisloss,orthatitmayberepaired.Andletusprayinthelastwords of this dying person tome— ‘That the Lordwould double his spirit upon us, that hewould not remember against us former iniquities; but that his tender mercies may speedilypreventus,forwearebroughtverylow.’”

ByhisWill,helefttheestateofEaton,inBerkshire,tohiswifeduringherlife. Upon her death, that estate and another at Stadham, werebequeathed to his brother Henry Owen (who, however, died beforehimself),ortohissonHenrywho,Isuppose,succeededtoboth.452Among the legacies are twenty pounds to JohnCollins, the pastor of arespectable Independent church in London; five pounds apiece to Mr.David Clarkson, Mr. Robert Ferguson, and Mr., Isaac Loafs; thirtypoundstoonefemaleservant,andtwentytoanother,whohadattended

himduringhisillness.652

HisLibrarywassoldinMay1684,byMillington,oneoftheearliestofourbookauctioneers.

653ConsideringtheDoctor’stasteasareader,hisageas

aminister,andhiscircumstancesasaman,hislibrary,inallprobability,wouldbebothextensiveandvaluable.Hehadbecome thepossessoroftheGreekandLatinMSS.whichhadbelonged toPatrickYoung,betterknown by his Latin name Junius: one of the most celebrated Greekscholars of his time, who had been keeper of the Royal Library, at St.James’,andtheauthorandeditorofseverallearnedworks.

654

Amonument of free stonewas erected over the vault in Bunhill fields,where his body was laid, on which the following Latin Epitaph wasinscribed,drawnupbyhisoldfriendMr.ThomasGilbert,andwhichstillremainsinfinepreservation.453

JOHANNESOWEN,S.T.P.AgroOxoniensiOriundus;

PatreinsogniTheologoTheologusipseInsignior;EtseculihujusInsignissimisannumerandus:

CommunibusHumaniorumLiterarumSuppetiis,MensuraparumCoramuni,Instructus,

Omnibus,quasibeneOrdinataAncillarumSerie,AbillojussissuaeFamulariTheologiae:

TheologiaPolemicae,Practicae,etquamvocantCasuum(HarumenimOmnium,quaemagissuahabendaerat,ambigitur)

Inilla,ViribusplusquamHerculeis,serpentibustribus,Aiminio,Socino,Cano,VenenosaStrinxitguttura:

Inillasuoprior,adverbiAmussim,ExpertusPectore,UniversamSp.Seti.ŒconomianAliistradidit:Et,missisCaeteris,Coluitipse,Sensitque,

Beatamquamscripsit,cumDeoCommunionem:InterrisViatorcomprehensoriincaelisproximus:

InCasuumTheologia,SingulisOraculiinstarhabitus;QuibusOpuserat,etcopia,Consulendi;

ScribaadRegnumCaelorumusqueqoqueinstitutus;MultisprivatosinfraParietes,aSuggestoPluribus,APreloomnibus,adeundemscopumcollineantibus,

PuraDoctrinaeEvangelicaeLampasPraeluxit;Etsensim,nonsinealiorum,suoquesensu,

SicpraelucendoPeriit,AssiduisInfirmitatibusObsiti,MorbisCreberrimusImpetiti,

DurisqueLaboribuspotissimumAttriti,Corporis,(Fabricae,donecitaQuassatae,Spectabilis)Ruinas,

DeoultraFruendiCupida,Deseruit;

Die,aTerrenisProtestatibus,PlurimisfactoFatali;llli,ACoelestiNumine,felicireddito;

MensisScilicetAugustiXXIVAnnoaPartuVirgineo.M.DC.LXXXIIIÆtat.LXVII§.

454Translation:

JOHNOWEN,D.D.,

BornintheCountyofOxford,ThesonofaneminentMinister,

Himselfmoreeminent.Andworthytobeenrolled

AmongthefirstDivinesoftheage.Furnishedwithhumanliterature

Inallitskinds,Andinallitsdegrees,

HecalledforthallhisknowledgeInanorderlytrain

ToservetheinterestsofReligion,AndministerintheSanctuaryofhisGod.

InDivinity,practic,polemic,andcasuistic.Heexcelledothers,andwasinall,equaltohimself.

TheArminian,Socinian,andPopisherrors,ThoseHydras,whosecontaminatedbreath,AnddeadlypoisoninfestedtheChurch,He,withmorethanHerculeanlabour.Repulsed,vanquished,anddestroyed.Thewholeeconomyofredeeminggrace,RevealedandappliedbytheHolySpirit,

Hedeeplyinvestigatedandcommunicatedtoothers;Havingfirstfeltitsdivineenergy.

AccordingtoitsdraughtintheHolyScriptures,Transfusedintohisownbosom.Superiortoallterrenepursuits.

Heconstantlycherished,andlargelyexperienced.ThatblissfulcommunionwithDeity,

Hesoadmirablydescribesinhiswritings.

WhileontheroadtoHeavenHiselevatedmind

AlmostcomprehendedItsfullgloriesandjoys.WhenhewasconsultedOncasesofconscience

HisresolutionscontainedThewisdomofanOracle.

HewasascribeeverywayinstructedInthemysteriesofthekingdomofGod.

Inconversation,hehelduptomany,Inhispublicdiscourses,tomore,

Inhispublicationsfromthepress,toall,WhoweresetoutforthecelestialZion,

TheeffulgentlampofevangelicaltruthToguidetheirstepstoimmortalglory.

Whilehewasthusdiffusinghisdivinelight,Withhisowninwardsensations,

Andtheobservationsofhisafflictedfriends,Hisearthlytabernaclegraduallydecayed,Tillatlengthhisdeeplysanctifiedsoul,LongingforthefruitionofitsGod,

Quittedthebody.

InyoungerageAmostcomelyandmajesticform;Butinthelatterstagesoflife,

Depressedbyconstantinfirmities,Emaciatedwithfrequentdiseases,

455Andaboveall,crushedundertheweightOfintenseandunremittingstudies,ItbecameanincommodiousmansionForthevigorousexertionsofthespirit

IntheserviceofitsGod.Helefttheworldonaday,DreadfultotheChurchBythecrueltiesofmen,Butblissfultohimself

BytheplauditsofhisGod,

August24,1683,aged67.655

Dr.Owenwastallinstature,andtowardthelatterpartofhislife,inclinedto stoop.Hehad a gravemajestic countenance; but the expressionwassweetratherthanaustere.Hisappearanceanddeportmentwerethoseofa gentleman, and thereforemuch suited to the situationswhichhewascalled to fill. Several portraits of himhave been executed, all ofwhich,though done at different periods of his life, exhibit a considerableresemblance to each other. The engraving given in the first edition ofPalmer’s Non-conformist’s Memorial, appears to be from the earliestpainting.ItissaidtobetakenfromanoriginalpictureinthepossessionoftheRev.Dr.Gifford.ThereisaveryfineengravingbyVertue,prefixedtothefoliocollectionofhisSermonsandTracts,publishedin1721.Thepainting or drawing from which this print was taken, must have beendonetowardthelatterpartoftheDoctor’slife.Theplateisalargeoval,inwhichhe isrepresented inhis library,supportinghisgownwithhis lefthand.Roundthemarginoftheplateisengraved,“JoannesOwen.S.T.P.DecanÆd.Chr.etperQuinquenn.ViceCanc.Oxon.”Inascrollabovetheoval, “QueramusSuperna,” is inscribed; inasmall tabletat thebottom,hisarmsareinserted,andonasquarepedestalsupportingthewhole,the

followinglines,saidtobebyhimself,occur:—456Umbrarefertfragiles,dederuntquascuradolorqueRelliquias,studiisassiduusquelaborMentemhumilemsacriservantemLiminaveriVotissupplicibus,quidedit,illevidit.

Oftheselines,wehaveaneleganttranslationfromthepenofDr.Watts;whospeaksofthemwithgreatapproval,andastheproductionofOwenhimself.ThisshadowshowsthefrailremainsOfsickness,cares,andstudiouspains.ThemindinhumbleposturewaitsAtsacredtruth’scelestialgates,Andkeepsthoseboundswithholyfear,

Whilehethatgaveitseesitthere.656

Theengravingprefixedtothiswork,isfromaveryfinepaintingdonein1656,whentheDoctorwasVice-Chancellor,andinthefortiethyearofhisage.Nothingisknownofthepainteroritshistory,buttheproprietorhaskindlyallowed it tobeused for theseMemoirs,ashehadbefore toMr.Palmer, for the second edition of the Non-conformist’s Memorial. ThefacsimileofOwen’shandwritingistakenfromalettertoBaxter,writtenin1668,nowintheRedCrossStreetlibrary.Fromthematerials contained in theprecedingpartof thisvolume,andfromthenumerousworksofDr.Owen,thereadermightsafelybelefttoform his own estimate of his general character. But as our discussionshavefrequentlybeenofaverymiscellaneousnature,anattempttobringtogethertheleadingfeaturesofhischaracter,asaChristian,asaministerof the gospel, and as a writer, will form a suitable conclusion andimprovementofthewhole.457One of the first things which appears in Owen’s religious history, andwhichconstitutedaprominentfeatureinhischaracterthroughlife,ishisconscientious submission to theSupremeauthorityof thewordofGod.This ledhimatanearlyperiod, toabandonallhishopesandwishesofrisingintheEpiscopalhierarchy,andtotakepartwiththedespisedandpersecutedPuritans.ThesameprincipleinducedhimafterwardstoadoptthesentimentsoftheIndependents,thenstrugglingforexistence.Itwasthiswhichmadehimmaintainhisadherencetothatbodythroughallits

various fortunes, and to resist with equal perseverance and steadinessevery inducement to leave it, whether arising from the allurements ofpreferment, or the temptations of adversity, “To the Law and theTestimony,” he uniformly bowed with humble and cheerful subjection.Wheretheypointedtheway,hefeltithisdutytofollow;whattheycalledhim to bear, he willingly sustained. The path was often rugged, theburden heavy; but the love of Christ always smoothed the one, andenabledhimtobeartheother.WithaconsciencealivetoeverypreceptoftheSacredword,andaheartfilledwithgratitudetoitsDivineauthor,allthingswerefelttobeeasy.Andheexperiencedwhatallwhoimitatehisconduct will find that the path of duty, even when it leads throughtribulation,isthepathofsafetyandcomfort.With conscientious obedience was associated the deepest humility ofdisposition.Possessedofeminenttalents,andgreatenlargementofmind—placedinthemostdignifiedandoftenenviedsituations—consulted,applauded,andcourtedbyauthority, learning,andrank—hecouldnotbe altogether unconscious of his own superiority. Yet this scarcely everappears.458Therewas littleofprideoroverbearing inhismanner.The tendencyofhis talents and honours to elate him, was counteracted by the deepinsightwhichhehadintothecharacterofGod,andtheinteriorofhumannature.HehadbeencompletelyhumbledbytheconvictionsoftheDivinelaw. His knowledge of the gospel deepened his impressions of themalignityofsin,andthedeceitfulnessoftheheart.Insteadofcomparinghimselfwithothers,healwaysexaminedhismotivesandactionsbythestandard of an unalterable and perfect rule. Conscious of innumerableimperfectionswhichwereunperceivedbymen,hewalkedbeforeGodasasinner, constantly dependent on sovereign mercy to cover histransgressions,andongraciousinfluencetoperfecthisobedience.“Whathave I, that I have not received,” is a sentiment which he seemsconstantlytohavecarriedinhismind.Theaccountgivenofhisprivatemanners,correspondswiththeideaweform of him from his writings. He was very affable and courteous,familiar and sociable; the meanest persons found easy access to hisconversation and friendship. He was facetious and pleasant in hiscommondiscourse,jestingwithhisacquaintances,butwithsobrietyand

measure;agreatmasterofhispassions,especiallythatofanger.Hewasofasereneandeventemper,neitherelatedwithhonour,credit, friendsorestate;noreasilydepressedwithtroublesanddifficulties.

657

Hecombined,inamannerworthyofimitation,liberallovetowardallthepeople of God, with firmness and attachment to his own peculiarsentiments. He walked according to the light which he had himselfreceived, and loved those who minded the same things; but hisbenedictionsextendedtoallthetrueIsraelofGod.459Hewasadevotedfriendtothetruth,butaloverofmanywhodidnotseeeverypart of it ashedid; andheonlypitied andprayed for thosewhoopposed it. Like Melanchthon, he contended for unity in those truthswhicharenecessarytobebelieved,forlibertyinthosethingswhichGodhasleftfree,andforlovetowardallwhoboretheimageofChrist.Hewasofgreatmoderationinhisjudgment,willingtothinkthebestofallmenas far as he could; not censorious, but a lover of pietywherever itwasexhibited; not limiting Christianity to any one party, and everendeavouring to promote it among men of all professions. Those whowishtocultivatethediffusivecharitiesofChristianity,andtobe“loversofall good men,” would do well to imbibe his spirit, and to study hischaracter:andthosewhosupposeallprincipledattachmenttodistinctivesentimentsandpracticesmustbenarrow-mindedbigotry,arereferredtotheconductofOwenforthereproofoftheirignoranceandfolly.Nomancould exhibit more of the blandness of affection to those who differedfrom him on minor points; and no man could more sternly resist allinterference with his own sentiments, or encroachments on his ownliberty.Togranttoothersthesamerightwhichweexerciseourselves,ismore commonly acknowledged to be equitable in principle, thangenerallyreducedtopractice.Unwearied diligence in the business of the Christian profession, isanotherdistinguishingtraitinthelifeofOwen.Hewasapassionateloverof lightandtruth,especiallyofDivine truth.Hepursued itunweariedlythrough painful and wasting studies which impaired his health andstrength, and brought upon him those distempers which issued in hisdeath.460

Someblamedhimforthis,asasortof intemperance;but it is,saysMr.Clarkson, the most excusable of any, and looks like a voluntarymartyrdom.

658Hislaboriousdiligenceappearedinhisvariedlearning,in

hispreaching, inhiswritingsandinhisnumerousandoftendiscordantlabours.Idlenessmusthavebeenutterlyunknowntohim.Everymomentof his time was filled up; and in obedience to the Divine injunction,whatever his hands found to do, he did it with all his might. In theacquisition and diffusion of knowledge, he found a large portion of hisearthlyreward.Butthatwhichappearsmostconspicuously inthecharacterofOwen, isthe deep and constant spiritual tone of hismind. To this, all the otherqualitiesinhistemper,andeveryotherattainmentmustbemadetobow.The grand ingredient in all his practical and experimental writings, isspirituality—inwhichhewassuperiortomostofthemenofhisownage,andcomparativelyfewsincehavearrivedatthemeasureofhisspiritualstature. His eminence in this grace, or rather this combination of thegracesoftheSpirit,isdeservingofevenmoreattention,whenwereflecton the circumstances of his life.Hewas no ascetic, living far from thehauntsofmen,andconversinginsolitudewithhimself,withnature,andwithGod.Nordidhe spendhisdays in village labours, amidst a rusticpopulation,“farfromthemaddingcrowd’signoblestrife.”Hedidnotlivewhen“thechurcheshadrestandwereedified,”orwhentheOlivebranchof peacewas suspended over the land.He did not study howhemightmost quietly creep through the world, and obtain an unperceiveddismissionfromitsills.461Hiscircumstances,and“mannerof life,”were theveryreverseof these.Hemixedmuchintheworld,movedevenamongthegreatoftheearth,andoftenstoodbeforetheprincipalitiesandpowersoftheland.Manyofhisdayswere spent amidst thenoiseof camps, thebickeringsofparty,andtheheatofcontroversy.Hiscountrywasconvulsedbyinternalwarsandreligiousanimosities;andthechurchesofChristwereeitheragitatedby “diverse and strangedoctrines,” or called to endure “a great fight ofafflictions.” In all these circumstances, the soul of Owen remainedunmoved. “In the land of peace, and in the swellings of Jordan,” itperseveredinitsundeviatingspiritualcareer.Superiortotheinfluenceofexternal things, hispursuits and feelingsoften exhibit an extraordinary

contrast with his situation. While governing the contending spirits ofOxford,surroundedbytheturbulentelementsofthecommonwealth,anddiscussingtheintricaciesoftheArminianandSociniandebates,hewroteon the Mortification of Sin, and on Communion with God. Whilestrugglingwithoppression,andsometimesconcealinghimselfforsafety,he produced his Exposition of the 130th Psalm, and his work on theHebrews.Whenrackedwiththestone,and“indeathsoft,”hecomposedhisDefenceofEvangelicalChurches,andhisMeditationsontheGloryofChrist. The change of subject, or of circumstances, appears to haveeffectedlittlechangeonhisspirits,oronthestateofhismind.The secret of this enviable attainment is certainly to be found in theextraordinary measure of Divine influence which he enjoyed. Thisproducedalifeoffaith,ofself-denial,andofheavenlytranquillity.Whenhe describes the mortification of sin, it was what he himself dailypractised.When he exhibits the nature and excellencies of communionwithGod,wehaveaviewofhisownenjoyments.462When he enforces the grace and duty of spiritual-mindedness, heillustrates what he daily loved and sought. His mouth spoke from theabundance of his heart, and what he had tasted and felt himself, hedesiredtocommunicatetoothers.“HesettheLordalwaysbeforehim;”Psa16.8whichdeliveredhimfromthefearofman,andenabledhimtoactthepart of a faithfulminister ofChrist.When contending for the faith,however,herememberedthattheservantoftheLordmustnotstrive,but“in meekness instruct those who oppose themselves.” 2Tim 2.25 Whensurroundedbythe“pompsandvanitiesoftheworld,”hethoughtoftheirfadingnature,andonthesuperiorgloryofthe“betterandmoreenduringinheritance.” Heb 10.34 When struggling with the tribulations of thekingdom,herejoicedintherestthatremainsforthepeopleofGod.Whenexposedtothestrifeoftongues,andreviledbyunreasonableandwickedmen,hecomfortedhimselfwiththewordsofhisLord:“Blessedareyouwhenmenshallrevileyouandpersecuteyou,andsayallmannerofevilagainst you falsely, for my name’s sake.” Mat 5.11 When fainting withweakness, and dissolving in death, the thoughts of heaven and of himwho occupies its throne filled him with “joy unspeakable and full ofglory.”1Pet1.8

Thesewerethegrandprinciplesandspringsofhisfeelingsandconduct.

Spirituality ofmindwashis life andhis peace.AfterOwen, let nomanfindareasonforthelackofitinthesupposedpeculiarityordifficultyofhiscircumstances.Letnotpublic lifebeanapology foraworldly spirit.Let not prosperity excuse pride, or adversity depression. Let not thecontumelies of reproach justify a spirit of rancour, nor controversy beconsideredasnecessarilyincompatiblewiththemeeknessandgentlenessofChrist.463HeseemstohavebeenintendedasaspecimenofwhatthegraceofGodcando foranuninspired individual, toencourageothers toemulatehisvirtues, and to be followers of his patience and his faith. It would bewrong to refer to him as an authority; itwould be sinful to clothe himwith perfection; but if respect is due to Christian excellence, andenlightenedsanctifiedobedienceisentitledtoesteem,thenthecharacterofOwendemandsthevenerationofallthepeopleofGod.AsaMinisterofChrist,hischaracterandqualificationsstandeminentlyhigh.Ofhis learning,knowledgeof theScriptures, andpiety, thegrandrequisitesofthegospelministry,itisscarcelynecessarytosayanything,after what has been brought forward. The languages of the cross werefamiliar to him as his mother tongue. To this his adversaries beartestimony. “Hewas,” saysWood, “a personwell-skilled in the tongues,Rabbinical learning, and Jewish rites and customs.” Those who wantfurtherevidence,haveonly to refer tohisTheologumena, andhisworkontheHebrews.Wemaystillsaysomethingabouttheusehemadeofhissuperior advantages as a public teacher, and the pastor of a Christianchurch.His talents as a public speaker were of the first order. His voice wasstrong,butnotnoisy;sweet,butexceedinglymanly,withacertainsoundofauthorityinit.Hisgesturewasfarremovedfromtheatricalaffectation,but always animated and adapted to his subject.

659 His personal

appearance aidedmost powerfully the advantages of his voice, and allweresupportedbyapresenceofmindwhichseldomforsookhim,eveninthemosttryingcircumstances.464“Hispersonage,”saysWood,whoknewhimatOxford,“wasproperandhandsome, and he had a very graceful behaviour in the pulpit; an

eloquent elocution; a winning and insinuating deportment. And by thepersuasion of his oratory, in conjunction with some other outwardadvantages, he could move and wind the affections of his admiringauditory,almostashepleased.”

660Heseldomusednotes.

“Hehadanadmirablefacilityindiscoursingonanysubjectpertinentlyanddecently;andcouldbetter expresshimselfextempore, thanotherswithpremeditation.Hewasnever at a loss forlackoflanguage,ahappinessfewcanpretendto;andthishecouldshowinthepresenceevenofthehighestpersonsinthenation.Hethusshowedthathehadthecommandofhislearning.Hisvastreadingandexperiencewereherebymadeusefulinresolvingdoubts,clearingobscurities,

andhealingbreacheswhichsometimesseemedincurable.”661

His published discourses are far from unfavourable specimens of hispulpit talents. Those redundancies of which we complain in reading,must have been more tolerable in their delivery. Though diffuse andgenerally prolix, he is often energetic. And considering the state of thelanguage at the time, and his careless habits of composition, it issurprisingthatsomanyeloquentandtouchingpassagesshouldbefoundinthem.Usefulness,however—rather thandisplayoreffect—was thegreatobjectofallhispubliclabours.Hepreachedforeternity—Ambitious,nottoshineortoexcel,Buttotreatjustly,whathelovedsowell.

465By this rule, therefore, all his pulpit compositions must be tried. Heconsideredthestateandcircumstancesofhishearers,andendeavouredtoadapthisinstructionstothem.Asagoodsteward,hestudiedrightlytodividethewordoftruth,andtogivetoallthemembersofthefamilyofGodtheirdueportion.“Byhim,theviolatedlawspeaksoutItsthunders;andbyhim,InstrainsassweetAseverangelsuse,thegospelwhisperspeace.He‘stablishesthestrong,restorestheweak.Reclaimsthewanderer,bindsthebrokenheart.And,arm’dhimselfinpanoplycompleteOfheavenlytemper,furnisheswitharmsBrightashisown,andtrainsbyeveryruleOfholydiscipline,togloriouswar.ThesacramentalhostofGod’sElect.”

His attention to the church, so far as we are now capable of judging,seemstohavebeenveryexemplary.TheCatechismswhichhepublishedtoaidtheyoungandtheignorant,thediscourseswhichheaddressedtothe church on particular occasions, the short addresses which he

deliveredatprivatemeetings,onpracticalandexperientialsubjects,andthose which he made at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, arespecimens of the manner in which he discharged the functions of hisoffice; and of his anxiety that he might be found faithful to the trustcommittedtohim.Heprescribedtwothingstohimself,forhisregulationintheworkoftheministry:“Toimpartthosetruthsofwhosepower,hehadinsomemeasurearealexperience,andtopressthosedutieswhichpresent occasions, temptations, and other circumstances renderednecessary to be attended to.”

662He exemplified in himself, the correct

andampleviewwhichhegivesofthedutyofPastorsinhisworkontheNature of the Gospel Church — the fifth chapter of which oughtmostseriouslytobeconsideredbyallwhooccupythisimportantoffice.466Asmanypersonsof rank and fortuneweremembersofhis church, theDoctor’scircumstances,formerconnexions,andsuperiorunderstanding,withhiseminentattainmentsasaChristian,particularlysuitedhim forthe management of such a body. He knew how to combine dignity ofdeportment as a gentleman, and superiority as a scholar, with themeekness and gentleness becoming the servant of his brethren forChrist’s sake. “His conversation was not only advantageous for itspleasantness and obligingness; but there was in it that which made itdesirable togreatpersons,nativesand foreigners,andthat [desirewas]bysomany,thatfewcouldhavewhattheydesired.”

663

His influence among the Non-conformists, and particularly among hisbrethrenoftheCongregationalbody,wasveryextensive.Itisneedlesstorecapitulate the circumstances which naturally promoted this. HeoutlivedmostofthegenerationofIndependentswhotookpartinthecivilcommotions.Hewas looked up to by his brethren, both near and at adistance,onalloccasionsofpublicdifficulty—andfromhisconnexions,he could be of more service in those circumstances than any otherindividual.Hewasconsultedbyhisbrethren in theministrywhen theywereperplexedaboutthepathofduty;andchurchesalsoappliedfortheassistanceofhis counsel andadvicewhendifferencesoccurred in themwhich they found itdifficult tosettle.

664Thushisusefulnessmusthave

extendedgreatlybeyondthesphereofhispersonallabours.467

ButitisasawriterthatDr.Owenhasbeenmostuseful,andisnowmostgenerally known. Having so often had occasion to speak of hispublications,itcannotbenecessarynow,togointoanydetailsrespectingthem.Butageneralobservationor twomaystillbemade,onhis faultsand hismerits as an author. His chief deficiency is to be found in hisstyle.Hissentencesarefrequentlylong,perplexed,andencumberedwithadjectives,oftencarelesslyselected.“Accustomed to dictate his ideas, he surveys the stores of a mind rich in knowledge; andperceivingclearlytheleadingtruthwhichhemeanttoillustrate,hebringsforwardalongseriesofthoughts,allbearingonthesubject.Theassociationswhichlinkedthemtogetherinhismind,were probablymost natural; but these thoughtswere perhaps not all requisite at the time—parentheses frequentlyoccur, and thepassagebecomesperplexed.Hehadneither leisurenorinclination to revise and retrench; perhaps though he had made the attempt, he was notqualified to render his writingsmuchmore acceptable by improvements in style. In general,however, it isnotdifficult toperceivehismeaning.Andwhenthesentence is intricate,a little

attentionwillcommonlyenablethereadertodisentangletheseveralclauses.”665

This is, perhaps, the best apology that can be offered for the obviousdefectsinthecompositionsofOwen.Itmayalsobeadded,thatevenhisown editions of his writings are, in general, most carelessly printed.Almost no attention has been paid to the punctuation, and everysubsequent edition has adopted and added to the blunders of thepreceding.468The language too,whenhewrote,hadnot attained that classicalpurityandneatnessatwhichitarrivedinthebeginningofthefollowingcentury.Iamdoubtful,however,whetherOwenwouldhavestudiedit, thoughithad.Hewasinexcusablyindifferenttothevehicleofhisthoughts.Hadhewrittenless,andpaidmoreattentiontothepruningandarrangingofhissentimentsandlanguage,hewoulddoubtlesshavebeenmoreuseful.Buttoallornamentintheologicalwriting,hewasanenemyonprinciple.“Knowreaderthatyouhavetodealwithapersonwho,providedhiswordsbutclearlyexpressthe sentiments of his mind, entertains a fixed and absolute disregard of all elegance and

ornamentsofspeech.For,‘DicitePontifices,insacrisquidfacitaurum?’666

Inmyopinion,indeed,someonewhoinatheologicalcontestwouldpleasehimselfwithadisplayof rhetorical flourishes,wouldderiveno furtheradvantage from it,but thathisheadadornedwithmagnificentgarlandsandpellets,wouldfallarichervictimtothestrokesofthelearned.”667

But it is not of the lack of tinsel and glitter that we complain againstOwen;itisofsimplicityandcondensation.Mostreadersmurmuragainst

his prolixity and heaviness: and though the labour is repaid whenperseveredin,still,itmighthavebeenbetter,ifthisexerciseofself-denialhad been unnecessary. How different is his style from the chaste andflowing elegance of Bate, and from the point and energy of Baxter —though the latter is far from a model of good writing. It is useless,however, to complain now. The exterior of the casket has nothing toattract;butitscontentsaremorevaluablethanrubies.469Perhapsnotheologicalwriteroftheperiodwasbetterknown,andamongalargeclassofChristianssogreatlyrespected.HisLatinworksextendedhis fame on the Continent, and led to the translation of several of hisEnglishproductions,orinducedforeigndivinestolearnthelanguage,sothattheymightenjoythebenefitofthem.ManytravelledintoEnglandtoseeandconversewithhim;manyalsoweretheletterswhichhereceivedfrom learned persons abroad; but which unfortunately cannot now berecovered.Among thesecorrespondentswas thecelebratedAnnaMariaSchurmann,whoselettersitwouldhavebeenmostgratifyingtopossess;buttheyalsoarelost.

668

The influence of Owen’s works in forming or directing the religiousopinions,notonlyofhisownage,butof the succeeding,wasdoubtlessvery great.Of this, thepricewhichhis largerperformances continue tobring, and the numerous editions and abridgements of his variouswritings still published, are alone sufficient proofs. Among theDissenters, they have always been standard books; and the evangelicalpartyintheEstablishedChurchesnowequallyrespectthem.Thoseofhisworks which continue most popular, are all on the most importantsubjects.Andfromtheextentinwhichtheyhavebeenread,theamountofgoodwhichtheyhaveeffected,willneverbeascertainedinthisworld.IdonotknowthatOwenought tobeconsideredanoriginalwriter.Hisworksdonotcontainanyimportantdiscoveriesintheologicalscience,orany greatnovelty of illustration.He seldomdiverges from the commonpathtrodbyCalvinisticwriters.ThisisnotedbyClarksoninhisFuneralSermon:470“It isusualwithpersonsof extraordinaryparts, to straggle from the commonroadandaffectnovelty, thoughtherebythey losethebestcompany;asthoughtheycouldnotappeareminentunlesstheymarchalone.Butthisgreatpersondidnotaffectsingularity.Theywereoldtruths

thatheendeavouredtodefend,thosewhichweredeliveredbythefirstReformers,andownedbythebestdivinesoftheChurchofEngland.”

Indeed,noveltyinChristianityisnottobeexpected,norperhapsshoulditbedesired.ApassageofScripturemayreceiveanewinterpretation;anargumentmaybeplacedinastrongerlight;adoctrineoradutymaybeenforcedbymorepowerfulormoresuitablereasonings—but thegreattruthswhich constitute the foundation of faith and practice,must everremainthesame.Asa controversialwriter,Owen isgenerallydistinguished for calmness,acuteness, candour, and gentlemanly treatment of his opponents. Helived during a stormy period, and often experienced the bitterestprovocation; but he very seldom lost his temper.He often handled thearguments of his adversaries very roughly; but he always saved theirpersonsand feelingsasmuchaspossibleMostof themwereobliged toacknowledgethis.Wooddeclaresthat“hewasoneofthefairestandmostgenteel of the writers who appeared against the Church of England;handling his adversaries with far more civil, decent, and temperatelanguagethanmanyofhisfierybrethren—andconfininghimselfwhollyto thecause,without theunbecomingmixtureofpersonal slandersandreflections.”Stillingfleetacknowledges thathe “treatedhimwithcivilityanddecentlanguage.”HenryDodwelladmits,“Hewasofabettertemperthanmostofhisbrethren.”“Dr.Owen,”saysJohnHumfrey,“isapersonwhosenameIhonourforhisworth,learning,andcomprehensiveparts;andone inwhomtherewasmoreofagentlemanas tohisdeportment,thananyDivineIeverknewamongus.”471AndevenRichardBaxter,hisfrequentandtroublesomeopponent,bearshonourabletestimonytohischaracter.“Idonotdoubt,”hesays,“thathewasamanofrarepartsandworth.ThatBookofCommunionisanexcellentTreatise;andhisgreatvolumesontheHebrewsallshowhisgreatandeminentparts.ItwashisstrangeerrorifhethoughtthatfreedomfromaLiturgywouldhavemademostormanyministerslikehimself—asfree,andfluent,andcopiousofexpression.Inrecenttimes,hewouldneverhavebeensolongDeanofChristChurch;sooftVice-ChancellorofOxford;sohighlyesteemedinthearmy,andwiththepersonsthen inpower—ifhisextraordinarypartshadnotbeenknown.Ifthisexcellentmanhadonemistake,hewasyetinrecentyearsofmorecomplyingmildness,andsweetness,andpeaceablenessthaneverbefore,orthanmanyothers.Ido not doubt that his soul is now with Christ, where there is no darkness, no mistakes, no

separationofChrist’smembersfromoneanother.”669

Thesearehonourabletestimonies,especiallythelast.Ifcontroversyhad

beenalwayscarriedoninthespiritofOwen,itwouldnothavebeenthatbanefulthingwhichithassogenerallyproved—tilleverybookbearingacontroversial title, is theobject of disgust tomanywhomightbemuchbenefitted by reading both sides of a question. In this respect, mostmodern writers have a great advantage over those who wrote in thesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.472There is, however, some danger of theological politeness becomingunhealthy.

670 The disposition to please and to compliment, may be

carriedtoofar.TheflatteringadulationaddressedbyWatsontoGibbon,andtheliterarycorrespondencebetweenRobertsonandHume,induceasuspicion that these distinguished writers, though they appeared ascombatants on a public arena, were after all, not of radically differentsentiments.Toabuseandvilifyon thepretenceofdefending truthwithspirit, and to tamely surrender its interests, fromadesire to standwellwith its enemies, are very different things, and ought to be foreverdistant.By far the greatest portion of Owen’s writings are controversial. Thisarose,notsomuchfromthewarlikedispositionoftheman,asfromhiscircumstances. The Arminian, Socinian, Popish, Episcopalian, andIndependentdebates,occupiedhisattention,andwerethesubjectsofhiselaborateillustration.Theywerealldeeplyinterestingthen;andnoneofthem have become altogether uninteresting since his death. One thingappearsprominentinallhisproductionsofthisclass:hisstrongdesiretogivethemapracticaldirection,andtorenderthemasusefulaspossibleto his opponents and readers. His appeals to the conscience and theheart, and his constant reference to the good or evil tendency ofparticularsentiments,arecalculatedtoimprovethedispositions,aswellastoenlightentheunderstanding.Whatgoodendisgainedbysilencingor triumphingoveranadversary, ifhe isnot convinced? If it is evidentthat a victory is secured at the expense of exciting the malevolentpropensities of human nature, then it calls for humiliation rather thanboasting.Mensometimeswriteinsuchamanner,asifitweretheirobjecttorundownanopponent,ratherthantoconvinceorinstructhim;andtoexcitehatredtowardhisperson,asmuchasdislikeforhisopinions.473Owenwasrepeatedlytheobjectofthistreatment;butnothingwhichever

fell from his pen retaliated. The united voice of the ChristianRepublicshouldberaisedagainstsuchunprincipledconduct,tilltheveryattemptbecomeshazardoustothecharacterorthecausetowhichitmaybelong.Asanexpositorywriter,IhavespokenofOwenatlargeinmyaccountofhis Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is as a practical, andespeciallyasanexperientialwriter, thatOwenismostgenerallyknown,andforwhichheenjoysthegreatestpopularity—anditmustbeallowedthat this is the department in which he chiefly excels. Here he waseminentlyathome.PossessedofthemostaccurateandextensiveviewsofthewholeschemeofRedemption,ofasingularlyspiritualmind,andofahighdegreeofdevotional ardour,he enters into theminutestdetailsofthe Christian character with the utmost familiarity; and traces all itslineamentsandgraceswiththehandofamaster.Heisneversotakenupwiththeornamentordrapery,astodaub“TheChristianfacedivine;”norin exhibiting the countenance and the figure, is there ever anythingdistorted or disproportioned. Spiritual life is the vital energy whichpervadesthemoralityandthepracticerecommendedbyOwen.Itisnottheabstractionofamysticaldevotion,likethatofFenelonorLaw;norisit the enthusiastic raptures of a Zinzendorf — but it is the evangelicalpiety of Paul, and the heavenly affection of John. For every practice,mortification,andfeeling,Owenassignsasatisfactoryreason,becauseitisascripturalreason.Theservicewhichherecommends, isuniformlyareasonableservice;andtoeveryrequiredexertion,hebringsanadequateandconstrainingmotive.474InexaminingthepracticalwritingsofsuchmenasHall,andTaylor,andTillotson, we miss that rich vein of evangelical sentiment, and thatconstantreferencetothelivingprincipleofChristianity,whichareneverlost sight of in Owen. They abound in excellent directions, in richmaterials for self-examination, and self-government; but they do notstatewithsufficientaccuracytheconnexionbetweengracious influence,and its practical results, from which all that is excellent in humanconductmustproceed.Theyappearastheanatomistsoftheskinandtheextremities; Owen is the anatomist of the heart. “He dissects it withremarkablesagacity,tracingoutitscourseandturningsineverypaththatleads from integrity,andmarking thealmost imperceptible stepswhichconduct to atrocious sins.”

671 While others attend to the faults or the

excellencesof theouterman,hedevoteshimself chiefly to the sinsandenjoyments of the innerman— illustrating at the same time how theyregulate the exterior behaviour. He uniformly begins with the grandprinciplesofChristian action, and traces them from their source in thesovereign love of the Redeemer, through all their windings in humanexperience;examiningallthatretards,andnotingallthatpromotestheirprogress;showinghowtheyfertilizethesoilthroughwhichtheyflowwiththe fruits of righteousness, and finally return in the incense of gratefulpraisetotheatmosphereofheaven.Owen,Goodwin,Baxter,andHowe,werethefourleadingmenamongtheNon-conformist worthies. In assigning the first place to the subject ofthese memoirs, I am not aware of being improperly influenced by mypartiality fora favouriteauthor—apartialitywhich I confesshasbeengreatlyincreasedbymyresearchesintohishistory.475It is the place which I apprehend to be indisputably due to him, andwhichthegeneralvoiceofenlightenedChristianshaslongconferred.

672

They were “all honourable men,” whose characters and talents wouldhave graced any cause. To each of them,Owenwas perhaps inferior insome prominent feature or attainment; but none of themwas equal tohimonthewhole,oroccupiedsopublicand important fieldsof labour.Goodwin possessed his learning, but not his discernment or his publictalents. Baxter was his equal in diligence, and perhaps his superior inacutenessandinenergy;butpossessedneitherhislearning,nortemper,nor accuracy of sentiment.Howewasmore original and philosophical;but had less of the simplicity of Gospel doctrine, and wrote on fewersubjects. Comparisons, however, are invidious and unnecessary. Eachfilledhisownstationwithpropriety,andshoneinhisowncircle;andallarenowenjoyingtogetherthefruitsoftheirlaboursandsufferings.476“They were the chiefs of the mighty men,” whom God raised up “tostrengthen his kingdom for Him;” and they deserve to be held ineverlasting remembrance. Should these imperfectMemoirs of himwhooccupied the first rank among them, induce any to examine hisprinciples,tocultivatehisdispositions,andtofollowhissteps,thenIwillnot consider that Ihave spentmy time in vain, in collecting the scantyandwidely scattered fragments of the life, writings, and connexions of

JOHNOWEN.

APPENDIXCONSISTINGOF

NOTES,ILLUSTRATIONS,LETTERS,etc.

FAMILYOFOWEN—p.8.DR.CALAMYmentionsthatMr.JohnSingleton,pastoroftheIndependentChurch, which was originally formed by Philip Nye, and in whichMr.Neal was afterwardsminister, was nephew to Dr Owen. It is thereforeprobable thatOwenhadmore thanonesister, though I canprocurenoaccount ofMr. Singleton’s parents. It appears that he was educated atChristChurch,Oxford,duringtheperiodofhisUncle’sresidence intheUniversity;and thathe losthisstudent’splaceat theRestoration,Afterthis, he went to Holland and studied medicine, which he occasionallypractised.Afterhisreturn,helivedwithLadyScotinHertfordshire,andpreached to someDissenters inHertford.Hewas also at Stretton, andCoventry,andfinallyremovedtoLondon,toanOldIndependentChurch,inwhichhewaspastor from1698to1706.HealsokeptanAcademyatHoxtonandIslington.IntheBritanniaRediviva,Oxon1660,thereisanEnglish poem by him; and one sermon in the Continuation of theMorningExercises,onthebestwaytopreparetomeetGodinthewayofhis judgments or mercies. — (Calamy s continuation, Vol. I. p. 105 —Wilson’sDiss.Churches,Vol.III.pp.89,90.)OnablackstonePavementofRemnamChurch,whereWilliamOwenwasminister (eldest brother to the Doctor), there is a Latin Inscription,perpetuatinghisname.Itdescribeshimas“HumilimusEvangeliiChristiMinister.”—Itmentionsthathediedonthe16thofthe4thmonth,A.D.1660,aged48;andalsothataninfantsonofWilliamdiedthe10thdayofthe7thmonth,1654,aged3months.BelowitaresixLatinversesonthedeathofthechild.—(Privateinformation.)

THESYNODOFDORT,p.32.TheSynodofDortanditsproceedingsoccupiedaconsiderableportionofattentionduringtheearlypartoftheseventeenthcentury.Theaccountswhichhavebeengivenofitarequitevaried.WhileIentertainnodoubt,ingeneral,respectingthedoctrinalsentimentswhichitmaintained,Ijustasfirmlybelievethatlittlegoodresultedfromitsconductanddecisions.478

Theseweretooinfluencedbypartypoliticstohaveweightwithopposers;and some of its proceedings and their consequences, were highlyimproper. Brandt, who gives the fullest account of the Synod, was aRemonstrant,andmust thereforebe readwithcaution.Heylin’sviolentanti-Calvinistic, and anti-Presbyterian prejudices, give a decidedcolouringtoallhisstatementsrespectingit,bothinhisQuinquarticularhistoryandhishistoryofthePresbyterians.Thebestaccount,sofarasitgoes, is that furnished by Hales of Eaton, who was secretary to theEnglish Ambassador then at the Hague. Even his letters by no meansprepossessusintheSynod’sfavour.Hethusintroducesthelastofthem:— “Our Synod goes on like a watch, the main wheels upon which thewhole business turns, are least in sight; for all things of moment, areacted in private sessions; what is done in public, is only for show andentertainment.” (Hales’ works, Vol. III. p. 148.) In the “Acta SynodiDordrechti,”publishedbytheSynod,andthe“ActaetScriptaSynodaliaRemonstrantium,”allthedocumentsonbothsideswillbefound.Buttheformerisalargefolio,andthelatterathickquarto,whichfewhaveeithertimeorinclinationtoconsult.AnabstractoftheformerwaspublishedinEnglishin1818,bytheRev.ThomasScott;onwhichaverysmartcritiqueappeared in theEclecticReview, forDec. 1819;whichwelldeserves theattentionofthereader.

WESTMINSTERASSEMBLY,—p.72.ADISPASSIONATEandimpartialHistoryoftheAssemblyofDivinesatWestminster,isyetadesideratum;andasLordHailesobserves(RemarksontheHistoryofScotland,p.236.)“wouldbeaworkcuriousanduseful:itisprobable,however,thatweshallneverseesuchawork;forthewritermust be one who neither hates, nor contemns, nor admires thatAssembly.”IdonotknowthatthereissomuchgroundfordespondencyonthissubjectashisLordshipexpresses.Thematerialsforsuchaworkareveryample.LordHailesmentionsaJournaloftheAssembly,drawnupbyMr.GeorgeGillespie,oneoftheScotchCommissioners,amongtheWodrowMSS. It begins 2d Feb. 1644, and proceeds to the 14th May,1645. There is then a blank. It recommences 4th September 1645, andproceeds to25thOct. 1645.Baillie’sJournalsandLetterscontainmuchimportant and authentic information. The printed pamphlets of theperiodareexceedinglynumerous,andmanyofthemcurious.Thelivesofthe Members of the Assembly also throw light on its sentiments andproceedings.ItisgenerallyreportedthattheminutesoftheAssemblyare

depositedintheRedCrossStreetLibrary;butIsuspectthisisamistake.Dr.ThomasGoodwin,oneoftheDissentingbrethren,issaidtohaveleftnotesofitstransactionsin14or15volumes.—(Palmer’sNon-Con.Mem.vol.i.p.239.)Whathasbecomeofthesevolumesdoesnotappear,unlesstheyarecontainedintheMS.intheRedCrossStreetLibrary,supposedto be theminutes of the Assembly. ThisMS. is in three thick volumesfolio,whichappeartohavebeenbounduniformly,aboutthebeginningofthelastcentury.479Onturningthemover, theyappearedtometoeachcontain fouror fivedistinctseriesofnotes;correspondingwiththenumberofthevolumesofGoodwin;nordidtheyseemtobewrittenintheformofminutes.Asmytime was limited, and my object in visiting the Library of a differentnature,Ididnotpursuetheexamination;buttheLibrarian,Mr.Morgan,promised to followupmysuggestion. It isworth inquiringwhether theminutesoftheAssemblyarenotintheLibraryofSionCollege.Very different accounts have been given of the Assembly. Baxter’s andNeal’sopinionsofitarehighlyfavourable;thoseofClarendonandotherhighchurchwriters,quitetheopposite.LordHailesintheworkalreadyquoted, gives a curious extract from Gillespie’s MS. of the Assembly’sstatementof itsownsins,withaviewtoasolemnfast. “Thesinsof theAssembly in nine points. 1. Neglecting attendance in the Assembly,though the affairs are so important; late coming, 2. Absence from theprayers. 3. Reading and talking in time of debates. 4. Neglect ofcommittees. 5. Some speak too much, others too little. 6. Indecentbehaviour.7.Unseemly languageandheatsuponit.8.Neglectof tryingministers. 9. Members of Assembly drawing on parties, or beingfrightened with needless jealousies.” p. 239. Milton’s account of theAssembly is exceedingly severe, and evidently written under strongfeelings of irritation, excited by the Assembly’s hostility to religiousliberty. Milton’s History of England, quoted in Symmond’s Life ofMilton,p.401.PAMPHLETSONTHESUBJECTOFRELIGIOUSLIBERTY,—

p.100.Fromthebreakingoutofthecivilwars,tilltheRestorationofCharlesII,the Press teemed with pamphlets discussing this interesting subject.Some of them attacked intolerance by scripture and serious argument;

others of them attacked it by ridicule, and endeavoured to bring itssupporters into contempt. A few of those which treat the subjectseriously,Ihavenotedinthetext;oneortwooftheotherdescription,Iwillintroducehere,fortheamusementofthereader.Thereisnowbeforeme,“AsacredDecretal,orhueandcryfromhissuperlativeholiness.SirSimonSynod,fortheapprehensionofreverendYoungMartinMarPriest.Inwhicharedisplayedmanywittysynodianconceits,bothpleasantandcommodious.”ThecentreofthetitlepageisoccupiedbyaBullsittinginan arm chair writing, and tossing the figure of persecution upon hishorns, into a fire burning at his back. At the bottom, it is said to beprinted in “Europe, by Martin Claw Clergy, printer to the ReverendAssemblyofDivinesforBartholomewBangPriest,andaretobesoldathis shop in Toleration Street, at the sign of the subjects liberty, rightoppositetoPersecutingCourt.”ItisaviolentattackontheWestminsterAssembly’s hostility to toleration. Of the same nature is anotherproductionfromthesamequarter.“ThearraignmentofMr.Persecution,presentedtotheconsiderationoftheHouseofCommons,and to all the commonpeople of England. Inwhich he is indicted, arraigned, convicted, andcondemnedofenmityagainstGod,andallgoodness,oftreasons,rebellion,bloodshed,etc.andsent to theplaceof execution. In the prosecution ofwhich, the Jesuitical designs, and secretencroachments of his defendants, Sir Simon Synod, and the John of all Sir Johns, Sir JohnPresbyter,uponthelibertyofthesubjectaredetected,”etc.

480Thetrial ismanagedwithsome ingenuity,andthepamphletmusthavestung dreadfully at the time. “Certain additional reasons to thosepresented in a letter by the Ministers of London, to the Assembly ofDivinesatWestminster, Jan. 1st, 1645;of likepowerand force, againstthetolerationofIndependency.”Theseadditionalreasonsareall ironic;but some of them are as deserving of attention, as those which theLondonministershaddrawnupagainsttoleratingtheIndependents.TheletteroftheLondonMinisters,openedtheeyesofmanytothedesignsofthe Presbyterians, and produced a number of answers and replies.“Tolerationjustified,andPersecutioncondemned, inanExaminationoftheLondonMinister’sLetter,”isasensiblejoco-seriouspamphlet,whichwasrepliedto in“Anti-Toleration,byawell-wisherofpeaceandtruth,”1646. It was followed by “Groans for Liberty, presented from thePresbyterian (formerly Non-conforming) brethren, reported the ablestand most learned among them, in some treatises called SMECTYMNUUS;now awakened and presented to themselves in the behalf of their now

Non-conforming brethren, by John Saltmarsh.” In this pamphlet,Saltmarsh extracts from Smectymnuus, the reasons formerly assignedwhy the prelates should tolerate Presbyterians, and shows that theyequallyprovethatthePresbyteriansshouldtolerateothers.Onthebackofthetitle,itissaid,“IfanyareignorantwhothisSMECTYMNUUSis,StephenMarshal,EdmundCalamy,ThomasYoung,cantellyou.”MathewNewcomen,WilliamSpurstow,Saltmarshwasperhapswildenoughinsomeofhisdoctrinalsentiments;butwas quite sober on the subject of liberty of conscience, as this andsomeotherofhisproductionsonthesametopicprove.

ADVOCATESOFRELIGIOUSLIBERTY,—p.106.Among the friends and advocates of religious liberty, I ought to haveintroduced the name ofWilliam Penn, the Quaker; though he did notappear so early as thosewhom I havementioned, both by hiswritingsand his sufferings, he powerfully contributed to promote the gloriouscause.WhileinNewgatein1670mhepublishedanadmirablepamphletentitled, “The great cause of liberty of conscience, once more brieflydebated and defended, etc.” in which — from reason, scripture, andantiquity—hedefendsunanswerablytheimmutablerightsofconscience.The last sentence of his address “to the supreme authority ofEngland”deservestobequoted:481“Butifthisfairandequaloffer[ofafreeconference]doesnotfindaplacewithyouonwhichtorestitsfootmuchlessthatitshouldbringusbacktheolivebranchofToleration—weheartilyembraceandblesstheprovidenceofGod;andinhisstrength,resolvebypatiencetoout-wearyPERSECUTION’,andbyourconstantsufferings,seektoobtainavictory,moregloriousthananyour

adversariescanachievebyalltheircruelties.Vincitquipatitur.”673

WiththeunbrokenspiritofaChristianandanEnglishman,heconcludesthepamphletbydeclaring—“If,afterallwehavesaid,thisshortdiscourseshouldnotbecreditednoransweredinanyofitssoberreasonsandrequests,butsufferingsshouldbethepresentlotofourinheritancefromthisgeneration,letitbeknowntothemall,THATMEETWEMUST,andMEETwecannotbutencouragealltodo,(whateverhardshipswesustain)inGod’snameandauthority,whoisLordofhosts,andKingofkings;attherevelationofwhoserighteousjudgment,andglorioustribunal,mortalmen

shallgiveanaccountofthedeedsdoneinthebody.”

His iniquitoustrialat theOldBailey, forassemblingat thedoorsof themeeting-house inGraciousStreet,producedapowerfulsensationinthecountry.Hepublishedanaccountof thistrial,andalsothatofRudyardandMoor,whileinNewgate.Actingontheprinciplewhichheavowedinthe passages we quoted, he and his friends ultimately tired out thepersecutingspiritofthegovernment,andprocuredforthemselvesmoreampleprivilegesthananyotherclassofDissentersenjoyed.Itoughttobementioned,tothehonourofPenn,thatheestablishedinthatdistrictofAmericawhichbearshisname,andwhichhereceivedinlieuofdebtsdueby the crown, those liberal principles of civil and religious liberty forwhichhehadsonoblycontendedandsufferedinhisnativeland.ORIGINOFTOLERATIONAMONGINDEPENDENTS,—p.109.Long after I hadwrittenwhat appears in the text, on the origin of thetoleratingprinciplesheldbyIndependents,ImetwithLaing’sAccountofthat Body, in his history of Scotland.His historical notices are, on thewhole,notincorrect.Butthoughhisviewsoftheprinciplesofthesectaremore liberal and enlightened than those of Hume and Smith, theyparticipateinthatirreligiousspiritwhichpervadesthewritingsofthetwomoredistinguishedphilosophers.Onitstoleratingprinciples,heexplainshimself (to a certain extent) in the samemanner that I have done.Hementionsinanote,that“tolerationistheincessantreproach,re-echoedby Baillie, Rutherford, Edwards, and every writer against theIndependents.ThePresbyterian,havingoncebeenpersecuted,naturallybecameapersecutingreligionuponitstriumph;ageneralprinciplefromwhich the Independents form a singular and honourable exception.”—(Voli.p273.)Inthetexthesays,“the most distinguished attribute, and in that age, the reproach of their sect, was religioustoleration.Withoutassumingtothemselvesanytemporalauthority,theydeniedtherightofthecivilmagistratetointerposeinthereligiousandspeculativeopinionsofmankind.

482Satisfiedwiththespiritualpowersofadmonitionandexcommunication—ofwhichtheonewasmore freely, and the othermore sparing and temperately administered— theywere the firstChristianswhoadopted theprinciplesof toleration inadversity, andmaintained themduringtheprosperityoftheirsect.Theirmind,saysaphilosophicalhistorian,setafloatinthewideseaofinspiration,couldconfineitselfwithinnocertainlimits.Andthesamevariationsinwhichanenthusiast indulgedhimself,hewasapt(byanatural trainof thinking)topermit inothers.—(Hume).Itisdifficulttoresistasolutionsotrulyingenious.Butitsauthorityisimpairedbyanobvious consideration: that amidst the revolutions and incessant fluctuations of religion, nosystemhasyetinspiredthatextremezeal,ofwhichmildandtoleratingprinciplesarethenatural

result.Abetterreasoniscontainedinthepeculiarformoftheirecclesiasticalinstitution.TheyhadsearchedtheirScripturesfortheearliestmodeloftheprimitivechurch.Butfromtheloosetexture and imperfect union of Independent congregations, persecution was impracticable.When expelled from one congregation, the offender might obtain easy access to another, orestablisha separate churchofhisown.The civil authority couldneitherbeappropriated,norlent occasionally, to these different churches. Andwhen the necessity of toleration was onceacknowledged, its benefits were soon recommended by an influx of proselytes from everypersecutedorafflictedsect.”—(Vol.i.pp.273,274.)

After noting the sentiments of Smith, which we have quoted, he thusconcludes;“FromthewesternshoresoftheAtlantictothebanksoftheOhio,thecitizenchooseshisownaltar.Thesectprovidesforitsownpastor,andfromIndependentcongregations—connectedbynodisciplinenorcherishedbythepartialsupportofthestate—aharmoniousmoderationistheuniversalresult.”—(Ibid.p.278.)

Withoutagreeingtoeverysentimentintheaboveextract,itisclearthat,sofarasLainghadtheopportunityorthecapacityofjudging,hisopinion—astotheoriginofthedoctrineofreligious liberty—isnotmateriallydifferentfromwhatwehavecontendedfor.IamfullysatisfiedthatitistobefoundinthepeculiarconstitutionoftheIndependentChurches;butinapartofthatconstitutionwithwhichLaingwasunacquainted.Itarises,not from the looseness of their texture and the imperfection of theirunion—fortheseareneithersoloosenorsoimperfectasmanysuppose— but from the principles noted in the text, and the high importancewhich they attach to the right and exercise of PRIVATE JUDGMENT in allreligiousmatters.Thedetachedandseparatenatureoftheirecclesiasticalpolity,however,mustpreventtheireverbeingobjectsofjealousytoanycivilgovernment,andfrombeingformidabletooneanother,ortootherreligiousprofessions.And,itissupposed,apartofitsexcellenceconsistsinthis.I amaware that itmaybe said, the Independents,during theperiodofour history, were never so completely possessed of power, or soestablished in the country, as to beable to oppress others. To this, theanswer is easy.Granting that is true, it is clear that,with thedegreeofpower and influence which they possessed, they still continued toadvocatetherightsofconscience.483Besides, during the Commonwealth the Independents were as fullyestablishedas thenatureof theirsystemallows.Theywereprotected intheprofessionandpropagationoftheirsentiments,andallcivilprivilegesandrightswereenjoyedbythem.Morethanthis,theyneversought;and

anything beyond this would have been a departure from theirfundamental principles,whichwouldhavebeen attendedwith evil; butthatevilwouldnothaveattachedtoconsistentIndependency.

PREACHINGOFTHEOFFICERSOFTHEARMY,—p.116.The preaching or exhorting of private persons, some of them in highcircumstances,andothersinlow,wasaverycommonthinginthetimeofthe Commonwealth. BulstrodeWhitelocke, Keeper of the Great Seal ofEngland,AmbassadortoChristina,QueenofSweden,andamanofhighlegalattainments,wasnotashamedtoexhorthimself;andevenwhenhehadtwochaplainsonboard, tohear“oneof theship’scompany,andinhismariners’ habit, preach a very honest and good sermon, andmuchbeyondwhatmight be expected fromhim.”— (Journal of the SwedishEmbassy,vol.ii.p.133.)TheconversationbetweentheQueenofSwedenandhim,onthissubject,isverycurious.“Queen.—Ihavebeentoldthatmanyofficersofyourarmyprayandpreachtotheirsoldiers.Isthattrue?

Whitelocke.—Yes,Madam,itisverytrue.Whentheirenemiesareswearing,ordebauching,orpillaging,theofficersandsoldiersoftheParliament’sarmyareencouragingandexhortingoneanotheroutoftheWordofGod,andprayingtogethertotheLordofHosts,forhisblessingtobewith them—whohas shownHisapprovalof thismilitarypreaching,by the successeshehasgiventhem.

Q.—That’swell.Doyouusetodosotoo?

W.— Yes; on some occasions, inmy own family; and I think it as proper forme, being themaster of it, to admonish and speak tomy peoplewhen there is cause, as to be beholden toanothertodoitforme,whichsometimesbringsthechaplainintomorecreditthanhislord.

Q.—Doyourgeneralsandothergreatofficersdoso?

W. — Yes, Madam, very often, and very well. Nevertheless, they maintain chaplains andministersintheirhousesandregiments;andthosewhoaregodlyandworthyministers,haveasmuchrespect, andasgoodprovision inEngland,as inanyplaceofChristendom.Yet, ‘tis theopinionofmanygoodmenwithus,thatalongcassock,withasilkgirdleandagreatbeard,donotmakealearnedoragoodpreacher—notwithoutgiftsoftheSpiritofGod,andlabouringinhisvineyard.AndwhoeverstudiestheHolyScriptures,andisenabledtodogoodtothesoulsofothers,andendeavoursthesame, isnowhereforbiddenbythatword,nor is itblameable.TheofficersandsoldiersoftheParliament’sarmyhelditnotunlawful,whentheycarriedtheirlivesin their hands, andwere going to risk them in the high places of the field, to encourage oneanotheroutofHisword,Whocommandsoverall.And thishadmoreweightand impressionwithit,thananyotherwordcouldhave;andwasneverdeniedbeingmadeuseof,exceptbythepopishprelateswhowould, bynomeans, allow laypeople (as they call them) to gather fromthere,thatinstructionandcomfortwhichcanbefoundnowhereelse.

Q.—Ithinkyoupreachverywell,andhavenowmadeagoodsermon.Iassureyou,Ilikeitverywell.

W.—Madam.Ishallaccountitagreathappinessifanyofmywordsmaypleaseyou.”—(Ibidpp.252,253.)

484ThepracticedefendedbyWhitelockemustbeconsideredaproofof theverygeneraldiffusionofreligiousknowledgeduringtheCommonwealth.Itcannotbedoubtedthatitwasfrequentlyabused;butIhavejustaslittledoubtthatitoftenproducedgood.Thetotalincapacity,ingeneral,ofourambassadors and their suites, and of our general officers and commonsoldiers, forsuchexercises—not tosay their lackof love forwhat theyimply—is, I fear, thechiefreasonwhysuchthingsarenowconsidereddeservingofnothingbutridicule,asthefanaticalemploymentofcantinghypocrites.THEEARLYSTATEOFINDEPENDENCYINIRELAND,p.123.I HAVE been able to glean only a few particulars respecting the firstappearancesofIndependencyinIreland.SomeoftheBrownistsaresaidtohave reached Ireland, and tohave left somedisciples there. In 1650,Dr.SamuelWinterwentoverwithfourParliamentarycommissioners.Herelinquishedalivingof£400perannuminEngland,foranappointmentof£100,thathemightpromotetheinterestsoftheGospelinIreland.HewasmadeProvostofTrinityCollege,whichhefoundalmostdesolateandforsaken.Butunderhiscare,itbecameavaluableseminaryofpietyandlearning.HewaspastorofanIndependentchurchinDublinatthesametime.TheRestorationdrovehimfromtheCollege,and fromIreland.—(Calamy,volii.pp.544,546.)Dr.ThomasHarrisonwentoverwithHenryCromwell, andpreached for several years inChristChurch,Dublin.HereturnedtoEnglandashorttimebeforetheRestoration;butafterwardshewentbacktoDublin,wherehedied,lamentedbythewholecity.LordThomondusedtosayofhim,“thathewouldratherhearDr.Harrisonsaygraceoveranegg.thanheartheBishopsprayandpreach.”(Ibid.vol.ii.p122.) Mr. Stephen Charnock went over at the same time with Dr.Harrison, and usually had persons of the greatest distinction for hishearers.Hereturnedabout1660.—(Noncon.Memvolip.208.)Mr. Samuel Mather also went over about the same time, and becamecolleague to DrWinter. He preached every Lord’s day morning at thechurchofStNicholas;andonceinsixweeks,beforetheLordDeputyandhiscouncil.ThoughanIndependent,evenWoodacknowledgeshewasamanofmuchmoderation,andcivil toEpiscopalians,evenwhenhehadthepowerofinjuringthem.WhentheDeputygaveacommissiontohimandothers todisplace theEpiscopal clergyof theprovincesofMunster

andDublin,hedeclinedacting, alleging thathehadcome to Ireland topreachtheGospel,nottohinderothersfromdoingit.HehadpreviouslypreachedfortwoyearsinLeith.HediedinDublinin1671—(Ibidvol.iipp.355,357.)485Hugh Peters went with the army of Cromwell to Ireland, but soonreturned to England. Imay be permitted to speak a little good of thisman, who has been the subject of incessant reproach, and whosecharacter has been loaded with every crime. He resided five years inSalem, inNewEngland, duringwhich the rapid improvementmade intheplace,isascribedtohim.“Theartswere introduced;awater-millwaserected;aglass-house; saltworks; theplantingofhempwas encouraged, and a regularmarketwas established. An almanacwas introduced todirecttheiraffairs.Commercehadunexampledglory.Heformedtheplanofthefishery;ofthecoastingvoyages;of the foreignvoyages,andamongmanyothervessels,oneof300tonswasundertakenunderhisinfluence.”—(Holmes’AmericanAnnals,vol.i.p263.)

SuchwashisinfluenceinHolland,wherehehadresidedforsometime,thatheraised£30000init forthereliefofthesufferingProtestants inIreland. He was also a diligent and earnest solicitor for the distressedProtestants in thevalleysofPiedmont—(Ludlow,vol iii.p. (61.)Thesethingsarenotliketheactionsofafooloraprofligate.“I travelled into Germany,” he says. “with that famous Scotsman, Mr. John Forbes, and foraboutsixyears,enjoyedinhimmuchloveandsweetness;andfromwhomIneverhadanythingbut encouragement, though we differed in the way of our churches. The learned Amesius[WilliamAmes]breathedhislastintomybosom,wholefthisprofessorshipinFriezlandtolivewithmeatRotterdam,becauseofmychurch’sindependency.Hewasmycolleagueandchosenbrothertothechurch,whereIwasanunworthypastor.”—(Peter’sLastReportoftheEnglishwars,1646.)

His Legacy to his daughter breathes the spirit of Christianity, andsolemnly professes his innocence of the grievous charges which wereheaped upon him. And his conduct on the scaffold fully supported thepreviousheroismofhischaracter.ButPeterswasasoldier,aswellasapreacherofChristianity; and forviolating theprinciplesofhisMaster’skingdom,bythis impropercombination,heperhapsbroughtonhimselfthe execution of his Master’s threatening: — “Those who take up theswordshallperishbythesword.”Mat26.52

JohnRogerswaspastorofachurchinDublin,ofwhichColonelHewson,the governor of Dublin, was a member. John Eyewater, and ThomasHuggins, preachers of the Word, joined this church in 1651. (Roger’s

TabernaclefortheSun,p.302.)FromthesamebookitappearsthattherewasaBaptistchurchatWaterford,whichaddressesalettertothesaintsinDublinon thatsubject; itwassignedby twelvepersons.Mr.ThomasPatientwasministerof this church.Hewas some timeco-pastorof theBaptistchurch inLondonwithMr.Kiffin.Hewentover toIrelandwithGeneralFleetwood,andusuallypreached in theCathedral.HewasveryactiveinpromotingtheinterestsoftheBaptists.Crosbythinkshewasthefounder of a Baptist church in Cloughkeating, which became verynumerous. (Crosby’s Baptists, vol. iii. pp. 42, 43.) Mr. John MureotmovedfromWestKerbytoIreland,andwasveryusefultheshorttimehelived.HepreachedgenerallyinDublin,andforsometimeinCork.ThereheassistedatapublicdisputeonthesubjectofBaptism,inwhichheandDr.Worthwereononeside,andDr.Hardingontheother.—(Murcot’sLife,prefixedtohisworks.)486TherewasachurchinYoughall,inwhichMr.JosephEyreslabouredforsome time; and afterwards moved to a church in Cork. — (Ibid.) Mr.TimothyTaylor, pastorof a churchatDuckenfield inCheshire,went toIreland, and became pastor of a church in Carrickfergus. At theRestoration, he removed from the parochial edifice, and preached theGospelinhisownhiredhousetoallwhocametohim.In1668,hewenttoDublin, and became colleague, first to Mr. Samuel Mather, and at hisdeath, to his brotherNathanielMather, till his death.— (Athen.Oxon.vol. ii. p 508.) In 1655, Claudius Gilbert, pastor of a Congregationalchurch in Limerick, Edward Reynolds,Min., and J.Warren,Min. etc.,unitewithDr.WinterinalettertoMr.Baxter,astheassociatedMinistersofChristinIreland.—(Baxter’sownLife,parti.p.107.)Mr.Jenneralsowaspastorofachurch inTredagh.—(Ibid.)These fewparticularsmayperhapsinducesome,whoseinformationismoreextensivethanmine,topursuethesubject,andcommunicatetheresults.THEEARLYSTATEOFINDEPENDENCYINSCOTLAND,P137.In the year 1584, Robert Brown, from whom the first Independentsderived their designation, came out of the low countries into Scotlandwith a number of his followers. Having taken up his residence in theCannongateofEdinburgh,hebegantodisseminatehispeculiaropinions,and to circulate writings, in which all the reformed churches werestigmatized as unscriptural and Antichristian societies. The Court took

this rigid sectary under their protection, and encouraged him, for nootherconceivable reason thanhisexclaimingagainst theministers,andcalling into question their authority. On his return to England, Brownpublishedabookintowhichheintroducedvariousinvectivesagainsttheministers and government of the Church of Scotland. — (Calderwood,quotedbyM’CrieinhisLifeofMelville,vol.i.p.;326.)KingJames,inhisBasiliconDoron,alleges thatBrown,Penry,andotherEnglishmenhad,wheninScotland,“sowntheirpopple,”andthat“certainbrain-sick,andheadypreachers”hadimbibedtheirspirit.Although,addsDr.M’Crie,hecould not help but know that these rigid sectaries were unanimouslyopposed by the Scotchministers, and that the only countenancewhichtheyreceivedwasfromhimselfandhiscourtiers—(Ibid.volii.p.163.)In 1591,Penry,whoafterwards suffered inEngland, retired toScotlandfor safety, and continued there till 1693. From there he addressed twoletters toQueenElizabeth, not couched in very courtly terms, and alsothepetitionforwhichhewasexecuted.—(Brook’sLives,vol.ii.p.50.—Paget’sHeresiography,pp271-275.)487ThenextaccountwehaveofIndependentsinScotland,bringsusdowntoabouttheyear1642.“About this timetherecame inquietly toAberdeen,onecalledOthroFerrendail,anIrishmanandaskinnerbytrade,favouredbyMr.AndrewCant,andbyhismeansadmittedfreeman.Hewastrappedforpreachingatnight,insomehousesofthetownbeforetheirfamilies,withcloseddoors,nocturnaldoctrineorBrownism.”—(Spalding’sHistoryoftheTroublesinScotland,vol.iipp45,46.)

Ferrendail was perhaps a disciple of Ainsworth’s who, according toHornbeck,—(Sum.Con.P.740.)visitedIreland.Mr.CantwasoneoftheministersofAberdeen,andmorefavourableto innovationthansomeofhis brethren. In the provincial assembly at Aberdeen, 1642, there was“great business about Brownism lately crept into Aberdeen and otherparts.” Besides Ferrendail, William Maxwell, Thomas Pont, GilbertGordonofTilliefroskie,hiswife,children,andservants,andhailfamily,andJohnRoss,ministerofBirse,werecomplainedof.Mr.JohnOswaldalso, oneof theministersofAberdeen,was thoughtnot todislike it.—(Strachan,vol.iip.52.)Ferrendailwasconvincedtoabjureandsubscribethe covenant, and was “received as a good Bairn” — (Ibid. 64.) ThePresbytery,however,werenotsatisfiedwithFerrendail’srepentance,andreferredhim to theGeneralAssembly.— (Ibid68.) “Maxwell,whowas

also accused of Brownism, was a silly wheel-wright by trade; thismanwas sought for, and all men forbidden from the pulpit to receive him,whichwas done by ourminister,Mr.WilliamSirachan, on Sunday the5thofFebruary.”—(Ibid.p.70.)Gordon,ofTilliefroskie,wasafterwardstaken on the streets of Edinburgh, and put in prison for maintainingsomepointsofBrownism.—(Ibid,p102.)TheGeneralAssemblyof1647,passedanActprohibitingtheimportationof all books and pamphlets containing Independency and Anabaptism,andforbiddingthereadingof them;orharbouringanypersons infectedwithsucherrors.PresbyteriesandSynodsareenjoinedtoprocessthosewho offend against these injunctions; and civil magistrates arerecommended to aid and assist ministers in everything to that effect.(Acts of Assemblies from 1638 to, 649, printed in Edin., 1682.) Thesewere theblesseddaysofPresbyteriansupremacy;andsuchwas theusewhichtheymadeoftheirpower.The English army entering Scotland soon after this, prevented theexecutionof thisunjust law,and importedIndependency insuchawaythatitcouldnotberesisted.Manyoftheofficersandsoldiersofthearmywere preachers, and ambulatory churches existed among the troops, inwhichIndependencywasbothpreachedandexhibited.NicholasLockyer,who accompanied the English army, published a small work onIndependency: “A little Stone out of the Mountain, or Church orderbrieflyopened,printedatLeith,1652.”IthasanEpistlededicatory,datedfromDalkeith, April 22, 1652, by Joseph Caryl, John Oxenbridge, andCuthbert Sydenham. It was answered by James Wood, professor ofTheology in St. Andrews— “A little Stone, pretended to be out of theMountain,triedandfoundtobeaCounterfeit,”4to.Edin.1654.488From Wood’s work, it appears that some “ministers and others inAberdeen,” had forsaken the church, and adopted the principles ofIndependency.In1653,“AConfessionofFaithoftheBaptistChurchesinLondon,”wasprintedatLeith, thepreface towhich isdated“Leith, thetenth of the firstmonth, vulgarly calledMarch, and signed by ThomasSpenser,AlexHolmes,ThomasPowell,JohnBrady,inthenameandbythe appointment of the Church of Christ, usuallymeeting at Leith andEdinburgh.”In July, 1652, the English Commissioners presented to the General

Assembly, “ADeclaration in favourofCongregationalDiscipline,purityof Communion, and Toleration;” to which the Assembly replied ratherindignantly — (Whitelocke, pp. 514, 515.) A number of the protestingministers seem to have been somewhat favourable to Independency;amongthechiefofwhomwasMr.PatrickGillespie.AnIndependentwassettledinKilbride,andanotherbythenameofChartersinKirkintilloch.—(Sewel’sHistoryoftheQuakers,p,94)In 1659, the Presbytery of Edinburgh, published “A Testimony andWarning against a recent Petition.” Its object was to procure the“abolishingofallcivilsanctionsestablishingthedoctrine,discipline,andgovernment of this Church,” p 4. ThisWarning produced “Some soberCriticismstovindicatetheTruth,andundeceivetheSimple,”1659.Fromthis pamphlet it appears that several persons, for dissenting from theChurch Courts, had been very cruelly and iniquitously used. ChristianBlyth,aBaptist,Mrs.Adair,GordonofTilliefroskie,Mr.Tayes,andMr.Flint,arereferredtoas“excommunicated,imprisoned,banished,huntedfromplace toplace, to the lossofall theyhad,and themakingof theirvery lives bitter,” pp 11, 12. Col. Strachan also, and Lord Swinton,Mr.Dundas,MajorAbernethy,andCaptainGriffin,weretreatedinmuchthesamewayaccordingtothisaccount,fornoothercrimethanthatofbeingreckonedsectaries.Itisaveryexcellentpamphlet,andprobablywrittenbysomeofthepersonswhohadbeenillused.ThesefactsembracealmosteverythingknowntomerespectingthefirstappearancesofIndependencyinScotland.WiththereturnofthearmytoEngland,andtheRestoration,alltracesofitdisappeared.AndthepeopleofScotlandweresooncalledtoencountermoreterriblecalamities,fromaquarter from which they expected nothing but happiness. I offer nocommentary on the facts brought forward. Every enlightened Christianwillformadecidedopinionrespectingbothparties,andwhatwouldhavebeen the probable consequences of the establishment of PresbyterianuniformityinEngland.

OWEN’SSUCCESSORSINCOGGESHALL—p.134.His immediate successor was Constantine Jessop, son of Mr. JohnJessop, minister of Pembroke, educated at Oxford. He did not remainlong at Coggeshall, but was removed first toWimborn, in Dorsetshire,andthentoTyfield,inEssex,wherehediedin1660.—(Brook’sLivesofthePuritans,vol.iii.p.375.)

489He was succeeded byMr. John Sams, who had been educated in NewEngland.TheActofUniformityejectedhimfromtheparishliving,buthegatheredaseparatechurchinit,ofthosewhoapprovedofhisministry,ofwhichhediedpastorabout 1675.— (Non-con.Mem.vol. ii.p. 191.)Hewas succeeded byMr. Robert Gouge, of Christ College, Cambridge.Hehad preached and taught a school for some time at Maiden, in Essex.FromtherehemovedtoIpswich,wherehewassilenced.HelabouredatCoggeshall till hewas laid aside by the decay of his intellects, but it isuncertaininwhatyearthistookplace.Mr.ThomasBrowning,ofRowell,wasamemberofthischurchinhistime,andwasencouragedbyhimtoenter intotheministry.Owengaveveryimportantadvicetohim,whichheappearstohavefollowedhimself.“Studythings,acceptablewordswillfollow”—(Ibid.vol.iii.p.271.)EdwardBentlywaspastorofthechurchin1721,anddiedonthe9thofJune,1740,inthe60thyearofhisage.IdonotknowwhatyearheenteredintoofficeinCoggeshall,orwhethertherewas anyonebetweenMr.Gouge andhim.Mr. JohnFarmer, brother tothecelebratedHughFarmer,wasordainedpastor,March28th,1739.Hismotherwas daughter ofMr.HughOwen, one of the ejectedministers;and it is probable that, as his brother did, he received his classicaleducation from Dr. Charles Owen, of Warrington, and prosecuted hisacademic studies afterwards under Dr. Doddridge. In 1730, he waschosen assistant to Mr. Rawlin, at Fetter lane, and continued in thatsituationtillhemovedtoCoggeshall.HepublishedavolumeofSermonsin 1756, which possess some merit, but are now little known. Inconsequenceofamentalderangement,hewasrenderedincapableofanystatedministerialservice,andretiredtoLondonseveralyearsbeforehisdeath.HeissaidtohavebeenaveryexcellentGreekscholar.—(LifeofHughFarmer,andWilson’sHist.ofDiss.Churches,vol.iii.p.457.)Itisuncertaininwhatyear,Mr.HenryPettosucceededMr.Farmer;buthediedin1776or1777.Mr.MordecaiAndrewswasordainedabout1774,and died at Southampton, in September, 1799.Mr. J. Fieldingwent toCoggeshall in 1797. Inhis time, a veryunpleasantdifference tookplacebetween thechurchandhim, inconsequenceofwhichsomepamphletswerepublished;—thechurchbookswere lost,whichhaspreventedmefromobtainingmoreparticularinformationaboutthestateofthechurchduring the last century; and Mr. Fielding was finally necessitated toretire.Mr.AlgernonWellsfromHoxtonacademy,wenttoCoggeshall in

1818, andwas ordained to thepastoral office on the 7th ofApril, 1819.The church and congregation are again in a prosperous and promisingstate.490

STATEOFOXFORDDURINGTHEEARLYPARTOFLASTCENTURY,p.180.

ThetestimonyofGibbonrespectingthestateofOxford,whichIquotedina note, may appear to some to be very strong, and therefore requiressupport. The following passage from Archdeacon Blackburn’sConfessional,issufficientevidenceofthelittleattentionpaidtoreligiousinstructionbothinOxfordandCambridge.“Attheuniversities,thepointforthefirstfouryearsistoqualifythemselvesfortheirfirstdegree,whichtheymay takewith theutmosthonourand credit,without everhavingseen the inside of aBible.” (Confessional, p. 391.)Dr.Busby offered tofoundtwoCatechisticallectures,withanendowmentof£100perannumeach, for instructing undergraduates in the rudiments of the Christianreligion,providedtheyshouldallbeobligedtoattend.Butthiscondition,andof course the lectures,were rejectedbybothuniversities. (Ibid.p.392.)DeanPrideauxusedtodeclarethat,“youngmenfrequentlycametotheuniversitywithoutanyknowledgeortinctureofreligionatall;andhaving little opportunity to improve themselves in it whileundergraduates, theyareusuallyadmittedto their firstdegreeofB.A.,withthesameignorance,astoallsacredlearning,aswhenfirstadmittedinto theuniversity.Andmanyof them,as soonas theyhave taken thatdegree,offeringthemselvesfororders,aretoooftenadmittedasteachersin the church, when they are only fit to be Catechumens.” — (Life ofPrideaux,prefixedtohisConnections,p.37.edit.1808.)Whilequotingthesetestimoniesrespectingthe lowstateofreligionandreligious instruction in Oxford, justice requires that I should give theevidenceontheotherside,knowntome.Ihaveanoppositetestimonytoallege,andthatisfromnomeanauthority—BISHOPWARBURTON.Speakingof the reception which the first part of the Divine Legation hadexperienced,hethuseulogisestheUniversities—“But the candid regard his bookmet with in the two universities, is his supreme honour. Awriter, neglected or condemned by them, struggles but vainly to save himself from oblivion;whileonetheyapprove,issuretorisesuperioraboveenvy.Herescienceandtruereligionfirststartedfromtheirlongslumberofsixbarbarousages,andinaBaconandaWickliffe,theygavethe earliest check to overbearing ignorance and superstition.What these twopriests began, a

secondBaconandaNewton,aMedeandaChillingworth,allfosteredinthebosomsofthesetwouniversities,pursuedandperfected.Thesearetheirancienthonours.Andanimatedwiththeirformer successes over ignorance and superstition, we now see them turn their arms withunimpairedvigouragainstviceandprofaneness.Weseethemopposethemselvestoatorrentofimpiety:andwejustlyregardthemasthelastsupportsinacorruptdecliningage.”—(Pref.tovol.ii.Div.Leg.1744.)

491Iwillnotpledgemyself thatWarburtondoesnotwrite ironically in theabovepassage.—Allwhoknowhis spiritmustbeawarehowhewouldhavewritten,hadtheuniversitiesopposedhisbook.Whetherhethoughthehadgonetoo far,or theuniversitieschangedtheirconduct, Icannottell.ButhedidnotprefixtheprefacefromwhichIhavetakentheexcerpt,to the following editions. I hope the religious state of Oxford is betterthan itwas. But still, no suitable or adequate provision ismade by theuniversityforthereligiousortheologicalinstructionofitsclericalpupils.Anditiswellunderstoodthatthecommunityatlargederivesnobenefitfrom the universities, that is at all commensurate with the immensefundsoftheseestablishments,andthedignifiedleisureaffordedtotheirnumerous inhabitants. DRONE-HALL, which was once proposed to beerected,Ifearwouldstillhavemoreprofessorsandfellows,andbemorenumerouslyattended,thananyother.

674

THEUNIVERSITYOFOXFORDOPENTOALLDURINGTHECOMMONWEALTH,p.187.

The liberalprinciplesonwhich theUniversityofOxfordwasconductedduring the Commonwealth, afford a contrast to the exclusive systemwhichhaseversincebeenpursued.Itwasnolessstrikingthanthatwhichis furnished by the state of religion and learning. Then, men of allprofessionsoccupieditschairs,andenjoyedthebenefitof its fundsandinstruction.Eversince, ithas furnishedplaces for themenofonepartyalone,manyofwhomsubscribearticleswithoutbelievingthem,andtakeoathswhich they nevermean to regard. To say nothing of the iniquitywhichsuchasystemnecessarilygenerates,thereisgrossinjusticeinthusappropriatingthepublicfunds,andthebenefitofeducation,whichoughttobecommontoall.Knowing thatDissenters are necessarily excludedfrom the English universities, it is somewhat ludicrous to hearChurchmen boasting, as they often do, of their superior learning andcapacityfordefendingreligion.“Anextensiveerudition inPagan,aswellasChristianantiquity,”saysBishopHorsley, “joinedwithacriticalunderstandingofthesacredtext,isthatwhichhassolongenabledtheclergyof

theChurchofEnglandtotaketheleadamongProtestants,astheapologistsoftheapostolicfaithanddiscipline; and tobaffle theunited strengthof their adversariesof alldenominations.”—(ControversialTracts,p.78.)

To say nothing of the modesty of this declaration (modesty was not avirtueforwhichBishopHorsleywasdistinguished),norofthetruthofit(whichIbynomeansadmit)—evenifitwereastheBishopwouldhaveit—nogreatthanksareduetotheclergy,whenitisconsideredhowamplytheyareremuneratedfortheirdefencesofreligion.Thesedefencescomealmostentirelyfromthedignifiedclergy,whomaybesaidtodonothingelse,as theydonotbelong towhatHorsleycalls “the labouringclassofthepriesthood.”492

Toaffordtheotiumcumdignitate675 tothefewofthemwhocanwrite,

Paley admits that “leisure and opportunity must be afforded to greatnumbers.”IbelieveIspeakmoderatelyinasserting,therefore,thateverydefenceofreligionwhichcomesfromthisquarter,coststhecountrysomehundredthousandpounds.Whethertheyareusuallyworththis,Idonotpronounce.ItmustbelefttoothersthanBishops,todeterminewhetherdefencesofChristianityandofChristiandoctrine,thathavebeenjustasserviceable to thecauseof truthandgodliness,havenotbeenproducedbythosewhoseeducationcoststhecountrynothing,andtheirleisureaslittle.Themanwhocouldmaintainanddefenditafterbeingcontradicted— “That a genuineCalvinist is hardly to be found amongDissenters atpresent,” (Controversial Tracts, p. 448.) — is really not capable offorming a judgment, or pronouncing an opinion, on anything notbelongingtohisownparty.

RACOVIANCATECHISM,—p.214.ThefirsteditionoftheRacovianCatechismwaspublishedin1605inthePolish language. A Latin version of this, by Moscorovius, appeared atRacow in 1609. This work was reprinted in London, in 18mowith theimprint of Racovia in 1651, with the life of Socinus, by Przipcovius,appended to it. In the following year, this book attracted the notice ofParliamentwhich,onthe2dofApril,1652,passedaresolutionrequiringthe Sheriffs of London and Middlesex to seize all the copies of theCatechism,andcausethemtobeburntattheLondonexchange,andthepalace-yard,Westminster,onthe6thand8thofthesamemonth—whichwasaccordinglyexecuted.AnEnglishtranslationofthisworkliesbefore

me,whichDr.Toulmin,inhislifeofSocinus,p.260,conjecturestohavebeenmadebyBiddle.“TheRacovianCatechism,inwhichyouhavethesubstanceoftheconfessionofthosechurcheswhich, in the kingdom of Poland, and the great dukedom of Lithuania, and other provincesappertainingtothatkingdom,affirmthatnoother,savetheFatherofourLordJesusChrist,isthatoneGodofIsrael;andthatthemanJesusofNazareth,whowasbornoftheVirgin,andnootherbesidesorbeforehim,istheonlybegottenSonofGod.PrintedatAmsterdamforBrooerJanzz.1652.”

ItisasmallI8mo.of176pages.Prefixedtoitisananonymousaddress‘totheChristianreader.’Butamuchbettertranslationhasrecentlybeenlaidbefore the public — “The Racovian Catechism, with notes andillustrations,translatedfromtheLatin:towhichisprefixed,aSketchofthe History of Unitarianism in Poland, and the adjacent countries. ByThomas Rees, F. S A. Lond. 1818.” The historical introduction to thisworkisvaluable,andrevealsmuchresearchintotheecclesiasticalhistoryofPolandandTransylvania,andtheearlyprogressofSocinianismontheContinent. The Catechism and notes afford important Evidence of thegraduallyincreasingdeteriorationofUnitarianism.493The first leaders of the party heldmany sentiments which themodernSociniansuniversallydiscard—suchastheexistenceoftheDevil. “Mostmodern Unitarians,” says Mr. Rees “have abandoned this belief, as avulgar error, involving the most palpable inconsistencies, and whollyirreconcilable with the fundamental truths of natural and revealedreligion.” Note p. 7. — The pre-existence and superiority of Christ tomen.“Thisdoctrine,however,”saysMr.Rees,“thoughformerlyheldbyDr. Lardner and some other eminent Unitarians, seems now to berejected by all the public advocates of this system, as unsupported byadequate Scriptural authority.” p. 54. — The worship of Christ wasstrenuouslycontendedforbySocinushimself, thePolishSocinians,andthe old English Socinians. “The Unitarians in the present day, in thiscountry,” Mr. Rees informs us, “universally concur in rejecting thissystem of subordinate worship altogether.” p. 198. Other things mightalsobenoticed;but thesemaysuffice toshowtheprogressivemarchofSocinianismto infidelity.Indeed,Iamata losstodiscoverwhat it isofimportance, that distinguishes them from a sect ofmoderateDeists;—unlessitistheirinconsistencyanddishonestyinprofessingtobelievetheBible to be a revelation fromGod, and rejecting its peculiar doctrines,andmanglingitscontents.Ihavebeenindebtedfortheparticularsatthe

beginningofthisnote,toMr.Rees’introduction,alongwithWalchiiBib.Theol. tom. i. pp. 535-545,wheremanymore factswill be found if thereader is inclined to follow out this subject. It isworthy of notice, thatnone of the modem Socinians seem to know anything of Owen’sVindiciae.Toulmin,inhislifeofBiddle,pp.111,112,referstoitinsuchawayasto implythathehadneverseenit.Hesays,“Nealhascalleditalearned and elaborate treatise.” Lindsay, in his “historical View of thestate of Unitarian doctrine, from the Reformation to our own time,”thoughheeulogisesBiddle, seems tobe ignorant thatheevermetwithanyanswer,exceptburninghisbooks,andimprisoningtheirauthor.Dothese rationalmen readonlyonone side,ordo theyconcealwhat theyknowhasbeenwrittenon theother?TheaccountgivenbyDr.Stockofhisreading,whileaSocinian,wouldinclineustothinkthattheformeristhe case, at least on the part of bred or educated Socinians— (See hisLettertoMr.Rowe,NewEvangelicalMag.1817,p.275.)

ONTHEUSEOFTHETERMINDEPENDENT,p.229.The unsuitableness, and indefinite nature of the designationIndependent,aswellasthefact that itwasgivenasatermofreproach,arewellstatedinthefollowingpassages:“NorisIndependencyafitnameofthewayofourchurches.Forinsomerespects,itistoostrait,andinothers,toolarge.Itistoostraitinthatitconfinesuswithinourselves,andpresentsusasindependentfromallothers.Whereas,indeed,weprofessdependenceuponmagistratesforcivilgovernment and protection; dependence upon Christ and his Word for the sovereigngovernmentandruleofouradministrations;

494dependence upon the counsel of other churches and synods, when our own variance orignorancemaystandinneedofsuchhelpfromthem.Andtherefore,thistitleofIndependencystraitensus,andrestrainsusfromournecessarydutyanddueliberty.Again,inotherrespects,Independencystretchesitselftoolargelyandmoregenerally,thanitcansingleusout.Foritiscompatibletoanationalchurch,aswellastoacongregational.ThenationalchurchofScotlandis independent from the government of the national church of England, and so is Englandindependentfi-omScotland.Noristhereanysectatthisdayextant,butshroudsitselfunderthe

titleofIndependency.TheAnti-pedobaptists,Antinomians,Familists,676

yes,andtheSeekers,too,allstylethemselvesIndependents.Indeed,eventhePopehimself,whoexaltshimselfaboveallcivilandchurchpower,evenhealsoarrogatesthetitleofIndependency:—“Primasedesa

neminejudicature”677—TheseeofRomeisindependent.WhythenshouldIndependencybe

appropriated to us, as a character of ourway,whichneither truly describes us, nor faithfullydistinguishes us from many others? Therefore, if there must be some note of difference todecipherourstate,andtodistinguishourwayfromanationalchurchway,Iknownonefitterthan to denominate theirs classical, and ours congregational.” — (Cotton’s Way of theCongregationalChurchesclarified,p.11.)

InreplytotheabuseofWilliamPrynne,Burton,hisfellow-sufferer,says:—“First,youquarrelwith the titleof Independency.Truly,brother,noneofall thosewhomyouthusentitle,atallgloryinthisname,soastogiveyouthanksforyoursooftenstylingthemthusin one poor sheet of paper: seeing they cannot imagine you do it honoris gratia, whileeverywhere you set it as a brand.Notwithstanding,we are not so ashamed of it as utterly todisclaimit;andthatisfortworeasons:first, fordistinction’ssakebetweenus,andthatwhichyou call your presbyterial government. The second is, because this word Independent, is tosignifythatweholdallparticularchurchesofChristtobeofequalauthority,andnonetohaveorexercisejurisdictionoveranother;butthateachchurchisunderChrist’sgovernment,asthesoleHead, King, Lord, and Lawgiver of it. You mightily mistake the matter, when you interpretIndependencyasnotneedingboththecommunionandassistanceofotherpersons,nations,orchurches.”—(Burton’sVindicationoftheChurchescalledIndependent,p.42.)

It is not worthwhile contending about a name; but it is necessary toexplain its only correct application, in order to point out themisunderstanding which it has occasioned, and the misrepresentationwhichhas been founded on thatmisunderstanding. Thosewhowish toascertain the sentiments of the existing Independents on the subject oftheunionofChurches,willfindthemadmirablystatedanddefended,in“The Scriptural Unity of the Churches of Christ illustrated andrecommended— A Sermon, preached on occasion of the Fifth AnnualMeeting of the CongregationalUnion for Scotland: ByRalphWardlaw,D.D.”IbegleavetorecommendthatSermon,withitsvaluablenotes,tothecandidperusalofbothPresbyteriansandIndependents.495

PRAYERSOFCROMWELL’SCHAPLAINS,—p.250.Those who make themselves merry with the prayers of Cromwell’sministers,andofotherpersonsofthatdescriptionduringthisperiod,areperhapsnotsufficientlyawarethattheuseofanuncouthandunseemlyphraseology in addresses toGod,was the vice of theperiod, not of themen.Itwascommontoothers,aswellastothosewhoarestigmatizedasthesectariesofthetime.ItisindeedimpossibletoproducetheprayersofChurchmen, as their book allow neither for improvement nordeterioration from the changes of human society. But if wemay judgewhatwouldhavebeentheirprayersfromtheirsermons,itisnotdifficultto perceive that even the best of them did not rank high above thepreachers of the Commonwealth. I am far from thinking that theirprayers prove that theirmindswere as low and vulgar as the languagewhichtheyemployedwouldseemtoindicate.Theyweremenaccustomedtopraymuch—initselfthisgenderedakindoffamiliarhabit.Andasthey

were not surrounded by sentimental religionists, or fashionableclergymen, but by persons of their own spirit and sentiments, theyexpressedthemselveswithoutreserve.High devotional ardour cannot always be restrained to measuredphrases;butthosewhocanmakeeveryallowanceforpoeticlicence,andscientificenthusiasm,havenocharity foranyexcessof feeling inwhichreligion is concerned.The following expressions inLuther’s prayers forMelanchthon,whenhewasthoughtdying,aresimilartotheconfidenceandfamiliaritywhichwereusedrespectingthedyingProtector.“‘Weimploreyou,OLordourGod;wecastallourburdenonyou,andwillcrytillYouhearus,pleading all the promises which can be found in theHoly Scripture respecting your hearingprayer,sothatYoumustindeedhearus,topreserveatallfutureperiodsourentireconfidenceinyourownpromises.’Afterthis,heseizedholdofMelanchthon’shandand,wellknowingtheextremeanxietyofhismind,andthetroubledstateofhisconscience,said‘beofgoodcourage,Philip,youshallnotdie.’”(Cox’sLifeofMelanchthon,p.406.)

ThosewhowishtoseethelanguagewhichevendignitariesoftheChurchusedaboutthetimeoftheCommonwealth,will findsomespecimensinRobinson’s translation of Claude’s Essay; and if the prayers of a layfanaticmaybe referred to, the readerwill find inMilton’s proseworksspecimens of addresses toGod, towhich there is nothing superior— Iwasabout tosay,nothingequal in theEnglishLiturgy. In the followingpassageofoneofthem,heseemstohintatthefutureproductionofhisimmortalpoem:“Andhethatnowforhastesnatchesupaplainungarnishedpresent,asathank-offeringtoYou,whichcouldnotbedeferredinregardofyoursomanyrecentdeliverances,maythenperhapstakeupaharpandsingYouanelaboratesongtogenerations.

496Inthatdayitshallnomorebesaid,asinscorn,thisorthatwasneverheldsotillthispresentage,whenmenhavebetterlearnedthatthetimesandseasonspassalongunderyourfeet,togoandcomeatyourbidding;andasYoudignifiedourFathers’dayswithmanyrevelationsabovealltheforegoingagessinceYoutooktheflesh;soYoucangranttous,thoughunworthy,aslargeaportionofyourSpiritasYouplease:forwhoshallprejudiceyourall-governingwill?seeingthepowerof yourgracehasnotpassedawaywith theprimitive times, as fondand faithlessmenimagine;butyourkingdomisnowathand,andYoustandingatthedoor.ComeforthoutofyourRoyalChambers,OPrinceofallthekingsoftheearth,putonthevisiblerobesofyourimperialmajesty, takeup that unlimited sceptrewhich yourAlmightyFatherhas bequeathedYou; fornowthevoiceofyourBridecallsyou,andallcreaturessightoberenewed!”—Milton’sProse

Works,Edit.1697,pp.312,313.678

THEALLEGEDSCHISMATICNATUREOFINDEPENDENCY,p.265.

OnnoonepointhaveIndependentsbeenmorefuriouslyassailedthanon

the schismatical, or separating nature of the constitution of theirchurches.Onthissubject, thefollowingpassagedeservesattention.It isfromaworkofLordBrooke,oneoftheearlysupportersofthisbody—agreat sufferer for his principles, and a member of the WestminsterAssembly. It shows, what has been glanced at on page 229, that thedisputebetweenIndependentsandothersonthispoint,chieflyrespectstheultimate appeal. If that is not in each congregation, it is yet to beexplainedwhyitshouldstopshortofageneralcouncil.“Theothergrandheresy,whichmensomuchcryagainstinseparation,istheIndependencyoftheircongregations.ButwhyshouldtheIndependenceofoneAssemblyonaprovinceornation,bemoreschismaticthanthatofaprovinceornationonthewholeworld?WhymayGenevanotbeasindependentonFrance,asFrancemaybeontheotherpartsofEurope?InGeneva,whymayonecongregationnotbeasindependentonallGeneva,asGenevaisonallFrancebeside?Does such a wall, or river, or sea, so limit and bound the church within it, that it may beindependentonanychurchwithoutit;andmaynotthecongregationwithinthisriverbeaswellindependent on all other Assemblies within the same river or sea? Once we give way to thedependenceofchurches,mustnottheChurchofEnglanddependontheDutchchurch;ortheDutchonEngland—asmuchasonechurchdependsonaprovincialchurchofCanterbury,orthenationalchurchofallEngland?AndiftheEnglishChurchmustdependontheDutch,ortheDutchon theEnglish,whichwillbe inferior?This,or that?By thisdisputeofprecedence,weshallatlengthcastallchurchesintosuchaconfusion,assomeofourBishops’seeswereupto

now.Pompeius non admittit superiorem, Caesar non parem.679

And if Geneva depends onFrance,thenwhynotFranceonSpain?SpainonItaly?ItalyonRome?RomeonthePope?AndhadIbegunagreatdeallower,Ishouldhavecomeuphigher,tothisHead.”ADiscourseonthenatureofEpiscopacy,byRobert,LordBrooke,pp.104,108.

497THEEARLYINDEPENDENTSOBSERVEDTHELORD’S

SUPPERWEEKLY,p.308.Owen’s answer to the question, “How often is the Lord’s Supper to beadministered?”clearlyascertainshissentimentsonthissubject.Whathispractice was, is not so easily determined. That the Lord’s Supper wasobserved very frequently in his church (often within a fortnight), isevident from the dates prefixed to his printed addresses on thoseoccasions, which are noted on page 502 of this volume. That the earlyIndependentChurchesobservedtheLord’sSuppereveryfirstdayoftheweek, seems to me undoubted. The following account is given of thepublic worship of the church in Deadman’s Place, London. They werevisited on a Lord’s Day morning by several Peers for the purpose ofobservingtheirpractice.“Thepeoplewentonintheirusualmethod,havingtwosermons;inbothofwhichtheytreatedthoseprinciples forwhich theyhadbeenaccused,grounding theirdiscourseson thewordsofour Saviour, ‘All power is given to me in heaven and in earth,’ Mat. 28.18. After this, they

received the Lord’s Supper, and then made a collection for the poor, to which the Lordscontributedliberallywiththem;andattheirdeparture,theysignifiedtheirsatisfactioninwhattheyhadheardandseen,andtheirinclinationtocomeagain.”—(Crosby’sHist,oftheBaptists,vol.i.p.163.)

Withthisstatement,theaccountwhichMessrs.Goodwin,Nye,Simpson,Burroughes, and Bridge, give of their stated public practice, is in fullaccordance.“Now, for theway and practice of our churches, we give this brief and general account. Ourpublicworshipwasmadeupofnootherpartsthantheworshipofallotherreformedchurchesconsistsof:suchaspublicandsolemnprayerforkings,andallinauthority,etc.;thereadingtheScriptures of the Old and New Testament; exposition of them, as there was occasion, andconstantpreaching-oftheword;theadministrationof thetwosacraments,baptismto infants,andtheLord’sSupper;singingofpsalms;acollectionforthepoor,etc.,everyLord’sday.”—(ApologeticalNarration,etc.p.8.)

Baillie charges the Brownists with teaching, “that the Lord’s SuppershouldbecelebratedeveryLord’sday;”andquotesJohnson’spleaashisauthority — (Dissuasive, pp. 29, 47.) Speaking of the Independentsafterwards,hesays,“Forthemanneroftheircelebration,thosewhohaveseenitprofessittobeinaverydeadandcomfortlessway.It isnotasinNewEngland,onceamonth,butasatAmsterdam,onceeveryLord’sday — which makes the action much less solemn than in any other of the reformedchurches;andinthis,itistoomuchlikethedailymassesoftheChurchofRome.”(Ibid.p.121.)

IntherepliesmadetoBaillie,Ihavenotobservedthatthisstatementisever contradicted. I therefore suppose that it was generally admitted. Iamunable to saywhen thepracticeofobserving itmonthlycame tobeadopted—noramIatpresentinquiringwhichisthescripturalpractice.Mybusinessismerelytoascertainafact,whichprovesnothingoneitherside.498

PERSECUTIONSINNEWENGLAND,—p.336.“Itwaswiththeutmostcomplacencethatmen,passionatelyattachedtotheirownnotions,andwhohadlongbeenrestrainedfromavowingthem,employedthemselvesinframingthemodelofapurechurch.ButinthefirstmomentthattheybegantotasteChristianlibertythemselves,theyforgot that othermen had an equal title to enjoy it. Some of their number, retaining a highvenerationfortheritualoftheEnglishChurch,weresooffendedatthetotalabolitionofit,thattheywithdrewfromcommunionwiththenewlyinstitutedchurch,andassembledseparatelyforthe public worship of God.With an inconsistency of which there are such flagrant instancesamongChristiansofeverydenomination,itcannotbeimputedasareproachtoanyparticularsect, that the verymenwho had fled from persecution, became persecutors. And in order toenforce theirownopinions, theymade recourse to the sameunhallowedweaponsagainst the

employment of which they had recently remonstrated with such violence. Endicott680

summoned the two chief malcontents before him; and though they were men of note, andamongthenumberoftheoriginalpatentees,heexpelledthemfromthesociety,andsentthem

homeintheshipswhichwerereturningtoEngland.”—(Robertson’sAmerica,Bookx.)

Such is theaccountwhich the learnedhistorianofAmericagivesof theconductoftheNewEnglandCongregationalists.Inseveralparticulars,itisfarfromcorrectandunsupportedbytheauthoritiestowhichherefers.Itwasnot“inthefirstmoment”oftheirtastingChristianlibertythattheybegantopersecuteothers;butmanyyearsafterthefirstsettlementwasformed. The emigration of the Brownists was in 1620. The transactionreferred tobyDr.Robertson tookplace in 1630. Itwasnotby the firstsettlersthatthesethingsweredone,butbythosewhofollowed,andwhowere chiefly under the direction of Governor Endicott who, though aworthy man, was “of a hot temper, and not possessed of the greatestprudence.” — (Hutchinson’s Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 17; Gordon’sAmerica,vol.i.p.26.)RobertsonomitsthatthetwoGentlemenhadcomefrom England with the strongest prejudices against the New EnglandSeparatists;thattheynotonlysetupachurchoftheirown,butbrought“railing accusations against the ministers.” And for “endeavouring toraise a mutiny among the people,” they were sent back to England byGovernorEndicott, topreventtheinjuryofthecolonyinits infantstate(Neal,vol.i.p.129,150)WhenitisfurtherstatedthatEndicotthimself,whenhe leftEngland,was inclinedtoEpiscopacy,andapprovedofcivilestablishments of Christianity; that it was only after he arrived inAmerica, that he professed to fall in with Independency; and that thisoccurred the year after his arrival, it will not appear very fair tomakeIndependents accountable for all his conduct. — (Morton’s NewEngland’sMem.p.73,77.—Gordon,vol.i.p.25.)499Weneednotwonderat thecolonistsbeingafraidof thepropagationofHigh Church principles. They had suffered much from them at home.And as they considered them part of a system of political as well asecclesiasticaldespotism,theywereafraidlesttheCourtofEnglandafforditssupporttotheeffortsofsuchmen,tocrushthelibertiesforwhichtheyhadrelinquishedtheirnativeland.Thesubsequentreligiousoppressionsmayallbetracedtoonelaw,whichwaspassedthesecondGeneralCourtafter Endicott’s arrival: that, “for the time to come, no man shall beadmitted to the freedom of this body politic, except those who aremembers of some of the churches within the limits of the same.” —(Gordon vol. i. 30.) This law was quite inconsistent with the greatprinciplesoftheoriginalColonists,anditwascalculatedtoinvolvethem

interribleevils.ButasitdoesnotbelongtoDissenters,buttothesystemfromwhichtheydissent,theevilsresultingfromitoughttobechargedtothatsystem.Makingsomeallowanceonthescoreofignoranceandearlymisconduct,itcannotbedoubtedthatAmericaoweseverythingshenowenjoys of civil and religious liberty, to the principles of theCongregationalists.Thestrengthandexcellenceoftheirgrandprinciplessurvivedeverydanger,andsurmountedeverydifficulty.Theyplantedthegermoffreedom,whichgraduallyarrivedatmaturity,andisnowcoveredwithfoliageandwithfruit.Estoperpetua.[Mayitbeeternal.]

OWEN’SSUCCESSORSINBURYSTREET,—p.397.TheDoctor’s immediatesuccessorwashiscolleague,Mr.Clarkson,whodiedin1687.IsaacLoeffs,whohadbeencolleagueforsometimewithMr.Clarkson, succeeded him as sole pastor, and died in 1689. We havealreadygivensomeaccountofboththeseexcellentmen.Thenextpastorwas Isaac Chauncey, eldest son of the venerable President of HarvardCollege, in New England. In his time, the Church fell off exceedingly,owingtohislackofpopularityasapreacher,andhisoftenpreachingonthesubjectofChurchOrder.HeresignedhisofficeintheChurchin1701,andwas soon after appointedTutor of the IndependentAcademy.Thisstill exists at Homerton, and it has numbered among its Tutors andPupils,someofthemostlearnedoftheEnglishDissenters.Dr.Chaunceyremained in this situation till his death. He edited some of Owen’sposthumouswritings,andpublishedseveralthingsofhisown.HissuccessorwasDr.IsaacWatts,whosehistoryrequiresnoillustration,andwhosenameneedsnoeulogyfromme.Mr.EdwardTerryhadbeenassistant for a time toDr.Chauncey.BeforeDr.Watts hadbeen in theministry long,hewasattackedbyapainfuland lingering illness,whichrenderedassistanceabsolutelynecessary.Mr.SamuelPricewasthereforechosentothisoffice;andactedasassistantandco-pastorformorethanforty years. Dr.Watts died in 1748, andMr. Price in 1756. It is praiseenoughtosaythathewasworthyofbeingunitedinofficewithWatts.500During the latter years of his life, Mr. Price was assisted by MeredithTownshend; and he was succeeded by SamuelMorton Savage, D.D., aman of learning and high respectability, but not very successful as apreacher. For many years, he was Tutor of the Academy formerly atHoxton, and now removed to Wymondley. He preached only in the

morningsatBuryStreet,andwasassistedintheafternoons,firstbyMr.Thomas Porter, and afterwards by Mr. Josiah Thompson. TheCongregationin1782wasreducedtoaverylowstate,whenitinvitedMr.Beck, the present Minister to succeed Dr. Savage. There is a goodendowment belonging to the Church; but it still continues low,notwithstanding the attempts which have been made to revive it. —(Wilson’sHist,oftheDiss.Churches,vol.i.pp.251,328.)Inreferringtothis work, I beg here to acknowledge my occasional obligations to it.WhileIbeartestimonytotheintricateandinterestinginformationwhichitcontains,Icannothelpexpressingmyastonishmentatthelittlesupportithasreceivedfromthebodyonwhosehistoryithasbestowedsomuchlabour.Andmyhopethattherespectableauthorwillyetbeencouragedto lay the fifth volume before the public, which I understand has longsincebeenfullyprepared.

POSTHUMOUSWRITINGS,—p.443.About the time of the Doctor’s death, a small manuscript was handedaround,containingtwelveargumentsagainstconformitytoworshipthatisnot ofDivine institution.The leadingobject of these arguments is topointouttheunlawfulnessofthosewhohadseparatedfromtheChurchof England, [subsequently] uniting in its public services — as thoseservicesareofaverydifferentnaturefromtheworshipwhichChristhasappointed.ThisMS.occasionedaveryviolentdiscussion.ItwassenttoBaxterasthatwhichhadsatisfiedmanyabouttheimproprietyofjoiningintheLiturgy.“Ihastilyansweredthem,”hesays,“butfoundafter,thatitwould have been most prudent to have omitted his name; for on thataccount, a swarm of revilers in the city, poured out their keenestcensures,andthreeorfourwroteagainstme,whomIanswered.”Itisnowonder that Owen’s friends were displeased, as he was scarcely in hisgravewhen this attemptwasmadebyBaxter, to convicthimofno lessthan forty-two errors in the space of ten pages! It reminds us of thecontroversy between Erasmus and Natalis Bedda. The latter extractedfrom the writings of Erasmus, two hundred erroneous propositions.Erasmus revenged himself in the same way, by calculating that Beddahadbeenguiltyofahundredandeighty-onelies,threehundredandtencalumnies, and forty-seven blasphemies! — (Jortin’s Erasmus, vol. ii.245.)Owen’sTwelveArgumentsareprinted in theoctavoeditionofhisSermons,publishedin1720.Baxter’sReplyisinhis“DefenceofCatholicCommunion.”Theoccasionalconformitycontroversygaveagreatdealof

trouble to the Dissenters, both then and afterwards, to which Baxter’sconductandwritingsverylargelycontributed.Owen’sTractisoneofthebestthingsontheotherside.501“ATreatise on theDominion of Sin andGrace, 1688.”This smallworkwaspublishedbytheDoctor’swidow,andeditedbyMr.Chauncey,whoassuresusitwasleftbytheauthorinastateofpreparationforthepress.It is thesubstanceofa fewsermons fromRom.6.14.Heendeavours toascertain inwhom the reign of sin exists, how the law supports it, andhow grace delivers from it, by setting up its dominion in the heart. Itrevealsthesameexperientialacquaintancewiththestateofnatureandofgrace,whichappears in theotherproductionsof theauthor, on similarsubjects. There is nothing of barren speculation in it; rather, themostaccurate knowledge of the theory of Christianity, combined with itsapplication to the heart and conduct. It is well-fitted to promote thatpracticalgodlinesswhichisthegrandendofthedispensationofmercy.Inspeakingofthiswork,Imusttaketheopportunitytonoteanotherofasimilar nature, which (by an oversight) is not introduced in its properplace. — “Of Temptation; the nature and power of it; the danger ofentering into it, and the means of preventing that danger,” etc. 12mo.Thisworkshouldhavebeenintroducedunderthebusyyear1658.ItissoremarkablysimilartotheworksonIndwellingsin,andtheMortificationofsin,thattheremarksmadeonthemareequallyapplicabletothis.Itisthe substanceof somesermonsonMat.26.41.—“Watchandpray thatyou do not enter into temptation.” Like all his experiential writings, itseems to have been called forth by his observation of the state of thetimes. He refers in his preface, to the awful providences of which thecountry still continued to be the subject; the spirit of error which hadspread so widely; the divisions and contentions which so extensivelyprevailed;thetemptationswhichhadoverthrownthefaithofmany,andthe general backsliding from early zeal and holiness which had takenplace. The treatise, however, has nothing local or temporary in itscomposition; but must continue to be suitable and useful so long astemptationscontinue,andChristiansareexposedtodangerfromthem.In1693appearedthelastpartofhisworkontheSpirit:“Twodiscoursesconcerning the Holy Spirit, and his work. The one, of the Spirit as acomforter; the other, as he is the author of spiritual gifts.” There is a

prefacetoitbyNathanielMather,thesonofRichardMather,PresidentofHarvardCollege,PastoroftheIndependentChurchinLimeStreet.“As God gave Dr. Owen transcendent abilities,” he says, “so he also gave him a boundlessenlargementofheart,andaninsatiabledesiretodoservicetoChristandhischurch,insomuchas hewas thereby carried on through great bodilyweakness, languishing, and pains, besidesmanyothertrialsanddiscouragements,tobringoutofhistreasury,likeascribewell-instructedin the kingdom of heaven,many useful and excellent fruits of his studies,much beyond theexpectationandhopeofthosewhosawhowoftenandhowlonghewasnearthegrave.”

“The Gospel Grounds and Evidences of the Faith of God’s Elect,” waspublishedin1695.TheprefaceiswrittenbyIsaacChauncey.Theleadingobjectofthetreatiseistoinquireintothenatureofsavingfaith;andintotheevidencewhichaChristianoughttohavethathisbeliefisgenuineorsincere.502HadtheTractbeenentitled“Evidencesofgenuinereligion,”orsomethingsimilar,thesubjectofitwouldhavebeenmoreaccuratelydefined—forwhat it contains is no more connected with faith, than with otherChristianprinciples. It furnishessomevaluable illustrationof that stateof mind and conduct which every Christian who desires to make hiscallingandelectionsure,oughttocultivate.In1721,a foliovolumeappearedentitled, “AcompleteCollectionof theSermonsoftheRev.andLearnedJohnOwen,D.D.,formerlypublished:with an addition of many others never before printed. Also, severalvaluable Tracts, now first published fromMS., and some others whichwereveryscarce.”Thereisprefixedtoit,MemoirsoftheDoctor,drawnupbyMr.Asty,pastoroftheChurchinRope-Maker’sAlley,assistedbySir John Hartopp, to whom the volume is dedicated. There is also aprefacewrittenbyJohnNesbitt,MatthewClarke,ThomasRidgley,D.D.,andThomasBradbury,IndependentministersinLondon,andallmenofnoteintheirday.Ihaveoftenreferredtothisvolume,inthebodyofthiswork.It issometimesquotedunder thetitleof fol.Works, andatothertimes,SermonsandTracts.Besides those thingswhichwenoted in theorder in which they appeared, it contains a Funeral Sermon for theDoctor, by Mr. Clarkson, which is remarkably barren of informationaboutitsobject.Therearetwenty-nineSermonsneverbeforepublished;also fourteen short Discourses resolving various cases of conscience,delivered at Church meetings between 1672 and 1680. A Tract aboutMarryingafterDivorceonaccountofAdultery,thelawfulnessofwhichhe

maintains. Another about Infant Baptism and Dipping, in which hearguesinsupportoftheformer,andinoppositiontothelatter.TherestoftheTractshavebeennotedalready.In 1756, “Thirteen Sermons, preached on various occasions, by JohnOwen,D.D.”werepublishedbyMrs.Cooke,ofStoke-Newington,grand-daughter to Sir John Hartopp. Several of them were preached atordinations,andafewofthematStadhaminOxfordshire.Theywereallpreached between 1669 and 1682; and they appear to have been takendowninshort-hand,bySirJohnHartopp,fromwhosepaperstheywereselected.In1760,“Twenty-fiveDiscourses,suitabletotheLord’sSupper,deliveredby Dr. Owen, just before the administration of that sacred ordinance,”werepublishedbyRichardWinter,ministeroftheChurchinNewCourt,CareyStreet.Theywerefurnishedfromthesamesourcewiththeformervolume, and are dedicated to Mrs. Cooke. They too were deliveredbetween1669and1682.Fromthedates,whichareregularlyprefixedtothem,itappearsthattheLord’sSupperwasveryfrequentlyobservedinthe Doctor’s Church, often at the interval of a fortnight. For instance.Discourse iv.wasdeliveredDec. 24, 1669,—Discourse v. Jan. 7, 1670.What theDoctor’s beliefwas respecting the frequency of observing theLord’s Supper, appears from his Catechism, as quoted, page 308. TheIndependentChurchesinEngland,atthebeginning,observedtheLord’sSuppereveryfirstdayoftheweek.Iamunabletosaywhentheirpresentpracticecametobegenerallyadopted.503Anthony Wood ascribes some other works to Owen, which heacknowledgeshehadnotseen;andwhichIamsatisfiedwereeithernothis,orwereotherthingsofOwenswhosetitlesweremistakenbyWood.1.“AThanksgivingSermon,beforeParliamentthe25thofAugust,1653.”Thiswasadayof thanksgiving foravictoryover theDutch.Whitelockementionsit,buttakesnonoticeofthepreachers.Owenmightbeoneofthem,butIsuspectthesermonasnotpublished.2.“ASermonon1John1.3,1658.This,Isuppose,istheDoctorsworkonCommunionwhichwaspublishedaboutthistime,andisfoundedontheabovepassage.3.“ApamphletcalledMeneTekel.”WoodreferstotheOxfordDecreeas

attributingthisworktoOwen.ThatDecree,indeed,referstoMeneTekel;butitdoesnotspeakofOwenasitsauthor.Thefulltitleofthepamphlet,which I have examined, is “MeneTekel; or theDownfall of Tyranny.Atreatise in which liberty and equity are vindicated, and tyrannycondemnedbythe lawofGodandrightreason:andthepeople’spowerand duty to execute justice, without, and upon wicked Governors,asserted by Laophilus Mysotyrannus, 4to. 1663.” It is a very boldrepublicanTract,butitisonlynecessarytolookintoittobesatisfiedthatneitherthestylenorthesentimentsareOwen’s.“A Discourse concerning Liturgies, and their imposition, 4to. 1662,” isalso ascribed to Dr. Owen by Wood, and is inserted in the list of hisworks, annexed to hismemoirs, 1721. but in the second edition of theAthen.Ox.,WoodquotesanexpressionofBishopBarlow’sintimatinghisdoubts about Owen being the author. I have not seen the work, but Ibelieve it is not Owen’s. As his colleague,Mr. Clarkson, published onewiththisverytitle,ithasthusperhapsbeenascribedbymistaketoOwen.He is also represented as one of the continuators of Matthew Poole’sEnglishAnnotationsontheBible;buthehadnohandinthatwork.“ThePuritan turned Jesuit,” 4to. 1643, is sometimes stupidly inserted in thelistofhisworks— thevery titleofwhich isenough toshowthatOwencouldnothavewrittenit.

PREFACESTOTHEWORKSOFOTHERS,—p.443.BESIDES his own numerous writings, Dr. Owen ushered into the world,along with Prefaces, or recommendatory Epistles, a great number ofworksbyotherauthors.Ofthese,asfarastheyareknowntome,Ishallnowproceedtogivesomeaccountintheorderinwhichtheyappeared.“A Collection of the works of Dr. Thomas Taylor,” one of the earlyPuritans,waspublishedinafoliovolumein1653—towhichwasprefixedhisLife,byJosephCaryl,andaPrefacebyGoodwinandOwen.504ThevolumecontainsTractsandDiscoursesonavarietyofsubjects;someof themwith veryquaint titles—CatechisticalExercises—TheJailor’sConversion—Famineof theWord—Peter’sRepentance—TheOwleoftheGospel—TheStrangerathome,etc.etc.etc.Theauthor,Dr.Taylor,wasamanofeminentpiety,whosufferedmuchforhisprinciplesandhiszeal.Hisworksarenowlittleknown,butwereformerlymuchesteemed.Hediedin1632.

“Justificationwithoutconditions,byW.Eyre,MinisteroftheGospel,andpastorofachurchinthecityofNewSarum,8vo.1653.”Tothisvolume,aPrefaceisprefixedbyDr.Owen,datedWestminster,November7th,1653.Itdoesnotappearthathehadpreviouslyreadthework,ashespeaksofbut ‘‘a minute of time given him,” to express his opinion. It thereforerefers entirely to the subject, and to the general opinionwhich he hadformed about the writer’s sentiments and character. How far he wasjustifiedinsendingintotheworldaproductionwhichhehadnotread,isdoubtful.Iquestionwhetherhewouldhavegivenithissanctionafterheperused it. The second edition, published in 1695, omits the Doctor’sPreface.Manyofthesentimentsinthework,suchasjustificationbeforefaith—thedenialthatfaithisthemeansofjustification—andhisviewsof election, and of some other subjects, are such that Owen could notapprove of. It is decidedly antinomian in its statements and tendency,anditwasdesignedforananswertoMessrs.Woodbridge,Cranford,andBaxter.Thelastofwhomrepliedtoitthesameyear,in“AnAdmonitiontoMr.WilliamEyre.”TheauthorwasejectedfromSt.Edmund’schurchinSalisbury.“The private Christian’s Non ultra, or a Plea for the Layman’sinterpretingtheScriptures,byPhilolaoclerus,1656.”InhisPrefacetothispamphlet, theDoctor tellsus, theauthorwasunknowntohim,and“hedoesnotbuildhisthesesonthoseprincipleswhich,inchurchaffairs,heowned as the mind of God; but he hoped that what he had broughtforward would be considered by some who were interested to own it,before theygave in theiraccount.”Theobjectof it ismuchthesameasthatoftheDoctor’swork,onthedutyofpastorsandpeople.TheauthorendeavourstoshowthatitisthedutyandprivilegeofChristianstomeettogether to instruct and exhort one another — a practice which hasgenerally characterised the best times of the church, and which, whenconductedwithprudenceandpiety,isfittedtobeofconsiderableservice.“ADefenceofMr.JohnCotton,fromtheimputationofself-contradictioncharged on him by Mr. Dan. Cawdry. 12mo. 1658.” We have spokenrepeatedlyofthislittleworkinthetext.Owen’sPrefaceisaslargeasthebookitself,andisadefenceofhisownworkonSchism,againstCawdry’sattackonit.“Thetrue ideaofJansenism,bothhistoricanddogmatic,byTheophilusGale.12mo.1669.”Theobjectofthissmallworkistoexplainthenature,origin,andprogressofthosedisputesbetweentheJansenistsandJesuits;

whichhadsolongagitatedFrance—disputesrelatingtothesamepoints—grace,predestination,and freewill—whichdisturbed theProtestantchurches. Mr. Gale, during a residence on the continent, had enjoyedunique opportunities to collect information on the subject, and thisvolumeaffordsacondensedandcorrectviewofwhathadbeengoingon.505The object of Dr. Owen’s preface, which is long, is to show from theevidenceofthiswork,thattheboastedunityoftheChurchofRome,isanemptyandfalseassumption;andthatitwouldbeeasytoprovethatthereis scarcelyonepoint inwhichPapistsdiffer fromProtestants,onwhichtheyareagreedamongthemselves.HeexposestheiniquitouspolicyandpracticeoftheRomishChurchinaverymasterlymanner,andpointsoutthe insidious methods which it employed to crush the Jansenists. Thesentimentsofthatpartywerenearlyallied,ondoctrinalsubjects,tothoseof the Protestants — which no doubt was the chief reason for the illtreatment they received from Rome. Everything from the pen of theauthor of the Court of the Gentiles, is worth reading; but most of hisotherpiecesarenowremarkablyscarce.Amongtheseare“Theophilie;ortheSaints’amitywithGod,1671.”“TheAnatomyofInfidelity,1672.”“ADiscourse of the coming of Christ, 1673.” “Idea Theologiae, tamcontemplativae quam activae, 1673.” “Philosophia Generalis, in duaspartes,etc.1676.”“AsummaryofthetwoCovenants,1678.”“Clavis Cantici, or an Exposition of the Song of Solomon, by JamesDurham,lateministeratGlasgow,”4to.1669.WoodsaysOwenwrotethepreface to this work, which was printed after the death of the worthyauthor.Iamdoubtfulofthis,HOWEVER,astheprefaceisanonymous,doesnotappeartobeOwen’sstyle,andashewroteaprefacetoanotherworkbyDurham,whichwill benoted immediately, it is probable thatWoodmistooktheonefortheother.TheClavisofMr.Durhamisstillapopularbook among that class of personswho study themystical designof theSong, and who are fond of allegorical interpretation; but those whoadhere to the rigid principles of Biblical criticism, will not be satisfiedwithmanypartsofthisexposition.“An introduction to the Holy Scriptures, etc. by Henry Lukin, 1669,12mo.”TheauthorofthissmallworkwasaministerinEssex,beforetheAct ofUniformity,which threwhim among theDissenters.Hewas thewriter of several small practicalworks,which reveal an excellent spirit.

The “Introduction” contains many useful things for understanding theScriptures, but has long since been superseded. The substance of it,indeed,isatranslationandabridgmentofpartofthePhilologiaSacraofGlassius, to whichMr. Lukin acknowledges his obligations. Imay takethis opportunity to recommend that valuable work to the theologicalinquirer, as containing a treasure of Biblical criticism. The last editionaccommodatedbyDathetothepresentstateofHebrewliterature,oughttobepossessedbyeverystudentofthewordofGod.Dr.Owenexpresseshis high approval of Lukin’s Introduction, and the great satisfactionwhichhederived fromtheperusalof it. “Ifotherreaders find thesamesatisfaction asmyself, as to the order,method, perspicuity, and soundjudgmentinthemall,thattheauthorhasemployedandexercisedinthewhole,theywillconcludethathehasacquittedhimselfasaworkmanthatneednotbeashamed.”Mr.Lukindiedin1719,attheadvancedageof92.506In1671,aprefacesignedJ.O.appearedto,“Thefreenessofthegraceandlove ofGod to believers byW.Bridge.”The treatise is the substance ofseven sermons, the sentiments of which are good, but the language isquaint,andsometimes low.Theprefaceglancesat theattempt tomaketheauthorridiculous,bysatirisinghishomelyphraseology.Thisrousedthe indignationofDr.JohnEchard,who ina letter toDr.Owen, treatstheDoctorwithcontempt,andMr.Bridgewithscurrility.

681“‘AsIalways

lookeduponMr.B.,hesays,tobeverysicklyandcrazy,soIthinkyouarestarkmadforbeinganoccasionthatanysuchsermonsastheseshouldbesentintotheworld.’”Itsohappened,however,thatDr.Owenwasnotthewriter of this preface; for in his epistle to Caryl’s sermons, he declaresthat he would have known nothing of the book if his accuser had notpointed it out to him. In consequence, Dr Echard left out of the nextedition of his work, the letter to J. O. Mr. Bridge was one of theIndependentbrethrenoftheassembly,andministerofacongregationatYarmouth,wherehediedin1670.Theotherwritingsoftheauthorshowthathewascapableofproducingsomethingofmorevalue,bothinmatterandform,thanthosesermons.“SermonsonthewholeEpistleofSt.PaultotheColossians,byMr.Daille,translatedintoEnglishbyF.S.withDr.ThomasGoodwin’s,andDr.JohnOwen’sEpistlesrecommendatory,1672.fol.”Theauthorofthisworkwasministerof theReformedChurchatParis, and isnowknownchieflyas

theauthorofaworkonthe“RightuseoftheFathers,”whichisoneoftheablesttreatisesonthePopishcontroversy,andgavethechurchofRomemoretroublethanmostbooksoftheperiod.BishopWarburton,whowasnomean judgeonsucha subject,affirmsof thiswork, “Itmay trulybesaidtobethestorehousefromwhereallwhohavesincewrittenpopularlyon the character of the Fathers, have derived their materials.” —(IntroductiontoJulian.vii.).Daillewroteaseriesofdiscoursesonthe3dchapter of John, and on the 10th chapter of the first Epistle to theCorinthians—besidesthisseriesontheEpistletotheColossians,whichistheonlyportionofhissermonsrenderedintoEnglish.BothGoodwinandOwenexpresstheirfavourableopinionofthesentimentsandusefultendencyofthework.In1673,Owenintroduced,withapreface,aneditionofVavasorPowell’s“NewandusefulConcordancetotheHolyBible.”Thiseditioncontainedabout 9000Scriptures omitted in the former editions. It is but a smallwork, and furnishes only the principal word in the sentence. It is notnecessary to speak of the usefulness of such works. All formerconcordances in English have been so long set aside by the invaluableworkofCruden, that former labourers in thisdepartmentofknowledgeare now almost forgotten. Powell was a laborious Baptist minister inWales,wherehesufferedmuchonaccountofhissentiments.Hediedin1670,intheeleventhyearofhisimprisonment,andthefiftythirdofhisage—(Crosby,vol.i.p.373.)Owenwasverymuchoffendedtofindthatnosoonerhadheproducedthepreface,thanitwaspublishedthathehadcompletedthework,whereashedeclaresheneitheraddednoralteredasyllableofit.(PrefacetoCaryl’sSermons.)507“TheDivineWill,consideredinitseternaldecrees,andholyexecutionofthem, by Edward Polhill, 8vo. 1673.” I expected to have been able tofurnish some account of this excellent person, but all my inquiriesrespectinghimhavefailed.“Hewasa very learnedgentleman,anda justiceof thepeace,of verygreat esteemamongallmen in his own county, where he lived in full and constant communion with the church ofEngland—Hewas zealously concerned for truth and serious religion, not for a party.On alloccasionsheshowedhimself tobeofa trulyChristian, that isofacatholic temper,andwasasincereloverofallgoodmen.”—(Addresstothereaderprefixedtohisposthumousdiscourseonschism.)

Thisworkwaspublishedin1694;sothathemusthavediedbeforethat.

InaprefacetotheworkontheDivinewill,byDr.LazarusSeaman,Mr.Polhillisrepresentedasoneofthesagesofthelaw,andanoracleinthecountrywherehelives;asconformablehimself,yetmindingthepowerofGodliness, more than the form of it; and as eminent for his domesticpiety,andexemplaryconduct.FromOwen’s preface, it appears that hewasunacquaintedwithPolhillwhenhewrote it.Heexpresseshisgreat respect for theauthor, though“otherwise utterly unknown to him;” a respect which “was increasedwhen he found he was no minister or churchman; but a gentlemanactuatedbyavoluntaryconcernfortruthandpiety.”“‘Theargumentativepartofthebook,hesays,“isgenerallysuitedtothegeniusofthepastage,inwhichaccuracyandstrictnessofreasonboresway,andthelanguageofittothis[end].”Beforehisdeath,theauthorhadlosthissight,asappearsfrom a very excellent letter dictated by him to a friend, inserted in theCongregationalMagazine, for 1819—p. 693. Thework towhichOwenwritesapreface,seemstohavebeenthefirstproductionofMr.Polhill’spen. His next work was his “Answer to Sherlock,” on the Communioncontroversy, and indefenceofOwen, 1675.The sameyearheproduced“Precious faith considered in its nature, working and growth. 8vo.” In1678, appeared “Speculum Theologiae in Christo: or a view of someDivinetruths,etc.4to.”Hepublished“ChristusinCorde:orthemysticalunion between Christ and Believers, 8vo. 1680.” In 1682, he produced“ArmaturaDei: or preparation for suffering, 8vo.” This is an excellentandwellwrittenpracticaltreatise,andthelastwhichtheauthorlivedtopublish.TheworkontheDecrees,whichOwenprefaced,showshowfarPolhill entered into the Calvinistic views of Christian doctrine; andreveals more than ordinary ability in defending them. It was highlyesteemedbythelateDr.WilliamsofRotherham,withwhosesentimentsonvariouspoints,itnearlyaccords.AllPolhill’sworksarevaluable,anddeserveaplaceineverytheologicallibrary.508“The nature and principles of love as the end of the commandment;declaredinsomeofthelastsermonsofMr.JosephCaryl;withanepistleprefixedbyJohnOwen.D.D.12mo.1673.”Thesediscourseswere takendownfromthemouthofMr.Carylbyahearer,andthereforeappearwithmore than the ordinary disadvantages of posthumous writings. Theprefatory epistle of Dr. Owen is chiefly occupied in defending himselfagainst someof themanyslanderswhichwere thenpropagatedagainst

him.Somenoticehasbeentakenofthese,andoftheDoctor’sanswerstotheminotherpartsofthiswork.In 1671, he wrote a preface to the eleventh edition of Scudder’s“Christian’sDailyWalk.”TheAuthorwassometimepastorofaChurchinCollingborn-ducis, in Wiltshire; and the work was one of the mostpopularpracticaltreatisesamongtheNon-conformistsoftheseventeenthcentury.Dr.Owenstatesthathehadfirstreaditoverthirtyyearsbefore,and that the impressions made upon him in his youth continued ingrateful remembrance upon his mind. There is also a prefatoryrecommendation by Baxter, who speaks of it in still stronger terms ofeulogy.Thebookisstillknownandesteemedbypiouspersonsoftheoldschool.And if the sentiments andpreceptswithwhich it aboundsweremoreattended to, the interestsofpureandundefiled religionwouldbepromoted.ThisworkwastranslatedintoDutch,byTheodoreHaak.“The difference between the Old and New Covenant, stated andexplained:bySamuelPetto,MinisteroftheGospel,12mo.1674.”Thisisavery excellent little work, which the Doctor, in a pretty long preface,warmly recommends to the attentive perusal of the reader. MuchperplexingandmeaninglesslanguagehasbeenusedabouttheCovenantsofGod;andthoughMr.Petto’streatiseisnotaltogetherfreefromit, itsleadingviewsarescripturalandconsolatory.Theauthorwasejectedfromthe living of Sandcroft, in Suffolk, and afterwards became pastor of aCongregation at Sudbury. His grandson wasminister of the Church inCoggeshall,whichOwenfounded.“TheSurestandSafestwayofThriving,byThos.Gouge,1674.”Thislittlebut valuable work, has no less than four prefaces, by Owen, Manton,Baxter, andBates. It containsmany excellent things on the nature andgood effects of Christian liberality, with illustrations of its beneficialresults even in this world, to those who exercise it. The respectableauthor,whowasoneoftheejectedministers,wasaneminentexampleofthevirtueherecommendedtoothers.Hedevotedhispersonalproperty,which was originally considerable, almost entirely to works ofbenevolence and mercy. Archbishop Tillotson preached his funeralsermon,andgavehimthehighestcommendation.Thefourprefacersallspeakoftheauthorandtheworkinthestrongestmanner;andDr.WattscelebratedthememoryofMr.Gouge,afterhisdeath,inoneofhismostbeautifullyrics.Novulgarmortaldied

Whenheresignedhisbreath.Themusethatmournsanation’sfall.ShouldwaitatGouge’sfuneral.

509Shouldminglemajestyandgroans,Suchasshesingstosinkingthrones,AndindeepsoundingnumberstellHowSiontrembl’dwhenthispillarfell.

“TheBest Treasure, or theway to bemade truly rich, byBartholomewAshwood, 167_.” I do not know the year in which the first editionappeared, with Owen’s Preface. It is a discourse on Ephesians 3.8, inwhichtheunsearchablerichesofChristareexplainedandrecommendedtosaintsandsinners,asthebesttreasuretoallwhowouldbehappyhereandhereafter.TheDoctorsays,“themostlearnedwill findnothinginitto bedespised, andmost believerswillmeetwith thatwhichwill be totheiruseandadvantage.”Mr.Ashwoodwasejected fromAxminster, inDevonshire; and is represented by Calamy as a judicious, godly, andlaboriousDivine.“TheLawUnsealed,oraPracticalExpositionoftheTenCommandments.By James Durham, lateMinister of the Gospel at Glasgow. 8vo. Edin.1676.” This is the third edition of the work, to which prefaces by Mr.Jenkyn and Dr. Owen are prefixed, for the first time. It is a moresatisfactory book than the one on Solomon’s Song— as the ground onwhich its author treads ismore solid, and thepractical tendencyof theexpositionmoreevident.Owenpraisestheworkforitsplainness,foritsgeneral adaptation to the circumstances of Christians, and for theconstantattentionwhichtheauthorpaystotheinwardprincipleaswellastotheoutwardconduct.ItrevealsmuchknowledgeofthewordofGod,and of the character and state of man. Mr. Durham was a useful andhighlyrespectableministerinhisday.“The Ark of the Covenant Opened; or a treatise of the Covenant ofRedemption,betweenGodandChrist,asthefoundationoftheCovenantofGrace,etc.ByaMinisteroftheNewTestament,4to.1677.”Theauthorof thisworkwasMr.PatrickGillespie,oneof theMinistersofGlasgow,andPrincipaloftheUniversityduringtheCommonwealth.Wodrowsays,“hewasblamedforhiscomplianceswiththeUsurper,andthereisnodoubthewastheministerinScotlandwhohadthegreatestswaywiththeEnglishwhentheyruledhere,indeed,almosttheonlyPresbyterianministerwhowasinwiththem.”—(Hist.oftheChurchofScotland,vol.i.p.76.)

It is probable that Owen and he had first become acquainted on thisaccount. In his preface, the Doctor speaks of “his long Christianacquaintanceandfriendshipwiththeauthor;”whowasdeadbeforethisworkappeared.Itisonlyasmallpartofthedesignwhichhehadformed,and indeed prepared, for the press. The work, though scarcely known,containsalargeportionofscripturalknowledgeandgoodsense;itisfullyentitledtoallthecommendationwhichOwenbestowsonit.510“APracticalDiscourseofGod’sSovereignty,withothermaterialpoints,”etc.byElishaColes,1678.This is theproductionofapersonwhoneverenjoyedthebenefitofalearnededucation,andwhohadnoknowledgeofany language but English. He appears to have been the friend of Dr.Goodwin who, in a preface, bears testimony to the character of theauthor,foundedonaknowledgeofhimfortwenty-eightyears.Theotherpreface is subscribed by Dr. Owen and Sam. Annesley. It must haveexceedingly galled John Wesley to perceive that his grandfather, forwhom he had a very high respect, was the patron of one of the mostCalvinisticbookseverpublished.Thereadingofthiswork,Dr.Kippis

682

says,occasionedhisfirstrenunciationofCalvinism(Biog.Brit,vol.iv.p.3.) I have no doubt the substance of the work is scriptural; but it isneitheranaccuratenoraguardedbook,andbynomeansisitfittobeputintothehandsofaninquirer.Hedoesnotsufficientlylimitsovereigntytothe exercise of benevolence; and thus he leaves it exposed to veryformidable objections. An enlightened Christian, however, may derivemuchcomfortandinstructionfromit.Thosewhowouldwishtoseethesubject stated in the best and most delightful manner will be amplygratifiedbyconsultingasermon,entitled“SpiritualBlessings,’’etc.1814,byMr.Fletcher,ofBlackburn.“TheGlory of Free Grace Displayed,” by Stephen Lob, 12mo. 1 680. Apreface to this Treatisewaswritten byDr.Owen, at the request ofMr.Lob, to vindicate the Independents from the charge of Antinomianism,andfrombeingsupportersofCrisp’serrors,whichaboutthistimeweremakingsadhavocamongthedissenters.Thepreface,however,sayslittleonthesubject,furtherthanexpressingtheDoctor’sopinionofthework,andhis approvalofMr.Lob’s characterandministry.Theperformanceitself is, on the whole, a judicious one, very far removed fromAntinomianism.And itpointsoutveryplainlysomeofDr.Crisp’smost

perniciousmistakes respectingsin,grace, election, imputation,etc.;butthe modem Antinomians go on fearlessly to repeat it, with an equaldisregardof Scripture, common sense, and all thathasbeenpreviouslywritten. The sentiments of Owen were certainly widely different fromAntinomianism; but I do regret that he should have lent his name tocertainproductions,whosetendencythatwayisbynomeansobscure.“TheHolyBible,withAnnotationsandParallelScriptures,etc.bySamuelClark,fol.1690.”ThereisaprefacebyDr.Owen,datedFeb.14th,1683.Another byBaxter, and a joint preface byBates andHowe.The authorwasamanof learning,piety, anddiligence; andall theprefacers speakhighlyof theAnnotations.They are exceedingly short, but for themostpartveryjudicious.TheParallelScripturesareselectedwithmuchcare;andif itwerenotsupersededbymoreextensiveworks,thisBiblemightstillbeuseful.Besides these published prefaces, the Doctor wrote a commendatorypreface to Ness’s Antidote to Arminianism. The author speaks of it,thoughhedoesnotgiveit.AugustinePlumsted,anejectedminister,andafterwardspastoroftheCongregationalChurchatWrentham,inSuffolk,withgreatlabour,compiledadoubleConcordancecontainingtheEnglishandalsotheHebrewandGreekwordsoftheBible.511A prospectus and specimen were published, and an attestation to themerits of theworkwas annexed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, andother distinguished persons. Dr. Owen also wrote an epistle to beprefixedtoit;buttheworkneverappeared,eitherfromlackofpatronage,orfromthedeathoftheauthor.—(Calamy’sCont.vol.iipp.806,809.)

LETTERSFROMDR.OWENTOVARIOUSPERSONS.Among the young men, who were placed under his eye while at theuniversity,wasasonofJudgePuleston,whoseladywasarelationoftheDoctor.Mr.PhilipHenrylivedwiththisfamilyforsometimeaschaplainandtutor.HespeaksofLadyPulestonasthebestfriendhehadonearth;andasawomaninpietyinferiortofew,andinlearningsuperiortomostofhersex.SheappearstohavebeenaveryexcellentChristian,anddiedofapainfulcomplaint,onthe29thSept.1658(MemoirsofPhilipHenry,pp.21—47.)ThetwofollowingletterswerekindlyfurnishedtomebytheRev. Thomas Stedman, Rector of St. Chad’s, Shrewsbury. And thoughtheycontainnothingofimportance,astheyareoriginalsandillustratealittletheconnexionsofOwen,theyareentitledtoaplace.Madam,

While Iwashoping tohavewaiteduponyouandyourworthyhusband,atyourownhouse, IreservedbeggingyourpardonthatIhadnotacknowledgedyourfavourinowningandmindingakindredrelation,andsundryotherrespects,tillthatseason.BeingpreventedbytheprovidenceofGodastothoseresolutions,Iamledtolayholdonthisopportunityofreturningmyheartythanks foryourkind remembrancesofhimwho is innowayable todeserveyour respects—thoughhewillatalltimeshaveasheartyandentireanhonorandregardtoyourladyship,andyournoblehusband,asanypersonliving.Ihopeyoubothareinhealth,alongwithmycousins,yoursons,andIamresolved(iftheLordpleases)toseeyouinthe[beginning]ofthisspring.Mywifepresentsherfaithfulserviceandrespectstoyourladyship,andisgladtohearofyourname.Formy part, it is some contentment tome, that while I am in this place, I have some littleopportunity to express a regard to that relation youarepleased to allowme thehonorof, bytakingthebestcareIcanofhimwhobearsthenameofyourfamily,myyoungcousinPuleston—Ihumblybegyourpardonforthistrouble,andleavetosubscribemyself,

MADAM,

Mymosthumbleserviceofrespects,withmanythanksforhiskindinvitation,toyourworthyhusband.

YourmosthumbleServant,andaffectionatekinsman,JOHNOWEN.

Ox:Ch:Ch:Coll:Jan.26th,1657

ForthetrulynobleandvirtuousLadyPuleston,hishonouredfriendandkinswoman—THESE.

512.FromLadyPulestontoDr.Owen,fromacopyinthe

hand-writingofMr.PhilipHenry.(Nodate.)MYMUCHHONOREDCOUSIN,

IwasinhopesthatIshouldhaveseenyouhere,asyouproposed,lastspring,andamverysorryit fell outotherwise. Ithaspleased theLord to layme lowunderhishandbymuchpainandmanymonths’sicknessfromacancerinmybreast,andIamwaitingeverydaytillmychangecomes;butifwemeetnomoreonearth,IhopeweshallinthearmsofJesusChrist.Thereisa

friendofmine,whosenameisEdwardThomas,ofWrexham,whobringshissontoyourcollege,and I request you to countenance him with your favour. The youth is very hopeful, both inlearningandgrace,andhisfatheranancientprofessorofGodlinessintheseparts,andoneofapprovedintegrity;andIknowSir,thatsuchandwhatconcernsthemlienearyourheartuponfargreaterandotherintereststhanmine;andIpersuademyself,whatyouropportunitieswillpermityoutodoinhisbehalf,youwillreceiveafullrecompenseofrewardfor,fromhimwhohaspromisedtorequiteevenacupofcoldwatergiventoadiscipleinthenameofadisciple.

Mr.Henryisherewithme,muchmycomfortinmypresentaffliction;whatmyhusbandintendsconcerninghim isnotyetsettled,but Ihope itwillbeshortly. In themeantime, Iam lothheshouldloseacertaintyintheCollege,foranuncertaintyhere;andIdo,therefore,desireyoutocontinuehisplacetohimforawhile longer, thatseeingtheLordhasmadehimwillingto layhimselfoutintheworkofthegospel,sofarremotefromhisfriendsinthispoorlostcorneroftheland,hemaynotinanythingbeprejudicedforoursakes,whoesteemhimhighlyinlove,anddesiretodoityetmoreandmore.MyhusbandisatLondon,oronhiswayhome.Weandoursaremuchindebtedtoyouforyourlove,andIshouldhavebeenveryglad,ifitmighthavefallenwithinthecompassofmyabilities,tomakeknownotherthanbywords,mysenseofyourmanykindnesses.But it is theLord’swill that I shouldbeyourdebtor.WithmyunfeignedrespectsandservicetoyourLadyandself,

Irest,youraffectionateCousinandFriend,E.P.

Mr. Henry was presented to the parish of Worthenbury, where theyresided,bythePulestonfamily,andremainedinittillhewasejectedin1662.Anotherveryexcellentletter,fromLadyPulestontoMr.Henry,isinsertedinhisMemoirs,pp.24,25.

ToLadyHartopp.DEARMADAM,

EveryworkofGodisgood;theHolyOneinthemidstofus,willdonoiniquity;andallthingsshallworktogetherforgoodtothosewholovehim;eventhosethingswhichatpresentarenotjoyous,but grievous; onlyhis time is tobewaited for, andhisway submitted to, thatwenotseemtobedispleasedinourhearts,thatheisLordoverus.

513Yourdearinfantisintheeternalenjoymentofthefruitsofallourprayers;forthecovenantofGodisorderedinallthings,andsure:weshallgotoher,sheshallnotreturntous.Happyshewas in this, above us, that she had so speedy an issue of sin andmisery, being born only toexercise your faith and patience, and to glorify God’s grace in her eternal blessedness. Mytroublewouldbegreatonaccountofmyabsenceatthistimefromyouboth;exceptthatthisalsoistheLord’sdoing;andIknowmyownuselessness,whereverIam.ButthisIwillbegofGodforyouboth: that youmaynot faint in thisdayof trial; that youmayhave a clear viewof thosespiritualandtemporalmercieswithwhichyouareyetentrusted,allundeserved;thatthesorrowoftheworldmaynotsoovertakeyourheartsastodisenableyoutoanyduties,soastogrievetheSpirit,ortoprejudiceyourlives;forittendstodeath.GodinChristwillbebettertoyouthantenchildren,andwillsopreserveyourremnant,andsoaddtothem,asshallbeforHisgloryandyourcomfort.Onlyconsiderthatsorrow,inthiscase,isnoduty;itisaneffectofsin,whosecurebygraceweshouldendeavor.Shall I say,becheerful? IknowImay.Godhelpyou tohonourgraceandmercy,incompliancewiththat.Myheartiswithyou,myprayersshallbeforyou,andIam,etc.

ToMrs.Polhill.DEARMADAM,

Thetroubleexpressedinyours,isagreatadditiontomine:thesovereigntyofdivinegraceandwisdomisallthatIhaveatthisdaytoretreatto.Goddirectyoutherealso,andyouwillfindrestandpeace.ItaddstomytroublethatIcannotpossiblycomedowntoyouthisweek;nothingbutengageddutycouldkeepmefromyouonehour;yetIamconscioushowlittleIcancontributetoyourguidanceinthisstorm,oryoursatisfaction.ChristisyourPilot,andhoweverthevesselistossedwhileheseemstosleep,hewillariseandrebukethesewindsandwavesinhisowntime.Ihavedoneit,andyetIwillfurtherwrestlewithGodconcerningyou,accordingtothestrengthheispleased to communicate.Little it iswhichat thisdistance I canmindyouof; yet some fewthingsarenecessary.—Sorrownottoomuchforthedead;shehasenteredintorest,andistakenawayfromtheeviltocome.—Takeheed,lest,bytoomuchgrief,youtoomuchgrievethatHolySpirit,whoisinfinitelymoretousthanallnaturalrelations.Idonotblameyouthatyousofarattend to the call of God in this dispensation, as to search yourself, to judge and condemnyourself.Gracecanmakeitanevidencetoyou,thatyoushallnotbejudgedorcondemnedbytheLord.Idarenotsaythatthischastisementwasnotneedful.Wearenotinheaviness,unlessneedbe;butifGodispleasedtogiveyouadiscoveryofthewisdomandcarethatisinit,andhowneedfulitwas,toawakenandrestoreyoursoulinanything—perhapsinmanythings—induetimeyouwillseegraceandloveinitalso.

514ItrulybelieveGodinthisdealingwithyou,wouldhaveyoujudgeyourself,yoursins,andyourdecays—butHewouldnothaveyoumisjudgeyourcondition.Butwearelikefrowardchildren:whentheyarerebukedandcorrected,theyneglectotherthings,andonlycrythattheirparentshateandrejectthem.—Youareapttofear,tothink,andtosaythatyouareonewhomGoddoesnot regard, who are none of his; and that is for various reasonswhich you suppose you canplead.But, saysGod, this isnot thebusiness; this is apartof your forwardness. I call you toquickenyourgrace, toamendyourownways—andyou thinkyouhavenothingtodo,buttoquestionmy love. Pray,Madam,mydear sister, child and care, beware that younot lose theadvantage of this dispensation. You will do so, if you use it only for afflictive sorrows, orquestioning the love of God, or of your interest in Christ.— The timewill be spent in thesethings,whichshouldbetakenupinearnestendeavourstocomplywithGod’swill,quickeningsofgrace,returnsafterbacksliding—mortificationofsin,andoftheloveoftheworld,untilthesenseofitpassesaway.Labourvigorouslytobringyoursoultothistwo-foldresolution.(1.)ThatthewillofGod is thebestrule forall things,andtheircircumstances. (2.)Thatyouwillbringyourself intoafreshengagementtolivemoretoHim;andthenyouwillfindtheremainderofyourworkeasy,foritispartoftheyokeofChrist.Iwilltroubleyounofurther,excepttogiveyoutheassurancethatyouareinmyheartcontinually,whichisnothing;butithelpstopersuademethatyouareintheheartofChrist,whichisall.Iam,etc.

TohisChurch,whenhewassick,atLordWharton’s.BelovedintheLord,

Mercy,grace,andpeace,bemultiplied toyou fromGodourFather,and fromourLordJesusChrist,bythecommunicationoftheHolyGhost.IthoughtandhopedthatbythistimeImighthavebeenpresentwithyou,accordingtomydesireandresolution;butithaspleasedourholyandgraciousFather todisposeofmeotherwise, at least for a season.The continuanceofmypainfulinfirmities,andtheincreaseofmyweaknesses,willnotallowmeatpresenttohopethatIshouldbeabletobearthejourney.Howgreatanexercisethisistome,consideringtheseason,He knows— towhosewill Iwould cheerfully submitmyself in all things. But although I amabsent from you in body, I am in mind, affection and spirit present with you, and in your

assemblies;forIhopeyouwillbefoundmycrownandrejoicinginthedayoftheLord.AndmyprayerforyounightanddayisthatyoumaystandfastinthewholewillofGod,andmaintainthebeginningofyourconfidencewithoutwavering,firmtotheend.Iknowitisneedlessformeatthisdistancetowritetoyouaboutwhatconcernsyouinpointofdutyatthisseason—thatwork being well supplied by my brother in the ministry. You will give me leave out of myabundantaffections towardsyou, tobringa few things toyourremembranceasmyweaknesswillpermit.

515Inthefirstplace,IprayGodthatitmayberootedandfixedinourminds,thattheshameandloss wemay undergo for the sake of Christ and the profession of the gospel, is the greatesthonourwhichwecanbemadepartakersofinthislife.Soitwasesteemedbytheapostles;theyrejoiced that they were countedworthy to suffer shame for his name’s sake. It is a privilegesuperaddedtothegraceoffaith,whichallarenotmadepartakersof.HenceitisreckonedtothePhilippiansinaspecialmanner,thatitwasgiventothemnotonlytobelieveinChristbutalsotosufferforhim:thatitisfarmorehonourabletosufferwithChrist,thantoreignwiththegreatestofhisenemies.Ifthisisfixedbyfaithinourminds,itwilltendgreatlytoourencouragement.Ionlymentionthesethings,knowingthattheyaremoreatlargepressedonyou.

ThenextthingIwouldrecommendtoyouatthisseasonistheincreaseofmutualloveamongyourselves.ForeverytrialofourfaithtowardsourLordJesusChrist,isalsoatrialofourlovetowards the brethren. This is what the Lord Christ expects from us: namely, that when thehatredoftheworldopenlymanifestsandactsagainstusall,weshouldevidenceanactiveloveamongourselves.Iftherehavebeenanydecays,anycoldnessinit,iftheyarenotrecoveredandhealedinsuchaseason,thenitcanneverbeexpected.IprayGod,therefore,thatyourmutuallovemayaboundmoreandmoreinalltheeffectsandfruitsofittowardsthewholesociety,andeverymemberofit.Youmayjustlymeasurethefruitofyourpresenttrialbytheincreaseofthisgraceamongyou.Inparticular,haveadueregardtowardtheweakandthetempted,thatwhatislamemaynotbeturnedaway,butratherletitbehealed.

Furthermore,brethren,Ibeseechyou,hearawordofadviceincasethepersecutionincreases,whichitislikelytodoforaseason.Icouldwishthatbecauseyouhavenorulingelders,andyourteacherscannotwalkaboutpubliclywithsafety,thatyouwouldappointsomeamongyourselveswho may continually, as occasions allow, go up and down, from house to house, and applythemselvesespeciallytotheweak,thetempted,thefearful,thosewhoarereadytodespond,ortohalt—andtoencouragethemintheLord.Choosethosetothisendwhoareenduedwithaspiritofcourageandfortitude;andletthemknowthattheyarehappywhomChristwillhonourwith thisblessedwork.AndIdesire that thepersonswhomaybeof thisnumber,are faithfulmen,andknowthestateoftheChurch.BythisyouwillknowtheframeofthemembersoftheChurch,whichwillbeagreatdirectiontoyou,eveninyourprayers.Watchnow,brethren,thatifitisthewillofGod,notonesoulmaybelostfromunderyourcare;letnoonebeoverlookedorneglected;consideralltheirconditions,andapplyyourselvestoalltheircircumstances.

516Finally,brethren,sothatIwillnotatpresentbefurthertroublesometoyou,examineyourselvesastoyourspiritualbenefitwhichyouhavereceivedordoreceive—byyourpresentfearsanddangers,whichalonewillgiveyouthetruemeasureofyourcondition.For if this tendstotheexerciseofyourfaith,andoflove,andholiness,ifthisincreasesyourvaluationoftheprivilegesoftheGospel,thenitwillbeanundoubtedtokenoftheblessedresultwhichtheLordChristwillgiveforyourtroubles.Prayformeasyoudo,that if it isthewillofGod,Imayberestoredtoyou;andifnot,thenratherablessedentrancemaybegiventomeintothekingdomofGodandglory.SalutealltheChurchinmyname.ItaketheboldnessintheLordtosubscribemyself,

YourunworthyPastor,etc.J.OWEN,

ToCharlesFleetwood,Esq,DEARSIR,

Ireceivedyours,andamgladtohearofyourwelfare;thereismorethanordinarymercyineveryday’s preservation. My wife, I bless God, is much revived, so that I do not despair of herrecovery:but formyself. Ihavebeenunderthepowerofvariousdistempers for fourteendayspast, and yet continue so. God is fastening his instruction concerning the approach of thatseason,inwhichImustlaydownthistabernacle.IthinkmymindhasbeentoointentonsomethingswhichIlookedonasservicesfortheChurch;butGodwouldhaveusknowthatHehasnoneedofmeorthem,andisthereforecallingmeofffromthem.Helpmewithyourprayers,thatImay through the richesofhisgrace inChrist,be in somemeasure ready formyaccount.Thetruth is,we cannot see the latter rain in its season, aswe have seen the former, and a latterspringthereon:death,thatwillturninthestreamsofgloryuponourpoorwitheringsouls,isthebest relief. I begin to fear thatwe shall die in thiswilderness; yetwe should labourandpraycontinually, that the heavens would drop down from above, and the skies pour downrighteousness, that theearthmayopenandbring forthsalvation,and that righteousnessmayspring up together. If ever I return to you in this world, I beseech you to contend yetmoreearnestlythanIhaveeverdone—withGod,withmyownheart,withtheChurch—tolabourafterspiritualrevivals.OuraffectionateservicetoyourLady,andtoallyourfamilythatareofthehouseholdofGod.Iam,etc.

517Tothesame.

DearSir,

Thebearerhasstayedlongenoughwithustosaveyouthetroubleofreadinganaccountofmeinmyownscribbling;a longerstayIcouldnotprevailwithhimfor,tho’hiscompanywasagreat refreshment to me. Both you and your whole family, in all their occasions andcircumstances,aredailyinmythoughts;andwhenIamabletopray,Imentionyouallwithoutceasing.IfindyouandIaremuchincomplaining.FormypartImustsay,andistherenotacause?Somuchdeadness;somuchunspirituality;somuchweaknessinfaith,coldnessinlove,instabilityinholymeditations—asIfindinmyself—issufficientcauseforcomplaints.Butistherenot also cause for thanksgiving and joy in theLord?Are therenot reasons for them?WhenIbegintothinkofthem,Iamoverwhelmed—theyaregreat,theyareglorious,theyareinexpressible.ShallInowinviteyoutothisgreatdutyofrejoicingmoreintheLord?PrayformethatImaydoso—forthenearapproachofmydissolutioncallsforitearnestly.Myheartisdonewiththisworld,eveninthebestandmostdesirableofitsrefreshments.IfthejoyoftheLordisnotnowstrengthforit,itwillfail.ButImustbedone.UnlessGodispleasedtoaffectsomeperson,orpersons,withadeepsenseofourdecliningcondition,ofthetemptationsanddangersoftheday,fillingthemwithcompassionforthesoulsofmen,makingthemferventinspirit in their work, it will go but ill with us. It may be that these thoughts spring fromcauselessfears; itmaybethatnoneamongushasanevil,barrenheartbutmyself.Butbearwithmeinthis,myfolly;IcannotlaydownthesethoughtsuntilIdie;nordoImentionthematpresent,astho’IshouldnotesteemitagreatmercytohavesoableasupplyasMr.C.butIamgroaningafterdeliverance.Andbeingnearthecentre,IhopeIfeelthedrawingoftheloveof Christwithmore earnestness than formerly. Butmy naughty heart is backward in thesecompliances.MyaffectionateservicetoSirJohnHartoppandhisLady,andtotherestofyourfamilywhenGodreturnsthemtoyou.Iam,etc.

The five precedingLetters are from theAppendix toAsty’sMemoirs ofDr.Owen.1721.

ToSirJohnHartopp.—Myduty,myobligations,andmyinclinations,allconcur intheesteemIhaveforyouboth;andImentionyoudaily inmypoorsupplications—andthat iswithparticularrespect to thepresentconditionofyourLady:ThatGod,whohasrevealedhimselftous,astheGodwhohearsprayer,will yet glorifyHis name, and be a present help to her in the time of trouble. In themeantime,lether,andyou,andme,strivetoloveChristmore,toabidewithhimmore,andtobelessinourselves.Heisourbestfriend.IprayGodwithallmyheartthatImaybewearyofeverything else, but converse and communion with Him. Indeed, weary of the best of mymercies,sofarastheymayatanytimebehindrancesofit.MywifepresentsherhumbleservicetoyourLadyandyourself,asdoesalso,Sir,etc.

518Dr.OwentoaFriend.

SIR,

IamverysorrytofindthatadifferencehasarisenbetweenMr.Candyourself.Sincethereceiptofyours,Ireceivedonefromhim,withanaccountofthedifference,andhisthoughtsuponitatlarge.Idonotthereforejudgeitfittingtowriteanythingatpresentaboutit,untilIamreadytogivetoyoubothanaccountofmythoughts,which—becauseofmanyavocations—Icannotdonow. Therefore, all I will say at present, is that withoutmutual love, and condescension, nointerpositionofadvicewillissuethebusinesstothegloryofChristandtheGospel.IprayGodtoguide you both by that Spirit which is promised to lead us into all truth. Upon the firstopportunity,youwillhaveafurtheraccountofhissense,whois,etc.

January2d,1679.The last twoLettersaregiven fromDr.Williams’ accountofDr.Owen,prefixedtohisAbridgementoftheExpositionoftheHebrews,bywhomtheywerefirstpublished.

CHRONOLOGICALLISTOFTHEWORKSOFOWEN,

WITHREFERENCESTOTHEPAGESOFTHISVOLUMEINWHICHANACCOUNTISGIVENOFTHEM.

PAGES.

1642DisplayofArminianism, 4to. 29-35

1643TheDutyofPastorsandPeopledistinguished, 4to. 47-50

1645TheprinciplesoftheDoctrineofChrist,intwoCatechisms,

12mo. 52-54

1646AVisionofUnchangeableMercy,aSermon, 4to. 54-56

1647Eshcol:orRulesforChurchfellowship, 12mo 78-79

1648SalusElectorum,aTreatiseonRedemption, 4to. 79-84

1648 Memorial of the deliverance of Essex: twoSermons

4to. 85-87

1649 Righteous Zeal: a Sermon, and Essay onToleration,

4to. 89-97

1649 The Shaking and Translating of Heaven andEarth:aSermon,

4to. 111-112

1649HumanPowerDefeated:aSermon, 4to. 115.

1650OftheDeathofChrist,inanswertoBaxter, 4to. 119-121

1650TheSteadfastnessofPromises:aSermon, 4to. 122

1650TheBranchoftheLord;twoSermons, 4to. 125-126

1651 The Advantage of the Kingdom of Christ: aSermon,

4to. 137-139

1652TheLabouringSaint’sDismission:aSermon, 4to. 139-140

1652Christ’sKingdomandtheMagistrate’sPower:aSermon

4to. 141

1653DeDivinaJustitia:Translated1794, 12mo. 201-204

1654TheDoctrineoftheSaints’Perseverance, Fol. 205-

210

1655VindiciaeEvangelicae:ReplytoBiddle, 4to. 213-218

1656OntheMortificationofSin, 8vo. 219-220

1656ReviewoftheAnnotationsofGrotius, 4to. 222-223

1656GodsWorkinFoundingZion;aSermon, 4to. 160-161

1656God’sPresencewithhisPeople;aSermon, 4to. 162-163

1657OnCommunionwithGod, 4to. 252-256

1657ADiscoveryofthetruenatureofSchism, 12mo. 257-259

1657AReviewoftheTrueNatureofSchism, 12mo. 262-263

1658AnswertoCawdryaboutSchism, 12mo. 264

1658OftheNatureandpowerofTemptation, 12mo. 501

1659TheDivineOriginaloftheScriptures, 12mo. 265-267

1659VindicationoftheHebrewandGreekTexts, 12mo. 267-272

1659ExercitationesadversusFanaticos, 12mo. 273-275

1659ThegloryofNationsprofessing theGospel: aSermon,

4to. 276

1659OnthePoweroftheMagistrateaboutReligion, 4to. 293

1660APrimerforChildren, 12mo, 293

1661Theologoumena, 4to. 293-296

1662CriticismsonFiatLux, 12mo. 297

1664;VindicationoftheCriticisms, 8vo. 297-299

1667IndulgenceandTolerationconsidered 4to. 305

1667APeaceOffering,orPleaforIndulgence, 4to. 305

1667 Brief Instruction in the Worship of God: aCatechism,

12mo. 306-309

1668OnIndwellingSin, 8vo. 315-316

1668Expositionofthe130thPsalm, 4to. 316-321

1668ExpositionoftheEpistletotheHebrews,void. Fol. 321-334

1639VindicationoftheDoctrineoftheTrinity, 12mo. 338

1669TruthandInnocenceVindicated, 8vo. 339-342

1671OntheDivineInstitutionoftheLord’sDay, 8vo. 349-355

1672OnEvangelicalLove, 8vo. 360-361

1674VindicationoftheWorkonCommunion, 12mo. 379-381

1674DiscourseontheHolySpirit, Fol. 381-390

1674ExpositionoftheHebrews,vol.ii. Fol. 321-334

1674Howwemaybringourheartstobearreproof, 4to. 359

1676OntheNatureofApostasy, 8vo. 390-391

1677TheReasonofFaith, 8vo. 382-390

1678OntheDoctrineofJustification, 4to. 401-408

1678 The Ways and Means of Understanding theMindofGod,

8vo. 382-390

1679Christologia,orthePersonChrist, 4to. 409-412

1679TheChurchofRomenoSafeGuide, 4to. 412-413

1680OnUnionamongProtestants, 4to. 414-415

1680VindicationoftheNon-conformists 4to. 415-417

1680ExpositionoftheHebrews,vol.iii. Fol. 321-334

1681DefenceoftheVindication, 4to. 419

1681InquiryintoEvangelicalChurches, 4to. 422-438

1681HumbleTestimony, 8vo. 438-439

1681OnSpiritualMindedness, 4to. 439-441

1682TheWorkoftheHolySpiritinPrayer, 4to. 382-390

1682TheChambersofImagery 4to. 359

1683AnAccountoftheProtestantReligion, 4to. 441

1684MeditationsontheGloryofChrist,PartI. 8vo. 442-443

1684ExpositionoftheHebrews,vol.iv. Fol. 321-334

1688OftheDominionofSinandGrace, 8vo. 500-501

1689TrueNatureofaGospelChurch, 4to. 422-438

1691MeditationsontheGloryofChrist,PartII 8vo. 442-443

1693TwoDiscoursesontheWorkoftheSpirit, 8vo. 382-390

1695EvidencesoftheFaithofGod’sElect, 8vo. 501-502

1720 Seventeen Sermons, with the originalDedications,”etc.towhichareadded“ManuscriptsoftheDoctor’s,neverbeforeprinted.”TheamountoftheseMSS.is“AnAnswertotwoQuestions,withtwelve Arguments against any Conformity toWorshipnotofDivineInstitution,”2vols.

8vo. 500

1721SermonsandTracts, Fol. 502

1756ThirteenSermons, 8vo. 502

1760Twenty-fiveDiscoursesattheLord’sSupper, 12mo. 502

INDEX.

A

Abney,SirThomasandLady,363Alleine,Joseph,186Alsop,Vincent,347,417Ames,DrWilliam,69Anglesea,Earlof,373Angier,Samuel,395Andrews,Mordecai,489Arminianism,progressof,30-34Army,Parliamentary,116,117Arnold,Nicholas,213Assembly,Westminster,71-75,478Ashwood’sbestTreasure,509Asty’sMemoirsofOwen,3

B

Bagshaw,Edward,184Baillie’saccountofIndependency,74Barlow,Bishop,12,179,397,400Baron,James,176Barret,Mr.,417Baxter,Richard,hischaracter,119HisControversieswithOwen,119-122HisattemptsatunionwithIndependents,309HischaracterofOwen,471

Bendish,Mrs.,371Berkely,Earlof,376Berry,Maj.Gen365Biddle,John,210Binning,Hugh,127Blackburn,Archdeacon,490Boyle,Hon.Robert,179Bridge’sSermons,506Brooke,Lord,496Brown,Robert,65,486Browning,Thomas,489Brownists,66,67Bunyan,John,398Burton,Henry,100,494Burnet,Bishop,quoted,130,182Busby,Dr.,490Busher,Leonard,99Button,Ralph,176

C

Calamy,Edmund,27Cane,J.V.,296Carstairs,William,445CarylonJob,333HisSermons,507Hisdeathandcharacter,362

Casaubon.Meric,193

Cawdry,Daniel,146,189HisControversywithOwen,260-265

Cawton,Thomas,184CharlesI.hisdeathunjustlyascribedtotheIndependents89-93CharlesII.hischaracter,287ConverseswithOwen,377

Charnock,Stephen,175,484Chauncey,Charles,347Isaac,499

Cheynel,Francis,212ChristChurch,accountof,134OwenappointedDeanof,132-135

Christian’s,the,NonUltra,504Clagett,William,attacksOwen’sworkontheSpirit,387Clarendon,Lord,intercoursebetweenhimandOwen,290,299Clarke,Samuel,179Clark’s,Samuel,Annotations,510Clarkson,David,395-397Claude,Monsieur,420Cole,Thomas,176Coles,Elisha,onSovereignty,509Commonwealth,stateofReligionduringthe,242Compton,Bishop,182ConventicleAct,344Cook,Dr.,quoted,107Cotton,John,264Defenceof,againstCawdry,504

Crew,Bishop,182Cromwell,Oliver,Owen’sfirstinterviewwith,112HisCharacter,114Ambition,163-165Owen’sEulogyon,198HisDeathandCharacter,241

Cromwell,Richard,198SucceedshisFather,275HisFall,276-280

Crooke,Unton,158-159Cumberland,Bishop,183

D

Daille,John,ontheColossians,506Degrees,Theological,disapprovedofbymanyoftheReformers,andbyOwen,144-146Desborough,Col.368Dickson,David,323Dissenters,sufferingsof,303Downhame,Bishop,323Dort,synodof,31,477Dublin,Owen’slaboursin,118Universityof,revived,123

Dunstar,Henry,348Duppa,Bishop,11Durham,onSolomon’sSong,505

ontheCommandments,509

E

Eaton,Nathaniel,348Edward’sJohn,againstToleration,43Jonathan,quoted,244

Elliot,John,352Endicott,Governor,302Estwick,Nicholas,212Evelyne,quoted,196Eyre,Joseph,486William,504

F

Fairfax,Lord,85Farmer,John,489Ferguson,Robert,393-394Fielding,John,489FifthMonarchyPeople,288Firmin,Giles,260Fisher,Samuel,274Fleetwood,Charles,363-365

G

Gale,Theophilus,176,504-505Gataker,William,224Gibbon’saccountofOxford,180Gilbert,Claudius,486Thomas,204Gillespie,Patrick,488,509Goddard,Dr.,176Goodwin,John,206Thomas,D.D.,144,175,413Gouge,Robert,489Thomas,508William,323Government,Cromwell’sInstrumentof,debaterespecting,148-152Greenwood,Dr.Daniel,177Grey,Dr.quoted,95Grotius,220-222

H

Hammond,Dr.,220-225,259Harris,Dr,178Harrison,Dr.,484Harmar,Dr.,178Hartcliffe,John,8Hartopp,SirJohnandLady,366,512Harvard,John,348HarvardCollege,348,349Haversham,LordandLady,370-371Henry,Philip,185Hervey’sclassificationofthePuritanwriters,475

Hoar,Dr.,349Hood,Dr.,179Hooke,Robert,179Hopkins,Bishop,182Horne,John,84Horsley,Bishop,491Hotchkis,Thomas,381,408Howe,John,177,417Howel,Francis,176Hoyle,Dr.,179Hume,David,quoted,106Humfrey,John,388,408,420,470Hyde,Dr.,179

I

Independency,theprinciplesof,63,64Riseandprogressof,65-75Cromwell’sinfluenceon,246-249EarlystateofinIreland,484-486EarlystateofinScotknd,486-488Allegedschismaticalnatureof,496

Independents,accountoftheirdress,197TheirConfessionofFaith,229-230MeetattheSavoyforthispurpose,231-232ViewofthedeclarationofFaiththereagreedto,232-238Baxter’shostilitytoit,238Forbes’stestimonyinitsfavour,238-239Notmuchknown,240—241Theiranxietytosecuretheirliberty,282-284

Independent,ontheuseoftheterm,493Indulgence,declarationof,355DissentersaddresstheKingonthesubjectof,357

Ireton,Henry,139,140Ireland,stateofreligionin,122,124,484

J

Jackson,Mr.,27Jacob,Henry,68JamesI.hischaracterandconducttowardthePuritans,7-8Jenner,Mr.,486Jessop,Constantine,480Jews,conferencerespecting,159Jones,William,323Johnson,Francis,177Jortin,Dr.,quoted,243

K

Kendall,Dr210Kinaston,Roger,animpostor,191Kirkton,James,quoted,131,132

L

Laing’saccountofIndependent8,74,481

Lamb,Thomas,210LampeonJohn,334Langbain,Dr.179Langley,Dr.Henry,178Laud,Archbishop,16,17Lawson,George,324Lee,Samuel,175Levellers,the,115,116Lichfield,Leonard,191Lloyd,Bishop,183,191Lob,Stephen,420,510Locke,John,106Ludlowquoted,280Loeffs,Isaac,394Lukin,Henry,505Lushington,Thomas,323

M

Maresius,213Marsh,Archbishop,183Marvell,Andrew,342,344Massachusetts,GeneralCourtof,invitesDr.OwentoBoston,300,302Mather,Cotton,quoted,3Nathanael,501Samuel,484

Milton,46,105,137,495Monk,General,282,283More,Thomas,83MorningExercise,359Morton,Charles,186Mosheimquoted,73,92,93Moulin,Lewisdu,176Murcot,John,485

N

Ness’sAntidotetoArminianism,510NewEnglandCongregationalists,improperconductof,335Remonstratedwith,bytheirbrethreninEngland,337Furtherremarkson,493

Nicholas,SirEdward,298

O

Orrery,Earlof,373Owen,Lewis,3Griffith,3Henry,FatherofDr.Owen,3-5Henry,sonoftheabove,8William,sonofdo.8,447Martin,314Mrs.,firstwifeoftheDoctor,36,37Mrs.,hissecondwife,392Thankful,175

Oxford,stateoftheUniversityduringthecivilwars,167Owen’saddressestoit,169,172,199Personsofeminencewhoheldofficeinit,175-178

Owen’saccountofhiscolleaguesinit,180Personsofdistinctiontheneducatedinit,181-187RoyalSocietythenfoundedinit,187Clarendon’saccountofthestrifeofitattheRestoration,187

Owen’smanagementofthepartiesinit,187PoeticaddressesfromittoCromwell,189,191Stateof,theearlypartoflastcentury,490

P

Parker,Bishop,182,338,341Parliament,theLong,54-56Patient,Thomas,435Payne,Thomas,448Penn,William,181,480Penruddock’srising,156-158Penry,John,486Peters,Hugh,484Petto,Henry,489Samuel,508

Plumstead,Augustus,510Pococke,Dr.179Polhill,Edward,380,507Mrs.,371

Poole,Matthew,212Porter,George,175Potter,Christopher,11Powell,Vavasor,506PrayersofCromwell’sChaplains,495PreachingofOfficersofthearmy,483Presbyterians,accountof,38-46Price,Samuel,499Puleston,Lady,511,512Puritans,theirsentimentsandsufferings,5-8

Q

Quakers,conductof,192,195Quick,John,186

R

RacovianCatechism,214,492Religiousliberty,97Originandprogressof,99Advocatesof,104,106,480Pamphletson,479

Restoration,theeffectsof,277,288Reynolds,Dr.133Roberts,Dr.178Robertson,Dr.,quoted,498Robinson,John,68Rogers,John,485

Rule,Gilbert,420Rutherford,Samuel,129

S

Sams,John,489Savage,Dr.Motion,500SavoyDeclarationofFaith,227-240Schurmann,AnnaMaria,469Sedgwick,JohnandObadiah,62Scotland,Owen’sjourneyto,124Hislaboursin,125,126

Stateofreligionin,127-133Scudder’sdailyWalk,503Selden,John,225Shields,Alexander,394Sherlock,Dr.378,380Singleton,John,477Smith,Adam,quoted,109Socinianism,progressof,212-218South,Dr.147,181,191Spirit,extravagantviewsofthe,385,387Sprigge,Joshua,84Staunton,Dr.178Stillingfleet,Dr.,415,422Stubb,Henry,177Supper,Lord’s,observedweeklybythefirstIndependents,497Sylvester,Edward,9

T

Taylor,Bishop,Jeremy,101,102Thomas,Dr.503Timothy,486Thompson,Lady,370,371Tillotson,Archbishop,249,250,251Tregrosse,Thomas,186Trevor,SirJohn,377Trosse,George,185Troughton,John,186Tryers,accountof,152,156

V

Vane,SirHenry,104Vernon’sattackonOwen,345Vice-Chancellor,Owen’sdresswhen,195Vitringa,334

U

Uniformity,Actof,291,292Usher,Archbishop,225

W

Wales,stateofreligionin,162,163Wall,Thomas,419WallingfordHouseparty,276,280Wallis,Dr.178Walton,Bishop,263,273War,civil,causesofthe,22-26Warburton,Bishop,490Ward,Bishop,178Warwick,Earlof,79Watts,Dr.Isaac,-----499Wells,Algernon,489Wesley,John,186Wharton,Lord,375,444Whitelocke’sconversationwiththeQueenofSweden,483Wilkins,Bishop,178Wilkinson,Dr.Henry,sen.177Wilkinson,LadyVere,371Williams,Dr.Edward,83,333Williams,Roger,100Williams,Joseph,407Willoughby,Lord,374Wilson,Dr.Thomas,12Wilson’sHistoryofDissentingChurchesrecommended,500Wolsley,SirCharles,408Wood,Anthony,oftenquoted.Wright’s,Dr.,editionofOwenontheHebrews,322,332

Y

Young,Patrick,452

Z

Zouch,Dr179

Notes

[←1]“I am not obliged to swear allegiance to any master.” — from Horace's Epistle to hisbenefactorMaecenas.

[←2]PrefacetotheLifeofBishopSanderson.

[←3]Dr.WilliamBateswasoneofthemosteminentofthePuritandivines;hetookpartintheSavoy Conference. His collected writings were published in 1700, and fill a large foliovolume.TheDissenterscalledhimsilver-tonguedBates.CalamyaffirmedthatifBateshadconformed to theEstablishedChurch, hemight have been raised to any bishopric in thekingdom.Hediedin1699,agedseventy-four.

[←4]Memoirs,pp.2,3.

[←5]AnthonyWood,AthenaeOxon.

[←6]Mem.

[←7]Treebelongingtothefamily.

[←8]Rev.oftheNat.ofSchism,p.38.

[←9]Ibid.,p.3.

[←10]Hist.ofthePuritans,vol.1.chap.iv.p.186.

[←11]Utsupra,157.

[←12]Dr.Owen’sWill.

[←13]Nichol’sAnecdotes,I.p.64.Birch’sLifeofTillotson,p.238;Weed’sAthen.Ox.II.p.637.

[←14]Contrivancesofthefanaticalconspirators,byW.Smith.

[←15]Wood’sAthen.Passim.

[←16]Athen.Ox.II.pp.44,45.

[←17]AcceptedFrewen(1588-1664)wasapriestintheChurchofEnglandandArchbishopofYorkfrom1660to1664.

[←18]Ibid.p.177.

[←19]Ibid.p.57.

[←20]Ibidp.63.

[←21]Biog.Hist.Art.Thos.Darlow.

[←22]Wood’sLife,p.92.

[←23]Gibbon’sLifeofWatts,p.161.

[←24]Wood’sFasti,vol.I.pp.872—879.

[←25]Mary I, nicknamed “BloodyMary,” who imprisoned reformers, and burnedmany at thestake.HersuccessorwasyoungEdwardVI,aProtestant.

[←26]TakenfromWilliamCowper’spoem,Hope(c.1750)

[←27]Prefacetotheworkontemptation.

[←28]Punctilious: overly fastidious ormeticulous (“picky”);markedby precise accordancewithdetails(minutiae).

[←29]OwenonCommunion,pp.309,310.Ed.1721.

[←30]AthenOx.II.555.

[←31]Athen.Ox.II.p.556.

[←32]Memoirs.

[←33]CharleswasexecutedonJanuary30th,1649.

[←34]Hist.oftheReb.I.p.184.

[←35]Tind.Con.p.5.

[←36]Clarendonpassim,Sylvester’sLifeofBaxter,Part111.p.249.

[←37]The reader will find a full view of this interesting subject in May’s History of the LongParliament; in various parts of Clarendon andWhitelocke; and particularly in a valuableanonymouspamphlet,“AnEssaytowardsattainingatrueideaoftheCharacterandReignofCharlesI,andofthecausesoftheCivilWar.”—1748.

[←38]Baxter’sHolyCommonwealth,p.453,adfinem.

[←39]QuotedtotheEclecticRev.vol.VII.p.11.

[←40]TheLondonCharterhouseisahistoriccomplexofbuildingsinSmithfield,London,datingback to the 14th century; it iswithin the LondonBorough of Islington. It takes its namefromaCarthusianpriory,foundedin1371anddissolvedin1537.Thesitewaslargelyrebuiltafter 1545, as a large courtyardmansion. Itwas altered and extended after 1611,when itbecameanalmshouse(hospital)andschool,endowedbyThomasSutton.

[←41]Memoirs.

[←42]AnotherexcerptfromCowper’spoem,Hope.

[←43]FromJohnMilton’sParadiseLost(1667),bookII,pars.557-561.

[←44]OrigoMali:thesourceandoriginofevil.

[←45]SeeCalvin’sInstitutes,Passim.

[←46]Brandt’sHistoryoftheReform.intheLowCountries,vol.II.Hale’sLettersfromtheSynodofDort.

[←47]Brandt,i.pp.318-321.Heylin’sQuinqartiularHist.p.633.Neal’sPur.ii.pp.132,138.

[←48]Deering’sSpeeches,p.13.

[←49]Thatis,Owenwasgrantedaliving,apaidchurchoffice,atFordhaminEssex.

[←50]SufferingsoftheClergy,p.320.

[←51]Memoirs,Dr.Owen’sWill.

[←52]Baxter’sownLife,i.p.97,etpassim.

[←53]ReviewofthetruenatureofSchism,pp.33,34.

[←54]Puritansiii.chap.vi.p.295.

[←55]Ibid.p.335.

[←56]Baillie’sDissuasive,pp.154-174.

[←57]Baxter’sownLife,partii.p.140.

[←58]etvaleantquantumvalerepossunt–aLatinproverb:ifpowercan,itwill.

[←59]Baxter’sownLife,partii.pp.142-3.

[←60]Crosby’sHistoryoftheBaptists,i.pp.176,177.

[←61]Pref.topartii.

[←62]Edward’sGangrena,parti.p..58.

[←63]Nealiii.ch.vi.pp.302-310.

[←64]Ibid.pp.310

[←65]Crosbyi,p.188.

[←66]p.73.

[←67]Crosbyi.p.190,

[←68]Nealiii.ch.vi.pp.309-10.

[←69]Mue:tomoultorshed.

[←70]Areopagitica,Works,p.393.ed.1697.

[←71]Rev.ofSchism,p.33

[←72]Rev.ofSchism,p.10.

[←73]Ibid.

[←74]Ibid.p.42.

[←75]Rev.ofSchism,p.34.

[←76]Ibid.p.38

[←77]Ibid.p.39.

[←78]Rev.ofSchism,p.48.

[←79]Nondumedito:notyetpublished.

[←80]ThePetition andAdvicewerepresented toParliament in 1657. So thatOwen’s change ofsentimentaboutreligiousliberty,musthavetakenplaceinorabout1645.

[←81]PrefacetoDefenceofCottonagainstCawdry,pp.65-67;publishedin1658.

[←82]Works,p.206.

[←83]Works,p.215.

[←84]Pref.toDef.ofCotton,p.25.

[←85]Works,p.215.

[←86]Ibidp.219.

[←87]Ibid.p.218.

[←88]Ibid.p.218.

[←89]Ibid.p.220.

[←90]Works,p.216.

[←91]Ibid.p.224.

[←92]Works,p.229.

[←93]PrivateInformation.

[←94]Brook’sLivesofthePuritans,vol.iii,p.295.

[←95]See for thispurpose, “ConderonProtestantNon-conformity.”Aworkwhichdeserves thehighest praise for its amiable spirit, its scriptural views, and its hitherto unansweredreasonings.

[←96]Mosheim’sCommentaries on the affairs of theChristians before the timeofConstantine,vol.i.pp.263-267;translatedbyVidal.Campbell’sLecturesonEcclesiasticalHist.i.lect.vi.etpassim.Owen’sInquiry,etc.chapv.

[←97]Fuller’sCh.Hist,bookix.pp.167-169.Baillie’sDissuasive,pp.13-15.

[←98]Robertson’sJustification,p.50.

[←99]Brook’sLives,Art.Penry,vol.ii.p.51.

[←100]Ibid.Art,Hawkins,vol.i.pp.133-149.

[←101]Townsbend’sHistoricalCol.p.176.

[←102]Gibbets:gallows.

[←103]Prince’sChron.Hist.i.p.32.Morton’sNewEng.Mem.p.2.Baillie’sDiss.p.17.

[←104]Brook’sLives,ArticlesRobinson,Jacob,Ames.

[←105]Wilson’sHist.oftheDiss.Churches.i.pp.36-43.

[←106]Nar.pp.3,4.

[←107]Erastian:thedoctrinethatthestateissupremeoverthechurchinecclesiasticalmatters.

[←108]The names of these persons were Thos. Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jer. Burroughs, SydrachSimpson,William Bridge,William Greenhill, Peter Sterry,William Carter, Joseph Caryl,John Unry, John Philips. The first five on this list went by the name of theDissentingBrethren, as they generally took the lead in the public discussions, and were mostlyemployedindrawinguptheprintedpapers.TherewereaboveonehundredMinistersintheAssembly, which sufficiently explains the reason why the Independents were usuallyoutvoted.

[←109]Ch.Historycentxvii.sect.ii.partii.

[←110]Baxter’sownLifepartii.p.140.

[←111]Dissuasivep.53.

[←112]Laing’sHist,ofScotland,vol.i.p.275.—OnthelanguageofLaing,IbegtoobservethatiftheIndependencyinEnglandwasfirstembracedbythehigherclassofsociety,ithasneverbeenthereligionofthelowerclassonly.Thegreatbodyofitssupportershaveallalongbeenfoundinthemiddling,ormercantileandcommercialclassofthepopulation.Whethertheyarethefoolsorfanaticsofthecountrymaybeeasilydetermined.

[←113]Animadversions:harshcriticisms.

[←114]ReviewofthenatureofSchism,inreplytoCawdry,pp.34-36.

[←115]PrefacetoCotton’sDefenceagainstCawdry,pp.61,62.

[←116]Biog.Brit.v.p.i23.

[←117]Preface.

[←118]ActaSynodiDordiechti,p.251.

[←119]p.173.

[←120]p.175.

[←121]Gangrena,partii.p.86.

[←122]Wood’sAthen.ii.p.578.

[←123]Noncon.Mem.iii.pp.5-7.

[←124]EpistleprefixedtoVindiciaeEvangelicae.

[←125]DedicationtotheTwoSermons

[←126]p.251,4to.ed.

[←127]Hist.ofEng.vii.p.26.

[←128]Works,p,259.

[←129]DissentersSayings,partii.p.11.

[←130]Hudibras,partiii.cantoii.1.par.1415.[ThisisaheroicnarrativepoemwrittenbySamuelButler,1662-78.]

[←131]ReflectionsonaslanderousLibel,—Works,p.620.

[←132]Rom.3.8.

[←133]FromMilton’sParadiseLost–adescriptionofhell.

[←134]Caputmortuum:drossorworthlessremains.

[←135]Neal’sHist.ofthePur.iii.p.550.

[←136]BulstrodeWhitelocke (1605-1675)— lawyer,writer, parliamentarian, andLordKeeper oftheGreatSealofEngland.

[←137]Ibid.pp.549-554.

[←138]Ibid.p.549.

[←139]Eccles.Hist.cent.xvii.sect.ii.partii.Note.

[←140]Nealiii.p.593.

[←141]Owen’sMemoirs,p,8.

[←142]Grey’sExamination,vol.iii.p.358.

[←143]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.758.

[←144]LettertoaFriend,etc.pp.15-18.

[←145]DecreeoftheUniv.ofOx.1683.

[←146]Only two of the twenty-seven propositions of this celebrated Decree are extracted fromOwen’swritings.TherestarefromthoseofKnox,Buchanan,Calderwood,Goodwin,Baxter,etc.Dr.Janewastheprincipalpromoterofit;andwhenitwaspresentedtoCharlesII, inthe presence of the Duke of York and the chief persons of the Court by Dr. RobertHuntington(afterwardsBishopofRaphoe),itwasverygraciouslyreceived.—Birch’sLifeofTillotson,p.174,Thecauseof the injured,however,was induetimeavenged inthesamestyle.Foronthetwenty-thirdofMarch,1710,theHouseofLordsorderedtheOxfordDecreetobeburntbythehandsofthehangman.

[←147]“IamaChristian.”

[←148]Thatis,thewhoreofBabylon–consideredthentobetheRomishPope.

[←149]p.40.

[←150]Asforhearthandhome.

[←151]p.314.fol.works.

[←152]Milton’sProseWorks.

[←153]DavidHume,TheHistoryofEngland,chap.58,London,1762.

[←154]Cook’sHistoryoftheChurchofScotland,Vol.iii.pp.94,95.

[←155]Dissuasive,p.155.

[←156]LettersfromtheAssembly,vol.ii.p.85.

[←157]WealthofNations,vol.iii.p.154.–5thEd,1776.

[←158]Prefacetovol.iv.ofHistoryofthePuritans.

[←159]Works,Pol.Ed.p.329.

[←160]Ibid.335.

[←161]Mr. Asty’sMemoirs of Owen connects his acquaintance with Cromwell with his Sermonfrom Rom 4.20. preached Feb. 28, 1649. But this must be a mistake arising from theconfusion sometimes occasioned by the old and new mode of beginning the year. ThatSermonwaspreachedin1656accordingtoourreckoning.Onthesameday1649,hedateshisaddress to thehouseprefixedtohisdiscourseafter theKing’sdeath, fromCoggeshall.AndtheSermononRom.4itselfshowsthathehadbeeninIreland;consequently,itmusthavebeenpreachedsubsequenttohisacquaintancewithCromwell.

[←162]Memoirs,pp,9,10.

[←163]Whitelocke’sMem.p.-371.

[←164]Humevi.p.125.

[←165]Whitelocke,p.398.

[←166]Thatis,nocursing.

[←167]Neal,iv.p.4.

[←168]Maizeaux’LifeofChillingworth,p.331.

[←169]Clarend.Rebel,iv.p.729

[←170]Clarend.LivesofLordChancellors,ii.p.126.

[←171]Loveofcountry.

[←172]TheloveofGod,andeternalglory.

[←173]Owen’sDeathofChrist,fol.works,p.47.

[←174]Bookii.chap.6.

[←175]Easter’sownLife,passim.

[←176]An incurable itch forwriting,possessesmany– fromtheSatiresofJuvenal, first centuryA.D.

[←177]Logomachy:anargumentaboutwordsorthemeaningofwords.

[←178]Prolix:overlywordy(unnecessarilyso).

[←179]Life,parti.p.107.

[←180]Ser.andTracts,p.355.

[←181]Neal,iv.p.76.

[←182]Ibid.

[←183]Forthepropagationofthefaith.

[←184]Whitelocke,p.456.

[←185]Nealiv.pp.24-26.

[←186]“Theseletters,”Humesays,“arethebestofCromwell’swretchedcompositionsthatremain,and maintain the chief points of the Independent theology.” From their phraseology, IstronglysuspecttheyweretheproductionofOwen’spen.

[←187]Kirkton.

[←188]Biographia Scoticana, p. 167 ─ Binning was aman of piety, talents, and learning, as hisposthumousworksevince.Hissermons,consideringthetimeatwhichhelived,andthathediedinhistwenty-sixthyear,dohimverygreathonour.

[←189]ActsofAssemblyfrom1638to1649,printedEdin.1652,pp.192,355,etpassim.

[←190]Mem.p.456.

[←191]Prefaceto“ALittleStoneoutoftheMountain,”byLockyer,1652.

[←192]Binning’sworks,Edin,1735,p.518.

[←193]Rutherford’sTestimony,Edin.Printed1713.

[←194]Binning’sworks,p.518.

[←195]Ibid,p.516.

[←196]Baillie’sLetters,volii.p.85.

[←197]Historyofhisowntimes,vol.i.p.80.

[←198]Neal,vol.iv.p,54.

[←199]Kirkton’sHistoryoftheChurchofScotland,pp.54,55-64.

[←200]Neal,vol.iv.p.27.

[←201]Sylvester,parti.p.64.

[←202]Mem.x.

[←203]Theworldlypossessionsandpaidofficesofachurch(itspropertyandlivingsorbenefices).

[←204]Neal,vol.iv.14.

[←205]Pref.Ad.Div.Jus.

[←206]Ad.Div.Jus.Pref.

[←207]ProseWorks,p,282.—Symmon’sEd.vol.iii.p.389.

[←208]SermonsandTracts,p.403.

[←209]Ludlow’sMem.volI,p.331.Ed.1761.

[←210]Mem.oftheProtect.HouseofCromwell,vol.ii.p.298.

[←211]Flagellump.121.

[←212]SermonsandTracts,p.428.

[←213]Tocreateanappearanceorjustificationforsomething,soastohideitstruecharacter.

[←214]Sermons,p.137.

[←215]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.p.777

[←216]Pref.Ad.Jus.Div.

[←217]PaperscollectedintheCromwelliana.

[←218]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.pp.782,783.

[←219]Werenfelsliopuscula,pp.304,305.—Hornbeek,Sum.Cont.pp.754,756.Mat23:8"Butdonotbecalled‘Rabbi';forOneisyourTeacher,theChrist,andyouareallbrethren.”

[←220]PrefacetoCotton’sDefence,pp.96-98.

[←221]Wood’sFasti,editedbyGutch,p.192.

[←222]Independencyfurtherprovedtobeaschism,p.33.

[←223]Athen.Ox.ii.p.557.

[←224]Pref.toCotton’sDef.p.24.

[←225]Ibid.p.37.

[←226]p.8.

[←227]Vol.iv.p.76.

[←228]Ibid.iv.p.74.

[←229]Asawarningoralarm.

[←230]Neal,iv.pp.97-102.

[←231]Sylvester’s Baxter, p. ii. pp. 197-205. Appendix, p. 75. ─ symptoms of sleepiness, withrestrictedvision.

[←232]Apersistentdeterminationtodisagree.

[←233]Neal,vol.iv,p.91.

[←234]Ibid.

[←235]Neal,iv.p.100.

[←236]Athen.Ox.ii.pp.556-557.

[←237]Scobel’sActs,p.123.

[←238]Neal,iv.p.109.

[←239]Penruddock’sUprising–oneofaseriesofuprisingsplannedbytheSealedKnot(aroyalistgroupcommissionedbyCharlesIIin1653-54),aspartofaRoyalistinsurrection.ItwastostartMarch1655.

[←240]Thurloe’sStatePapers,vol.iii.p.781.

[←241]Pococke’sLife,prefixedtohisWorks,p.41.

[←242]Calamy’sLifeofHowe,pp.20,21.

[←243]Sylvester’sBaxter,parti.p.72.

[←244]Thurloe’sStatePapers,iii,p.281.

[←245]Beadle:aminorparishofficialwhoservesaceremonialfunction.

[←246]Abaddon:Thedestroyer,orangelofthebottomlesspit.

[←247]LettertoaFriend,p.13.

[←248]ReflectionsonaLibel,Works,p.617.

[←249]Noble’sMemoirs,ii.p.533.Ludlow,ii.pp.71-72.

[←250]Thurloe’sStatePapers,vol,iv.pp.65,66.

[←251]PublicIntel.forDec.12th,1656.Whitelocke’sMem.p.618.Nealiv.pp.140-142.Dr.Povey’sAngliaJudaica.

[←252]Spence’sAnecdotes,p.216.

[←253]Earnest:adeposit,retainer,ordownpaymentinexpectationoffullpaymentlater.

[←254]Sermons,p.479.

[←255]Neal,iv.pp.116,120.

[←256]Ludlow,ii.pp.131-34.

[←257]Neal,iv.p.180.

[←258]Amunitionsstorehouse.

[←259]Thelivingquarters.

[←260]Walker’sSuff.oftheClergy,p.124.Neal,iii.p.429.

[←261]TerenceAdelph.iv.vi.21.

[←262]Gownsmen: the scholarly teachers of the university, dressed in their hallowed robes ofauthority.

[←263]Oratio,i.pp.1,2.

[←264]Oratio,v.p.20.

[←265]Theterræfilius(sonofthesoil)wasasatiricaloratorwhospokeatpublicceremoniesoftheUniversityofOxford.AtCambridge,thesamesortoforatorwascalledthe“prevaricator”–someonewhosefancifulliesprovokedadebateamongthestudents,asameanstoentertainthem.Itwastheater.

[←266]Bocardo: a prison located near the church of St Michael; it consisted of rooms in awatchtowerbyOxford'sNorthGate.

[←267]Memoirs,xi.

[←268]Memoirs,xi.

[←269]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.556.

[←270]Thankful Owen (1620–1681). His management of the college property was far fromsatisfactory;duringhistenureofoffice,muchofthecollegeestateswereleasedaslivingstohisfriendsandrelations.

[←271]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.p.734.

[←272]Non.Mem.vol.i.p.235.

[←273]Ibid,vol.i.p.217.

[←274]Ibid,vol.i.p.210.

[←275]Non.Mem.i.p.105.

[←276]Ibid,iii,p.126-7.

[←277]South’sLife,p.10.

[←278]Ward’sLives,p.270-3.

[←279]Ath.Ox.vol.ii.p.451.

[←280]Non.Mem.i.p.249.

[←281]Ibid,p.288.

[←282]Ibid,p.234.

[←283]Fasti,volii.p753.

[←284]Non-con.Mem.vol.i.p.257.

[←285]Calamy’sLifeofHowe.

[←286]Athen.Ox.vol.ii,p.412.

[←287]Non-con.Mem,vol.i.p.241.

[←288]Ibid.vol.i.p.242.

[←289]Neal,vol.iii.p.468.

[←290]Non-con.Mem.vol.i.p.221-8.

[←291]Ibid,p.229.-Conantinihildifficile(usinghisname),meansattemptinganythinghard.

[←292]Neal,vol.iii.p.469.

[←293]Ibid,voliii.p.470.

[←294]Ibid,vol.iii.p.470.

[←295]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.347.—Non-con.Mem.vol.ii.p.265.

[←296]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.370.

[←297]Timeserver:someonewhoconformstocurrentwaysandopinionsforpersonaladvantage.

[←298]Ibid,vol.ii.p.627.

[←299]Neal,vol.iii.p.472.

[←300]Pococke’sLife,prefixedtohisworks.

[←301]Wood’sAthen.vol.ii.p.166.–Civilian:someoneskilledincivillaw.

[←302]Ibid,p.140.

[←303]Neal,vol.iii.p.459.

[←304]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.113.

[←305]Birch’sLifeofBoyle,pp.54-56.RobertBoyle(1627-1691)—philosopher,chemist,physicist,andinventor.Heisregardedasthefirstmodernchemist,andhelpedpioneerthescientificmethod.HeisbestknownforBoyle'sLaw.

[←306]Pref. ad Diat. Dir. Jus. — The account which the historian Gibbon gives of the state ofOxfordinthemiddleofthelastcentury,whenhepassedsometimeinit,isverymelancholy,and formsa singular contrastwith theviewwhich thepreceding statementsaffordof thelearning, industry,andpietywhichadorned it inthedaysofmisruleand fanaticism.“IfIinquire,”hesays,“intothemanufacturesoftheMonksofMagdalen,ifIextendtheinquirytotheotherCollegesofOxfordandCambridge,asilentblushorascornfulfrownwillbetheonlyreply.TheFellows,orMonksofmytime,weredecent,easymen,whosupinelyenjoyedthegiftsof the founder.Theirdayswere filledbya seriesofuniformemployments— theChapeland theHall, theCoffeeHouse,and theCommonRoom—till theyretired,wearyandwellsatisfied,toalongslumber.Fromthetoilofreading,orthinking,orwritingtheyhadabsolvedtheirconsciences;andthefirstshootsof learningandingenuitywitheredonthe ground, without yielding any fruits to the owners or the public. As a GentlemanCommoner, I was admitted to the society of the Fellows, and fondly expected that somequestionsofliteraturewouldbetheamusingandinstructivetopicsoftheirdiscourse.Theirconversation stagnated in a round of College business, Tory politics, personal anecdotes,andprivateslander.Theirdullanddeeppotationsexcusedthebriskintemperanceofyouth;andtheirconstitutionaltoastswerenotexpressiveofthemostlivelyloyaltyfortheHouseofHanover.”—Gibbon’sMemoirsofhisownLifeandWritings,vol.i.p.38.

[←307]Birch’sLifeofTillotson,p.124.

[←308]South‘sLife.

[←309]LifeofAnthonyWood,p.85.

[←310]Biog.Dict.

[←311]Wood’sFasti,vol,ii,p.797.

[←312]Ibid.p.772.

[←313]Ibid,p.792.

[←314]Wood’sLife.

[←315]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.495.

[←316]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.p.780.

[←317]Ibid.vol.ii.p.792.—Birch’sLifeofBoyle.

[←318]Hist.ofhisowntimes,vol.i.p.280.

[←319]Biog.Dict.

[←320]Birch’sLifeofTillotson,p.185.

[←321]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.p.786—Birch’sLifeofTillotson,pp.137,138.

[←322]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.629.

[←323]Grueller: someonewhoworks to thepointofexhaustion,orexactsseverepunishmentonthemselvesorothers.

[←324]Ibid.vol.ii;pp.616,621.

[←325]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.647.

[←326]Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 617.Nonjuror: Someonewho refuses to swear a particular oath;specifically,aclergymanwhorefusedtotaketheoathofallegiancetoWilliamandMaryin1689.

[←327]Ibid,vol.ii.p.780.

[←328]Ibid.

[←329]Ibid,p.793.

[←330]Biog.Dict.

[←331]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.p.793.

[←332]Ibid.—Biog.Dict.

[←333]Fasti,vol.iip.796.

[←334]Ibid.vol.ii.p.802.—Burnet’sownTimes,iv.p.110.

[←335]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.685.

[←336]Burnet’sownTimes,i.p.273.

[←337]Burnet’sownTimes,i.p.278.

[←338]Biog.Hist.

[←339]Athen.Ox.vol,ii.p.491.

[←340]MemoirsofPhilipHenry,byhisSon,p.19.

[←341]Calamy’sContinuation,vol.1.p.385.

[←342]Non-con.Mem.vol.ii.p.165.

[←343]Ibid,vol.ii.p.9.

[←344]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.299.—Non-con.Mem.vol.iii.p.206.

[←345]Clark’sLives.

[←346]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.511.

[←347]Non-con.Mem.vol.i.347.

[←348]Calamy’sLifeofBaxter,andContinuation—Noncon.Mem.passim.

[←349]Thomson’sHistoryoftheRoyalSociety,pp.1,2.

[←350]HistoryoftheRebellion,vol.iii.p.57.

[←351]Memoirs,p.xi.

[←352]Memoirs,p.xii.

[←353]Wood’sFasti,vol.ii.p.788.

[←354]LifeofPhilipHenry,p.17.

[←355]Independencyfurtherprovedtobeaschism,p.30.

[←356]Ser.iii.p.544.

[←357]IexaminedthiscuriousvolumeintheBritishMuseum,andextractedOwen’sversesfromit;butsomeaccountofitisfurnishedbyDr.HarrisintheLifeofCromwell,pp.369,370.

[←358]lifeofAnthonyWood,pp.132-136.

[←359]Sewel’sHistoryoftheQuakers,pp.90,91.

[←360]pp.57,58.

[←361]SermonsandTracts,pp.619,620.

[←362]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.557.

[←363]SermonsandTracts,p.619.

[←364]Vernon,p.22.Halliday’sLifeofLordMansfield,p.172.

[←365]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.556.

[←366]Perstringing:criticizingorcensuring.

[←367]Inceptor:thecommencementspeaker.

[←368]Evelyne’sMemoirs,vol.i.p.276.

[←369]Works,pp.618,619.

[←370]ThisisnotthefirsttimethattheIndependentshadbeenrepresentedasmenofgayetyandfashion.“Youshallfindthemtheonlygallantsintheworld,”saysBastwick,“sothatonewhomeets themwouldtakethemforroarersandruffians,rather thansaints. Indeed,youwillfindthemwithcuffs,andthosegreatonesattheirveryheels;andwithmoresilverandgoldupontheirclothesandat theirheels (for thoseupstartsmustnowhavesilverspurs) thanmanygreatandhonourablepersonageshaveintheirpurses.”(fromBastwick’sutterroutingoftheIndependentarmy:PrefacetotheReader)WhowouldthinkthattheIndependentswerethegrim-facedhypocritesoftheCommonwealth?ButforthecounterpartofOwen,seeAddison’sdescriptionof an IndependentDivine, supposed tobeDr.Goodwin,Spectator,No.494.AmongtheotherchargesbroughtagainstthembyEdwardsis,“Theirgoinginsuchfinefashionableapparel,andwearinglonghair,as‘tisashame;theyfeast,rideonjourneys,anddoservilebusinessontheFastdays.AndletamanbutturnSectarynow-a-days,andwithinonehalfyear,heissometamorphosedinapparel,hair,etc.thatamanhardlyknowshim.”—Gangrena,p.i.page62.

[←371]Biog.Hist.iii.p.301.

[←372]Splenetic:prickly,peevish,spiteful.

[←373]Ibid.p.302

[←374]OratioadRichardumCrom.

[←375]Thenumberswere left blank in theOration— Ihave supplied themas far as I can fromWood;buttheymaynotbequiteaccurate.

[←376]Oratio,v.p.22.

[←377]Prolocutor:presidingofficer.

[←378]Prefatio.

[←379]Ibid.

[←380]Meadisanintoxicatingbeveragemadeoffermentedhoneyandwater.

[←381]VindiciaeSupremiDeiDomini(cumDeo)Initae:SiveThesesaliquot,etThesiumInstantiaeopposititaenuperDoct.AudoeniDiatribaedeJustitiaPeccatiVindicatrice,etc.Lond.1655,8vo

[←382]Baxter’sownlife,parti.p.116.

[←383]Odiumtheologicum:bitternesstypicalofreligiouscontroversies,givingrisetoanunyieldingrefusaltocontinueadiscussion.

[←384]Baxter’sownLife,parti.p.110.

[←385]Pref.totheDiv.OriginoftheScriptures,Ox.1659.

[←386]Neal,vol.iii.p.497.

[←387]Scobel’sActs.Crosby’sHist.oftheBap.i.pp.199-205.

[←388]JohnMilton,“OntheNewForcersofConscience.”InthispoemheattacksthePresbyterianleadersforbecomingforcersofthoughtandconscienceasbadasArchbishopLaudandhisfellow-prelateshadbeen.

[←389]Biddle’sTractsandLife.Toulmin’sLifeofBiddle,Athen.Ox.ii.p.197.

[←390]Neal,vol.iv.pp.135,136.

[←391]Pref.p.69.

[←392]Pref.pp.68-69.

[←393]Preface.Principlereferstoagoverningruleoflife–thatwhichdrives,guides,andmeasuresourconduct.

[←394]Scholia:marginalnoteswrittenbyacommentatoronancientliterature–inthiscase,ontheBible.

[←395]WatchiiBib.Selecta,tom.i.p.912.

[←396]Lilly’slife,byhimself,passim.

[←397]Walker’sSuff.oftheClergy,partii.p.132.

[←398]DedicatoryEpis.totheDivineOrigin,oftheScriptures.

[←399]SeeDunlopontheendsandusesofCreedsandConfessions;andtheConfessionalofArch-deaconBlackburn,fortheproandconofthissubject.

[←400]The designation of Independents is supposed to have been derived from the followingsentenceinthiswork.“Coetumquemlibetparticularem,essetotam,integrum,etperfectamecclesiamexsuispartibusconstantem,immediateetindependenter(quoadaliasecclesias)subipsoChristo.”Cap.v.ThatthedenominationIndependentwasnotassumed,butgiven,isevidentfromthetitlesofmanyoftheearlydefencesofthebody,andfromtheirrepeatedprotests against the misconstruction which this term occasioned. They claimed to beIndependentofotherchurchesmerely intheexerciseofdiscipline.Inthissense,allotherchurchesprofess tobe Independent, asno churchallows the exerciseof authority, or therightof interference,beyond itsownbody.Thework fromwhichIhavequotedtheabovesentenceisoneofthemanyproofsthatmightbeadduced,thattheBrownistswereneitherdestituteoflearning,norenemiestoit.

[←401]Neal,vol.iv.188.

[←402]Peek’sDesiderataCuriosa.ii.591.

[←403]Neal,vol.iv.pp.189,190.

[←404]“Werathergivethisnotice,”saythePrefacerstotheSavoyDeclaration,“becausethatcopyof theParliament’s, followedbyus, is in fewmen’s hands; the other as it came from theAssembly,beingapprovedof inScotland,wasprintedandhastenedintotheworld,beforetheParliamenthaddeclaredtheirresolutionsaboutit;andyetithasbeen,andcontinuestobe,theonlycopyordinarilysold,printed,andreprintedfortheseelevenyears.”

[←405]2Pet2.19.

[←406]It is common for somewhoabusemodern Independents, toprofess great respect for theearly founders of the denomination. This, however, is a mere pretence — as the sameafflictionswereenduredbythem,whichareaccomplishedintheirbrethren,whoarenowintheworld.Timeandjuxtapositionproducemanycuriouschanges;buttruthandpietyarestillthesame,andinvariablyexperiencethesametreatment.

[←407]Sylvester’sBaxter,parti.p.164.Baxter’sCatholicCommunionDefended,partv.p.8.

[←408]MemoirsofDr.Owen,pp.21-22.

[←409]Memoirs, pp. 42-44, where Owen’s letter to DuMoulin is inserted; but it is not now ofenoughimportancetoreprint.

[←410]Besidesthefirstedition,printedin1659,IhavemetwiththefollowingeditionsoftheSavoyDeclaration.Aneditionin18mo,1688,onein8vo.1729;oneinIpswich,in8vo.1745,andonein8vo.publishedatOswestry,in1812.

[←411]Baxt.Life,parti.pp.98-101.

[←412]Lettertoafriend,p.9.

[←413]SermonsandTracts,p.617.

[←414]Jortin’sRemarksonEccles.Hist.vol.ii.p.270.

[←415]DistinguishingMarksofaWorkoftheSpiritofGod,byJonathanEdwards,1741.pp.29,31.ThewholeTractisdeservingofanattentiveperusal.

[←416]Precisian:Anover-preciseperson;onerigidlyorceremoniouslyexactintheobservanceofrules.

[←417]Baxter’sNon-conformist’sPleaforPeace,p.130.

[←418]Disquisitionsonseveralsubjects,bySoameJenynsp.164.

[←419]Hist.ofhisownTime,vol,i.p.116.

[←420]p.17.

[←421]“The Bishop’s hearsays,” says Lord Lansdowne, “are, in most cases, very doubtful. Hishistoryis littleelsebut ‘suchaonetoldsuchaone,’and ‘suchaonetoldme.’Thissortoftestimony is allowed in no case; nor can the least certainty be built upon stories handedabout from one to another, which must necessarily alter in the several repetitions bydifferentpersons.”LordLansdowne’sWorks,vol.ii.p.179.—“Ihavenever,”saysSirJohnDalrymple, “tried Burnet’s facts by the test of dates and original papers, without findingthemwrong.”—MemoirsofGreatBritain,p.34.

[←422]Thosewhoamuse themselveswith theprayers and fastingof theProtector,may contrastwith thepicturedrawnbyTillotson, the following sceneon theLord’sdayevening in thecourtofhisroyalsuccessor.ItisdescribedbyEvelyne,arespectableandreligiousman,butno fanatic,ashewasadevoted friendof theChurchandof theroyal family. “Icanneverforget the inexpressible luxury and profaneness, gaming and all dissoluteness, and as itwere,totalforgetfulnessofGod,itbeingSunday,whichIwaswitnessofthisdayse’nnight.TheKing sitting and toyingwith his concubines; Portsmouth, Cleaveland, andMazarine,etc.AFrenchboysinginglovesongsinthatgloriousgallery,whileaboutseventyofthegreatcourtiersandotherdissolutepersonswereatBasset[acardgameresemblingfaro]roundalargetable,abankofat least£2000ingoldbeforethem;uponwhichthegentlemenwhowerewithmemade reflectionswith astonishment.”—Memoirs vol. i. p. 585.This singlescene speaks volumes on the dissoluteness and impiety of the court of Charles, and theawfuleffectswhichitmusthaveproducedonthecountry.Lookingbackbutafewyears,wellmightthepeopleexclaim,Otempora!Omores![Whattimes!Whatconduct!]

[←423]Esoteric:confinedtoandunderstandablebyonlyanenlightenedinnercircle(gnostic).

[←424]Pentralia:theinnermostparts;i.e.,thedeepthingsofGod(1Cor2.10).

[←425]Pantomime: gestures and body movements without words; here it means form withoutsubstance,asthough“goingthroughthemotions”withoutunderstanding.

[←426]Moreproperly,regenerationbytheHolySpirit.TheymustbereborntoseethekingdomofGod (Joh3.3). Theyweredead in their trespasses and sins; but inChrist, they aremadealivebyGod(Eph2.1-9;Col2.9-14).

[←427]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.560.

[←428]Horne’sPrefacetohiscommentaryonPsalms(1812).

[←429]pp.43,44.

[←430]Diss.ix,partiii.

[←431]Brutumfulmen:anempty(baseless)threat.

[←432]Works,vol.i,p.114.Thatis,theyuseittosilenceanyquestionsorchallenges,voicedbythetimid.

[←433]MellusInquirend,p.209.

[←434]Pref.toDiv.Origin.oftheScriptures.

[←435]Nonconf.Mem.vol.ii.pp.214-216.

[←436]p.15.

[←437]Thewordingisabitobtuse.OwenissayingthatthechurchofEnglandwasnotoriginallyPresbyterian – as that party readily admits. If anything, it was a group of independentchurches. When it changed to an Episcopacy, none claimed to be separating fromIndependency inorder tocreate thatEpiscopacy.Essentially,Owenaskswhy it isnowanissuetoremainIndependent,astheEnglishchurchwasoriginally?That’snot“schism;”it’sstanding firm.That correspondswith theSavoyPreface (p. 261 above) saying they didn’tbreakaway;theothersdid.Seealsop.299below.–WHG

[←438]Orig. “exercitations” - a discourse performed as a display of skill, or to unravel theintricaciesofsomesubject.

[←439]EditedbyAnglicanBishopBrianWalton.AmonghiscollaboratorswereJamesUssher,JohnLightfootandEdwardPococke,EdmundCastell,AbrahamWheelockeandPatrickYoung,ThomasHydeandThomasGreaves.Theproposals for thePolyglotappeared in1652.Thebookitselfcameoutinsixgreatfolios.Thefirstin1654andthelastin1657.Ninelanguagesareused:Hebrew,Chaldee,Samaritan,Syriac,Arabic,Persian,Ethiopic,Greek,andLatin.

[←440]LeLongBib.Sacra,tom.i.pp.13,20,27-33.Ed.1709.

[←441]Imprimatur:formalandexplicitapproval.

[←442]Walchii Bib. Theol. iv. pp. 268-270. Kennicott’s Hist, of the Heb. Text, vol. ii. of hisDissertations.

[←443]In the latterpartof thePreface to thePolyglot,when itwas firstpublished, the followingpassage occurs: —"Primo autem commemorandi, quorum favore chartam a vectigalibusimmunemhobuimus,quodquiuqueabhincannis aConcilio secretioriprimoconcessum,postea a Serenissimo Protectore, ejusque concilio operis promovendi causa, benigueconfirmatumetcontinuatumcrat.”WhentheBiblewasprescribedtoCharlesIIin1669,thetwolastleavesofthePrefacewerecancelled,andthreeotherssubstitutedintheirplace,inwhich the passage runs thus: “Inter hos effusiore bonitate labores nostros prosecuti sunt(praeter eos quorum favore chartam a vectigalibus immunem habuimus); SerenissimusPrincepsD.Carolus[i.e.,Charles],”etc.Fewof thecopieswiththeoriginalPrefacewerepublished, as Walton probably foresaw the approaching change; but a republican copy,beingagreaterrarity,nowbringsabetterpricethanaroyalone.

[←444]Marsh’sTheol.Lect.vii.

[←445]Crosby’sBaptistsvol.i.pp.359-363.

[←446]Sewel’sHistoryoftheQuakers,pp.133-257.

[←447]Neal.vol.iv.p.209.

[←448]TheabsurdityoftheconstructionputonthewordsofOwen’sprayerismoreevidentwhenitisacknowledgedthatDr.MantondidnotsounderstandthemtillafterRichard’sdeposition.Non-con.Mem.vol. i.p.201.Mr.Palmermentions in theNon-con.Mem.vol. iii.p.401,that he had met with a manuscript defence of Mr. Baxter’s conduct, in charging thedepositionofRicharduponDr.Owen,whichhemeant todeposit in theRedCross-streetLibrary;butnosuchmanuscriptwaseverlodgedthere.

[←449]Baxter’sLife,part1.p.101.partiii.p.42.

[←450]Vind.ofAnimad.onFiatLux,pp.10-12.

[←451]SermonsandTracts,p.617.TheLatinmeans,“It’sashamelesslie.”

[←452]Asseveration:anemphaticdeclaration.

[←453]p.19.

[←454]Vol.ii.pp.917-922.

[←455]Baxter’sanswertoOwen’stwelvearguments,p.27.

[←456]Ludlow’sMem.vol.ii.p.181.—Ed.1751.

[←457]Whitelocke’sMemoirs,p.679.

[←458]Ibid.p.683.

[←459]GeorgeMonck(1608-1670)–1stDukeofAlbemarle;Englishsoldierandpolitician,andakeyfigureintheRestorationofthemonarchytoCharlesIIin1660.

[←460]Skinner’sLifeofMonk,p.103.

[←461]Baker’sChron.p.587.Ed.1733.

[←462]Neal,vol.iv.pp.238-240.

[←463]Burnet,vol.i.p.188.

[←464]Neal,vol.iv,p.242.

[←465]Whitelocke,p.699.

[←466]LettertoaFriend,p.28.

[←467]Conventicle:abuildingforreligiousassembly(especiallyNonconformists).

[←468]Memoirs,p.xxxii.

[←469]ThomasVennerbecamethelastleaderoftheFifthMonarchyMen,whotriedunsuccessfullytooverthrowOliverCromwellin1657;theythenledacoupagainstthenewlyrestoredkingCharlesII.Thiswasknownas"Venner'sRising."Itlastedfourdaysbeforetherebelswerecaptured.Theywereexecuted19January1661.

[←470]Referring to eschatology and the restoration of Israel prior to Christ's return, calledChiliasm, the Golden Age, or the Jewish Dream. The second Helvetic Confession (1566)states,"WefurthercondemnJewishdreamsthattherewillbeagoldenageonearthbeforetheDay of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, willpossessall thekingdomsof theearth."Theamillennialview is that themillennium is theChurchAge,duringwhichthechurchismoreorlesspersecuteduntilChristreturns,whichisJudgmentDay.–WHG

[←471]Neal,iv.p311,312.

[←472]TheIndemnityandOblivionActof1660wasageneralpardonforeveryonewhocommittedcrimesduringtheCivilWarandInterregnum,withtheexceptionofcertaincrimessuchasmurder, piracy, and rape; andwith the exception of people named in the act, whowereinvolvedintheregicideofCharlesI.

[←473]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.557.

[←474]SermonsandTracts,p.617.

[←475]Lib.vi.c.7.

[←476]Mr. Samuel Mather also replied to Fiat Lux, in “A Defence of the Protestant religion.”Dublin,1671,4to.

[←477]This letter was extracted from the Public Records of Massachusetts by Dr. Gordon, andtransmittedbyhim to the lateMr.Palmer, ofHackney;who inserted it in theProtestantDissenter’sMagazine,vol.iii.p.447.Mr.Endicott,wasGovernoroftheColony,andaveryexcellent and much respected man. He went to Salem in the year 1628, and had chiefcommand of those who first settled there, in whose difficulties and sufferings he largelyparticipated.HecontinuedtheretillthejurisdictionofMassachusettsdesiredhisremovaltoBoston for themore convenient administration of justice, as Governor of the Colony; towhichofficehewaselectedformanyyearswithlittleintermission.HeservedGodandhiscountrytill,oldageandinfirmitiescominguponhim,hefellasleepintheLord,in1665,inthe77thyearofhisage.—Morton’sNewEnglandMem.pp.176,177.

[←478]Hutchinson’sHist.ofMassachusetts.vol.i.p.226.

[←479]Non-con.Mem.vol.i.p.202.

[←480]Baxter’sownLife,partiii.p.19.

[←481]Memoirs,p.25.

[←482]Baxter’sownLife,partiii.pp.61-69.

[←483]Partii.pp.188-192

[←484]Ibid.partii.p.193.

[←485]SeeHeadsofAgreement.

[←486]Sermons,p.178.

[←487]Cure,p.144.

[←488]Baxter’sownLife,partiii.p.73.

[←489]Peck’sDesiderata,vol.ii.p.547.

[←490]Iuse, for thesakeofconvenience, the8vo.Edition,by theRev.GeorgeWright, in7vols.Edin.1813.

[←491]Copiaverborum:anabundanceofwords;arichorfullvocabulary.

[←492]Dr.Wright’sPreface,pp.iii,iv.

[←493]Clarkson’sFun.Ser.

[←494]Walch.Bib.Selecta,iv.p.788.

[←495]MatthewPoole,SynopsisCriticorum(SynopsisofInterpreters).Thistextisaverse-by-versesummary of the history of interpretation. He includes the old Jewish doctors, the earlyChurch Fathers, Medieval Rabbis, Reformation-era Romanists, Lutherans, and theReformed.

[←496]ConsistentIndependencycanneverbeaccountableforanythingexceptwhatisdonebytheChurches and their office bearers, separately assembled. The proceedings of delegatedbodiesorrepresentatives,inconjunctionwithcivilauthority,areobviouslyatvariancewithits first principles. Itwas entirely bymeetings of the latter [civil] description that all thepersecutingmeasuresinNewEnglandwereadopted.Afullviewoftheirinjuriousnature,aswell as of the length of time during which they continued to operate, will be found inBackus’ChurchHist.ofNewEngland,2vols.1777-1784.

[←497]Neal’sNewEngland,vol.i.passim.

[←498]MagnaliaAmericana,bookvii.p.28.

[←499]Thatis,condemned.

[←500]Vitringa,Doct.Christ.Parsvi.p.6.Edit.1776.

[←501]Orig. calumniate: to falsely charge or with malicious intent; attack the good name andreputationofsomeone.

[←502]Sylvest.iii.p.42.

[←503]pp.113-115.

[←504]JohnBramhall(1594-1663)–BishopofDerry,andArchbishopofArmagh(withUssherandBedell). He defended the English Church from both Puritan and Roman Catholicaccusations,andagainstHobbes’viewsofmaterialismandliberty(freewill).Hewasheavilyinvolved in the reconstruction of the Church of Ireland, imposing Archbishop Laud’sreformsduring the reignofCharles I.Thushewas a key figure in thepersecutionof thePuritans.

[←505]AndrewMarvell(1621-1678)–Englishpoet,satiristandpolitician,sometimememberoftheHouse ofCommons.During theCommonwealthperiod, hewas a colleague and friendofJohnMilton.

[←506]Burnet’sowntimes,vol.i.p.382.

[←507]“Jestingoftcutshardknotsmoreforcefullyandeffectivelythangravity.”—Horace

[←508]Athen,Ox.vol.ii.p.619.

[←509]D’Israeli’squarrelsofAuthors,vol.ii.p.204.

[←510]SermonsandTracts,p.588.

[←511]Neal,vol.iv.p.350,Edit.1755.

[←512]“Notsuchaidnorsuchdefenders[dothetimesrequire].”—Virgil.

[←513]Athen.Ox.Bliss.iv.—605

[←514]Metropolitan— an archbishop presiding over other bishops within his jurisdiction; hereusedsarcastically.

[←515]SermonsandTracts,p615.

[←516]Slanderboldly,somethingalwayssticks.

[←517]Bayle’sDict.,Valerian.–meaning,“Youlieshamelessly.”

[←518]ProvincialLetters.

[←519]Greekmythology—amythicalgiantwhowasathiefandmurderer;hewouldcapturepeopleand tie them to an iron bed, stretching them or hacking off their legs tomake them fit;ProcrusteswaskilledbyTheseus.

[←520]Epist.ded.toMeliusInquirendum.“Takethelaw,andletitspeak.”

[←521]“ItdoesnotsatisfactorilyappearthathewasinvitedtothePresidencyofHarvardCollege.”Holmes’AmericanAnnals,vol.i.p.321.

[←522]MagnaliaAmericana,bookiv.

[←523]Hutchison’sColl.ofOriginalPapers,pp.429-431.

[←524]Mass.Coll.for1799,p.108.

[←525]Bookof Sports, formallyDeclaration of Sports, was an order issued by King James I ofEngland for use in Lancashire to resolve a conflict on the subject of Sunday recreations,betweenthePuritansandthegentry—manyofwhomwereRomanCatholics.Permissionwas given for dancing, archery, leaping and vaulting, and for “having of May games,Whitsunalesandmorrisdances,settingupMay-polesandothersportsusedwithit,soastobewithoutimpedimentorneglectofdivineservice.Womenshallhaveleavetocarryrushesto church for decorating it.”On the other hand, “bear and bull-baiting, interludes, and…bowling”werenottobepermittedonSunday.In1618JamesorderedallEnglishclergytoread thedeclaration from thepulpit.But so strongwas thePuritanopposition toSundayamusements,thatheprudentlywithdrewhiscommand.In1633CharlesInotonlydirectedtherepublicationofhis father’sdeclaration,but insistedontheclergyreading it.Manyoftheclergywerepunishedforrefusingtoobeytheinjunction.WhenCharleswasoverthrownduring the English Civil Wars, Puritan prohibitions against sports and games on theSabbath again prevailed, until Charles II was restored in 1660.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Book-of-Sports

[←526]Vol.ii.ofWright’sEd.ofOwenontheHebrews,pp.450-453.

[←527]Ibid.p.455.

[←528]TheimaginationoftheAnglicans.

[←529]Mather’sMagnalia,b.iii.p.178.

[←530]Insolated:exposedtotheraysofthesun.

[←531]Eclat:enthusiasticapproval,withaccompanyingpompandcircumstance.

[←532]Thenecessityofdefendingthesacredobligationofthedayofrest,atthistime,appearstohave impressed others as well as Dr, Owen. Within a few months of each other, thereappeared,besidesOwen’swork,“AphorismsconcerningthedoctrineoftheSabbath,”bytheRev. George Hughes of Plymouth, edited by his son, Obadiah Hughes; and “The Divineappointment of the Lord’s Day,” by Richard Baxter. Both these works are valuable, andsupportthesameviewswhicharemaintainedbyOwen,thoughneitherofthemtreatsthesubject so fully or so ably as theDoctor. Baxter takes particular notice of the dangeroussentimentsofHeylin,inhishistoryoftheSabbath,andpointsouthisperversions,bothofScripturetestimony,andofChristianantiquity,tosupporthislaxprinciples.

[←533]Recusants:Undera1558ActofRecusancy,thetermreferredtothosewhoremainedloyaltothepopeandtheRomanCatholicChurch,anddidnotattendChurchofEnglandservices.Itthen came tobeused against theDissenters,who likewise refused to attend the services.Cromwell suspended the Act to give relief to non-conforming Protestants, rather than toCatholics.ButunderCharlesII,ProtestantDissentersagainfellunderitspenalties.

[←534]Owen’sAddresstotheReader,prefixedtohisAnswertoStillingfleet.

[←535]Baxter’sownLife,partiii.p.99.

[←536]Gentleman’sMagazine,vol.xxxi.p.253.ItwassentbyaGentleman,whosignshimselfR.W.andwhovouchesforitsauthenticity,andthinksitwasneverpublished.IsupposethiswastheRev.RichardWinter,aDissentingMinisterinLondon,ofhighrespectability.

[←537]Whenwe speak of a “post office,”wemeanwhere letters are “posted” for delivery to therecipient.Thedayiscoming,perhaps,whenlettersarenolongerposted,andonlyemailordigitaltextmessagesareknown.–WHG

[←538]LettertoaFriend,p.34.

[←539]Tobias Crisp (1600–1643) He was a Calvinist; but a serious controversy arose from therepublicationofhisworksinthe1690s(e.g.,ChristAloneExalted).Hesoemphasizedfreegrace,thatitwasreceivedasantinomian,bythosewhosoundedlikelegalists.Worksaretobeplacedundersanctification,notjustification,asOwenmadeclearinhistreatiseontheMortificationofSin.–WHG

[←540]Hilary (310-367), Bishop of Poitiers. This is taken from the title page of his “DiscourseConcerning Christian Love and Peace.”– quoted here by Owen. “Splendid indeed is thenamePeace,andbeautiful isaunitedopinion;butwhodoubts that theonlyPeaceof theChurch,isthatofChrist?”

[←541]Wilson’sHist.oftheDiss.Churches,vol.i.p.252.

[←542]Dorney’sDiv.Contemplations,p.344.

[←543]Wilson’sHist.oftheDiss.Churches,vol.i.p.253.

[←544]SermonsandTracts,p.175.

[←545]Wilson’sDiss.Churches,vol.i.p.253.

[←546]Noble’sMem.vol.ii.pp.333-348.(Roughly£4.5millionin2005–WHG).

[←547]SeeAppendix.

[←548]Biog.Hist.vol.iii.p.18.

[←549]Noble,loccit.

[←550]Baxter’sownLife,Parti.pp.57-97.Noble’sMem.vol.ii.p.507.

[←551]AnexcellentletterfromDr.OwentoLadyHartopp,ontheoccasionofthedeathofaninfantdaughter,willbefoundintheAppendix.

[←552]Gibbon’sLifeofWatts,pp.92—96.Watts’DeathandHeaven.

[←553]Noble’sMem.vol.ii.pp.243-250.

[←554]Biog.Hist.vol.iii.p.72.

[←555]Gibbon’sLifeofWatts,p.103.

[←556]Walpole’sWorks,vol.i.p.129.

[←557]Howe’sWorks,vol.ii.p.461.

[←558]TheLifeandErrorsofJohnDunton,p.499.

[←559]SeeAppendix.

[←560]Sylvester,partiii.pp.153,155.

[←561]SermonsandTracts,p.586

[←562]Memoirs,p.29.

[←563]Walpole’sWorks,vol.i.p.514.Granger,vol.iii.p.226.

[←564]Walpole’sWorks,vol.i.pp.411,412.Athen.Ox.Bliss,vol.iv.pp.182,187.

[←565]MemoirsofOwenprefixedtothe8vo.Ed.ofhisSermons,1720,

[←566]Whitelocke’sMem.passim.

[←567]CollectionofLocke’sPieces,p.116.

[←568]Memoirs.p.48.

[←569]Howe’sWorks,vol.ii.p.102.

[←570]Athen.Ox.Bliss,iv.p.625.Granger,vol.iii.p.212.

[←571]Noble’sMem.vol.ii.pp.138-143.

[←572]Hutchison’sCol.ororiginalpapers.

[←573]This was probably the first of those Royal grants to the Dissenters, which have sincereceivedthedesignationoftheRegiumDonum.Theybegantoberegularlypaidintheyear1723,duringtheadministrationofSirRobertWalpole,andcontinuetobedistributedtothepresent time, among poor Dissenting Ministers of the three denominations. A curiousaccount of them will be found in the London Magazine for 1774, and in Dyer’s Life ofRobinson,p.237.

[←574]Memoirs,p.30.Pref.toAnswertoStillingfleet.

[←575]LifeandTimes,vol,ii,p.16.

[←576]Page74.

[←577]Calamy,vol.ii.p.69.

[←578]Illapse:fallingorglidingintosomesortoftranscendentalstate.

[←579]Tothepointofnausea.

[←580]Such religious experiences, imagined and ungrounded in Scripture, were lamented andrefuted by Jonathan Edwards in his 1746 book, “Religious Affections.” From the 1820s,when Orme wrote this, to the 1880s, an explosion of cults and sects misled millions insearchofspirituality(2Th2.11-12).–WHG

[←581]Familiar:Aspiritthatactsasanassistantorguidetotherealmbeyondthetangible.

[←582]Vol.ii.p.290.

[←583]Biog.Brit.vol.iii.p.598,Ed.Kippis.

[←584]WilliamCowper,Conversation.

[←585]Memoirs,p.48.

[←586]Owen’sWill.

[←587]Memoirs,p.32.

[←588]Someoneskilledinthetranscription(dictation).

[←589]Calamy’s Account, vol. ii. p. 383. Continuation, vol. i. p. 544. Ferguson is described in aproclamation issued in 1683, as “a tall, leanman, dark brownhair, a greatRomannose,thin-jawed,heatinhisface,speaksintheScotchtone,asharppiercingeye,stoopsalittleinthe shoulders, he has a shuffling gait that differs from all men, wears his periwig downalmostoverhiseyes,about15yearsofage.Granger’sBiog.Hist.vol,iv.p.201.Itiscuriousthat,whilewarrantswereissuedtoapprehendhim,themessengershadorderstoshunhimorlethimescape.Calamyutsupra.

[←590]ThosewhowishtoseethecauseoftheScotchCovenantersablydefended,withastatementoftheirgrievouswrongs,oughttoconsultthisbook.WhileIbynomeanssubscribetoalltheopinionswhich itmaintains, I feel constrained todo justice to the talentwithwhich it iswritten, themanly abhorrence of tyranny which it avows, and its jealous defence of theexclusiverightsofJesusastheHeadofhisChurch.

[←591]Biog.Scoticana,pp.367,368.

[←592]Non-C0n.Mem.vol.ii.pp.312,313.

[←593]Ibid.vol.i.pp.220,221.

[←594]Life,Partiii.p.97.

[←595]LifeofTillotson,p.4.Thiswashis“PrimitiveEpiscopacy,statedandclarifiedfromtheHolyScriptures, and ancient Records.” 8vo. 1688. In this work, he successfully proves that aBishop,inthedaysoftheapostles,andforthreecenturiesafterwards,wasnomorethanapastor of a single Congregation. His “Discourse concerning Liturgies,” printed in 1689,successfullyshowsthatnoformsofprayerwereprescribedorimposedduringthefirstfourcenturies;“tillthestateoftheChurchwasrathertobepitiedthanimitated;andwhatwasdiscernible in it, different from preceding times, were wrecks and ruins rather thanpatterns,”p.198.Bothworksaboundwithvaluablelearning,andcogentreasonings,andareentitledtoadistinguishedplaceintheEpiscopalcontroversy.

[←596]The Great Ejection, caused by the Act of Uniformity 1662. Two-thousand Puritans wereejectedfromtheirpulpits.

[←597]Non-con.Mem,vol.iii.pp.305,306

[←598]Bate’sWorks,pp.841.842.

[←599]Owen’sMemoirs,p.30.

[←600]Ivimey’sHist.oftheEng.Bap.vol.ii.p.41.

[←601]Gillies’Collections,vol.i.p.254.

[←602]Memoirs.pp.30,31.

[←603]pp.187,188.

[←604]p.114.

[←605]A curious fact respecting this book, is mentioned in the life of Mr. Joseph Williams ofKidderminster.“Atlast,thetimeofhis(Mr.Grimshaw’s,anactiveclergymanoftheChurchofEngland)deliverancecame.Atthehouseofoneofhisfriendshelayshishandonabook,and opens it with his face towards a pewter shelf. Instantly his face is saluted with anuncommon flash of heat. He turns to the title page, and finds it to be Mr. Owen onJustification. Immediately he is surprisedwith such another flash.He borrows the book,studiesit,isledintoGod’smethodofjustifyingtheungodly,hasanewheartgiventohim,andnowbehold,heprays.”Whethertheseflasheswereelectricalorgalvanic,asSoutheyinhisLifeofWesleysupposes,itdeservestobenoticedthatitwasnottheflash,butthebookwhich converted Grimshaw. The occurrence which turned his attention to it, is ofimportance merely as the secondary cause which, under the mysterious direction ofProvidence,ledtoablessedresult.

[←606]Humf.Mediocria,p.56.

[←607]I suppose you knowhis book of Justificationwas particularlywritten againstmine. Verymanyhave pressedme to answer it,which I acknowledge to you, I didnot lookupon asduramprovinciam[difficultprovince].Thegreatfriendshipthatwasbetweenhimandme,mightwellseemsufficienttohavebiasedmenottoreply;butthetruereasonwas,IthoughtthatlittlecottageIhaderectedwasinnogreatdangerofbeingshockedordemolishedbyanything in thatbook,”—Letter fromSirCharlesWolsey toMr.Umfrey, inserted in theMediocria.

[←608]WhitelockeandLudlow,passim.

[←609]p.10.Edit.1731.

[←610]“Ohyesoulsbentdowntoearthandvoidofeverythingheavenly.”–Persius.

[←611]Should the reader desire to examine what is said on the Sonship of Christ, he will findvariousviewsofit,andmuchinformation,inthefollowingworks:RoeiDiss.degenerationefilii.Faber’sHoraeMosaicae,vol.ii.§2.chap.ii.Bryant’sPhiloJudaeus,p.253.Dr.AdamClarke’snoteonLuke1.35.Ridgley’sBodyofDivinity,pp.73-77.Edit.Glas.1770.AndaveryableTractonthesubject,bythelateMr.ArchibaldM’LeanofEdinburgh.

[←612]Lifeprefixedtohisworks.

[←613]p.12

[←614]Whattodaywecallseparationofchurchandstate.

[←615]Irenicum,orAweaponsalvefortheChurch’swounds,1659.

[←616]Philippic:aspeechofviolentdenunciation.

[←617]pp.2-3.

[←618]pp.53,54.

[←619]UnreasonablenessofSeparation,Pref.p.69.

[←620]“Timesarechanging,andwearechangingwiththem!”

[←621]Robinson’slifeofClaude,prefixedtothe3dEdit.oftheTranslationofhisEssay,pp.66,67.

[←622]p.12.

[←623]p.25.

[←624]p.60.

[←625]p.61.

[←626]p.78.

[←627]p.82.

[←628]p.15.

[←629]p.4.

[←630]p.51.

[←631]pp.48,49.

[←632]p.73.

[←633]p.74.

[←634]p.125.

[←635]p.128.

[←636]p.160.

[←637]p.244.

[←638]p.249.

[←639]Ibid.

[←640]pp.250-1.

[←641]p.260.

[←642]p.261.

[←643]pp.265-6.

[←644]Introduction.

[←645]TheRyeHousePlotof 1683,wasaplan to assassinateCharles II andhisbrotherJames,DukeofYork(heirtothethrone),whilejourneyingtoahorseraceinNewmarket.Becauseofamajorfirethere,theraceswerecancelled,andtheplannedattacknevertookplace.

[←646]Pierce’sVindicationoftheDissenters,pp.253,258.

[←647]Wodrow’sHist.vol.ii,p.388.

[←648]Andyet,inthe20thcentury,DietrichBonhoefferwasinvolvedinanassassinationattemptonAdolfHitler. Religion is no preventative to sin, even if faith in Christ is a curative. –WHG

[←649]Athen.Ox.vol.iii.p.564.

[←650]Memoirs,p.51.

[←651]Cicero’sDe.Senectute."Ohappyday,whenIshallquitthisimpureandcorruptmultitude,and joinmyself to that divine company and council of souls who have quitted the earthbeforeme!ThereIshallfind,notonlythoseillustriouspersonagestowhomIhavespoken,butalsomyCato,”etc.

[←652]Copyof theDoctor’sWill.—Had there been anything of importance in theWill, besideswhatIhavenoted,IwouldhaveinserteditentireintheAppendix;butitisveryshort,andcontainsnothingthatwouldinterestthereader.

[←653]Nichol’s.Lit.Anec.vol.iv.p.29.

[←654]Wood’sFasti,vol.1.pp.793,794.TheLibrariesofmanyoftheDissentingministersofthisperiod,werebothextensiveandvaluable.Dr.LazarusSeaman’sLibrary,thefirstthatwassold by auction, brought £700. The half ofDr.Goodwin’s Library,whichwas burnt,wasvaluedat£500Dr.Iacomb’ssoldfor£1300.ThecollectionofDr.BateswasboughtbyDr.Williams,for£500,or£600,tolaythefoundationofthevaluablelibrarynowinRedCrossStreet.Dr.Evans’Library,inthebeginningoflastcentury,contained10,000volumes.ItisprobableDr.Owen’swasnotinferiortosomeofthese.

[←655]TranslatedbyDr.Gibbons.

[←656]Watt’sWorks,Parson’sEdit.vol.ii.p.389.

[←657]Memoirs,p.33.

[←658]FuneralSermon.

[←659]OneofGilbert’sEpitaphs.Works,p.37

[←660]Athen.Ox.vol.ii.p.559.

[←661]Clarkson’sFuneralSermon.

[←662]Pref.toSpirit.Mind.

[←663]Clarkson’sFuneralSermon.

[←664]ALetterofadvicefromtheDoctortoMr.Asty,theninNorwich,isannexedtohisMemoirs,1721,p.50.AnotherLetterofadvice fromhimandMr.GeorgeGriffiths, to theChurch inTyler’sStreet,Hitchin,inHertfordshire,isinsertedintheNon-conformist’sMem.vol.i.p.107.TheLetterstotheChurchesinNewEnglandhavealreadybeennoted.

[←665]Wright’sPrefacetohisEditionofOwenontheHebrews.

[←666]"Say,bishops,ofwhatavailisglittertosacredsubjects?"

[←667]PrefacetoDivineJustice.

[←668]Memoirsp.34.

[←669]Baxter’sReplytoOwen’sTwelveArguments.

[←670]Originally,“becomingmorbid.”

[←671]ArthurYoung’sOweniana,Preface.

[←672]Hervey’s classification of the leading Non-conformists, and his character of them nearlycorrespondswithwhat is given in the text. “Dr.Owen,withhis correct judgment, andanimmensefundoflearning.—Mr.Charnock,withhismasculinestyle,andaninexhaustibleveinofthought.—Dr.Goodwin,withsentimentseminentlyevangelical,andamosthappytalentatopening,sifting,anddisplayingthehiddenrichesofScripture.TheseIthinkarethefirstthree:—ThencomesMr.Howe,nervousandmajestic;withallthepowersofimageryathiscommand.—Dr.Bates, fluentandpolished;withanever-ceasingstoreofbeautifulsimilitudes. —Mr. Flavel, fervent and affectionate; with a masterly hand at probing theconscience,andstrikingthepassions.—Mr.Caryl,Dr.Manton,andMr.Poole,withmanyothers, whose works will speak for them ten thousand times better than the tongue ofpanegyric,orthepenofbiography.”—TheronandAspasio,vol.iii.p.206.Edit.1767.ThehighopinionentertainedofBaxterandOwenbythelateArthurYoung,Esq.SecretarytotheBoardofAgriculture, is evident from the selections from theirworkswhichhepublishedunder the title ofOweniana andBaxteriana. That ofMr.Wilberforce is no less decided.Baxter he classes “among the brightest ornaments of theChurch ofEngland.”Others, hesays,weremenofgreaterudition,deepviewsofreligion,andunquestionablepiety;amongwhom he mentions in particular Dr. Owen, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Flavel. The heavenly-mindednessofOwenandhisworkontheMortificationofSin,hestronglyrecommends.—Wilberforce’sPracticalView,pp.242,243.

[←673]Heconquers,whosuffers–Persius.

[←674]In1715,DeanPrideaux,sarcasticallyproposedthatFellowsoftwentyyears'standing,whohadnotyetqualifiedforpublicservice,beassignedtoacharityhousenamed“DroneHall,”paidforbytheuniversitiesthatputoutsuchworthlessfellowsandstudents.–Oxfordinthe18thCentury,A.D.Godley,1908.

[←675]otiumcumdignitate:leisurewithdigity.

[←676]“TheFamilyofLove”–anAntinomian/PerfectionistsectfoundedinHollandabout1540byHendrikNiclaes.TheyspreadtoEnglandabout1580.TheytaughtthattruebelieversliveinanaturalstateofGracewithoutSin.PrecursortotheQuakers.

[←677]ThisisthefirstCanonintheRomanCatholicDeForeCompetente.[Canon1556].“TheFirstSeat [the Pope] has no final judge [he is not to be judged or commanded by any otherhumanauthority].”

[←678]ThoughitisMilton,and“poetic,”itisproseandnotrhyme;soImodernizedhisthee’sandthou’s. Idid the samewithLuther’sprayer above, sincehe said it inGerman, andnot inmiddle-English.–WHG

[←679]“Pompeydoesnotadmitasuperior;Caesarhasnoequal.”

[←680]JohnEndecott (1588-1665)— one of the founding Fathers ofNewEngland; the longest-serving Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which became the State ofMassachusetts.

[←681]Scurrility:foul-mouthedorobsceneabuse.

[←682]AndrewKippis(1725-1795)wasaleadingPresbyterianminister,scholarandbiographer.Hetaught formany years at theHoxton Academy, and later, at New College inHackney. AnotedchampionofDissenters' rightsandreligious liberty,Kippisplayedakeyrole in thecampaign that led to the Dissenters' Relief Act of 1779, which exempted NonconformistministersfromsubscriptiontotheChurchofEngland'sThirty-NineArticles.