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